Prabowo’s dialogue with Six Editors-in-Chief as a political marketing strategy: A preliminary evaluation using social exchange theory

On April 6, 2025, President Prabowo Subianto held a dialogue with six editors-in-chief of leading media outlets at the Prabowo’s private residence, the Garuda Yaksa Hambalang Padepokan, Bogor Regency, West Java Province. The dialogue, titled “President Prabowo Answers” (Presiden Prabowo Menjawab/PPM), was broadcast in full on various television channels and received extensive coverage from print, electronic, and digital media.
The media used various terms to describe the event. Some called it an interview, while others framed it as an exclusive interview. Many have called this a dialogue. Others called it a meeting. The more informal term, “ngobrol”, was also used by several media outlets, including the BBC. The editors-in-chief invited to this event were tvOne Editor-in-Chief Lalu Mara Satriawangsa, IDN Times Editor-in-Chief Uni Lubis, Narasi Founder Najwa Shihab, detikcom Editor-in-Chief Alfito Deannova Gintings, SCTV-Indosiar Editor-in-Chief Retno Pinasti, and Kompas Daily Editor-in-Chief Sutta Dharmasaputra. Valerina Daniel, a TVRI journalist, served as the moderator.
The media generally viewed this event as special in nature. Several reasons have been cited. The dialogue was seen as having more significance than a typical dialogue or interview, including a lengthy meeting that lasted four hours (TVRI, 2025). This lengthy duration gave the editors ample time to raise various public issues worthy of being addressed by the President. Furthermore, Prabowo had the opportunity to explain his policies more comprehensively.
The PPM Dialogue was also considered special because of the freedom of the questions. The editors-in-chief were not restricted to asking questions about issues they deemed important. Furthermore, they were not required to submit written drafts of questions before the dialogue, which is an unusual practice for journalists intending to formally interview government officials. The PPM Dialogue was further unusual because it claimed that there was no censorship of either the President’s questions or answers. The dialogue was broadcast in its entirety, as is, without any off-the-record broadcasts. According to the event’s organizer, Deputy Minister of Communication and Information Technology Angga Raka Prabowo, the PPM Dialogue aimed to communicate the government’s achievements after 150 days in office. Furthermore, the dialogue was intended to improve the quality of the President’s public communications (Detik News, 2025).
Previously, the Prabowo Cabinet’s public communications had been criticized. Prabowo’s choice of language in communication was seen as unfamiliar to the public and created misunderstandings (Ardhya, 2025). The Prabowo Cabinet was considered to practice tone-deaf communication, as if it prioritized public aspirations but ignored them (Silalahi, 2025). Officials often make controversial statements and are slow to provide clarifications (Maksum, 2024).
The PPM Dialogue can be viewed as a form of political communication. According to McNair (2011), following Denton and Woodward’s definition, political communication is all forms of communication undertaken by politicians and other political actors to achieve their political goals. These forms of communication are not limited to verbal or written statements but also include visual means such as dress, makeup, hairstyles, and logo designs, often referred to as political image or identity (McNair, 2011, p. 4). Providing interview opportunities, such as those in the PPM Dialogue, is positioned within political communication as part of public relations activities for media management (McNair, 2011, p. 118). By providing interview opportunities, the media is expected to expose government policies to gain public support.
Media coverage as a means of exposing government activities is considered more effective than other forms of communication, such as advertising or sponsored messages. This latter message is seen as having a fundamental weakness because the recipient perceives the advertisement (or paid message) as ‘propaganda’ (in the negative sense), ‘partisan,’ and partial. These ‘paid’ messages are often perceived as politically charged, reflecting the interests, ideas, and values of the sponsor. Therefore, the effectiveness of political advertising as a means of persuasion is always limited. Knowing that a message is ‘partisan’ allows readers, viewers, or listeners to distance themselves from it—to ignore or even reject it (McNair, 2011, p. 119).
This differs from media coverage. Press coverage is perceived as freer because it provides a space and channel through which political actors can gain exposure and coverage without payment. Politicians favor these unpaid media outlets because, unlike advertising, their role is not that of a content creator. When a politician is reported on, editorial responsibility for the selection of the ‘‘quotes broadcast, and the interpretation given to them, is perceived to rest with the journalist (McNair, 2011, p. 119). However, media coverage is a double-edged sword. To the extent that a politician’s appearance on a news or discussion program is completely outside of his or her editorial control, the scope for error (from the politician’s perspective) is clear. Broadcast interviews can be both hostile and respectful in nature. Misjudgments can occur regarding the impact of a political event once it is in the hands of the media (McNair, 2011, p. 119).
Gaining media exposure, as expected from the PPM Dialogue, is also part of political marketing. According to Strömbäck et al. (2010), political marketing is an exchange process in which political actors (including the government and the president) choose to shape their actions and products based on the needs and desires of selected target groups and stakeholders, in a way that attempts to balance strategic objectives across different arenas or markets (Strömbäck, 2010, p. 17).
The media is one of the arenas or markets in political marketing, whose needs and desires must be met by political actors. Media, as a market arena in the concept of political marketing, plays a crucial role because media, journalists, and online and social media users, as actors in this market, engage in political exchanges, interactions, and transactions (Ahmad, 2017, p. 106). As political news actors, “political opinion makers,” and “influencers,” they supply products and services in the form of news and opinions to other political market arenas. The way they cover and frame political actors likely determines how the latter are perceived by the public. This perception has a real impact on the development of levels of trust and support (Ahmad, 2017, p. 109).
The PPM Dialogue, as a means of political exchange, interaction, and transaction, involves two actors: President Prabowo on one side and the media (in this case, the six editors-in-chief) on the other side. Prabowo is interested in conveying his government’s messages through the media to influence the public to support his political goals. Furthermore, Prabowo needs to improve his image in the eyes of the public and the media. On the other hand, the media is interested in obtaining news material for their products. To obtain quality reporting, they must have good access to news sources within the government, especially the president. An exclusive interview with President Prabowo is one such product that will improve the quality of reporting and the image of the media and its journalists.
Although Prabowo initiated the PPM Dialogue, the event was also a response to numerous interview requests (Detik News, 2025). This suggests that the PPM Dialogue was the result of “negotiations” between Prabowo and the editors-in-chiefs. Prabowo is interested in improving public communication through media channels. In contrast, the editors-in-chief were interested in obtaining exclusive coverage or information about Prabowo. The relationship between Prabowo and the editors-in-chief within the context of PPM Dialogue can be seen as an exchange of resources, namely information and publications.
One theory that explains communication as a means of exchanging resources is the Social Exchange Theory (hereinafter referred to as the Exchange Theory). This theory assumes that individuals in relationships will act to maximize interpersonal benefits and minimize interpersonal costs (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009, p. 782). Exchange Theory is based on the idea that humans base their relationships on the exchange of resources. Individuals calculate costs and compare them with the rewards they will receive from relationships. If the rewards outweigh the costs, the relationship is considered positive (West & Turner, 2018, p. 156). This study aims to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the implementation of the PPM Dialogue as political marketing using the Exchange Theory framework. The concepts of political communication and marketing are used to identify President Prabowo’s potential rewards and costs.

