The recent Sun story about a
2 year old, Ardi Rizal from an Indonisia fishing village, smoking 40 a day has
no doubt fuelled anti smoking groups and attacks on cigarette brands. But this
is not a case where you can blame the brands or us, the advertising industry,
as is so often the case. There is no subversive advertising to babies going on,
not even in the wildest imagination of an extreme anti smoker.
The appointment of M&C Saatchi by the Conservative Party
to steer the party’s and David Cameron’s advertising made for an intriguing
start to this year’s election campaign. The old Saatchi and Saatchi team are of
course famous for the advertisement for Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 Conservative
Party campaign, “Labour isn’t working” which
some suggest won the Tories the election.
It’s arguable whether the 2010 campaign has
produced much in the way of memorable advertising to rival that infamous piece
of work with both the Tories and Labour appearing to have resorted to spoofs
and old clichés. But how far can the parties go in the advertising battle to
win the voters?
The advertising codes of practice (known as the CAP and BCAP
rules) enforced by the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) require all
advertisements to be legal, decent, honest and truthful but MPs argued that the
codes ought not to apply to political advertising for elections.
The argument is that it is inappropriate for the ASA, as a
non-elected body, to intervene in the democratic process; that ASA rulings
would have little practical value because the complex issues involved meant
that rulings would probably be made after election day; that ASA adjudications
would come within the arena of political debate; and that party political
advertisements are always subject to a disproportionate amount of media scrutiny.
Perhaps a lot of disillusioned readers will be unsurprised
that the codes – which apply to all other advertisers – do not apply to our
politicians, but that does not mean
mistakes have not been made in the past or that no rules exist at all.
Political parties are not permitted to advertise on
television, save for the party political broadcasts. In addition the
Broadcasters’ Liaison Group produced guidelines that the parties must
adhere to. Unsurprisingly, TV
commercials have to be legal and not infringe any copyright or other
intellectual property rights and they must comply with the Ofcom broadcast codes,
but crucially, accuracy remains a matter for the parties.
In non-broadcast media and on the
internet, political ads are unrestricted and political parties are keen to get
their messages across as vocally as possible. Though the days of billboards
being plastered across the country with political advertising are probably
over, (because the rules on media owners providing free space to political parties
has been made illegal), the rise in the importance of the internet may well
outstrip the importance of the outdoor medium. As well as the party website,
all the party leaders have their own blogs and micro sites, but there is still
a risk that an edgy campaign can backfire.
The now infamous “Demon Eyes” adverts featuring Tony Blair
with fiendish eyes only appeared in three newspapers but the advertisements
were condemned by the church and the Advertising Standards Agency banned the
image. Voters claim to despise negative political advertising but it works,
especially with younger voters.
From the Tories beaming Gordon Brown billboard (itself a
rather frightening sight) with the words “I
let out 800,000 criminals early, vote for me” to the photoshopped image of David Cameron that led
to a plethora of spoof versions, the campaigns have been hit and miss with both
voters and the parties alike. It’s perhaps not surprising that all the ads look
the same, given the similarities between the parties.
With the lack of regulation surrounding
election campaign advertising, voters can rely on little more than their own
intuition when it comes to believing the facts portrayed. A general election is
a battle ground. Under such conditions, do you think self-regulated accuracy
might sometimes take a backseat?
Marina
Palomba is a partner at Reed Smith specialising in advertising
law and regulation and past Legal Director of the Institute of Practitioners in
Advertising
As we head for the last 24 hours all the guns are firing against the opposition, the trouble is now each party isn’t sure who the opposition really is, it’s a three horse race, or maybe two if you read some newspaper’s comments on Brown’s blunders. Gillian Duffy has flown out of the country to escape journalist, who can blame her? There’s even a Gillian Duffy for PM group on Face book. At least no one can say it wasn’t a fun election.
Clegg it seems has the real power, both Tories and Labour need him, and even though they are trying to knock his popular vote down they know they can’t hit him too hard. In the last TV debate Brown was really gentle with him.
