The uncanny relationship between the Brexit and decline of many a creative agency
Who would have thought that the decision by British citizens to exit the European Union would have so may parallels with the struggles of many creative agencies. Daniel Bluzer-Fry explains.
Since Britain made it’s big decision and voted to leave the EU – causing a chain reaction of events that will have knock-on effects everywhere for some time to come – there’s been plenty of commentary about what went wrong for team remain.
One string of commentary has apportioned part of the blame to poor communication on the front of the remain camp. In fact, at the end of last week when the votes had been counted, Claire Beale, editor-in-chief of the UK’s Campaign, published an article titled Brexit vote shows catastrophic failure of communications.
Looking at the situation from Australia – a country with an impending election that will no doubt be impacted by Britain’s decision to leave – this moment in time has provided me with ample opportunity to explain why I believe we’re not only seeing a number of western democracies make a slew of irrational decisions that undermine the wellbeing of the majority, but why we’re witnessing so many creative agencies struggling to adapt to the current state of play and/or finding themselves in decline.
The very notion that ‘communication’ is front and centre when it comes to impacting behavioural change is ridiculous.
The point that Beale makes completely neglects the fact that no matter how good the Remain camp’s communications could have been, there are two sides to the coin, and that the Leave camp’s communications may have been just as effective at gleaning voters’ support and thus leading to the Brexit outcome we have today.
When there’s different products competing in the same category the idea that one brand’s communications can be so good it will be the core driver behind helping consumers identify what they truly need (and/or want) is just silly.
Brands will naturally have different messaging strategies and go to great lengths to avoid messages that they feel reveal weaknesses in relation to their competition, thus leaving the consumer the task of doing the ‘sometimes’* hard work, of assessing and comparing the pros and cons of what is on offer to make the best decision for themselves.
The prevailing attitude that communication is king coupled with this ‘hard work’ of having to assess/compare the pros and cons that people are left with is where it seems to be falling apart when it comes to empowering people to make the ideal choice for them in complex, high stakes categories (think superannuation, personal wealth, democracy etc).
Sure, education is of key importance when it comes to tooling up consumers to make the best call to service their needs, and this is especially vital when people don’t understand the category.
This article is not purporting that communication isn’t central to effective education, but on a more pressing note – and where Cameron and his government really fucked up – is the way the entire referendum was designed.
Smart CX and design thinking could have avoided this catastrophe, just as for many a brand, smart CX and experience design can be the saviour in a low growth world where there is little product/service differentiation.
So how is this so? With the Australian election coming up, I had an interesting experience over the weekend past that really validated my thinking on this one.
Upon catching up with my 92-year-old grandfather, the topic of the Brexit along with a discussion around Australia’s forthcoming election came into focus. When talking about the latter, my grandpa mentioned he has sent a postal vote earlier in the week and mentioned that his votes had gone towards The Australian Sex Party and One Nation (‘the one who worked in the Fish and Chip shop’ was how the latter was recounted).
Now without giving away too much around my political disposition – which I suspect I will have done before the end of this article – what struck me about this, was that at best, once the dust settles, my grandfather’s vote may be a somewhat contrary blip that has had little impact in the overall result, whilst at worst, his vote may leave him, and the bulk of this country, in a worse of position should a certain party claim victory.
Now rather than interrogating his logic and being a disrespectful asshole, I took this as a moment to enquire around how a good-hearted Australian – an Australian who has contributed far more to the country than I probably ever will, having fought across multiple fronts in WWII – could have arrived at this, and garner his thoughts on how we could create mechanisms to ensure his interests are protected when he visits the ballot box in a democracy where voting is mandatory?
Where did we arrive? Let’s just say that that after a relatively simple two-minute discussion, we were in agreement that prior to submitting their vote, all voters should respond to a few simple, politically neutral questions to illustrate their comprehension of what social and economic ramifications of their vote will be**.
