No ads are good ads

The outcome of Latvia's election was atypical. The parties that finished first and second invested the least of any major party during the entire campaign, and the current coalition failed to win a mandate despite heavy spending.

New Era won the election having allocated a ridiculous budget for communication strategies: 65,327 lats (114,610 euros). Working closely with Bates, a well-known international advertising agency, the party elaborated simple but well-designed material bearing the party's logo. The message focused mainly on the party's priorities and less on the people inside, marching mainly on Einars Repse's personality. New Era used no outdoor advertising and their media coverage was absolutely minimal. What differentiated them from other competitors was the exclusive approach of direct meetings with the electorate. Repse himself adopted a more "democratic" outlook, having a boyish hair-do and a smiling face. However, what the party failed to find was a reliable communication channel to the Russian-speaking electorate.

This niche was fully exploited by For Human Rights in a United Latvia, a three-party alliance that represents minority voters' interests. Albeit most of the materials were produced by the party and were of poor quality and "amateurish" as Janis Jurkans – Latvia's first foreign minister after independence and the alliance's leader – admitted, they drew interest from the Russian media.

Outdoor advertising was used more heavily in the Russian-speaking areas outside Riga. A notable example was Daugavpils, where the street banners openly depicted a big red flag with the party's logo.

One boon for Jurkans' party was paying the broadcast rights for the soccer World Cup. Otherwise it might not have been broadcast widely in Latvia.

At the other end of the extreme from Repse was the massive campaign of the People's Party.

The party invested more than 1 million lats. Its message focused on the "team" and targeted a wide Latvian audience, including farmers, workers and intellectuals. All media channels were covered, but the overwhelming nature of the campaign may have left some a bit cold.

A less conventional message came from Latvia's First Party, which relied on one of the most celebrated local ad firms — Zoom.

Beginning in July the party targeted "Christians and protest voters" and focused on social issues, according to the party's media coordinator. In the long run their strategy worked. During the last month of the campaign their popularity rating climbed from 1 percent to 10 percent.

Another surprise was provided by another member of the ruling coalition — Latvia's Way. With a campaign budget of almost 500,000 lats, it failed to secure a seat in Parliament, seemingly confirming the low-cost strategies put forward by New Era and For Human Rights. To some extent its failure was due to the low-quality media and outdoor materials. A good slogan like "Izvelies savu celu!" (Choose your way!) did not seem to correspond with the visual parts.

None of the parties — save perhaps For Human Rights — was brave or imaginative enough to approach the social integration issue. Some of the street posters were boring enough to be ignored by most voters. Most campaigns lacked the dynamics that could bring some life to the overall picture in Latvia.

Simple portraits, wax-like postures, fake smiles and concerned faces became to repetitive to make a difference in a country that really needs change.