2.1. Political Communications
One variant of political communication is various forms of media management, namely activities designed to capitalize on the needs and demands of modern media and thereby maximize politicians’ access to and exposure in the media. These activities primarily consist of creating mediality—media-friendly events that tend to attract the attention of media gatekeepers to maintain public awareness of political actors. The goal of these activities is not only to maintain the visibility of political actors but also to ensure that the definition of political problems and solutions is addressed. In this sense, media management can also be positioned as issue management (McNair, 2011, p. 122).
In this context, media management encompasses activities designed to maintain a positive relationship between politicians and the media, recognizing the needs of each party while leveraging the institutional characteristics of both actors to their maximum advantage. For politicians, this requires giving media organizations what they want in terms of news or entertainment while exerting influence over how it is mediated and presented to audiences (McNair, 2011, p. 122). From a political communication perspective, the PPM dialogue is part of media management, namely, how to utilize media to maximize the political goals of political actors while simultaneously avoiding the risks of media exposure.

2.2. Political Marketing
Political marketing aims to understand the complex processes of political exchange and interaction between political entities/actors, political organizations, and their environments, as well as among themselves within the political sphere in the context of parliamentary, government, or electoral marketing (Ormrod et al., 2013). Furthermore, political marketing is directed at capturing and developing the identity and image of political actors, including government leaders, as well as the creation and management of political actors (Ahmad, 2017).
As an exchange process, political marketing helps political actors build actions and products based on the needs and desires of selected target groups and stakeholders, in a way that attempts to balance strategic objectives across different arenas or markets (Strömbäck, 2010, p. 17). The PPM dialogue from a political marketing lens is an effort by a political actor (President Prabowo) to market his government’s policies in the media market arena, with the actors being the editors-in-chief who are invited to the dialogue.

