At least twice in the past months, the various authorities this country is blessed with, have thought they had found the philosopher’s stone, the formula that would make a message instantly recognisable and understandable, a vehicle which by its own very existence would facilitate the acceptance of the meaning contained in the symbol and ensure that a consensus is organised around the theme.

But both choices were flawed and both resulted in becoming vehicles of fun, plunging not just whoever thought them up, but also the government they in one way or another, represented into a deeper state of public derision that has fast become a national past-time.

The two ‘philosopher’s stones’ were the Brand Malta theme and the int@smartMalta theme.

If one analyses the genesis and outcome of the two themes, one immediately sees common traits and, unexpectedly, common fault-lines. Such an analysis should thus lead one not only to avoid repeating similar mistakes in the future, but also, although one doubts whether this will happen, understanding what exactly is eating our people.

The most immediate fact that stares you in the face is that both themes, slogans, are abstruse and require detailed explanation. The Brand Malta campaign came with a heavy dose of explanation on what brand is, how one becomes a brand manager and similar nonsense when far simpler explanations were called for.

Similarly, the smartMalta campaign by the Nationalist Party is based on a not easy understanding of the Smart City concept, which presupposes most people except PN insiders and habitués of political chat shows on the Right.

Both campaigns were heavily supported – by extensive advertising, first by MTA and second by the PN media machine. Yet all this money and all this exposure did not, in the end, do the trick.

Thirdly, each campaign carried inside itself the seeds of its own undoing. The Brand Malta campaign was the result, one may say, of the muddled thinking that seems to characterise MTA decisions, at least in the most recent past. It started off as an attempt to brand Malta – rather like getting the cart to drive the horse since ideally there should be only one brand for Malta, and that should of course include tourism. But Malta is not just tourism. Then, looking as though it had lost its way, instead of aiming at discovering what brand to ascribe to Malta, the campaign simply became Brand Malta, a weak attempt to try and get everyone to understand that he (and she) were as responsible for Malta’s tourism offer as anyone else. The campaign was a worthy one but the way it was packaged was precisely the opposite of what should have been done – instead of simplifying things and thus generating understanding and acceptance, it made everything more complex and difficult to understand.

The smartMalta campaign had a very worrying genesis. There is this project, the biggest inward investment to be attracted to Malta. And the deal is not signed yet.

And the party in government can think of nothing better than to involve the newcomers in party politics through the blatant use of the symbols and concepts underlining the project. (If it’s any consolation, the party in Opposition does worse. It builds a whole castle of cards based on a project submission to MEPA and comes out crowing that this is mere land speculation when it is manifestly not the case, as explained elsewhere in this issue) To get back to the would-be investors: heavens know what they must have felt to be attracted to come here and find themselves embroiled in impossible to understand party politics.

Whatever the genesis, look at the outcome. Both campaigns were welcomed with guffaws of laughter, which has thankfully become a way of life for those Maltese not fixated on their party of choice.

The Brand Malta campaign soon spawned an underground, very resourceful stream of weblogs, e-mails and the like with pictures showing in derisive terms the antitheses of Brand Malta – the sort of Only in Malta constant stream of photos of how we do our best to put tourists off.

Similarly, the smartMalta campaign generated a whole stream of un-smart-Malta, how not only there are so many un-smart characters around but we also have our un-smart authorities and rulers.

The result? Instead of generating attention and acceptance, as the aim was, the campaigns only served to bring the government into more disrepute. One has to say it here because this is the place to say it: had either of the two campaigns not been created, the government would have been much better off, or rather, less worse, as regards public opinion than it is now. And that’s a very scathing judgement to pass on such expensive campaigns.

Which brings us to the final point: what possesses a body in power (MTA or PN) to decide to spend money and resources on a campaign that will bring disrepute rather than repute to those who come up with it? Why this reliance on such advertising campaigns when the problem that needs to be fixed is far closer to home and requires far less tinkering with advertising, billboards and the like?

We have now come to think of politics in terms of advertising campaigns, marketing, positioning. Politics is fast becoming not too different from selling anything. When politics, in the best interpretation of the term, is to manifestly improve the quality of life of the citizens. Tourism campaigns should be aimed at fixing what makes so many tourists vow they will never come back here again.

But then, if one thinks along these terms, there wouldn’t be any advertising campaigns to manage, would there?