Clegg is certainly enjoying a popularity no liberal leader has for a while, especially with younger voters, he’s cool for kids, the ‘I agree with Nick’ slogan is a brilliant way to put Nick among the common people. He’s certainly hit a cord with youth, even my daughter asked if I was joining the Nick gathering in Trafalgar Square on Thursday (message sent via Facebook).
Even though all the parties have seen a growth in the Facebook sites over the last week, the Liberal’s have had the greatest sign up with, over 10,000 new fans and Rage, their unofficial supporter group adding over 8,000 fans. The poor Greens have added just over 500, this has not been an election for green issues.
I predicted in an earlier blog that green issues seem to have fallen off the agenda. I don’t think it’s because people don’t care, it’s just not a vote winner. Having worked for both the Tories and Labour parties I did offer the creative services of Creative Orchestra to the Greens. I’m still awaiting a reply.
The ‘We got Rage to No1′ group is certainly a new element in politics and reminds us that the British can still have fun, even if Screaming Lord Such is dead. He only got into politics because by standing as a candidate he got free post and wanted a cheap mailing campaign.
It’s also seen independent ideas like Albion’s Slap a Politician website and our Citizen Control TV campaign to get civil liberties on the agenda (www.citizen-control-tv). Check out the commercial on YouTube – hard hitting stuff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxqMiBgQzk)
Leafing through all the DM on my doormat is revealing. While Facebook may be a bit of fun, face to face doorstep visits and direct mail are still very powerful weapons in swinging the floating voter your way.
You can tell how successful Clegg has been from the bitchy attacks the other parties have made at a local level. Labour’s ‘Vote LibDem, get Tories” is pathetic, it’s trying to demonise the LibDems and just makes Labour look desperate. Negative marketing is rarely effective. Their only saving grace is the ‘A future fair for all’ piece. It’s well focused on the local Labour candidate and tackles local issues.
The Lib Dem’s have picked up on the Tories ‘Time for Change’ and revamped it as ‘Britain needs real change’. Their material seemed positive and confident but then they blew it with their ‘Real Change’ mailer, a tacky version of their ‘Time for a clean up’ mailer, which was much better constructed. The tone is bad and it has lowered the pitch to the level of Labour.
Meanwhile the Tories have been pushing their ‘Time for Change’ message with no nasty attacks on the other parties. A very single minded message. To date I’ve had 14 pieces from the LibDems, 7 pieces from the Labour Party and just one from the Tories. Guess I live in an area where the Tories stand no chance, well that’s Crouch End for you. Overall, all pretty terrible as pieces of marketing communications.
The next 24 hours will see one of the most interesting elections in years with endless knocks at the door as supporters try to get that larger group of floating voters to swing their way. Thankfully I’ve already voted by post so no mad rush to the polling station at the last minute.
Misleading election leaflets, ‘Orwellian’ poster campaigns and plain, simple lies. Will negative campaigning prove a vote winner or floating-vote swinger.
When David Cameron accused Gordon Brown of negative campaigning in Labour leaflets at the TV debate, we dived straight into MESH’s real-time Experience Data to see what 1,100 floating voters from Research Now’s panel were saying.
But the study is not a poll in the usual sense, instead, MESH asked people to text whenever they see, hear or experience anything to do with one of the political parties. They tell us the party, the occasion, how it made them feel and how likely the experience made them to vote for a party. So, we pick up all voters’ experiences, whether they are checking out a debate, seeing a party poster stuck in a field or having a chat about TV news with work colleagues.
And what does it tell us?
Well, we’ve noticed a big surge in leaflet experiences. In the week of the first leaders’ debates, 6% of all floating voters’ experiences were with leaflets, compared with 11% this last week. We’re getting more texts for posters too (up from 8% to 10%). TV news and the leaders’ debates – still influential touchpoints – have slipped from 26% to 23% and 18% to 13% respectively. Following the excitement of Nick Clegg’s first TV debate performance on 15 April, politics has this week gone local.
