Potential ‘no’ voters are trying to understand The Voice, but Farnesy isn’t helping
Before the 'You're The Voice' campaign, potential 'no' voters were taking a side, but now they are taking a stand. Howard Parry-Husbands, CEO of Pollinate, explains.
Just three weeks ago, John Farnham lent his iconic anthem ‘You’re the Voice’ to the referendum’s ‘Yes’ campaign, in a move that, on paper, totally made sense.
The shared lyrics, nostalgia, and emotion, paired with the campaign, made headlines around Australia, despite the fact that not many people have even seen the ad. It has, however, inflamed the opinions of those that have.
Pollinate’s latest ongoing research on the Voice — conducted in the last two weeks — found that the impact of Farnesy’s TVC has had zero impact, or even a negative influence, on Australians plans to vote on the Voice.
Where before people were taking sides, now they are taking a stand.
Whether or not you support the Voice is not the issue exposed here: the issue is how Australian society is clearly so deeply divided and angry.
Let’s look at the statistics: the “Yes” vote is 35%, the “No” is 44% and the “Undecided” are 21%.
More importantly, most people think the outcome will be still be a “No” (68%).
And while 20% of people have changed their mind about the Voice at some stage, almost all (68%) have gone from Yes to either “Not sure” or “No”.
If we look a little deeper, it is polarising along progressive-traditional lines: 56% of people who consider themselves progressives are “Yes” voters while 62% of people who consider themselves traditional are “No” voters.
Back to the recent ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br8dB_0z3Fk
Only 28% of people have actually seen it, which is not a lot. Especially when you think about the millions in media spend put behind it, and the ticking countdown to voting day. What’s most interesting about those who saw the ad is that for 90% of people it entrenched their existing views and, unfortunately, didn’t sway any “No” voters.
When we asked people “how did this ad make you feel about the Voice Referendum?” 2% of “Yes” voters said it was negative and 3% of “No” voters said it was positive: literally no change in polarity at all. But it did harden opinions: more than half of the “No” voters said seeing the ad made them feel negatively or very negatively towards the Voice referendum.
To really understand what is going on when the sixth most “Australian song of all time” creates such division, we need to look at the emotional response this ad has evoked: “Yes” voters talk about feeling nostalgic and hopeful, righting past wrongs and being brought to tears, whereas “No” voters are angry that there is no clarity or explanation about such an important issue and resent the overt emotional appeal.
This ad clearly evokes powerful emotions, but the data suggests it has hardened people’s opinions.
Logically this makes sense.
Many voters opposed to the Voice have been made to feel there is not enough detail, they are angry at the lack of clarity for such an important issue. The “No” vote wants clarity not a cuddle.
When someone is angry and bristling for a fight, they need a chance to calm down and listen to reason, they rarely want a hug. The “No” voters are saying they want to try and understand it, but this ad isn’t helping.
The Farnham ad is by all means a beautiful, emotional take – but, in a similar vein to my last piece – this is where the “Yes” campaign needs to fight fire with fire.
The emotion is there, but now Australia needs the “Yes” movement to talk about the positive aspects of the Voice, drive home some strong facts and dial up the education.
The opportunity is still there, and it’s up to us – all of us – to do what we can.
It’s pretty easy to find out if you actually care.
IMO the yes campaign has been terrible. They’ve approached it like they’re trying to convince someone to buy Coke rather than Pepsi. The arguments for yes are very simple and so are the rebuttals to the no campaign. Simple, fact-based ads would’ve been much more effective.
Terribly disappointing.
User ID not verified.
It’s a classic case of marketers letting their own biases influence what they think is effective.
‘Yes’ marketing has been designed by yes voters, for yes voters.
‘No’ marketing has been designed to raise doubt amongst the undecided.
The battle was always the middle ground, and instead of presenting factual based messaging to counter the no narrative, the ‘yes’ camp chose to refer to it as misinformation peddled by racist bogans.
It’s a sad state of affairs for the country, but even more so when we reflect on some of the big name creative minds and agencies who put forward the ideas for the ‘yes’ vote. It shows just how out of touch most in the industry are with how middle, or arguably, most Australians outside of their comfortable suburbs think and feel.
