I have always maintained that Andrés Manuel López Obrador will go down in history as the master of modern political communication. The concept of “morning” coined during the Government of Mexico City is unprecedented. For example, Claudia Sheinbaum has tried to replicate AMLO’s success on YouTube with very poor results. The most viewed non-informative video has 2.6 million views in 6 months, in contrast, each morning video accumulates 443,000 views on the first day. There is no doubt, AMLO’s communication methodology is, at the moment, one of the most effective in the country. A sample of reach is its position among communication peers. The president of Mexico has entered the ranking of the most watched Spanish-speaking streamers worldwide, occupying sixth place according to Stream Charts. He is the only politician on the list thanks to the 208 hours broadcast on his YouTube channel, which generated 13.20 million views during the first quarter of the year, with his morning talks being the most viewed content.
But the reach and influence built in the morning can easily be a handicap. Two recent cases come to mind. The most recent disease caused by COVID-19 ended up creating an information gap. Not because of what was said about the disease, rather because of the lack of its presence in the media. This theme illustrates the weight it has and makes us question how the next government will be able to keep the morning alive after the presidential change. It is probably necessary to finish the concept. Another example is the president’s recent statements regarding a potential economic crisis. According to AMLO, “According to our projections, this economic-financial crisis could occur as of 2025.” Of course the panic alarms went off almost immediately.
In recent months, the morning has become the main gasoline to criticize the current strategy. His own words have been used as ammunition. The same happened with Trump, at the beginning Twitter was his great ally, from the platform of 140 characters he could undo any opponent, at the end of his government he ended up being expelled from the social network.
Social networks have become the creators of presidents, in the case of AMLO it is YouTube, in the case of Trump, Twitter. For Obama it was Facebook. In the first two examples, those were the ones that dethroned popularity. Perhaps it is time to analyze whether once in power it is better to use them more sparingly. For AMLO, at least at the end of his six-year term, measuring the messages could help him better control the discursive tone of the national agenda. A sample of the importance of the messages is the video about the health of the president, in less than two days it accumulated more than 1 million views. With over 3.69 million subscribers to her YouTube channel, every message counts.
YouTube is the platform that worries the most, the video archive of so many promises and mentions could become artillery in the event of a debate for any president. For example, the official account of the White House has 2 million subscribers and only 1,800 videos, while the account of the Government of the Republic has 3,400 videos. One difference in the use of the platform is the number of short videos or “shorts”, the White House adds several dozen, while Mexico only has one. Clearly, the strategy is to refine the messages and deliver only what is necessary to the target audience. In addition, this methodology is more attractive for young people who do not like to watch a video of several hours.
It is time to rethink the political communication strategy, not because of its failures, but quite the contrary, because of its strengths.