But are the leaflets actually persuading anyone?
Actually, they are. 16% of Labour leaflet experiences are persuading people to vote for them. But 32% of Labour leaflet experiences are persuading our floating voters NOT to vote for them (a net persuasiveness of -16%). Over half of all leaflet experiences (53%) are making no difference to people’s likelihood to vote Labour. On the other hand, Liberal Democrats are doing much better with their leaflets (net persuasiveness of +25%) and the Conservative are faring a bit better this week than last with theirs (+17% v +8% net persuasiveness).
What’s pushing people in one direction or the other?
Actually, their opponents’ negative campaigning in itself isn’t having the worst effect for Labour. It’s Labour’s actual record which has been negative over the last few years. Seeing a Labour leaflet is reminding our floating voters of what they’ve done wrong. One participant commented “Mr Brown has got the country into a bloody mess and I feel very negative about Labour”.
But this has been Labour’s problem right from the beginning. Negative campaigning does compound the issue, and can often rebound on the party putting out the knocking copy as one floating voter comments.
“It did annoy me as it pointed out that the Conservatives wouldn’t match the Labour Party with their two week targets for any suspected cancer patients to be seen. As most people know someone who suffers from cancer, I feel it is a cheap shot at trying to almost blackmail voters.”
In stark contrast, the positive delivery of Lib Dem leaflets was seen to positively persuade our voters, particularly at the local level.
“This was a leaflet featuring Clive Sneddon. In it he talked about increasing the tax threshold to £10k, no tuition fees for children, investing in public transport, renewable energy and energy efficient homes, and also talked about giving people the right to sack corrupt MPs. Made me feel very positive and was very no nonsense.”
The Conservatives did lots of leafleting early on but it was overkill for many. Their heavyweight poster campaign also backfired in terms of tone. Many floating voters thought putting Brown’s face on a poster with a negative line was cheap and off-putting. One participant, with a poster right outside their house, commented “the poster campaign for the Conservative party opposite my house looks positively Orwellian.” It’s important to remember context.
Traditionally, negative campaigning is used to depress the vote amongst an opponent’s weak supporters. It works less well, if at all, with floating voters.
In the UK 2010 General Election, negative campaigning isn’t working. People are looking for simple believable policies. This explains why the Liberal Democrat experiences are coming through so strongly. What remains to be seen is what all these experiences add up to.
We’ll continue to collect floating voters’ intentions each week and we’ll find out how they actually vote on 6 May. That’s when we’ll be able to correlate negative experiences to votes.
On the question of whether negative messages win votes, we’ll see. But in an end of era election like this is panning out to be, somehow we doubt it. After all, the Tory demon eyes campaign didn’t keep Blair out, did it?
Fiona Blades is Founder and CEO, MESH Planning and formerly Planning Director at Claydon Heeley.
Dr. Paul Baines is Reader in Marketing at Cranfield School of Management and Co-author (With Sir Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimore) of ‘Explaining Labour’s Landslip’ (Politico’s 2005).
www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/2010election
It might be light hearted, but Labour makes a serious point today in its attack on David Cameron’s “Big Society” with the launch of a viral video and its scary echoes of Thatcher’s Britain.
The video drives home what it really means when the Tories say “Big Society”, but are afraid to say that they want to cut and abandon a range of public services with their pick ‘n’ mix DIY services that mean no guarantees for patients, parents or communities.
Big society is about breaking down the NHS, breaking down local education authorities and taking apart public services and people’s lives along with it. That’s what they have always done and Cameron might be the shiny new face of Conservatives in the UK, but it is the same old Tories who do not believe in “big society”. It’s just paper thin like most of Cameron’s campaign of photoshopped airbrushing and oil slick marketing.
Cameron is as Jacob Weisberg, author of ‘The Bush Tragedy’ wrote in the Guardian today, “as buffed as a freshly washed car, and providing a similar kind of short-term uplift”.