If say, there are five questions and all five are answered correctly, than 100% of the vote is counted. If three of five are answered correctly, 60% of the vote is counted. If less than three of five are answered correctly the vote is dismissed, given the voter clearly has no fucking idea about how their vote will impact the country and themselves.
As you can see, this is a design element that actually protects people, and a nation, from the ignorance of others and potentially themselves (not to mention may go some way in reducing the impact of the propaganda that gets pumped out on the airwaves, replacing it with a more positive level of civic participation (although that’s another article).
So on the Brexit front, as the data reveals the many of those who voted Leave were less educated and aware of the consequences of their vote, I ask why, in 2016, with the digital tools and capabilities that exist, that when such a big referendum was going to happen, David Cameron didn’t push for a fool-proof system designed to ensure that the opinions of the uninformed couldn’t shape the outcome?
If he’d done this, the result could have quite possibly been very different. And even if it wasn’t, at least Britain and the world would have been able to take this result seriously (not as a the not-so-funny joke-reality that it has become).
Had these steps been taken, the government could have immunised its population from some of the absurd propaganda that was peddled and prevented people from making an ill-informed decision that may not have been in their best interests.
To go back to Beale’s point on communication, had the referendum design been done in a considered way, irrespective of whether the quality of comms improved or degraded from either the Leave or Remain side, the government would have reduced the prevalence of the bullshit being peddled, because those peddling it would have known damn well that if any people bought into it, the power of their vote would have inevitably been reduced when answering the questionnaire (or idiot screener as I like to say).
Now tying this back to creative agencies, what becomes apparent is that it is this as an industry; there is a penchant to point at communications solutions for business problems. The thing is, as most now recognise, the game has changed substantially in recent years, and is continually evolving.
As Bill Bernbach famously once said: “A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it’s bad.”
In today’s age, that means fully-integrated agencies are better placed then those that have only a few comms capabilities that necessity forces them to pedal, but more significantly, it illustrates the teething problems many of the creative agencies are going through – which is a shift to finding creative ways beyond communications to ensure their clients can yield competitive advantage and grow.
To wrap up, it’s probably fair to say be it within the walls of any creative agency or at the level democratic process, failure to adapt to these new realities is only going to lead to more pain and suffering.
It’s high tide on evolving, given the current state of play, and the stakes are quite simply too high to fuck up … there’s a lot of jobs and people’s livelihoods at stake.
If only Australia had bothered to put more intelligent design into its democratic process then perhaps we’d be more immune to the contagion and fear of Brexit drifting down here and, most probably, leading the Australian people towards re-electing a government that has evidently delivered worse outcomes for the bulk of the population compared with what the opposition would have.
Without sound strategies and processes in place, there’s just too much being left to luck.
Daniel Bluzer-Fry is a CX strategist
*I use the word ‘sometimes’ in relation to category diversity and decision making processes. When we think of low involvement categories, we often employ heuristics and system 1 thinking to guide our decisions. To learn more, I’d highly recommend reading Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow and Sharp’s How Brands Grow.
**I have no intention to discuss the deeper mechanics around the engineering of this ‘question/screener’ process in this article. I am mindful that there are contentious elements at play here, and that clearly a number of additional considerations would have to be factored in to make this equitable for all.
The beauty of democracy is that votes are like assholes….everyone has one.
Whether you studied at Oxford or dropped out of school with no qualifications your vote is equal. Trying to say that because some one is uneducated means their vote doesn’t count is absolute BS.
User ID not verified.
The reason why people voted remain is pepper throughout your article. The lack of respect and almost naked condescension of those supporting Remain to those voting Exit. You characterise those who voted exit as uneducated, and fail remember that less education (especially tertiary and beyond) doesn’t always mean less intelligent. You characterise their position as irrational and fail to even consider the arguments put forward by the Exit campaign. Independence, sovereignty and autonomy are rational arguments. They have trade offs of course. But people weighed those trade offs and decided that independence was preferable to the benefits offered by continued codependency with Europe.
