If team Yes fails, the blame should fall on the campaign managers
With a sinking feeling in his stomach, freelance researcher Daniel Bluzer-Fry scrutinises the Yes campaign’s marketing strategy.
I’m still not totally convinced. I imagine Yes will get across the line, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Australia ended up voting No once all is said and done.
Let’s start with the obvious. The nature of this survey – being both postal and optional – hasn’t done team Yes any favours. This design creates greater barriers for younger people – 70% of those aged 18-34 are in favour of SSM according to data – to successfully cast their vote in comparison older, more conservative cohorts within the Australian population. Pretty basic insight.
But hold on, the polls are reporting that Yes is going to win comfortably aren’t they? How did the polls go predicting Brexit and Donald Trump? Polling has many challenges. From sampling methodology through to people not always reporting honestly to pollsters. The latter is far more prevalent when they’re being asked about sensitive topics, and/or they have a fear of being judged undesirably by an interviewer.
I think it’s fair to say that in the seemingly unlikely case of No getting up, despite the survey design considerations outline above, it would not be unreasonable to put a substantial amount of blame on the Yes campaign managers.
Why does the design of the vote create barriers for younger people to successfully cast their vote? Is it because young people are too stupid to know how to post a letter? Or too lazy? If either is true, they probably shouldn’t be voting anyway. And if the postal survey is imperfect because it is voluntary, why did Labor, the Greens and “team Yes” oppose so vigorously the compulsory plebiscite?
There’s some good analysis around barriers in this article Johnny: http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....802756b380
In terms of your final question (a tad confused as opposition was not about it being voluntary but rather opposition towards the pleb in general), a central plank of reasoning against it – as anybody with half a measure of common sense would have anticipated – was that some nasty/hurtful stuff would come up (it has). Stuff that is pretty damaging to kids of same sex couples and LGBT children. Of course there’s political point scoring going on around it too, but I can’t say I’ve met anybody who has been able to dispute the validity of the first point.
Why not use myGov? That way there’s no funny business with regards to ballots going missing and can be done much more quickly.
Why did Labor and the Greens oppose a compulsory plebiscite? Because having any kind of public vote on this is legally unnecessary and had the potential to cause harm.
Quite. Been thinking the same thing myself.
This could possibly be Australia’s Brexit vote/Trump vote, when the one that’s not predicted to win actually wins.
Brexit and Trump’s win were choreographed perfectly. A few weeks out it was kinda unquestionable that Brexit would occur and that Trump would get in and guess what happened? Heaps of ‘remain’ and Hillary voters stayed away.
This is different though. This is personal. This is about rights. We shall see…
The biggest issue I have with all the money spent on campaigning is that what I have seen most is the simple message: Vote yes. How is this meant to discourage those who are already no voters? How is telling people which box to tick meant to sway thought and challenge ideas and fixed ways of thinking?
At least put a proposition into the message. Make a point that challenges people’s minds. Stop simply saying “Vote Yes”. It doesn’t work!!!!
In my recent local (Inner West council) polls, Labor candidate Darcy Byrne dominated the polls with a simple and single minded message on ALL advertising collateral. It proposed that voting for him will remove night time parking fees immediately. It wasn’t wishy washy or abstract – it was simple and relatable. You didn’t have to wonder “how exactly will he fix the hospitals” or “what does childcare have to do with me”. It was relatable and based on a human truth and insight. We don’t like parking fees or fines. It worked.
Don’t forget the message. Don’t forget to plant an idea, a thought, a statement. “Vote yes” is not enough.
“A yes vote means equality for all Australians”
“Voting yes isn’t a vote against religion it’s a vote for humanity”
(Not the best examples but you get the idea – I don’t have time to brainstorm).
People have made up their minds. The objective is to get them to cast their survey. Much like in US politics – the winner wins by getting their people to vote – not by changing the minds of others.
A reasonable analysis but you overlooked one key factor. The no campaign’s slogan “its ok to say no” is very smart and effective marketing. Regardless of whose side you are on, it is important to recognise what is going on.