“With Cameron’s Tories, ideas take second place to their marketing. The event is geared around his presentation of a Contract with Voters, which is printed out on a white board that Cameron signs with a flourish after his talk. Aside from being a rip-off of the Republicans’ 1994 Contract with America (also known as the Contract on America), these 16 promises are a remarkably thin effort. The hard tasks, like cutting wasteful government spending, building a greener economy and raising school standards, are left vague.” Cameron is after a contract on Britain.
Douglas Alexander, Labour’s Election Coordinator, said: “When they talk about getting people to set up new schools, it’s an attempt to disguise the fact that they would cut the schools budget. When they talk about elected police commissioners, it’s all about politicising the police while refusing to protect police budgets. When they talk about NHS cooperatives, it’s a fig leaf for removing the tough targets that ensure people are treated in good time.”
The “Our future? Your choice” video has a neat little word of mouth tool that allows people to insert their friends’ names into the video so that the main character appears to phone them and at the end and ask them why they did not help to avoid this reality on May 6 2010 by voting Labour. Of course, this is how it turned out last time.
You can send your own video here.
At the beginning of the campaign we weren’t really sure, but by last night it was blindly clear. Twitter, and social media generally, in this election campaign do not matter – not in the wider scheme of things at least.
The blizzard of tweets last night, 154,342 in all (up on the second debate but down on the first) were in the main anti Cameron in nature– Tweetminister’s sentiment score had it as Clegg 3.13 (-0.5), Brown 2.99 (-0.15), Cameron 2.96 (-0.22) #leadersdebate.
Clegg was the clear winner on Twitter and on Facebook and Brown it appeared to be agreed had done better. It was Clegg one; Brown two; and Cameron three.
But as the camera’s stopped rolling and drew away from the stage, and as the three awkwardly stepped forward, Cameron doing his prime ministerial hand on Clegg’s shoulder, and the polls started to come in the wider truth became quickly apparently.
There was a brief few minutes that Channel 4′s self selecting poll (easily won by Clegg) was eagerly retweeted, but online Tories like Craig Elder and Samuel Coates tweeted back to wait for the real polls. He wasn’t wrong.
Both YouGov, ICM, Angus Reid, ComRes and Populus polls told a different story.
Angus Reid: Cameron 37%, Clegg 30%, Brown 23%.
YouGov: Cameron 41%, Nick Clegg 32%, Gordon Brown 25%.
ComRes: Cameron 35%, Clegg 33%, Brown 26%
Populus: Cameron 38%, Clegg 38%, Brown 25%.
ICM: Cameron 35% Brown 29% Clegg 27%
Rory Sutherland tweeted “Yougov calls it for Cameron. Twittersphere dissolves in incomprehension – unable to believe that Twitter not representative of the UK.” I laughed as I read it, but it was an accurate assessment of what happened.
No one believed it. YouGov was the first one to go around. It does the Sun’s polling and is biased came a chorus of tweets (and it is the one poll that gave Cameron the biggest poll present), but then as Angus Reid and ComRes polls followed were also for Cameron as well. It was once as rumour, twice as fact and third time well that’s strike three and the umpire has called it. Then more polls and really it is time to move on.
On Twitter, on Facebook, and online generally the story was different, but its wider impact, its ability to affect the real world was and has been throughout wholly marginal.
Twitter has proved good copy for lazy and social media obsessed journalists (guilty of the latter for sure). Its fast reaction, its buzzy atmosphere, and variety of views is a treat for journalists with a story to file and deadlines to meet.
But beyond the media story, beyond Westminster, it isn’t the story.
That isn’t to say that it has not had an affect on this campaign and not had an impact as it has. It has proved a really useful tool for helping to organise supporters, rally activists and hopefully get the vote out. It has helped to galvanise and got people involved in politics in different ways. Its impact has been positive.
We’ve seen some innovation as well. Online phone banks, #hastag campaigns, online spoofing and use of video (everyone will remember Webcam and SamCam).