User ID not verified.
Just another marketing mis-step by the Yes campaign which is full of marketing mis-steps. By comparison the No campaign was well organised and clear in it’s articulations and played to the concept of fear of change. The YES camp were out-marketed and out-smarted by the NO camp. Yes vote intentions started at 65% and by the time the Yes camp had finished it has plunged to 35%. Kind of like the primary vote for the major parties.
Farnsey was put into a corner. If he didn’t say yes he would have been labelled a racist and by agreeing to use the song has alienated his fan base many (perhaps most) of whom are NO voters. And if Farnsey and Wheatley volunteered the song without being asked, that was a HUGE mis-step as well cause they have alienated many of their their fans which in their world means money and royalties. Either way it was a lose-lose situation from the outset. Like Qantas, Farnsey should not have gotten involved. He is a singer. Anyone who did not see this obvious train wreck coming should be fired because marketing aint their thing.
The Voice was the wrong song. What they needed was a call to arms type of anthem Like Solid rock by Goanna which lyrically was more relevant to the injustices perpetrated against indigenous people. And it’s a more emotional song as well. It would have played much better to guilt. And it’s also a classic Aussie song. I’m not saying a song would make the difference on its own but it all helps. And songs can and do change peoples feelings if they strike the right chord at the right time.
The Voice song might be very Aussie classic cause it’s Farnsey but it’s pretty light on in terms of message. What is the message of that song anyway? the lyrics are a bit of a garble plus a lot of time singing whoa whoa whoa which might work in a stadium full of sing along fans but isn’t saying anything at all.).
AND we have HEARD IT TO DEATH. We didn’t need or want to hear it again. It’s just lazy marketing. Let’s get the Voice song for the Voice campaign.
User ID not verified.
Three weeks to go and I still have no idea what voting Yes means for me.
User ID not verified.
I don’t have a problem with the concept of a Voice to Parliament – politicians should be listening, but why do we need to amend the constitution again?
The 1967 referendum gave the federal government the power to enact laws for Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islanders – so the power to legislate a Voice to Parliament is already in the constitution – they just haven’t done anything about it for over 50yrs.
It seems like this referendum is just simple virtue signaling for the political class so they can claim Australia has great human rights “we aren’t a racist country, our constitution recognises our indigenous population and they have a constitutional right to speak in parliament”.
User ID not verified.
Great Idea re Solid Rock – what a great message that would have made. So emotive and defiant.
My first thought on seeing The Voice ad was that it made an excellent point about how great Australia used to be and why would we want to change that.
Doesn’t sound like that was the research outcome, but the result is the same.
User ID not verified.
FYI, it’s not about what it means for you – it’s about the traditional owners of this country having a voice in determining their own future. There is plenty of easily accessible information out there if you were genuinely interested in being informed. In a nutshell, the Voice is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders advisory group who will offer advice to the government concerning ATSI people. Just like the 100+ other industry and NGO advisory groups who already have the ear of the Government. The Voice will have no capacity or ability to make laws, determine policy, or speak on behalf of non-ATSI people.
The end.
User ID not verified.
We all live here and will all have to pay for and live with the consequences (intended and unintended) both good and bad, so it is rational and reasonable to ask “what does this mean for me?”.
The answer to that question will be different for everyone.
User ID not verified.
Totally agree. Whether it will be a YES or NO, as soon as I heard The Voice was being used, I thought of the consequences for JF. Not forgetting some of his fan base turning against him and the over-use of his song. Certainly flogged to the extreme. Could have used Icehouse’s ‘Great Southern Land’ or if the campaign was thought through, maybe an indigenous artist/song would have been more appropriate?
User ID not verified.
Forget the marketing campaign… read the bill. It doesn’t give Indigenous people power – at the end of the day, the government decides it all: how the organisation is formed, who’s in it, its powers (currently none). The government can still choose to reject any findings conducted by The Voice. It’s a NO vote.
User ID not verified.