Are campaign consultants svengalis who employ shady data firms like Cambridge Analytica—manipulating voters to win the race? Or just marketing pros who help package a party or a candidate—just as they would a sabun ki tikki?
In a plush building in north Bengaluru is a quiet, corporate office. A TV blares a Kannada news channel that is partially hidden behind a glass wall emblazoned with a sticker of the state’s deputy chief minister, D.K. Shivakumar. This is the office of DesignBoxed—a political consultancy firm that has helped script electoral victories for the Congress party—including the landslide victory in the Karnataka Assembly elections (more on that in our Big Story).
The company specialises in political campaigns—and its founder Naresh Arora is considered among the best strategists in the business. But most of us don’t really know what political consultants like Arora do. Are they svengalis who employ shady data firms like Cambridge Analytica—manipulating voters to win the race? Or just marketing pros who help package a party or a candidate—just as they would a sabun ki tikki? Our ‘24 Questions editor Chirag sat down with Arora to find out.
Content note: This interview has been edited for clarity.
We’ve heard so many ominous reports on how election campaigns weaponise personal data, most famously in the Cambridge Analytica case. How does it actually work in the field? What kind of data do you collect and how do you use it to help win a race?
When it comes to data used for electioneering, we as a consultancy, have always believed in the ethical usage of data. I know that is a very cliche thing to say, and that everyone says the same thing.
But, it [the ethics] really depends on from where the data is generated in the first place. It’s currently generated from sources in the public domain. You can also procure voter data, which is triggered from the seat/constituency forms, which helps you determine the voting pattern in different constituencies.
Another use of data—which is generally not spoken about because of the weak data protection laws in our country—is the data collected and used by the tech giants. They basically take everything away from you without making you even aware of it... Now, if you are working with these platforms, and using their advertising tools, they themselves are providing you a set of data points like age, gender, demography, interest group—and that is how we also utilise the data to deliver content accordingly. We are tied, in that sense.
About the weaponization, if I were to comment on any other party [in power], they have more access to that data. So of course they might be utilising it in a way that breaches ethical lines. Mostly, the data which ruling parties have access to are the government schemes’ information—it allows them to understand the kinds of benefits different people have received.
But, as far as the opposition parties that are not in power are concerned, I don't see them being able to utilise or even have access to data in a way that they can weaponize it. So, this idea of ‘weaponizing’ data by political parties is a myth, I think, at least as far as the current opposition parties are concerned.
How do you actually create that level playing field–beyond data?
This is a subject where the Election Commission of India should step in, right? Because the Commission itself has advocated very profusely for a level playing field—I would go so far as to say that it is their job too [to create one]. If the ruling party leader’s messages are coming to you via WhatsApp and saying that you have benefited from them in a particular way—while other parties contesting an election cannot counter it—then I don't think that's a fair process or competition.
Editor’s note: Arora is referring to the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” message from the PM sent by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). It talked up the many policy achievements of the BJP government. The Election Commission directed MeitY to immediately stop sending them—but the ‘damage’ was done.
There’s a lot of talk of Facebook and Twitter when it comes to elections. What about Instagram? You have flagged its importance–why and how can/will it be used?
Instagram has been around for a long time, its use has been building since the last general elections in 2019… Instagram plays a very important role in this year’s elections because it makes content reach younger audiences. These voters, despite being “uninterested” in politics, can still be left with a positive impression with appropriate reels and memes. (An example is this AAP campaign video set to a Dua Lipa tune).
And rural audiences?
[In the] mostly rural parts of this country, where the voting happens.. people are much sharper and much more aware of digital content. In urban areas, we now have practices like a ‘no gadget day’, or theories about limited screen time. But people in rural India don’t really care about that. Digital content is their source of entertainment: TV has gone out of favour, and newspapers have gone out of circulation. So that is where the consumer—and voter—is.
And which medium is the best way to reach them?
You can't beat YouTube. The reason simply being that it has the power of Google backing it. YouTube is number one for long-form videos.
One party clearly has way more money to spend than all the others. Does digital campaigning reinforce that advantage? Or is there a guerilla version that can overcome the money gap? How can an INDIA alliance, for example, use the internet at a time when legacy media is blanketed by the BJP?
This is a myth, I don't believe that the party which has more money wins more elections. If that was the case, then of course, the party which is in power always has more money—and will always win every election. They’d never lose.