In addition to voting for independence the UK also voted against the technocratic nature of the EU. They voted against the assumption that highly educated but unelected bureaucrats in Brussels know what is best for them than they do themselves. The same assumption is implicit in this article.
If you don’t recognise this assumption and if you don’t respect those who disagree with you, you will continue to lose these kinds of elections.
User ID not verified.
Additionally, your information test for voters is a disgusting idea. Many citizens of many countries around the world are not well educated or have the resources to be well informed. Should women in Sub-Saharan African countries like Burkina Faso be barred from voting because they are not fully informed? Should their votes count only half as much as men’s because they recieved only half as much education?
The right to vote is the defining fundamental right of democracy. and should not be infringed or diminished under any circumstances. Low information voters present a problem, but the solution should not be a violation of the inalienable right to vote and have it count as much as everyone else’s.
User ID not verified.
Fantastic, let’s implement something that’s not only controversial but undemocratic. Your idea essentialy restricts people of lesser intelligence, most likely from a poor socio-economic background, the right to have a full vote. There are many problems with this.
Here’s a more achievable suggestion: why not target the underpresented youth who didn’t show up to vote, a group sizeable enough to bring the vote to Remain?
User ID not verified.
I get what the author is trying to say here but I fail to see why his grandpa’s vote for the Sex Party was indicative of a bogan or uninformed vote. As far as I read it they are trying to get voluntary euthanasia legal, as well as taxing and legalising marijuana as per Colorado and six other US states. I think they also go for marriage equality and taxing religious institutions. I’m sorry but your grandpa seems pretty enlightened actually.
User ID not verified.
Perfectly captures the thinking of an inner city socialist; everyone is free to vote, but unless you do it like me you’re wrong. I don’t think smart CX design can disguise this opinion.
User ID not verified.
I also think the author has forgotten what the C stands for in CX.
CX is designed to help the customer. The voting process is currently far from perfect with more boxes to number than is imaginable, adding 5 questions will only frustrate people even more and turn them off from voting.
User ID not verified.
Hi Fraser,
Not trying to suggest that people should not have the right to vote, and as per my second asterisk, I appreciate that there are contentious elements into how you would design such a system as to ensure those from all strata of society are encouraged to engage with the democratic process and that the process is one that is equitable for all.
Also, I’m not saying that ‘just because somebody is uneducated their vote doesn’t count’. There are people who are well educated who have absolutely no idea about the implications of their vote when it comes to the economic and social ramifications, and I am saying that if somebody doesn’t understand the consequences of this, then it could be at both their own peril and that of others for them to have their opinion counted. I know that when I’m forced to give an opinion on something I don’t know about, I usually preface it with a warning that I don’t know, and my opinion shouldn’t count for anything. Perhaps if more of us were comfortable taking that line, there would be far less bullshit in the world and far better decisions made on a number of fronts.
User ID not verified.
Can we just use the age old excuse of ‘nobody understands their audience’?
Also The Australian Sex Party and One Nation are on different ends of the spectrum. Seriously what was with the vote? It’s EXACTLY like the people who voted to leave and then had to Google what the EU was.
Horrified.
User ID not verified.
Hi ‘TrafalgarSquared’,
Thanks for your commentary – clearly you’re highly engaged and I’m glad that the contentious nature of the article has spurred discussion with readers like yourself. In terms of understanding where your coming from, I couldn’t quite get the opening line of your first comment, but I have assumed you’re angling that my piece in condescending to those who voted leave, and tried to make best sense possible of some other parts of your post. Please excuse me if I have misinterpreted anything.
