On the course of the 2025 presidential campaign, the biggest image mistakes, crisis situations, and the role of controversial content that could be the key to electoral success, we talk to Dr. Krystian Dudek, Professor at WSB University and expert in political marketing.
You have been following the Polish political scene in terms of PR and marketing activities for many years. What was the biggest surprise for you during the presidential campaign?
The recent presidential elections brought many surprises. The defeat of the months-long poll leader, Rafał Trzaskowski, and the reasons behind his failure – the glaring lack of government agency, a weak campaign, the absence of awareness of his own mistakes, and the diminishing political intuition of Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Additionally, there was a lack of care for the government’s PR and its work. Building a candidate in a few months, who was previously relatively unknown, despite all his image baggage that didn’t align with the role of the head of state and didn’t fully qualify him to be president – without an adequate response from his rivals, all this happened in Central Europe in the 21st century. A huge underestimation of Grzegorz Braun, who went from about 1% in the polls to over 6% in the elections. 47% of women voting for the right-wing and far-right, shortly after the wave of women’s protests against legal solutions limiting their ability to make decisions about their own bodies. The participation of a candidate with pro-Russian views – indicating that he gathered over 100,000 signatures just to register. One could list more surprises.
To summarise, the last campaign showed how dynamically what we consider relatively constant or stable can change.
Was this presidential campaign different from all the previous ones?
Politicians like to say that every election is the most important one. But this one really was crucial for the direction Poland might take under the leadership of one of the two major political camps. In this campaign, no one even pretended to be courteous. There were below-the-belt blows, kicking at the ankles, and even metaphorical spitting in the face. A lot of crisis situations, often by the candidates’ own making. And a failure to seize opportunities by certain campaign teams, particularly Trzaskowski’s. Politics and electoral campaigns are radicalizing and brutalizing – which makes this campaign different from the others.
Which media played the biggest role and had the strongest influence on voters – digital or traditional, like TV?
Definitely digital media. Although the right wing also built considerable strength through TV Republika, reaching out to its constituencies and the older electorate. Nevertheless, the Internet is currently the main battlefield for political struggle. Considering that the average Pole spends 3-4 hours of free time online (outside of work), it is clear where politicians are most easily able to meet voters and convince them.
Did the so-called „reach war” on the internet affect the results of the presidential candidates?
The race for reach is now a natural phenomenon and happens even incidentally. However, the key is to reach properly specified and targeted audiences.
For example, Sławomir Mentzen focused on communication via social media, and through conversations with Karol Nawrocki and Rafał Trzaskowski before the second round, he built a huge group of subscribers – exceeding a million people. That’s a serious asset, and in the future, it will be a springboard for further activities, building relationships with voters, and achieving high results
An interesting phenomenon is the significant, often crucial, role of face-to-face meetings. Can we single out any candidate who managed these encounters best?
There’s an old saying: “Three handshakes equal one vote.” Today, that value has increased, because, to put it simply, these meetings are an opportunity to take photos with voters. And they post them on their social media, generating enormous reach. Moreover, the people posting photos with politicians become their „ambassadors.”
Mentzen did this very cleverly, claiming that he held the most meetings in the districts. When he was criticized for a terrible statement about rape and a lack of respect for women, he used his meetings with voters to take tons of pictures with… women and posted them on social media. This created an impression of a very positive atmosphere during the meetings and good relationships between the candidate and women. In this way, he neutralized the crisis situation caused by his earlier remark.
Another noteworthy characteristic was the use of the same, rehearsed phrases during meetings. This shows that conclusions drawn from the recent US campaign were applicable here as well. Voters prefer to hear short, catchy, simple messages – so-called catchy phrases, spins, or traditional one-liners. These are remembered and repeated. Trump only spoke this way. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, spoke for a long time in a complicated manner (media in the US even measured the time of her speeches and the length of her sentences). Her messaging turned out to be ineffective. One should draw conclusions from such analyses. And, by analogy, similar mechanisms worked in Poland too.
Speaking of face-to-face meetings with voters, one cannot ignore the progress made by President-elect K. Nawrocki during the course of the campaign. Looking back, his inaugural speech and meeting with voters were quite average. You could see nervousness, a lack of experience, and public speaking mistakes. However, his speeches toward the end of the campaign radiated confidence and were effective.
Analyzing the results of the top three candidates in the presidential elections – R. Trzaskowski held the fewest meetings, and some of them – for example, those in areas that were favorable to him – should have been swapped for battles in areas where opponents were gathering significant support.
Additionally, there was the symbolic photo of R. Trzaskowski, which he posted after the election – sleeping with his wife on the floor of a bus while traveling to the next meetings. It’s hard to argue why his campaign didn’t release this photo before the election. Such messages must be utilized
Were there moments that could have decided the final election results? What were the biggest image mistakes made by PR specialists and spin doctors?
