 |
| Perhaps one of the last truly impactful (in a positive way) election ads. (image from: http://www.hallandpartners.com/blogpost/birthdayptone) |
The last general election in the UK was
one of the most disappointing events I've seen in a long long time.
The apparent complete lack of knowledge and judgement by the British
people was on a scale that makes American politics look sane.
As a planner I find it fascinating to
understand what it is that actually makes people vote, and why they
don't vote with the facts. Because, from everything I've seen,
there's no way ANYONE could have voted Tory based upon the pure facts
of their time in government. Perhaps people's hatred of the Lib Dems
allowed them to morally justify voting Tory, maybe the apparent lack
of charisma that Ed Miliband showed scared them, or the threat of the
SNP daring to unravel austerity for the pile of economic bullshit it
is was too much.
One thing that did seem very apparent,
even from Australia, was that Labour's communications and their
election marketing did not work. It simply did not convince people to
vote for them in any way shape or form.
Perhaps part of this problem is that
election campaigns are generally attack ads, they fit into a
typically fear-mongering, cheesy and unlikeable form of advertising
that most people want to avoid. They generally say nothing new – or
do so in a way that is unpalatable. Or they even presume that
people know the facts, which we know (or can very likely presume)
that they don't.
So what can we do about this? Labour's marketing isn't working, and the public are simply
not getting the key facts that might actually help to change their
mind. This is largely because the media, especially those owned by
Rupert Murdoch, do not want people to know the facts. They want them
to hate benefit claimants not wealthy recipients of inheritance –
even though both get something for nothing. In fact arguably benefit
claimants do more, as they have to visit a job centre and often do
unpaid work to allow their claim. They want them to hate high
spending wasteful Labour, even though the last government spent more
than Labour ever did. Etc etc. Not to mention that most Tory voters
probably aren't that interested in seeking out a contrary fact or
opinion in this increasingly partisan age.
So what if we change the election
marketing game completely. Do what many brands are doing, and being
advised to do – and move to an always on approach?
Instead of creating unlikeable and
ineffective attack ads, and trying to sell personalities that no one
wants to like – we take the facts, the simple things that people
need to know and are not being told, and create simple clear
advertising that gets those messages across. We do that 365 days a
year, with a thinly spread but well targeted campaign that makes the
facts harder to miss, regardless of what party you generally support.
“Immigration creates a profit of xxx
for Britain.”
“Tax evasion costs Britain over four
times as much as benefit fraud.”
“xx people have died due to benefit
cuts in 2014.”
“George Osborne lost $13bn of
taxpayers money by selling RBS early”
Historically this would have been on
billboard posters, but now we can do it through online banners or
Facebook targeting. It doesn't matter if people don't click, because
they see the clear factual message, and see it repeated. The
advertising starts to question the usual narrative and provide
answers, but in a clear and concise way that it is easy to pick up.
Advertising interrupts, and in this case we use that very
deliberately to push the narrative of discussion with seemingly
unknown facts.
The difference is, by doing this all
the time – for a year or two leading up to an election – you make
it harder for the opposition to escape the facts, and you have time
to repeat messages so they are absorbed instead of rushing at
election time to get summation sound-bites that mean nothing to
anyone.
I'm sure it's not a flawless plan
yet,but I fail to see how it can be any worse than election
advertising has been in the last two decades.
