When an electoral management body has identified its primary and secondary audiences, as well as the messages that it wishes to communicate to each of these, it is then ready to devise a strategy for its media work.

A strategy is something concrete. It is determined by the particular strengths and weaknesses of the EMB, as well as by the particular characteristics of the media and the electoral environment. An EMB’s media strategy will vary enormously, for example, depending on whether there is a long history of democratic elections. It will be affected by the degree of public confidence in the EMB itself and whether its management of the elections its likely to be the subject of criticism.

One EMB did a SWOT analysis, identifying its Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. It is an under-resourced electoral commission in a poor country. The results of its analysis looked like this.

This is probably typical of many EMBs in similar circumstances. Its strengths lay in the qualities of its staff, while the weaknesses were all caused by lack of resources. Opportunities were all drawn from the possibilities of collaboration: with the media, civic educators and external funders. Threats were the high cost of advertising and the danger of government interference in the commission’s work.

This particular EMB evolved a strategy that was, as far as possible, proactive. That is, the EMB would strive to convey its messages at the time and through the media of its choosing, rather than reacting to external events or media inquiries. Not only was this seen as a better way of communicating its chosen messages; it was also more cost-effective, because it allowed media materials to be prepared in advance. These materials would largely be prepared in private production facilities – see the opportunities column – during the slack periods of the electoral cycle. This would allow the commission to use its small staff most effectively: preparing proactive material during periods of low media interest and being available to react to media inquiries during busy periods.

This strategy took advantage of the strengths and opportunities available to the EMB. However, it was not dictated by these. It was directed towards conveying its chosen messages to a carefully identified audience. In this case, most voters did not read newspapers and could not afford television. Hence the offer of columns in newspapers was less important to the strategy than the use of radio production facilities.

The strategy should not be confused with the various techniques or tactics that an EMB might use to get its message across. This is not the best point in the planning process for the EMB to decide how many news releases it is going to issue, or who is going to speak at press conferences. These are questions that can be resolved when the strategy is decided upon.

In summary, an EMB developing a media strategy will probably need to answer the following questions:

• Is the strategy proactive or reactive?
• Is it low profile or high profile?
• Is it local or national?
• What are the major communications opportunities?
• What are the major communications impediments?
• What communications strengths are available in the EMB?
• What other organizations can the EMB collaborate with (NGOs, community groups and others)?
• What are the primary and secondary audiences?
• What are the key messages to be conveyed to those audiences?
• What are the most effective media for reaching the primary audience?
• Will the EMB use paid advertising through print, radio and/or TV? Can it afford to do so?
• Who is likely to be critical of the EMB’s running of the election?
• What might their key messages be?