2.3. Social Exchange Theory
According to the Social Exchange Theory, when deciding to engage in a relationship, individuals compare the rewards (benefits) and costs (losses) of the relationship. West and Turner (2018) formulated this as follows: Worth = Rewards – Costs. According to Exchange Theory, when engaging in an interaction, an individual calculates the worth of the interaction based on the difference between the rewards and costs incurred. Worth = Rewards – Costs. In this case, costs are elements of relational life that have a negative value for an individual. Rewards are elements of a relationship that have a positive value (West & Turner, 2018, p. 158).
Exchange Theory focuses on two concepts: the nature of the individual and the nature of the relationship between two individuals. Each individual evaluates their relationship with another individual by referring to whether they will remain in or leave the relationship. This evaluation is based on two types of comparisons: Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt) (West & Turner, 2018, p. 161). CL is a measure that represents what a person believes they should receive in terms of rewards and costs from a particular relationship. The level of comparison varies among individuals because it is subjective in nature. If the current relationship meets or exceeds the CL, the theory predicts that the relationship will continue (West & Turner, 2018, p. 161).
According to Exchange Theory, people sometimes stay in relationships that are less than satisfactory. This inconsistency can be explained by CLalt. A person will maintain a relationship with another person even if the relationship is unsatisfying because the alternative (i.e., not having the relationship) is far worse for the individual. In other words, CLalt provides a threshold for evaluating a relationship in comparison to realistic alternatives (West & Turner, 2018, p. 162). When people interact with others, they are goal-directed and engage in a series of sequential actions. When engaging in this sequence of behaviors, each individual relies on their partner to some extent. This interdependence gives rise to the concept of power, that is, the dependence on someone else to achieve an outcome. If A is more dependent on B to achieve rewards, A has more power than B in their relationship.
Exchange Theory is based on several assumptions. First, humans seek rewards and avoid punishment (costs). Humans are assumed to be rational beings; in taking actions, they calculate rewards and costs based on the limited information available and always adhere to their calculations. However, the standards used to evaluate rewards and costs vary over time and among individuals. The PPM Dialogue is an exchange arena between two actors: Prabowo and six editors-in-chief. These two actors come from two different market arenas: the government market (Prabowo) and the media market. The PPM Dialogue represents an exchange of interests between the two actors. Prabowo sought to communicate his policies, while the media actors wanted to obtain information and news.

This study employed a descriptive qualitative content analysis method using an Exchange Theory framework. To identify potential rewards and costs within the Exchange Theory framework, this study utilized the concepts of political communication and marketing. The research materials consisted of mass media coverage relevant to the research topic as the primary data. Supporting literature sources were used as secondary data.
This study employed four interactive steps in Huberman’s data analysis technique. The steps are as follows: (i) data collection, (ii) data condensation, (iii) data display, and (iv) conclusion drawing. First, the data collection included research on relevant news coverage of the PPM Dialogue. The coverage came from print media, online media, and YouTube video clips. News was collected and selected to align with the research topic. Second, data reduction and summary were conducted by reading the news and thematically grouping them. The reduction and summarization were based on the concepts of political communication and political marketing to identify the potential rewards and costs that form the basis for the two political actors (Prabowo and the editors-in-chief) to engage in resource-exchange interactions. Third, the data presentation included a tabular grouping of rewards and costs. The presentation used a balance-sheet approach, comparing the positive and negative aspects. Fourth, conclusions were drawn by analyzing the results of identifying potential rewards and costs using the concepts of political communication and political marketing.

Based on the concepts of political communication and political marketing, Prabowo and the six editors-in-chief expected rewards from the PPM Dialogue in at least two areas. Prabowo had the opportunity to explain the progress his administration had achieved. The editors-in-chief, on the other hand, received rewards in the form of direct interviews with the president and exclusive information. Second, image. Prabowo’s image was expected to improve as a competent, transparent, and media-friendly leader through the PPM Dialogue. For the editors-in-chief, rewards in the image area included the reputation of the media outlets they led, in addition to their personal images. Using the concept of political marketing, Prabowo’s image was divided into two areas: Prabowo’s image in public perception (the electoral market arena) and Prabowo’s image in the media perception (the media market arena). However, potential costs have also emerged. For example, an interview could backfire if the source, in this case Prabowo Subianto, was perceived as lacking expertise on the issue. Likewise, for editors-in-chiefs, a lack of agility in asking follow-up questions, for example, can damage their reputation. Table 1 identifies the rewards and costs Prabowo received from the PPM Dialogue.

