It is now Monday morning here in in Townsville, Australia – and the 2010 Federal Election is on Saturday.
Adverts must cease on Wednesday night – due to the “media black-out” – a bizarre rule that somehow helps the voters to be less “affected” by advertising. Or something like that…
Anyway – the political advertising landscape has been swamped (a term which also describes the quality of the politics) – with flyers, postcards, letters, TV, radio, and press attempting to gain ownership of my head space.
In persuasion (and in sales) there is what I call an array of places to build your “positioning”.
One of the most overused in politics is the towards/away frame. This slides out of advanced sales training – and usually requires the user to be able to hear and listen at the same time. In a one-on-one situation, asking a structured series of questions will give you information about your prospects inclination to “Move towards something great” or “Away from something awful”.
Once you know that inclination – you can alter your choice of words for that person and it will have an enhanced persuasive impact. If you use “towards” terminology to someone who is more an “away” thinker at the time – they will find it irritating and be sure exactly why. The reverse also applies for “away” on a “towards” person.
Note also that the towards/away effect is context dependent and can change/be changed.
So – our first frame level in the political ads I have spread on my big desk is the towards/away. In this level, both of the major parties are working on “having their cake and eating it too”. For example the ALP has a pretty double sided folded A3 flyer with headline on the front “Whose Plans Are Best For Your Family – You be the Judge” – and inside has a table with LNP on the left and ALP on the right.
In the middle is a list of issues obviously selected by the ALP – and on each side of the issues what the ALP says are the ‘facts’. This piece is lamely trying to simply make the important choices to be Away from Tony and Towards Julia. Does it work – unlikely – as our brains can’t be in two places at once. In fact – the way this is constructed – with ANY attempt at social proof (you know – vaguely unbiased evidence) – it just adds to our overall perception that politicians (and their media guides) just say whatever they want.
They have lost sight of the rule that if you try to persuade “EVERYONE”, you will persuade “NO ONE”. In this case the result is a condescending mash with no emotional or other impact.
Next Piece – from LNP
Now I am looking at a post card I randomly fished of the top of my letterbox collection. On the front side it has the headline “Under Labor the cost of living has gone through the roof.” Then has fat arrows pointing out the increases in rent, gas, and electricity. And a promise that you’ll be paying more under more labor. [They could have underlined the first “more” for more impact.]
Ok – that is a clear AWAY from message. On the reverse – there is a nice graph (proof!), there is the suggestion that this graph means Libs are better at managing money (says who? Prove it!). And then two wasted paragraphs that could be talking to our emotions about the effects of increases in rent, gas and power on our lives, businesses and ambitions. Eg Do you want to pay more for power, or get those braces for Sally’s shamed smile?
So – you can see the Towards/Away positioning.
Let’s have a quick look at a different frame. This one from the Greens. It is a full page ad in the Weekend Australian Magazine (an insert in the Weekend Australian). It shows an “Academic” with headline
“THIS TIME I M VOTING GREENS”. My first thought was that surely an “Academic” would know how to use an apostrophe in her headline statement. And it is all CAPS – do they need to YELL? All right, cheap shots aside, lets look at what the Greens are attempting here.
They have moved the frame from a view of what we “believe” about the other parties, to looking at “identity” – who we are. The first paragraph is full of ‘pacing’ – where they simply state things that no one will argue with. Eg I know that when I go to the polls next Saturday (true – that is when polls are on), who I vote for matters (still true). I’m disappointed with Labors record (everyone is – even Labor stalwarts), but I’m worried about Tony Abbott (everyone is worried about all politicians right now, and this used Labors press).
So everything there is true. Right?
Then the ad lists “values” – think long term, won’t backflip, “hold to account”. Yep – more pacing. Not a mention of the ‘dirt’ the other parties are throwing. Saying what Greens think is important – and ‘inviting’ me to think the same – as there is nothing so far to argue with – right?
In the final paragraph we move the “WE”. The first paragraph was “I”, second was “the Greens”, and then we have been adopted into “We”. Because we all share those earlier values – right?
And now – in this third paragraph – some new values are being installed easily because the first ones were so ‘true’ – “We need a party that will speak for us (what does that mean?), prevent deadlock in the Senate (um – no? Voting Green will pretty much stop any meaningful activity by the elected government adding to the production of committee-built grey mush national leadership – just my opinion). And “do what’s right, not just what’s easy or what polls well” (All ‘true’ and good values to adopt.)
And the close. “That’s why (because you agree with all the undeniably ‘true’ statements above) “this time” (go on – just this once – one little drag on the fag won’t hurt anyone – just for now), “I am voting Greens”. When we read that last sentence aloud – it is in first person. ie the reader is voting Greens.
The tag at the bottom “BECAUSE WHO YOU VOTE FOR MATTERS.” almost cements in the move to ‘identity/values’ positioning. Implication almost is that “WHO” we are as the Australian people is the determinant of our success. Green’s are positioning not in “beliefs” frame (eg did Labor save us from the GFC? Does Abbott like Workchoices?) – but instead that who we are and what we value is the key. And obviously – apart from saying we will block the senate to get our agenda followed – what else can they talk about?
This is a pretty well done advert. There is clear use of good pacing and leading, criteria installation, double binds, and just staying at one logical level [values]. And putting it in the Australian Magazine is good targeting – because there is a chance that the readers might actually read the words. It might have been better tested as an advertorial style ad to match the style of the Magazine.
The shift up and down the beliefs/values/hierarchy can be done by all the players at any time in this game. More on this in a later article.
Briefly – other frames to be manipulated are the local/national issues. The local candidates will be trying like crazy to make our voting choice about local issues – because if people vote on national leaderships – the local candidates may as well be tossing a coin. The best way to do is with “over promising” lots of money to be spent in the electorate for hundreds of years to come – if you vote for me…
Cheers
James Hooper
Ps – you will notice that with the ALP piece there is a page missing. It is the ‘back’ of the brochure – and contains a blank page except for the “authorised by:” and the printers name. Maybe something valuable could have been done with this – maybe a reminder on “How to do CPR” – or even something about a political message?
Pps – I face the same choice as you do on Saturday. My only suggestion is vote for one of the two major parties. I have nothing against the Greens or other minority parties – but do see the “handbrake” or “do what’s right” roles that these parties claim to own as complete bunkum. If it turns out there is senate deadlock or a minority holds undue power – then call a double dissolution and ask us to vote again. If the minority parties have a real mandate then they will no longer be minority parties…