Opinion
‘Never had a chance’: The brutal truth why the ‘Yes’ campaign failed
Australians have voted and three in five rejected the Voice, with only two in five accepting it.
What would have been a great advance for Australia is now another chapter to the sad story of its uncomfortable identity. Howard Parry-Husbands, CEO of Pollinate, explains why the 'Yes' campaign failed.
Australians have voted, and three in five rejected the Voice, with only two in five accepting it. What would have been a great advance for Australia is now another chapter to the sad story of its uncomfortable identity.
My neighbourhood had plenty of ‘Yes’ posters but not a single ‘No’ poster. In media terms, the ‘Yes’ campaign had more out of home awareness and overt public support. So why didn’t it work? And what role did advertising and communications play in delivering the campaign’s final result?
The ABC’s Laura Tingle puts it bluntly – “There was no simple message from the ‘Yes’ campaign” – and in an Australian media landscape long dominated by simplistic three-word slogans, that is the awkward truth.
The ‘No’ campaign was built on a proven strategy: doubt, divide and conquer. It used all of the arts and science of advertising perfectly. A clear and consistent message of doubt about the details, the design, and the dollars. It’s a proven strategy that has seen the likes of the American Republican Party into power previously.
The ‘No’ campaign framed it as, fundamentally, the Voice was “unfair” by saying it wasn’t right to grant a small minority special privileges that everyone else didn’t have. What about the Greeks? The Italians? They said it’s unfair to treat people unequally – and that of course is a fundamental aspect of Australian identity, isn’t it? A fair go, fair dinkum and all that.
Uncertainty creates fear and it becomes the galvanising force. Pollinate’s data showed high agreement with fear of losing out, fear that it might make things worse. Essentially it became a fear of being fearful itself.
The ‘Yes’ campaign really only had one problem: it lacked a strategy. It was clear that the Voice would be opposed from the beginning and so the ‘Yes’ strategists simply needed a plan to ensure uncertainty and fear of change would not derail the campaign.
Instead, the ‘Yes’ campaign opted for a powerfully evocative message of hope. An appeal to people’s emotions. An appeal anchored in evoking a sense of equality and fairness. But the ‘No’ campaign was telling people that the Voice was unfair and would divide us even further. The bitter irony here is that the ‘Yes’ campaign literally reinforced the ‘No’ campaign message.
The brutal truth is that the ‘Yes’ campaign never had a chance without a strong, evidence-based strategy. It was all heat and no light. And in the shadows of our fears, the ‘No’ campaign’s persistent whispers flourished.
If there’s one thing those of us in the advertising, media and marketing profession can learn from the ‘Yes’ campaign, it is that evoking an emotional response without a well-considered strategy and plan will end in tears, unintended consequences and a waste of all of your money. It’s time to put the strategy back. Because as we’ve seen, hope without strategy is hopeless.
But beyond our industry, all Australians need to deeply consider the consequences of this outcome. For the 40% of ‘Yes’ supporters and allies, now is the time to keep courage that the cause for justice and fairness is ongoing. Hope springs eternal and young people were much more likely to vote yes, so it is by no means over yet.
Howard Parry-Husbands is the CEO of Pollinate
You raise an excellent point in here that I haven’t seen raised before. The same people who love to celebrate Australia’s multiculturalism are the same people who genuinely believe that only white racists voted No. It is clear from the results that other ethnic minorities voted No as well.
It’s a fascinating question that no one is yet to ask, nor answer. Why have CALD communities been ignored so much during this campaign?
User ID not verified.
Only stupid people will vote No.
Only racists will vote No.
Only the power of disinformation can and did influence people to vote No.
If you vote No you are opposed to Reconciliation.
This perspective from the Yes side alienated so many voters who want nothing less than improved health, education, wellbeing and economic prospects for First Nations peoples.
Analysts still don’t get it.
Many Australians understand the fundamentals of the Constitution and did not desire to change it without detail. Recognition of Indigenous peoples in the Constitution was generally desired; establishing a ‘third chamber’ of any kind without detail was considered undesirable.
Many Australians understand that a regulated or legislated approach could have delivered a Voice able to be judged on its merits in determining its ongoing place and role. This might have been an interim approach validating the concept.
Voters in the main were not conned, and there is no evidence that any strategy influenced the electoral outcome to the degree many commentators and Yes campaigners suggest.
Australia did not reject Reconciliation as an imperative. The needs still exists. The time to divide is over. Rather than dwelling on a opportunity missed, the power and creativity of our industry should promote alternative means of redressing a national inadequacy.
User ID not verified.
The public rejected it because airbus albo is a reject, that’s it.
He cannot be trusted. Lies lies and more lies.
User ID not verified.
I like what you wrote and think my perspective complements your analysis. As someone who was initially Yes” but later changed to “No”, At all times I interestingly, I was with the majority of Australian
To begin, most Australians and major parties supported “Yes”, so I also did, so did most Australians. However, as time moved all we all started shifting toward “No”.