But it just hasn’t happened. It hasn’t happened on Twitter and it hasn’t happened with social media in a wider sense and I think there is a pretty good reason for that: there just hasn’t been the candidate.
Not for Labour as Brown is just the wrong generation. Certain not for Cameron kitchen sink chats and all. That early start never led to embracing online. He is too schooled in the top down Tory politics, which has never been a democratized process and is the antithesis of social media. Cameron is the old media candidate and at heart an old media man and he their candidate.
Clegg, of course, of all of them has proved the digital winner. He has scored biggest online, won more friends, followers and C4 votes, but with him it doesn’t feel real. He appeared from nowhere, it was like he was there three weeks ago and three debates later it doesn’t feel real or completely authentic.
Clegg is the winner in that realm, but not I think really a digital candidate. That person, that candidate, just wasn’t here this time around. Maybe if he or she had have been it would have been a different online election story to the one that has played out.
Now we’ve had polls, we’ve had the tweets, it is pretty much only the voting that is left to do.
Forget Dimbleby, John Torode and Gregg the Veg
should chair tonight’s debate.
Though Gregg
‘if-I-eat-one-more-potato-I’ll-turn-into-one’ Wallace’s distinctly
over-dramatic turn of phrase grates every time I watch Masterchef, it would be more
than appropriate if he piped up with it come 8.30pm tonight.
Especially if you’re planning on settling down to
the final TV Election Debate with the literal smorgasboard of General Election
foodstuffs on offer.
As if the whole campaign weren’t bad enough for
people’s health – the slanderous jibes and front page headlines, and that’s
just if you’re name happens to be Gillian Duffy – BR has been inundated with a
coronary of delights that would have the Change4Life team choking on its quinoa.
How about an aperitif of crisps, topped with
crisps.
Tyrrells has its Party Political range of Gordon’s
Gourmet – scotch egg and brown sauce – Cameron’s Crunchies – eton mess – and
Clegg’s Coctail – roasted vegetable and hummus. Clegg really can do no wrong,
can he!
Not to be outdone, Real Crisps has its own red,
yellow and blue range, and a sparkling website to go with them.
Still hungry? What about a Brown, Cameron or Clegg
pizza from Pizza Express. They look vile, but as Gord pointed out, this isn’t
about style over substance.
Dessert time. That’s dessert as in pudding, not
desert as in what Gordon’s supporters are doing in light of bigot-gate.
How about a tub of Gordon Fudge Brownie or
Cheesecake Clegg from Ben & Jerry’s, for which a ‘Moonifesto 2010′ website
has been prepared, or a Fox’s Party Ring.
And to wash it all down, what say a pint, or eight,
if you happen you be out with Willian Hague. Nicholson’s pubs have been running
their own ‘polling stations’ with Fuller’s putting the party into politics.
If the debate doesn’t kill you, the refreshments
just might.
“Three contestants, only one of them can go through.”
Murdoch might not decide this election, maybe John and Gregg should?
There can be no
doubt Barack Obama rewrote the rulebook with his use of digital marketing
during the last US election. Catalysed by this success the UK’s political
parties have jumped aboard the bandwagon for the 2010 general election.
One of the main
elements of Obama’s campaign was email – a channel which many organisations
take for granted, as more fashionable platforms take centre stage. However,
used in the right way email is hugely powerful.
So how do the UK’s
political parties measure up in their use of email? In September 2008 I signed
up for e-newsletters from Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats to get
an idea of how their canvassing approach would evolve.
Party Time
One of the most
crucial elements of all email strategies is the initial sign up and data
capture process. Done well, this part of the process can drive effective
communications and enhance the brand perception.
The Liberal
Democrats site offered a straight forward sign up option on their homepage and
I had received an email confirmation within 10 minutes – slick and impressive.
The Labour party’s sign up process seemed not to work. After submitting my
email address I was transported to another page that requested further address
details leaving me unsure as to whether my subscription had been successful or
not. Similarly, the Conservative’s process did not confirm my registration but
did offer me the opportunity to sign up for the mobile messaging service.