Table 1. Potential Rewards and Losses for Prabowo in the PPM Dialogue

Source: Processed and summarized by the author from research data and interpreted based on social exchange theory

The PPM Dialogue is expected to provide positive value for Prabowo and his government in the form of widespread free media coverage and publications. Another positive value is the opportunity to receive full and comprehensive publications without intervention by media gatekeepers. With full, uninterrupted publication, the resulting news is expected to be free from media framing, especially negative one. Another positive value Prabowo hopes to gain from the PPM Dialogue is his image as a transparent one. Furthermore, the PPM Dialogue, which has long been perceived as very distant from the media, is expected to erase this negative image of the media. However, the PPM Dialogue can backfire if the program is uninteresting and unwatched by the public. Factors that can trigger this unfavorable reaction include excessively long durations and discussions of a wide range of issues.
Table 2 presents the potential rewards and costs for editors-in-chief as a consequence of their involvement in political communication and marketing with Prabowo.

Table 2. Potential Rewards and Costs for Editors-in-Chief in the PPM Dialogue

Source: Processed and summarized by the author from the research data and interpreted based on social exchange theory.

4.1. Resource Exchange Terms
According to the Exchange Theory, the terms of resource exchange are established before the relationship occurs. This is intended to reduce uncertainty about the nature of the exchange (Littlejohn & Foss, 2019, p. 895). However, the terms of exchange are dynamic in nature. Each actor can change the terms of exchange during the relationship (West & Turner, 2018, p. 157). The determination of the terms of exchange is closely related to the power of each actor in the relationship. For example, if A is more powerful than B, A can dictate the terms of exchange to B and influence B’s behavior. This concept of dependency applies to the present study.
The relationship between Prabowo and the six editors-in-chief in the context of the PPM Dialogue is dynamic but primarily determined by Prabowo. The terms of exchange may change over the course of the relationship, but Prabowo is more active in setting the terms than the six editors-in-chief. This is evident, among other things, in the fact that the event format is entirely controlled by the Deputy Minister of Communication and Information Technology (IT). Prabowo also had the final say in determining when the dialogue would take place, including postponing the schedule from before Eid al-Fitr to after. The decision to extend the dialogue’s duration from two to four hours also rested with Prabowo (Tribunnews, 2025). The editors-in-chiefs requested that there be no requirement to submit a list of questions before the interview; however, it was not clarified whether this was an absolute requirement or merely a suggestion. However, Prabowo complied with this requirement.

4.2. Actor Evaluation
Exchange Theory explains that the evaluation of exchanges in communication between two actors occurs in at least two stages: the first stage, before a relationship is established, is an effort to decide whether or not to enter into an exchange. The PPM Dialogue, which took place on April 6, 2025, showed that in the first stage, both parties considered the dialogue to be a positive exchange. This means that the expected rewards outweigh the costs. The second stage of the evaluation is based on an assessment of the ongoing exchange. Based on media coverage, the PPM Dialogue proceeded according to a resource exchange scenario. Prabowo answered all questions posed by the editors-in-chief, and in return, the media published Prabowo’s statement. Another exchange of resources took place in the form of mutual expressions of appreciation. Prabowo appreciated the editors-in-chief’s willingness to conduct interviews, and the editors-in-chief expressed their respect for the opportunity to meet directly with the president. This created an image of Prabowo’s close relationship with the media, which in turn, enhanced the reputation of the editors-in-chief (Detik News, 2025).

Table 3. Editors’ Appreciation of Prabowo

Source: Compiled and summarized bythe authorrfromethe research data.