There’s a couple of things that I’d like to take the opportunity to respond on:
1) To the answer that I gave Fraser (the first comment), I am in agreement with you that less education doesn’t always mean less intelligent. That said, my reference to ‘education’ is specific to the category. In terms of intelligence and comprehension of political, social and economic outcomes of a vote like the Brexit referendum, I don’t think it would be tenuous of me to say that those people with higher education and formal qualifications would most likely have a better comprehension of the consequences of their vote then those who do not have the former. The data indicates that there was a clear skewness between remain and leave voters on this front. Clearly this is an issue, and in an ideal world, we’d work to equip people from all levels of society with accessible and engaging information about the consequences of their vote to foster greater civic participation.
2: To the above point – along with other parts of your commentary – I will again reference the 2nd Asterix in the article. Engineering a system such as the one I have skirted would be far from a simple process – it would require steps outside of purely creating the voting mechanisms, such as empowering those marginalised members of society with understandable, reliable information so they can understand the issues and consequences at play, and vote in their own interests. To be fair, your reference to Burkina Faso is challenging to accept purely because of the economic, cultural and social differences between a developing sub-saharan African country compared with the developed Western democracies that we are fortunate enough to live in today.
There’s a bit more I’d like to say, but given I’ll probably elaborate on some of the other thoughts I have when I respond to some of the other comments that have been made, I’ll leave it there. If you want, please find me on Linkedin and I’ll be happy to continue the discussion in more depth. Also, always good to put a name to what you write and your own opinions.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Hi Cameron,
To your first point, please see some of my responses to the first two comments. I recognise the inherent challenge of creating this system and process in a way that doesn’t disadvantage those more marginalised members of society who don’t understand what is at play. This is why I put the 2nd asterisk in the article – to avoid the thread spinning off into a discussion of how such a system could/would work.
Your second point is very valid. It’s amazing to think that so many young people who will invariably be impacted by such a decision didn’t show up on the day.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Hi Bob, not at all having a go at the Aus Sex Party. It was the other party he mentioned that clearly rang the alarm bells. Not a fan of the Xenophobic bullshit that One Nation pedal at all.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Hi C-xit?
Reckon you’ve missed this one – and badly. I don’t have an issue with the what people choose vote for (choice is fundamental to democracy) – I have an issue with people voting for things when they have little to no idea about what the consequences of their vote may be.
On a sidenote, interesting to see that most people have chosen to talk about the contentious elements around politics etc rather than creative agencies and the challenges they face. As noted earlier, always good to put your full name behind any comments or opinions.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Here it all is once again, the reasoning, the platitudes, the politics and the so called practical logic.
The vote will be a great leveler as always, because there are intelligent and unintelligent people everywhere, both educated and uneducated, each and every one of which, believes that he/she/ those who would be one or the other, those who are both, and those who are not sure, knows what is best for all.
The mystery box example is nearest to the truth, just as it was with our latest referendum on the possibility of becoming a republic; except that thank goodness there were not enough of them to tip it over, as the loony voters went for the undecided future, and voted to change to the probably irreversible unknown, just because they had been told by those who’s joy it is to stir up the loonies, that this was their chance to get rid of the queen, her influence and her head from our coinage. That is all it took to make them vote yes. Fortunately, common sense prevailed.
User ID not verified.
Okay fellow Mumbrellites,
More than happy to engage with any comments left on the page – pertaining to democratic process or the challenges creative agencies face at this moment in time.
That said, the former has elicited some strong opinions and heated dialogue directed towards myself. More than comfortable with this, but I will not respond to any comments made without the author providing their full name for obvious reasons.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Hi Fraser,
Whilst I’ll agree with you on the fact that the box situation is far from ideal, I’ll politely disagree on the CX front given CX relates to the entire customer experience – which would include the consequences that arise as a result (be it an exit from the EU or the duration of a political term. Service adoption is just one phase, and if a few extra questions make for a better long term experience for the majority, I’d think they’d be worthwhile.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
As I mentioned, it’s these participants – good hearted people who are unaware of the consequences of their vote – that I fear for … hence my decision to write the article.