Round one to the
Liberal Democrats, but it did seem strange that none took the opportunity to
record my preferences and establish whether I was interested in canvassing or
contributing and what issues were important to me.
Revisiting the sign
up process 18 months later there were key
improvements all round. All took the initiative at sign up to raise awareness
of donating, joining and volunteering, giving me greater opportunity to add
more personal data, but I can’t help thinking they missed a trick by not doing
so earlier on.
Where’s the Frequency, Gordon?
Over the course of
the next two months, the frequency of contact helped clarify who was most keen
to engage my interest. A month after registering, I received my first
communication from Labour, but heard nothing from the Tories until a month
after that. Considering I received eight news bulletins from the Liberal
Democrats within the first month alone, it was clear the others had some
catching up to do.
Government
obviously had other issuese to
attend to. In the first 16 months, over which I’d received 51 emails from the
Liberal Democrats and 72 from the Conservatives, the Labour party had only sent
me three emails. This could have been linked to another key area of email
marketing – deliverability. Labour emails may have failed to reach my inbox as
a result of poor ISP relations on sender reputation, but Labour simply didn’t
send many emails. Curiously however, the situation changed very swiftly. I
received three emails the following week.
Getting Personal
Despite their email
frequency, the Lib Dems initially overlooked a core aspect of email marketing -
‘from’ and ‘subject’ lines: two of the most important factors in compelling
recipients to open email. Their approach had changed by May 2009, when contact
came ‘direct’ from high profile MP’s. Soon after however, email volume began to
drop.
The Conservatives
used an obvious yet effective ‘from The Conservative Party’ line initially, but
began broadening their strategy within a couple of months, issuing emails ‘from
David Cameron’ to address specific issues or events.
In fact contact
from all three parties soon began to read like a list of political heavyweights
- including George Osbourne, Vince Cable, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, and Nick
Clegg. All recognised the importance of adding a personal touch. Labour
however, was the only party to request my name during the sign up process and
therefore was the only party to include a personalised salutation. The Liberal
Democrats made up for this with a ‘Dear Friend’ but the Conservatives issued a
generic message with no salutation.
Change is Visible
Another important
aspect of email is visual impact. Here the Conservatives are clear winners.
Their use of HTML is simple, uses a consistent style, regularly embedding
images and video content as well as copy. The Liberal Democrats seemed to take
notice, upping their messages’ from text to HTML – albeit basic and
inconsistent. However, Labour is the worst offender by far. Emails were text
heavy, devoid of images or video, offering little option to click through.
On the balance of
all evidence gathered, the Conservatives would appear the leaders of the pack
with consistent and visually impactful creative, reactive messaging and
integrated video. The Lib Dems can lay claim to a solid yet underwhelming
strategy with Labour straggling in third, hindered by inconsistent frequency
and poor branding.
While it’s clear that
all three organisations improved their overall approach to email, none can
really be congratulated on completely mastering the discipline. There are
numerous reasons why this may be the case, but the most obvious is a focus on
other more ‘fashionable’ areas of digital media – social networks and smart
phone apps. True to life, politicians are quick to follow the zeitgeist.
The key to any
successful campaign is integrated strategy, consistent messaging and individual
targeting. Email marketing remains a pertinent and influential platform and
continues to evolve alongside other forms of digital marketing. However, only
time will tell whether it will have a bearing on offline conversion rates when
voting booths open next month.
Richard Wright is EMEA marketing director at Epsilon
International
I only just saw this, but now I have I have to ask the above question after it emerged that the Tories, ahem, second ad agency of the election M&C Saatchi asked Guardian writer, and the world’s second favourite *misanthrope, Charlie Brooker to appear in an ad.
This happened the other day, he tweeted about it and it has to be repeated due to the special interest we take around here regarding advertising and the election (did I miss a word out there?).
The ad was going to be a comedy ad. It would have been the best kind of comedy. The kind that blows up in your face like um one of those exploding things (I’m not sure which). According to an FT post it is all true and a comedy production company called Clever Pie also got a call.