Of course. Thanks for calling that out Tony.
That has been a central slogan for the Coalition for Marriage, and very cleverly sits hand in hand with the idea of not telling people what to do (but making them feel comfortable and respected in following their own beliefs). As I mentioned, their strategists will probably be asking for an X-mas bonus for their work regardless of the outcome.
There’s actually been lots of other things I didn’t bring up in detail, like how team Yes has responded to the ‘Widespread and Compulsory’ comms with Dr Kerryn Phelps. Plenty going on, and plenty to thing about and learn from.
To your point, important to recognise what is going on regardless of one’s involvement and political skew.
Thanks for your build.
I think the YES campaign – both the formal one and those espousing yes in social media – have got the message wrong. Sure, love is love and what’s fair is fair, but that’s hardly the point. Homosexuality is already legal in Australia – that horse has bolted – and this is only about whether the state, not the church, can provide legal rights to gay couples. The Yes focus should have been on the legal side, demonstrating the absolute idiocy/hypocrisy of legalising homosexuality, but then not legitimatizing the formal union. Instead, we’ve played into the No camp by making this about beliefs – in effect, a referendum on homosexuality.
actually the thing is that LGBT already have equality they already have civil unions which afford them all the legal rights of any other couple they are fighting a false battle based on deception, a undeserved victim mentality and attempts to make everyone feel guilty if they have a different opinion.
I actually know the aforementioned stock image priest (actually a UCA minister). He’s far less bland than he looks haha.
It would be great if they’d given him more of a mouthpiece to make his well-developed arguments for a YES vote, but I suspect he’s restricted in what he can say.
Thanks for sharing Naveen.
Aside from the nature of the message itself, I think there could have been a great opportunity for team Yes to partner with the clever religious groups out there ( those who realize promoting a no may cause serious headaches in the long term – especially if No wins) to achieve their goals.
If as you note, this gentleman is a UCA minister, shame on those who allowed him to look a tad unconvincing in the TVC and Print Ads. Could have been solved with a reference to who he actually is being written in text!
Cheers
First of all there was no significant “polling miss” in either Brexit or Trump. The miss was in analysts claiming neither had a chance when the polls were actually quite tight – less than 3-4 point difference. (Remember Clinton still did win the popular vote which the polls predicted)
In all of the SSM polls, the differences are >20%, even after the “tightening”. The commentary of ‘it wouldn’t surprise me if the polls were wrong and the result a NO’ is not based on logic, and is more akin to those who were predicting a surprise Le Pen victory over Macron in the French elections when he was >20 pts ahead in the polls. Macron ended up with twice the number of votes of Le Pen. The polls wold suggest Yes will come out on top similarly, and thus an article such as this is premature.
I reckon your wrong Steve. It’s been well documented that polls have missed the mark on both Brexit and Trump.
There’s a link in the article that goes to the Pew Centre, which explains a number of factors that are believed to have contributed to inaccuracy.
Sure your point about this vote seeming much further apart is valid, but the author has outlined that he thinks it’s ‘seemingly unlikely’ no will win. Probably a smarter position to take than it’s impossible for Yes to lose
Tommy, regarding the US Presidential election, the polls did predict the popular vote (i.e. Clinton by around 2m votes).
The problem is that they didn’t take into account the Electoral College System, which is how Trump became POTUS. The Australian electoral system is simpler so we are less susceptible. When you throw in the way counties within states are drawn and the resulting gerrymander, the US psephologists need to look at their research design to more closely mirror the electoral system.
Regarding Brexit, post-polling shows that there were two factors at play. The turn-out levels with more ‘late-to-decide’ voters being pro-Brexit, plus a last week small swing to pro-Brexit. In essence the mood shifted in the last week and Brexit got up. BUT, I still think they got it wrong in that the predicted pre-poll margin was too wide.
But as a previous poster noted they were within tolerance levels which ‘technically’ gives them a tick.
