Politainment for all

Interview by Kai Schnier

Mr Chaudhary, at the height of the US election campaign, I watched a roundtable discussion with undecided voters on CNN. A woman was asked whether she could imagine voting for Donald Trump for a second term. She said: ‘You can say what you want about his first term, but it was entertaining.’ Do many people now only see politics as a form of entertainment?

There is certainly something to that. That's one of the reasons there are more and more people like me: political creative directors who travel the world trying to tell campaign managers that their campaigns need to be more entertaining. However, there are still people who want politicians to play less of an entertainer and instead focus on lowering taxes.

In my opinion, there is another reason why politics is becoming more and more like entertainment: we are living in a time in which people are becoming more distrustful of institutions such as the media. Politics is losing a lot of credibility. Entertainment is our best - and perhaps only - means of getting people to listen to what politicians have to say.

“We want to entertain people and reach them so that they are prepared to listen to us in the first place”

Would you say that polarising political advertising is necessary to shake people out of their indifference? I'm thinking of Republican adverts in which Kamala Harris is portrayed as a ‘radical’.

I wouldn't go that far. When I advise campaign managers on how their advert can make people laugh or arouse an emotion, the initial aim is not to get people interested in politics. The first step is about something much smaller: we want to entertain people and get them to be willing to listen to us in the first place. When they wipe away the tears they've laughed or cried, they might say: ‘Okay, now tell me what's in your programme, now I'll listen to you!’ That's the most we can hope for in the digital world.

We have to face the fact that a swing voter in Wisconsin may only see one ad from us in the entire campaign. Then we need to capitalise on that one opportunity. But we can't do it by talking politics. On the contrary, as soon as voters realise it's a political ad, they lose interest. That's why entertainment is the way to go - and then you can place the political content.

That sounds like a very pragmatic marketing concept. But doesn't that result in people having a distorted perception of politics? After all, politics is not entertaining, but rather lengthy and complex.

In theory, you're right. What we do with political campaigns is offer short-term solutions - the sugar rush, so to speak. Meanwhile, many campaigns are all icing, without the cake.

You could almost accuse me of contributing to this development because I stylised Barack Obama into a kind of icon with my videos during the 2008 election campaign. But that also meant that people found politics really exciting again. They wanted an authentic, extraordinary personality as president, and we catered for that.

However, a problem arose after Obama's term in office, because he was truly charismatic. All we had to do as a campaign team was let him do his thing and follow him around with the camera. It's difficult for today's campaigns to build on that because not all candidates are as charismatic as he was. I suspect that in some ways that's why we ended up with Donald Trump. At least he's a reliable entertainer.

“Nobody is driving the transformation of politics into a spectacle as much as the media”

I have the impression that the trend towards ‘politainment’ is not only fuelled by the campaigns, but also by the media, which benefit greatly from selling elections like a sporting event.

That is certainly true. Nobody is driving the transformation of politics into a spectacle as much as the media. For them, politics is a growth market. More news and more excitement means more money. As long as the major networks are dominated by the forces of capital, they will generate maximum excitement. The American media landscape has a pioneering role in this because it is strongly characterised by corporate interests and there are no public broadcasters. This is why the broadcasters love Donald Trump's antics and are sometimes more interested in the entertainment factor than the political content during elections. However, I am also observing this trend in Europe: the attention-seeking style of political reporting in the USA is also spilling over here.

As someone who works at the interface between political campaigns, film and advertising, I'm sure you don't think this development is all bad. Where do you see the positive aspects of this symbiosis of entertainment and politics?

I think it's great that we can not only achieve short-lived political successes in this way, but also generate new positive energy - and thus contribute to community building in the long term. The elections in France in the summer of 2024 were an example of this, as was the result in Poland in 2023, where the PiS party lost its parliamentary majority.

I have the impression that the centre-left forces are gradually realising that they cannot stand by and watch how right-wing populists inspire people through campaigns, how they successfully engage in community building and use TikTok for their own purposes. If you go to an FPÖ rally in Austria, an AfD event in Germany or a Lega Nord event in Italy, you can see that these parties are doing a good job: they offer music, food and entertainment and thus introduce people to their politics.

In comparison, the left often appears dogged and instead discusses how it can quickly fix Crimea, Russia and capitalism before lunch. But now even progressive forces are realising that a certain amount of fun and entertainment is part of it. And the fact that something like a new kind of sense of community can develop from this was intensely felt in the USA when Kamala Harris' election campaign got underway.

Was that because of her campaign strategy or because there was suddenly a younger and more dynamic candidate?

I think Kamala Harris' campaign team also understood that memes and humour are not all bad and that they can bring the candidate closer to her political goal. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz did almost everything right in this respect when they countered Donald Trump's campaign with their ‘Weird’ strategy and portrayed him as a ‘weird’ joke figure.

How did they manage that?

It's a good idea to attack people like Donald Trump or Giorgia Meloni on a personal rather than a substantive level. It would have been even better if you had said: ‘They like weird stuff’ instead of labelling them ‘weird’. That way, you don't attack them directly, but instead sow doubt among their sympathisers, who might ask themselves: Why does Donald Trump actually talk about Hannibal Lecter during his appearances? Why does Giorgia Meloni say that she wants to have an episode of ‘Peppa Wutz’ banned because it features a lesbian couple and doesn't talk about my real problems? That's effective and funny at the same time - and much better than portraying populists as evil.

“The realisation that we as progressive forces create fear in many people, while the right-wingers are the happy ones, should wake us up”

In the end, however, Donald Trump won. His lead was surprisingly large, considering that his campaign didn't seem particularly energetic this time. What do you think the Democrats did wrong?

Some things are similar to what many large centre-left parties are doing, including in Germany. They appeal to the right (for example to people like Liz Cheney). For the people they are trying to convince, this is untrustworthy, while at the same time alienating their true supporters. In terms of media content, Kamala Harris' team produced a lot that came across authentically in the language of digital natives, but was alienating and confusing for people who are not so familiar with it.

In contrast, Trump ran a relatively simple and ‘inclusive’ campaign, in a language that everyone could understand. His team released short videos with only voiceover and a one-liner: This saw a family enjoying their dinner, or a waitress keeping all her tips - all thanks to Trump. Then a gas meter skyrocketing - all because of Kamala Harris.

And while the Democrats attacked Donald Trump with the fascism argument, he ran a final advert entitled ‘Together’. He himself barely appears in it; instead, Tulsi Gabbard talks about peace, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about health and Elon Musk about innovation. The message was clear: ‘Whatever you've done, whatever your problem, you deserve to be loved, and this movement loves you.’

The realisation that we as progressive forces create fear in many people, while the right are the happy ones, should be a wake-up call.