Maybe he could have recited a few lines from his column almost two years ago where in the simplest terms possible he set out his views on a) David Cameron and a) the Tory party in general (and issues relating to rutting).
I remember when it was published. There are something you don’t forget and “fuck me, Gerald” is one of those lines (thanks for that @charltonbrooker).
There are some very smart people in advertising, but on this day it seems they were not involved. Maybe someone at M&C Saatchi could have used the Interwebulator. It is a vast futuristic like device for searching a great archive of published material (it is where it found Brooker’s article…). Still maybe the intern wasn’t there that day or the operational manual for this wonder could not be located. Maybe they could have called Euro RSCG who used to hold the account (or still do although its confusing as they don’t actually seem to be doing anything, but they definitely weren’t sacked by Andy Coulson and Tory Party central office. I want to be quite clear on that issue. And even if they were what a lucky escape that turned out to be).
If M&C Saatchi types had activated the Interwebulator and pointed it to the Interweb (it gets a bit complicated see me after if you need tips) they would have found he had this to say about David Cameron: “David Cameron is an idiot. A simpering, say-anything, dough-faced, preposterous waddling idiot with a feeble, insincere voice and an irritating tendency to squat near the top of opinion polls. I don’t like him. And I’ve got a terrible feeling he’ll be prime minister one day.” Ouch. Maybe Brooker is not your man. On the Tory party itself, he had much more to say.
“Naturally, I’m biased. I’ve instinctively hated the
Tories since birth. If there was an election tomorrow, and the only two
choices were the Nazis or the Tories, I’d vote Tory with an extremely
heavy heart. In descending order of vehemence, my objections to the
Tory species stem from a) everything they do, b) everything they say,
c) everything they stand for, d) how they look, e) their stupid names
and f) the noises I imagine they make in bed. I once overheard two posh
people – almost certainly Tories – having sex in a hotel room. It was
grim. The woman kept saying, “Fuck me, Gerald,” in a cut-glass accent,
which was funny, but Gerald himself soon wiped the grin off my face…”
I don’t know what do you think? Does the line “I’ve instinctively hated the Tories since birth” just maybe provide another clue that Brooker was not your man?
The Guardian might have been the third and final clue. I say might as, apparently there are Tories at The Guardian or at least people say there are. Labour MP Tom Watson pointed to Julian Glover last night in a stinking rage.
How the said Guardian leader writer came up with his colourful interpretation is unclear. Maybe from Mickey Mouse. Or something. To be fair I don’t know if the Mickey bit is even slightly true. It could have been Dick Dastardly or maybe another less reputable character from the animated world.
*Second favourite misanthrope after Hugh Laurie in ‘House’ – but really first favourite who is not a fictional character.
Despite the claims by the digital industry (hyped
up as ever, based on
quantity not quality) I have to doubt that social networking is really
going to
swing many votes for the main parties. Well with one possible exception -
We
got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into #10!
Facebook
can be a friend of foe, great for positive chat as well as negative
chat. alas
I’ve picked up far more negative comments than positive ones. Especially
parties slagging off the other ones. This is a dirty election.
Of
course
this time parties have been able to set up their fan pages and get their
members to join, but it seems not many are. And even once people sign up
I’m
not sure politicians are using the sites well, too many party political
broadcasts. Only the LibDems allow you to
openly post up on their wall, the others screen everything first, so
making for
very dull sites.
The
membership of
the main political parties has been falling year on year and parties
seem to
all have terrible figures (figures vary according to source and are
often
disputed by the parties) these below are from the House of Commons
Library. Only
1.3% of the electorate are members of one of the main political parties,
so not
many dedicated followers then.
Back in the 1950s Labour had 1.6 million
but by the
late 1970s, membership had fallen to around 660,000 and to 348,000 by
the
1980s.
The Tories had nearly 3 million members (2,805,832 in
1953) but by 1970 it had halved.
