Nikolas Ferreira’s video about the “PixGate” was probably one of the most significant pieces of political communication in Brazil in recent years. It should be the subject of analysis and research in universities and study centers.
The number of views and the viral success are just the top of the iceberg of this new communication style. Dissecting the codes and nuances of its construction and impact is essential to understanding this new language, this new interplay between words and images that resulted in unprecedented success.
Plaza Pública Brasil* conducted an initial qualitative study on the subject. A first approach to shedding light on this phenomenon. Paraphrasing Spinoza, communication is “content + affective tone.” The battle won with Deputy Nikolas Ferreira’s video succeeds in both aspects, but especially in its ability to emotionally engage the average citizen, the real Brazilian, who is far from intellectual and technical disputes.
Qualitative discussion groups confirm some elements already noted by other analysts (direct style, simple language) but reveal a key aspect of the video: the visual metaphors used in the editing of the speeches play a critical role in solidifying ideas. Two of them are particularly emblematic: the images of market vendors using PIX, portraying them as potential taxpayers, and the footage of floods, highlighting the lack of public services delivered by the government. In communication, these segments reinforce, through the constant and synchronized bombardment of images, the risks and shortcomings that may be inherent in the proposed measures.
At the end of the day, the video hammered on a new idea, the unproven hypothesis of a future tax. However, above all, it rode on pre-existing ideas already present in people’s minds, which were reactivated in the moment: monitored expenses for everyone while some remain hidden, promises of no taxation (like in the case of Shein’s T-shirts) that were later broken with new taxes.
Overall, the PIX story presents two narratives identified in qualitative research. The first is more immediate, tied to the idea of the “craziness of wanting to tax the people…” This perspective is rooted in the belief that PIX benefits the unbanked common citizen and, above all, protects them from compulsory tax surveillance.
And the second, a more elaborate and assimilated narrative, is built around the “idea of account monitoring…” a notion that already existed but would now extend its reach even further.
In both interpretations, but especially in the second, there is a perception that all the “buzz” grew in the void left by the government. Gaps created by incomplete information shared without fully understanding its implications for the public. It was precisely in this void that the video stepped in, filling these gaps with meaning – arguably in a strategic and manipulative way.
The issue could be an important point to anchor a negative narrative about the government, not only as the main communication defeat but, above all, as the trigger that leaves a sense of unease about the country’s situation. Although no one has radically changed their behavior, this “contaminated air” leads people to take concrete precautions: receiving payments in two accounts, separating personal and business income, and considering only cash transactions… “if it opens the door to taxation, it’s like playing Russian roulette…”
At the end of the day, PIX functions in people’s daily lives as a simple platform for instant payments, but it operates with the symbolism of “helping the people” transact without necessarily leaving traces that can be monitored.