We live in a crazy world …
DBF
User ID not verified.
“I have an issue with people voting for things when they have little to no idea about what the consequences of their vote may be.”
Isn’t that the basis of each parties campaign – presenting the “consequences” of not voting for them? And isn’t it easier now for the parties to target and tailor their message to make sure that people that they want to be aware of these consequences are? So isn’t everyone quite aware of “consequences” already and choose to vote based on what they wish to occur? I’m not sure how you could ever qualify critical thought.
In the Brexit example, there is no way to know if anyone will get to say ‘I told you so’, and in any case the very act of observing this experiment will affect any result, so I have to agree with some commenters that say it is a rather arrogant view you take that the result was only due to “uneducated” voters. They were educated by the campaigns and their life up until that point. If you are saying that it’s not fair that the result happened because people were lied to, who are you to decide what is considered true?
From a CX point of view in regards to elections, this reminds me of how the Republican party raised the cost of participation for elections for minorities in order to win, or how their caucuses are designed to raise the ‘quality’ of voter turnout by being time consuming and archaic. Do you see the similarities in what you are proposing?
Great thought provoking article though and more of this Mumbrella.
User ID not verified.
I won’t be putting my name to these posts. Being quite junior in the industry to attatch my name to an opinion would be unwise.
I dont think it bears much more discussing. In short I believe that voting is an inalienable right. You believe that that right should be negotiable.
Rather than (or to be generous in addition to) recommend educating people, your instinct was to take away or diminish people’s vote.
These are the first steps down the path that leads to tyranny and despotism.
This may not be what you meant but this is certainly how it comes across and how most readers will interpret it.
User ID not verified.
I’m also very uncomfortable with the presumptive elitism some commenters have implied this article promotes, however I don’t think this is what the author was intending at all (as confirmed in follow-up comments).
We in fact already have a system in place that serves as a safeguard against simple majority (mob) rule, one that protects those minority groups from potentially harmful legislation: it’s called representative parliamentary democracy. Our ‘one-person-one-vote’ system actually elects legislators: it doesn’t decide on individual policies (or at least, cf. the imminent plebiscite on same-sex marriage, it shouldn’t).
That’s up to our representatives whom – as (supposedly) informed individuals devoting their professional lives to understanding complex policy implications – we elect to make decisions on our behalf, while we’re busy getting on with our daily lives. Are those in favour of simple majority rule here saying our current system is wrong? If so, should every adult citizen go to a compulsory vote on every single policy issue, local, state and federal? Or just some? Which ones? And how would anyone ever do any other work?
Expertise on any issue, especially one as intricately Byzantine as foreign/trade/immigration etc. policy, is extremely important, and it comes from being able to devote enough time to think the ramifications through, something most people don’t have because they have to put food in the fridge and pay the mortgage/rent. Would you let Joe Bloggs give you a double heart bypass? How about take the controls of the 747 you’re travelling on? Of course not: we leave those things to people who have devoted enough time to getting them right. Why not extremely complex public policy?
User ID not verified.
Hi Mikko,
Firstly, thanks for engaging in the discussion and putting your name behind your thoughts – it takes courage to engage in politicised debates in an accountable way.
To your comments, upon revision of the piece, one thing I feel was perhaps slightly remiss of me was to say ‘uneducated voters’ instead of more clearly articulating that those who voted leave were relatively less educated to those who voted remain – this is what the data tells us. Just to reinforce my p.o.v on this, please read over my first reply to Fraser.
Beyond that, in response to your comments, I will respectfully disagree with the points you make such as “Isn’t that the basis of each parties campaign – presenting the “consequences” of not voting for them?” and “isn’t everyone quite aware of “consequences” already and choose to vote based on what they wish to occur?”
