How Clive grew: Palmer’s election advertising strategy
The big man from Queensland has certainly grown his brand in the lead-up to Saturday's federal election, and Edge's Nicole Gardner says it's all thanks to Byron Sharp.
There’s nothing like a hotly contested federal election to boost ad sales. No matter where we’ve sourced our news in the past month, from TV to newspaper, digital to radio, we’ve been slammed with political advertising, content, messages and yes, even video games.
Leading this trend is Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party. By 12am Thursday, it is anticipated that Clive has invested close to $60m to get his message out there and that’s just the ATL ballpark.
Looking at Clive’s communications strategy, it would seem he has wholeheartedly bought into the philosophy of How Brands Grow, the seminal book by Byron Sharp. Sharp’s fundamental tenet is based on the concept of physical and mental availability, and consumers’ capacity to absorb a brand’s message. It seems that Clive has taken notes.
Physically he’s omnipotent. Like a Tesla in Ludicrous mode, he’s come from nowhere to blow us all away. The United Australia Party is contesting all 151 lower house seats and running for the Senate in the upcoming election.
Mentally, it’s like the yell and sell of the early 90s ‘Doors Doors Doors’ or ‘Rugs Rugs Rugs’ making it impossible to ignore – unlike all the leaflet-giving supporters that have been hounding us at the bus-stops recently.
But Clive’s approach goes even deeper into adhering to the seven principles we’ve learnt from Sharp.
1. Continuously reach all buyers of the category
Clive will never be mistaken as the strong silent type. The UAP advertising materials are loud and proud and everywhere all the time. If there’s a single voter who hasn’t been swamped by Clive and Co’s communications, please stand up.
And just to make sure he doesn’t miss the millennials, Clive even got the jump on his political rivals with the launch of a world-first mobile game app. Collect Tim Tams with Clive as he clashes with the Canberra elite in the light-hearted, retro-style arcade game featuring the likes of Scott Morrison, Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale and many more.
2. Make it easy to buy
While all the other parties are bombarding Aussie voters with advertising messages, they do so without the same ruthless consistency as the UAP. With Clive there is no grey. It’s all black and white. Or black and yellow to be more precise. Repeated again and again, he’s managed to simplify his message so it’s (potentially) easy to buy.
3. Get noticed
Clive’s no-BS, fast-talking approach hits you like a slap in the face. The communication is bold, short and sharp. There’s a liberal (pardon the pun) use of exaggeration and hyperbole to stop us in our tracks.
4. Build memory structures
On this one, Clive has taken a slightly more unorthodox approach of building on Trump’s memory structures. The similarities between ‘Make America Great Again’ and Clive’s ‘Make Australia Great’ are obvious. Nowhere in the brand bible does it say borrowed interest isn’t a valid way to build your brand and short-cut the path from your message to the consumer’s memory.
5. Use distinctive assets
This is where Clive has been particularly clever. Despite the fact the Palmer United Party disintegrated when the last sitting member failed to retain their seat in the 2016 election, the party continues to leverage the distinctive party yellow across all channels.
Added to that we’d be remiss not to also call out Clive himself as distinctive. (Whether or not he’s an asset we’ll know by Sunday).
6. Be consistent
Drifting off message is not a concern in Clive’s camp. This is a campaign built on repetition and a singular focus of putting Australians first to Make Australia Great.
7. Stay competitive
The UAP claims to offer Australians a host of real or imagined solutions to economic management, taxes, housing, employment, and even climate change. His relentless take-no-prisoners approach is consistently competitive.
Whatever the result on Saturday and the success of Clive and the UAP, Byron Sharp should be proud. The big man from Queensland has certainly grown his brand.
Nicole Gardner, executive director of account management, Edge
Nothing cerebral about what Clive’s done. You throw $60m at all available media channels and you’ll grow your brand, too!
User ID not verified.
Clive Palmer’s strategy is Byron Blunt. Brute force advertising.
User ID not verified.
Can’t help thinking we are missing something here. This article is a bit like saying “5 things brands could learn from Hitler and the Nazis party”. I don’t care how much Clive Palmer spends or how he does it when the messaging is so worrying. Do we really want to herald a dumb down Trump wanna be in any way?
User ID not verified.
@Rosscoe – have you actually read Sharp’s “How Brands Grow”?
Viewing Palmer’s campaign through the lens of Sharp’s work is a worthwhile exercise.
Instead of invalidating any comparative analysis, Palmer’s $60m spend corresponds with a key implication of Sharp’s tenets: when it comes to media spend, go hard or go home.
While most ad-land folk will undoubtedly envy his budget and be horrified by his “creative”, Palmer’s brand strategy is highly effective.
User ID not verified.
Shame he’s not making advertising great again
User ID not verified.
It will be interesting to see what his Cost Per Acquisition will be… three seats at that budget is a $20M CPA.
Oof.
User ID not verified.
We’re not missing anything – it’s not an endorsement, its an analysis of a political campaign marketing strategy. You can analyse a strategy without endorsing its content. I would say there are 5 things that marketers could learn from the Nazi party – that doesn’t mean we endorse its content. I don’t like Coke – I think I can learn from them.
Some bozo said: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.
User ID not verified.