4.3. Public Evaluation
The relationship between Prabowo and the six editors-in-chief is in the public sphere, opening opportunities for public evaluation. Public evaluation contributes to the sustainability of a relationship because it determines both the rewards and costs of the relationship. For example, public evaluation contributes to Prabowo’s image. If the public perceives Prabowo’s image to decline after the PPM Dialogue, this could reverse the previously positive assessment of his image. As a proxy for public evaluation, this study uses data from Kompas Research and Development (Litbang Kompas) to monitor netizen reactions to the PPM Dialogue. The monitoring period was April 6-9, 2025. The monitored platforms included Instagram, TikTok, and X (Kompas TV, 2025).
Kompas Research and Development data identified the top ten topics of discussion among netizens in response to the PPM Dialogue. Of the 10 topics, only one was a comment on the dialogue, namely the journalists ‘meeting in Hambalang. This topic generated 24% positive, 7% negative, and 70% neutral comments. This suggests that most netizens still choose to hold back their judgment, but those who have already made up their minds are more likely to express positive opinions. The other nine topics were comments on the substance of the dialogue, particularly Prabowo’s performance. Four topics generated predominantly positive comments and four generated predominantly negative comments. The four predominantly positive topics were as follows:

Table 4. Topics Generating Predominantly Positive Comments

Source: Kompas Research and Development (2025)

The most dominant positive topic was “poor government communication.” According to Kompas Research and Development (2015), netizens’ positive comments on this topic were driven by appreciation for Prabowo’s stance, which, in the dialogue, took responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates. Meanwhile, the five topics with predominantly negative comments were as follows:

Table 5. Topics with Predominantly Negative Comments

Source: Kompas Research and Development (2025)

According to Kompas Research and Development (2025), negative comments were primarily driven by netizens’ disbelief in Prabowo’s explanations, covering several issues, including the economic situation. The research findings indicate that netizens tended to evaluate the PPM Dialogue positively, but there was a balanced reaction between positive and negative responses to Prabowo’s performance on certain topics. Furthermore, this study, using Kompas Research and Development (2025) monitoring data, measured Prabowo’s rewards from the PPM Dialogue by converting predominantly positive comments into rewards and predominantly negative comments into costs. The results are as follows (see Table 6).

Table 6. Realized Rewards for Prabowo from the PPM Dialogue

Source: Processed by the author based on the analysis comparing Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 with Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 6 shows that Prabowo successfully realized most of the rewards from the PPM Dialogue. However, some rewards were not maximized in this study. Prabowo successfully maximized the rewards in terms of media coverage and publication. These included the opportunity to fully explain government programs, the opportunity to explain government programs without editorial editing, receiving feedback from the media, the image of a leader who is friendly to the media/press, and improving personal relationships with editors-in-chief. However, the potential to enhance the image of a leader who is transparent in communicating policies has not been fully realized.
From a political marketing perspective, the PPM Dialogue is a successful strategy in two market arenas: the public (electoral) and media markets. This strategy was particularly successful in the latter, given Prabowo’s previously less-than-positive image in this market. Several comments by Prabowo—often portrayed as a militaristic-paternalistic leader—during the 2014 and 2019 presidential contests were negatively charged in the media. Reporting records from various media outlets show that Prabowo once called journalists “lackeys who want to destroy Indonesia,” and therefore urged his audience to stop respecting them. Prabowo also said that journalists are easily bribed, so do not trust the media easily. He even mentioned certain media outlets as media outlets that no longer deserved attention.
Prabowo also emphasized that he listed the names of media outlets he deemed unfriendly (Ibid, 2018). These statements have been corrected on several occasions, and Prabowo apologized, saying his statements were misinterpreted (Tribunnews, 2020). The PPM Dialogue is seen as breaking assumptions or stereotypes about Prabowo as being highly controlled and militaristic (Suwanti, 2025). Based on Exchange Theory, Prabowo’s party, as a political actor, is expected to choose to continue the PPM Dialogue program, considering that the positive rewards received outweigh the costs. Meanwhile, the editors-in-chief who have expressed their appreciation for the dialogue have indicated a willingness to continue exchanges through the PPM Dialogue in the future. In other words, the PPM Dialogue, as a political marketing strategy for Prabowo, is worth maintaining.

The PPM Dialogue, as Prabowo’s political communication and marketing strategy, can be seen as an exchange of resources between Prabowo, as an actor in the government’s political market, and the editors-in-chief, as actors in the media’s political market. The exchange of resources took place under flexible and dynamic terms, with Prabowo having greater authority in determining the terms. Both actors expressed satisfaction with the exchange that took place through the PPM Dialogue, although public evaluation indicated that there were still areas for improvement. The greater rewards received by both actors in the exchange compared to the costs incurred indicate that the PPM Dialogue, as a form of political marketing, has successfully achieved its objectives. Therefore, there is a prospect for continuing open dialogue in the future. This study has limitations in that the data examined were limited to media reports and literature studies. Data in the form of representative public opinion surveys and interviews with the political actors involved are recommended for future research.