I also disagree with the idea that the party with more money has more of an advantage in digital campaigns. We just recently concluded the Karnataka and Rajasthan elections. Our visibility and our digital campaigns were viewed and appreciated more than the party in power. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we spent more money—it’s more a question of how you run the campaign.
Editor’s note: Arora is referring to the Assembly elections held in November last year. Congress won Karnataka but was defeated in Rajasthan by the BJP.
But, how do you run a campaign successfully without money then? Do other factors like anti-incumbency, or content quality play a role in swinging the needle?
It is a combination of a lot of things. It’s not just content, or (anti)incumbency. Building a successful campaign is a skill… If you see our journey, there are so many instances where we have beaten the opponents on digital platforms.
I don’t want you to give away your trade secrets—but what’s an example of making your content and message talk, instead of letting your money talk for you?
Each issue doesn’t matter to everyone, right?
If you’re a person who's running a business, you might not be interested in what farmers are getting, because that does not impact you… But, if I'm touching you with the issue of how I can address, say, your capital needs—that will interest you more.
Basically, in layman's language, I need to know what your interest is, and I need to build content around that in a way that you don't need to look at it purely as a ‘political’ play. You need to be looking at it because it interests you at some core level. Therein lies the story we sell to you—not direct political messaging, but in a way that nudges you to support a party without actively thinking about hardcore politics.
Editor’s note: In this video designed by DesignBoxed, former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot jokes with a welfare beneficiary to highlight his connection with the people.
Political scientists say it takes at least 20 years to build a genuinely competitive national party. Is that still true in the digital era? Can you see technology accelerating an AAP’s leap forward or even a regeneration of the Congress? If yes, then how would that happen?
There’s no campaign without the ground. You can be a super master on all digital platforms, but till the time… it is not resonating on the ground, it doesn't work. We have always worked in a way that we build the ground and then use social media or digital platforms as vehicles. Only then the campaign will work in actually making the impact you're looking for.
How do you ‘build the ground’ though?
Let me give you an example of a non-political campaign.
During Covid, I was working in Punjab. As you know, the schools were shut and the kids were at home. I spoke to the Education Minister, and said let's do something to give them something to look forward to. So we launched a video campaign contest, asking kids at school from Class 1 to Class 12 to submit videos creatively showing how they're using their time at home. Whole families got involved, and 1,35,000 videos were submitted within seven days.
All that happened on the ground. All I did was give them a website, and of course some incentives like prizes for the best three videos from each district… Now, if in a silo someone makes a video it isn't going to make an impact. It was a proper campaign in which it happened. And I didn't go anywhere to make it happen. The Minister didn’t go anywhere either.
There is great fascination with campaign advisers. Be it Karl Rove, James Carville or our own Prashant Kishor, there is belief that the right rainmaker can win you an election. Is that true? More importantly, is that true in India?
First of all, things work differently between India and abroad, because India has a different democracy! On your point about us being rainmakers—I don’t think that that’s entirely true. All of us in this field, basically bring a more professional approach to elections.
So, when people like us step in, we do all the work which they have already been doing. For example, trying to assess what the voter mood is—they have been doing it since time immemorial.We’ve brought more professionalism, more science, more derivatives, and more methodologies to it.
We also help them decide what their message should be, our research informs them about what works and doesn’t work with voters. Then there’s a question of how you transmit the message—and again, technology comes in here, so does science.
From this vantage point, it looks like a few powerful people or firms are running the show. But, ultimately, everything goes to the table of the leader first. We only propose strategies, we don’t decide what to go with.
What if they say no?
Of course, there are instances when they say no, and then they suffer the consequences… The times have changed, the communication mediums have changed, and the rules of the game have changed. But, ultimately, leaders also know politics—and they know politics more than you or me. We can’t go and tell a person who's been chief minister multiple times what politics is. It’s not true that you make someone win—you can only help someone win.
Is it still possible for parties to win elections without the likes of consultants like you?
I think this field is there to stay, it is only going to expand. Even if they don’t hire consultants, politicians’ offices will again have to hire people to do this work finally.
The unfortunate part is this is still an unrecognised field. No politician comes on record to say, “Fine, I took the help of ‘ABC’ consultant. And I'm thankful to them.” That should be the case, because they all work for you. Partially it’s because the leaders don't want to share credit—they don't want to be seen as having won because someone told them something. And, it’s also because Indian politics is very sensitive politics, it can implode because of anything. So, they don't want to share that credit officially with professionals.
I think they should, because everyone knows you’re working with them. Your party knows, your opponents know, so who are you hiding it from?