Achieving success in a referendum requires a unified, well-supported proposal. Constitutional conventions allow all perspectives to be heard and addressed. Fraser was effective because he made proposals clear-cut and limited in scope, having first gained agreement from almost all in the convention. Labor should have learned from this approach. Now its interesting that the Labor spokesman after the even said we should have called a Constitutional convention, a bit late I reckon.
Now also a large segment of Australians, perhaps 20%, felt apathetic toward the issue. With compulsory voting, these indifferent citizens are compelled to vote on matters they do not care about. Is it any wonder they defaulted to “No”?
Those more engaged understandably sought clarification. Questions around future implications and the body’s powers deserved direct, unambiguous answers. Instead, responses like “we don’t know exactly but will work it out later” were hardly reassuring. Claims it may effect non-Indigenous issues also left concerns unresolved.
When asked if it constituted a “racial body”, got cryptic replies that could be summarised as “Yes”. Frightening potential outcomes outlined by some advocates of the Voice only heightened unease.
With defeat looming, a delay should have been called to allow proper refinement rather than charging ahead with implausible statements minimizing valid worries voters raised, as you pointed out too.
In the end, referendums are always difficult, but incompetent communications and lack of consensus certainly contributed to this half-billion dollar failure. Someone should answer for this.
User ID not verified.
You have completely misread the No vote and the Yes camp seems destined to make the same mistakes.
1. Since there are so many Aboriginal representatives, committees and programs, people doubted that one more would make the difference, especially Indigenous people are not one people but 300 tribes.
2. Bipartisan support is essential. However, the only difference between legislating a Voice and putting it in the Constitution, is that the latter can prevent the Liberal Party from disbanding it. It does not make sense to expect bipartisan support when a policy is aimed directly at controlling and wedging the opposition party. (PS. I’m an old Labor and Green voter).
3. People were spooked by the Uluru Statement where it talks about a treaty with restitution payments being paid as a percentage of national GDP. Taxpayers have spent many billions already. Does this count at all? If those monies were taken by corrupt Aboriginal elites (as in ATSIC), then that is an Aboriginal problem, not one for taxpayers.
There might have been some attempt to deal with these and other reasonable concerns I heard from people, but the Yes camp response was just a repetitious cycling of – “generous”, “no risk”, “ignorant”, “stupid” and “racist”. Clearly many Yes advocates had not read Dale Carnegie.
Insulting, shaming and guilt-tripping is the worst way to convince others. In fact, such accusations are not even interested in convincing, but inflaming and scoring brownie points within a social bubble.
If the referendum dealt with recognition only, it would have won easily.
User ID not verified.
Intuitively I’d assume that the other ethnic minorities would be a tough audience for Yes campaign. If your immigrant parents/grand parents arrived with nothing and had to make their own way without much help, I reckon you think others should be able to do it too – it predisposes you to a ‘it’s their own fault’ view of First Nation disadvantage (but doesn’t mean you wouldn’t try to convince them)
User ID not verified.
Totally not surprised that members of the left immediately come out and make excuses for why the referendum failed so badly. The ‘Yes Campaign’ failed, because people didn’t want it. It wasn’t because of strategy or anything like that, it also is a little unethical and cynical to say that the only reason why it failed was because the ‘Yes Campaign’ just didn’t brainwash people effectively.
Nearly every single ‘Yes Campaign’ advocate who has commented on the failure since Saturday has continued to completely disregard the legitimate concerns of ‘no’ voters. After COVID however, I shouldn’t be surprised, as that’s what everyone did then as well.
User ID not verified.
There was also a division within the Indigenous Community – something that needs more discussion. Warren Mundine should have shown up on Q & A to answer his critics. But we also had Michael Mansell, Heather Sculthorpe and Maggie Walter all against the idea of the Voice; read the January 2023 article on the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre’s website. Are they racist? Or are their objections something to have been given more consideration? I think that the lack of cohesion in the Indigenous Community did not help the Yes vote.
I voted Yes as I thought it was the right thing to do.
Let’s see what happens now.
User ID not verified.
Agreed. There was no clear strategy and plan to combat misinformation. And what was produced was so often so over-produced and in-authentic
User ID not verified.
Your analysis assumes the success or failure of the competing advertising and communications campaigns determined the outcome of the referendum.
Please consider the theoretical possibility that a majority of voters can and did think for themselves when deciding which way to vote.
Your analysis also seems to assume the voters ‘got it wrong’.
Please also consider the possibility that the serious fundamental mistake was not the outcome, but the decision to conduct this referendum.
And as a final note, you would be wrong to assume from this comment that I voted NO. My decision to vote YES was a very difficult one, ultimately based on the reasoned conclusion that in the cirumstances presented a YES vote was the lesser evil.
User ID not verified.
Because it’s been politicised from day one, unashamedly by both sides. You’re either a loud and proud YES voter or a racist bogan. CALD audiences were the silent majority who had no idea what they were voting for or against. When you don’t know, you vote no.
User ID not verified.
And your evidence for this is ? And no chance at all Yes could have provided information it was asked for ?
User ID not verified.