You clearly seem engaged in American politics from the tail end of your comment. To your point on ‘presenting consequences’ and people being ‘aware’ of what will happen if a party is elected, I’ll bring into focus none other than the way the Donald has been operating during his tilt at the Republican nomination. The Donald has frequently contradicted (and chopped and changed) his position on a variety of issues, which to another of your points, has been largely done to target different audiences and win their approval. Just because a politician / political party preaches their beliefs, it doesn’t mean that what their saying isn’t complete bullshit.
To the above point, when I say ‘consequences’ in my piece, I’m angling at a more objective, politically neutral and definitive outcomes, but again – and it’s getting a bit tiresome referring back to asterisk #2 now – I did not write this article (an article in a marketing publication) to discuss minutia of detail around how something like this would work and don’t intend on going into such details in this forum given this was never my intention.
Thanks for your commentary, and again, I tilt the hat to the fact that you’ve done so in an accountable manner.
Cheers
DBF
User ID not verified.
Could not agree more James White. I have never understood why such a complex matter of the UK’s membership of the EU was put in the hands of Joe public to decide. Only experts that work in that sphere day in day out would have some real understanding of what is best for the nation. Alternatively as we’ve just done in the UK, we can ask Barry from the local fruit and veg shop what he thinks we should do, brilliant….
If we must vote on these issues directly rather than through a general election, voters do need to be properly educated but i would suggest rather than qualifying the voters level of education at the ballot box as suggested in this article, we should simply focus on the source by having a system in place to prevent unsubstantiated claims being made by the campaigns. 7 days into Brexit and so far we’ve learnt that actually the 350mill won’t now be funnelled directly into the NHS (although i think people were quite gullible in believing that would be the case) and the immigration / freedom of movement is unlikely to change much, so people have largely voted emotionally based on untruths.
User ID not verified.
I don’t even understand what the screener would contain, as nobody truly knows the consequences of Brexit yet… Some argue it’s short term pain, with potential for long term gain, some say it’s pain all around, and some experts will simply confess we are just set for a longer period of uncertainty.
But regardless of the consequences you talk about, there are perfectly rational arguments for the people of the UK to vote to leave the EU. You, or I, may disagree with these reasons, but it doesn’t make us more rational than those voters. As someone else pointed out, sovereignty, independence and autonomy are all rational reasons, and there are also perfectly logical arguments around less bureaucracy and more local decision making, and simply, being against un-democratically elected officials determine your destiny.
No matter how you spin it, at the end of the day, your ideas are incredibly undemocratic. And it doesn’t surprise me that your reaction to a perfectly sensible argument previously posted here is to ask for their real name.
User ID not verified.
Hi James,
Thanks for your commentary and engagement, along with your willingness to be accountable for your commentary. I also appreciate that you’ve evidently taken the time to read many of the comments so far that in some cases I feel have allowed me to better clarify my point of view on this.
I’ll keep my response tight given this isn’t what I intended this forum to focus on. I think you make some good points, and I’m certainly not against the idea of majority rule in advanced western democracies – but I also think that we can improve the entire system on a number of fronts. That said – and interestingly StevieB’s response to your comment hints at this – but I think that such an initiative could have the potential to improve the quality (and level of accountability) for what comes out of the “‘supposedly’ informed individuals devoting their professional lives to understanding complex policy implication”. This would hopefully go some way in reducing a lot of the propaganda and unsubstantiated claims that gets bandied around which shapes voters’ decision at the ballot box.
Happy to discuss more although not in this forum. Please feel free to connect with me on Linkedin.
Best
DBF
User ID not verified.
So in Britain’s case then you could say life experience beat standardized education. I would accept that as a legitimate outcome, especially as both sides peddled bullshit. Speaking of exaggeration based on fear, yes, Donald is another product of our times, like clickbait.
An example for your screening question involving a politically neutral outcomes could be explained as – Are you aware that a vote for candidate X will likely cause policy A to not happen, even though candidate Z and Y agree it will be good for the people?
Now we just need to find policies that two major parties agree on, right? Thats the trouble though, they have spent so long telling us the others are wrong, they cant compromise on anything now can they.