The presidential polls did take account of the Electoral College. They measured voting intentions by state, among many other factors, and each state has a certain number of votes in the College. The Democrats and the media took it for granted that the ‘Blue Wall’ of states that had voted Democrat in the past were in the bag for Hillary. She didn’t even campaign in Wisconsin, she was so sure of winning there. The Blue Wall states broke for Trump, and the pollsters were left with egg on their face. They got it wrong.
I would as part of the campaign be showing a list / map of the world with countries that allow SSM and countries that don’t allow SSM / ban homosexuality – with a few select ones highlighted (e.g. Saudia Arabia, Islamic state etc, most of Africa) and asked which world we live in?
First world country. First world laws. For everybody.
I think for voters sitting on the fence you’ve got to play the man, that’s what the no campaign have done.
I have to say I agree strongly with the thrust of this opinion piece. As a passionate pro-Yes person, I have been left totally underwhelmed by the quality of the Yes campaign. Too earnest, too soft … far too “nice” frankly. The forces of those who oppose change (not just for this discussion, but for anything that moves Australia on from the 1950s) have out manoeuvred the Yes campaign. I still think Yes will win, but Yes, it could lose. The “Coalition for Marriage” and the “Australian Christian Lobby” (both put in quotes here for good reasons) have been fundamentally dishonest and re-framed the debate on their own terms. And “Yes” have let them do it.
Agree Stephen. But they also had to out manoeuver the Prime Minister first.
The big loser – irrespective of the survey result – is the 43rd Parliament of Australia for wasting $122m because they didn’t have the guts to have a parliamentary vote.
If you hear any more Coalition talk of a budgetary crisis, lend ScoMo a hankie to wipe away his crocodile tears.
Keeping in mind this issue has been voted on four times by our elected representatives already and once already by the people (remember, Labor promised to change the Marriage Act within a month of winning the last Federal Election . . . which they didn’t win), the outcome of this postal vote is irrelevant.
Because whoever loses will complain about how ineffective the vote was and “it was rigged” and blame the unconvincing marketing from both sides.
In the meantime Mumbrella continues to only use opinion pieces which support the “Yes” campaign further demonstrating it’s complete lack of independence on this issue.
Facts are also in short supply on both sides, and many incidents of “Vote Yes” vandalism on buildings are not being reported by the biased media.
Matthew,
In defence of Mumbrella not taking opinions that support No and this demonstrating a lack of independence, you may want to think about the following.
You might find that there aren’t too many people who want to put their full names and reputations on the line with taking a point of view on issues like this in a leading trade publication (I personally err on the side of caution). Respect to the authors who do along with people who have the nerve to put their full names to comments (if they’re going to sledge the author or publication). They’re the ones who should be taken most seriously.
I’d be interested in reading your point of view on why supporting a No vote makes sense from a marketing and social point of view provided you have the integrity to put your full name on it. I’d suspect you may have a few concerns in pulling together a strong argument on this front though based on some of the logic in your previous post.
And also keep in mind that the “man and a woman” was only added when the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 passed the Senate – which was a policy that was not taken to the electorate in the 2001 election.
Do you know that the priest is fictitious? Are you making that accusation without knowing the truth and therefore, putting your opinion in the minds of Mumbrella readers?
This article seems to be ‘preaching to the choir’, which is unfortunate.
The author goes to some length to argue that the ‘Yes’ camp have done a disservice by telling people how they should vote.
Ironically while disparaging the ‘Yes’ strategy the author himself completely ruined any chance he might have had to play in winning the hearts and minds of those currently in the ‘No, but willing to be convinced otherwise’ or ‘undecided’ camps by pathologizing the ‘No’ camp’s points of view and strategy as nasty. The aforementioned groups clearly believe that the ‘No’ camp might not be entirely incorrect in the points they make (political correctness going mad is one that stands out as having more than a little traction) otherwise they wouldn’t be in those groups, obviously, and thus the author is in effect also pathologizing the members of those groups by the inference that if you believe anything the ‘No’ camp is putting forward, you too are nasty.