You may be right – but still a revelation to a lot of marketers. Standard brief at the moment appears to be: “Our brand needs to be famous/iconic, but we have almost no media budget. Can we do that McWhopper thing but – not in a way that will scare our board”.
User ID not verified.
It is possible that Palmer will not win a seat in the senate. So we will see if you CAN just buy votes very soon. However what his campaign has done is swung a wrecking ball through the reputation of Bill Shorten by consistently and relentlessly attacking him. If you are saying a successful strategy is to knock out the leading brand, can you do it with lies as he has done? Lies do not apply in a political campaign but if someone were to apply Palmer’s strategy and attack say Coca Cola, like Palmer’s campaign has done to Shorten, they would be in the courts faster than you can say ‘Clive Palmer for the senate’.
User ID not verified.
This is the election that will change everything.
There’s the “underground” campaigns – Doctors, Real Estate Agents and others running their specialised email campaigns along with some Employers (“if Labor wins I don’t know how many of you I can keep employing…”)
The rise of Independents (not just Phelps and Steggle but more widely) with strong, organised grass-roots support.
The first campaign where GetUp! has fully flexed its muscles with more volunteers than the other parties combined.
And the money. Aah, the money.
The Libs will be watching Wentworth without Malcolm’s $1,75m, but there’s also the rise of Social Media campaigns – directly impacting MSM in the future.
Most important. Campaign Directors will be asking for bigger budgets “give us $100M” and some groups (possibly including Parties) will be advocating election expenditure be severely curtailed. (“we must never allow a Party to buy their way in”).
This debate will continue for some time.
There is already legislation around allowable expenditure, clearly ineffective.
User ID not verified.
Gummo, not to rain on your parade but we can’t judge how “great” he’s making advertising until we see the result. If he wins a majority and becomes PM then his advertising was truly great.
User ID not verified.
I’ve never read an article that so succinctly captures the banality of Byron Sharp.
I really hope marketers aren’t learning too much from this. “Just spend more money and hammer bullshit slogans” is hardly where the profession should be heading.
User ID not verified.
Isn’t growth the point?
User ID not verified.
All data we have suggests his campaign has been highly ineffective in shifting perceptions whatsoever. Obviously the ultimate proof will be how many seats he’s able to pick up, but from what we’ve seen so far what he’s doing isn’t working.
Perhaps a good case study on why Sharp’s methodology just doesn’t work in 2019 (or does, as stated, the results aren’t in yet), with consumers over-saturated with messaging and highly cynical of advertising in general.
As others have said above, there are also a lot of more modern, personalised marketing efforts going on this election campaign under the surface – will be interesting to see whether spray & pray still beats target & entice.
User ID not verified.
I would argue Palmer scored low results in the election because he DIDN’T follow the Sharp approach. The real problem is people think HBG is all about mass advertising and blunt force when it’s a lot more nuanced than that.
And the Palmer results in this election show he didn’t apply the approach at all and its been a costly exercise if the goal was representation in parliament.
User ID not verified.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing Ben. Agree that HBG is likely more nuanced, but it would seem that the core premise is mental and physical availability and targeting to everyone with a vote, which was a resounding fail in this instance. I’d love it if you could unpack the nuance UAP missed. Also, do you work at Ehrenberg-Bass Institute or just a fan of HBG? Would be great to hear an informed outline of where UAP got it wrong, even if in hindsight.
User ID not verified.
Palmer’s overarching strategy was a complete “stitch up” of the Australian people and our democratic processes. Spend $50M+ on advertising, place a candidate in every electorate, create grabbing headline “policies”, generate fear amongst vulnerable demographic groups and the clincher was the preference deal with the LNP……..his sole purpose was to ensure the LNP retained power to protct his own interests and smooth the way for his $6B+ mining projects in the Galillee Basin……well done Clive you fooled a lot of us but not all!
User ID not verified.
The yellow was inescapable. It was a graffiti target but maybe that was recognition too? He had great differentiation. Impossible to mistake his form for anyone but Aussie John. Oh hang on.. wrong big boofy guy. But anyway, it totes worked. And Rupert was getting some of the money online so there’s an upside: we’ll get tax dollars out of Clive…. Hang on.. Rupert probably has a Caymans line on his ad revenue. Oh well.
User ID not verified.
Well, here we are.. he successfully destroyed labor.
User ID not verified.
So, here we are after the election and time to look at the ROI.
Hmmm. Nil.
Still, grew the brand, I’m aware of it now, just didn’t buy it.
User ID not verified.
It may be post-hoc rationalised logic (ie bullshit) but Clive said he was happy. As an ex – JoH flak he might well be, because he sucked a protest vote out and then shipped it back into the LNP.
What stands out head and shoulders is he drove other ads off papers and tv and billboards. He outbid. Sometimes it’s not brand recognition, it’s brand displacement.
User ID not verified.
Palmer achieved everything he wanted from his election advertising.
he helped ensure a Coalition win and he did it by not having to enter Parliament himself. he couldn’t be happier.
User ID not verified.
What a bloody waist of $$$.
User ID not verified.
What’s large very and now politically unimportant?
An irrelephant.
Bye Clive: strategy matters, execution too. Double fail.
User ID not verified.