So far, despite all the advancement in
marketing
know how, all the parties now have less, which doesn’t say much for
their
direct marketing specialists does it? All the millions of pounds they
have
spent above and below the line, and online, have done nothing to win
over the
voter. Yet one 90 minute spot on TV has achieved far more (proves TV is
still
the medium for influence).
In fact, response rates over the last 30
years across marketing generally haven’t improved, despite the growth of
research, data, books on theories of marketing and endless so called
marketing
science. And despite the glam of the internet, online ads have the worse
response rate of any media in history. Even door drops and inserts do
better.
Today,
Labour has
166,000, though they could probably add a good percentage of union
members as a
secondary line of membership (approx 2m). That’s less than in
1923.Tories have
250,000 and the LibDems just 60,000 (their peak was in 1993 with
101,000). The
UK now has one of the lowest rates of political party membership among
established European democracies and it’s declining, could that be
because
voters are seeing parties as less important or even less defined – can
you spot
the difference on some policies?
FACEBOOK -
GET THE REAL THE FACTS
The
membership
figures are rarely accurate as parties like to keep them secret, but not
so
with Facebook, it’s all there to see. I’ve been monitoring them over a
number
of days and following the second debate. It’s one of the best accurate
ways to see support, so how are they doing?
Pre the
second
debate the Lib Dem was 57,591 (and had seen steady growth the
few days before), Tories
was 58,222 (with a similar growth to the LibDem) and Labour was a poor
third
with 28,074 members.
Their
youth parties didn’t see much change after the TV debate, current
numbers are:
Liberal Youth 3376
(+38),
Conservative Future 3077 (+13) and Labour Youth 599 (+1). So obviously
those
young people using Facebook weren’t influenced by the debate.
However,
the picture
is different for the main party sites.
Post
debate the
LibDems saw an increase of + 4,531 to 62,122, the Tories an increase of +
3,184
to 61,407, while poor Labour saw a minor increase of just 1,023, raising
it
to 29,097.
Labour
have seen no
significant rise over the weekend (+ 652) but the
Tories have put on a massive 3,455 members and the
LibDems 3,262. So LibDems and the
Tories neck and neck with Labour a long way behind. Maybe it’s a two
horse
race, not three.
Of course the LibDems have another site that is
backing them. Not a
political party but a group that has already had great success and is
proving
social networking can occasionally change things – We got Rage Against
the
Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office!
Currently they have 150,048 members and growing
fast. After the TV
debate they added 4,975 members, more than any other parties, adding
4,619 over
the weekend. Overall, they have almost as many supporters as the three
parties
put together.
So is Facebook the cornerstone of the claimed
power of social
networking to change the face of British politics? Well not in the hands
of the
politicians but maybe in the hands of the real people.
PUSHING
YOUR OWN
POLICIES
Of course
Facebook
does allow some playful fun. Check out http://apps.facebook.com/floatyourvote/
it’s a fun way to get your Facebook friends to vote on any issue. I
asked
friends to vote on the issue of loss of freedom and civil liberties. 90%
feel
we need to reverse the trend and reclaim our rights. Did you know that
education authorities have been fingerprinting school kids, despite the
fact
it’s against the European Human Rights act? Schools
have already fingerprinted more
than two million children, some as young as three (see
http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/).
HOW THE
NATION
SWINGS
According
to
Voteomatic (http://www.votomatic.co.uk/)
another site that helps you pick your party by selecting the policy that
you
most agree with, 42% of the nation are voting LibDem, 30% Tory and 29%
Labour
(which adds up to 101!). These figures are rounded off and exclude
undecided
people, of which there are many.
BEN &
JERRY’S
That iconic brand has
launched a new series of
political flavours -caramel-flavoured Cameron Chew Chew, Cheesecake
Clegg and Gordon Fudge Brown(ie), even the Monster Raving Loony party
gets
included, with Fairtrade Fairly Nuts Monster Raving Loonies flavour. The
range
will be sold up to May 6th.
Haymarket Business Media © 1957 – 2012