There were many such moments, but speaking in football terms – not every opportunity, even a 100% chance, turns into a goal. We all remember the numerous and serious blunders related to K. Nawrocki’s past, Mentzen’s beer incident, interviews with him, D. Tusk’s interviews just before the second round – which I rate as the weakest in Polish political marketing in years. Prime Minister Tusk wanted to help, but he didn’t take into account the large negative electorate he carried with him, which mobilized his opponents. Additionally, citing opinions from a freak fight athlete, who, to put it mildly, has one of the worst reputations in the MMA community, alongside Marcin Najman, was also a misstep.
Finally, the marches, which, according to the principle of social proof, should have been beautifully communicated. Although KO gathered many more participants at their march, they completely wasted the opportunity to communicate this fact effectively. Overall, the ruling coalition has done terribly in terms of PR and communication since the beginning of their term, and the fact that the government spokesperson was appointed only after Trzaskowski’s defeat is almost unbelievable.
We also remember how, at the very last minute, a spin emerged… a one-liner, which went: “What harm is there in making a promise?” It became a symbol of unfulfilled commitments and, I believe, even upset KO voters. Less impactful, but still, was the photo of a female MP with a bag of potatoes at a nursing home. This, in turn, reflected the entire KO camp’s blunders, heavily damaging their image. It showed detachment from reality and was perceived as elite behavior, treating the rest of society with condescension. As we can see, in today’s world, confrontational stances against elites are trending.
Szymon Hołownia, who is skilled in public speaking, also made some blunders – his infamous selfie at Pope John Paul II’s funeral didn’t sit well with people, and over time, his style of communication was seen as “star-like behavior.” The criticism he directed at Trzaskowski in the first round also took its toll. Someone forgot that they were all on the same proverbial boat.
To clarify, I won’t dwell much on K. Nawrocki’s image baggage, because… he won. As the old saying goes – you don’t judge the winners, and you forget the losers. However, all these missteps were served on a platter to the KO camp as arguments for the PR battle that should have been fought differently.
Do tego można dodać symboliczne zdjęcie R. Trzaskowskiego, które opublikował już po wyborach – śpiącego z żoną na podłodze autokaru, w drodze na kolejne spotkania. Konia z rzędem temu, kto uargumentuje – dlaczego sztab nie zdecydował się na publikację tego zdjęcia przez wyborami? Takie komunikaty muszą być wykorzystywane.
The political game had high stakes, and the campaign wasn’t really substantive but rather superficial… Do you agree with this statement?
It was emotional. I always say in training sessions for campaign teams that emotions are the most important and most effective vehicle for conveying a message. Politics is a game of emotions, and in practice, we don’t vote for politicians, but for their… images. The relationship with the candidate and loyalty toward them also matters, and here the right wing managed to “raise” not just voters but followers. One could even risk saying that anyone else nominated by PiS could have won as well.
It’s also worth considering the number of candidates and their profiles and what they offered voters. One of the TV debates, in which everyone participated, was perceived by viewers as boring and drawn out. Those parts of the campaign could indeed be considered superficial.
Can we risk saying that Poland’s political elites are not prepared for a substantive debate, governing with spiteful remarks and focusing on societal polarization?
Let’s be honest – this is how political marketing looks everywhere right now. If someone follows presidential campaigns in the US (not just the recent one), they could have predicted the same. Controversial content polarizes, but it also generates the biggest reach. It has mobilizing potential with voters, and mobilization and turnout are now the key to success.
In two years, we are likely to face another campaign, this time parliamentary. What elements should be included, and which ones might not be necessary? What marketing techniques could be the most effective in influencing public opinion and achieving political goals?
Based on the number of consultancy, training, and PR advisory orders in local governments, I can say that politicians at this level have already understood well that a campaign begins the day after the elections. Looking at the government, one might get the impression that they’ve been asleep for 1.5 years, and Rafał Trzaskowski, who’s been outside of it, has paid the price for this. Still, there’s no visible reflection or energy to act. The Prime Minister declares a government reshuffle in the middle of summer, when no one will hear about it. And let’s not forget, as of early August, Karol Nawrocki enters the game as president, and with the freshness effect, he’ll take the initiative, while the government… will once again be on the defensive.
If I had to say what politicians should do to achieve electoral goals, I’d respond briefly: constantly manage their image, ensure understanding with different groups of voters, dedicate specific messages to them, deliver on topics, and… take care of PR – all the time. Taking care means consulting, verifying, reacting, not waiting until the election result, because by then, it’s too late.
In future campaigns, all tactics will be allowed. And the one who makes a solid diagnosis, an intelligent plan, and effectively attracts and mobilizes voters will win. And that’s not something to wait for
Interviewed by Jaga Kolawa
dr Krystian Dudek
Professor at WSB University, expert in political marketing, PR, and crisis communication, advisor and trainer for election campaign teams, author of dozens of election campaigns. Lecturer for MBA programs, PR Officer at WSB University, host of the podcast #PRostooPR, owner of a PR agency and the training company Instytut Publico, commentator on political life. Author of research and dozens of expert and scientific articles. Author of a book on media relations. Currently preparing a book on running an effective election campaign. He has completed several internships at the Office of the President and Prime Minister of Poland.
The interview appeared in the June issue of Business HUB.
The online version of the issue can be downloaded : HERE.