To address the issue about the slippery slope that is widely talked about the ‘Yes’ camp needs to distance itself from the radical voices that don’t try to hide that they see this as only the beginning of much wider change that they will stop at nothing to realise. While the ‘Yes’ camp jumps into bed with anyone espousing more than marriage equality and doesn’t denounce those other voices, people will have reason to believe the ‘No’ camp when they say the slippery slope is an all too real possibility.
“It’s a slippery slope: vote nope.”
Possible campaign slogan for the ‘no’ side?
Good point K that unless the ‘yes’ side can do anything to help address these concerns, constantly repeating that it’s about equality won’t make any difference.
Well, looks like this one spurred some solid discussion. Great to see. Couple of quick ones based on a general read over comments.
Firstly, there was some commentary on polling validity. When I pen a piece like this, I expect that people are going to want to throw things at me and argue with various points I’ve made. I’m all for a good debate – in fact, many of the best lessons I’ve picked up on the journey have come through somebody illuminating a different way of thinking to my own through robust argument. If you’re going to go to the effort to throw things and make a point, please at least do the heavy lifting to reference your thinking. To Tommy’s point, I provided a reference with experts at the Pew centre discussing this in detail. If you believe these experts are wrong, please show me (and everybody else) your evidence – we will all benefit.
Secondly, I found the commentary on this piece about ‘preaching to the choir’ and failing to win the hearts of those wanting to vote no interesting. Based on some of the comments in this thread, I’d start off by saying that I don’t think we’re one homogenous choir … we’re certainly not a choir singing off the same hymn sheet on this particular issue.
I also actually thought I was fairly gentle on team No. After all, I did elect not to label team No an outright pack of liars. Sure I mentioned their tactics were clever (albeit nasty), and I’m more than happy to stand by that given that spurring a moral panic to win a social debate does seem … pretty nasty.
When it comes to ‘irony’ though – and in an effort to lighten things up coming into the weekend – if you’ve been following the news in the last few days, you’ll see that the Australian Christian Lobby’s director, Lyle Shelton has been called out for false claims made about an Orthodox Jewish London School and school curriculums. As the Todd Flanders famously once said “Lies make baby Jesus cry”. Go figure.
Whilst marketing and branding, over time does result in people asking for a ‘Coke’ and does result in Pome’s calling a vacuum cleaner a ‘Hoover’. (I am sure there are many other examples, however I can’t be asked ‘Googling’ them.)
How effective is marketing with a matter like this? Are there truly people on the fence who could be swayed by a TV ad? Who are these people? Surely if people are going to be swayed, it is going to be by their family or peers. It is such a personal poll. It is ingrained within us and isn’t a decision that will be swayed within a month or so, is it?
Oh, hold on though. What if some of the adverts are lies? What if some of the adverts are scaremongering? I guess that could scare people into voting for a specific side? I always find that when the ‘trick’ is fear, then the way to vote is the opposite way. Good over evil, so to speak. I could be wrong?
Thank you for an insightful article. I agree that most of the ‘yes’ campaign messages are preaching to the converted, rather than actually attempting to change people’s minds or sway the undecideds.
The ‘equality’ message doesn’t work because that doesn’t actually address any of the concerns that people on the ‘no’ side have.
Their concerns are about loss of freedom of speech (‘It’s okay to vote no’), the impact on children (what will they teach in schools); the potential negative impacts in society (definition of marriage). All issues that have people genuinely concerned, and can be addressed and influenced if framed the right way by the ‘yes’ side – if they tried.
Interesting article, but I’m struck by your idea that the survey was set up to hinder the younger demographic from taking part. Considering there have been occasional calls for voting to be given an online option. Pen to page, page to envelope, envelope to mailbox – that would have to be more convenient that lining up at the poll on election day. Not as quick as a swipe on a smartphone but surely as convenient as it gets with old-school tech.
You use the word ‘nasty’ to describe No tactics but pass no comment on the vandalism to churches and assaults on No campaigners. These incidents didn’t help the Yes cause at all.