Was it really that bad, sitting through the last government?
Or the one before that?
I think we should stop pretending that the other team getting in is a disaster and let them have a go instead of insisting on fighting everything they do. Once your in, your in and you get 4 years of absolute power to get as much done as you can, then another vote. Instead we are paying them to argue all day. I know I wouldn’t pay an agency to debate different directions, I would want them to pick one and get on with it, agile like.
User ID not verified.
The premise that we use the ballot paper to sort the wheat from the chaff reeks of eugenics. The assumption that anyone can point with any certainty as to the ramifications of any policy implementation, that fails to anticipate any ‘unknown unknowns’ which might influence this implementation, that fails to acknowledge that we don’t all share the same desired outcomes, is heuristic thinking at its most heuristic.
If you’re going to propose five ‘neutral’ questions, I’d suggest you take some time to try and draft one or two to get a better idea of how fallacious and naive this premise is, rather than shunt the most substantive aspect of your argument to the end of the piece with an ‘all care, no responsibility’ disclaimer.
This is a really worrying piece.
User ID not verified.
I am very interested in the whole media influence over the Brexit vote. What do the billionaires want for themselves? Murdoch (owner of The Times and The Sun), backed leave. Murdoch is known to loathe his lack of power in Europe and a Britain that doesn’t have to answer to Europe means he wields more power. Check out this interview with Murdoch and Standard journo Andrew Hilton: “I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/comm.....89151.html
As well as Murdoch’s papers. The papers of the Jersey living, tax exiles the Barclay Brothers are also pro Brexit. Again, I can only imagine that these Billionaires are in the same mindset as Murdoch.
Richard Desmond, who owns The Star and The Express (both pro leave) has donated hundreds of thousands to UKIP in the past.
I would love to read a nice summarised article, even dare I say it (for easy digestion) an info-graphic, which explains which media backed remain and leave and then profiles the readers, listeners, viewers of these papers and stations.
I am from the UK, however now live in Australia for good. It would certainly seem that the people who are citing and sharing articles to Facebook from The Express, The Sun or The Telegraph are using these articles to say to the world “see!” and “I told you so”. They seem very much influenced by these papers and other media.
Mumbrella: It would be great if you could pen a useful article about the influence of media. Who owns what media and what is the agenda of these moguls?
My personal opinion, from seeing so many pro leave people citing dross from biased and evident agenda serving papers, is that the billionaires got the result they want and these billionaires can continue to tell Downing St what to do.
Nothing is perfect. The EU isn’t perfect, however it does seem to have been used as a smokescreen to win the leave campaign. In or out of Europe British governments have stripped back funding to essential services, which affect the lives of the working classes.
Again, Mumbrella: you could create a really useful article detailing the media landscape. I would share it… Let’s educate the masses, so that they can truly make informed decisions.
User ID not verified.
I share the view that your suggestions to amend the voting process are disgusting, and represent the noxious and somewhat scary views coming out of the self-styled technocracy in San Francisco and their wannabes. As if some more enlightened people are more entitled to vote for our elected representatives. Frankly, get over yourself.
User ID not verified.
Daniel, you have written an article which raises some highly controversial points. You should expect criticism. As readers and commenters we aren’t required to include our full name, just as we don’t have to take a test before we can demonstrate our comments’ worth. I have the impression this is all about your reluctance to acknowledge alternative viewpoints.
User ID not verified.
Oh, the irony – man whose grandfather fought against a political ideology which imposed its will on others has own grandson attempt to do the same. To make sure his ‘interests are protected’ of course, so it’s for his own good, really…
User ID not verified.
Wow. This has been one of the more engaging, contentious pieces I’ve seen on Mumbrella is a good while.
As someone who’s worked both client and agency side for over 10 years, it makes sense as to why nobody has commented on the creative agency thread in the piece, and that would be because I reckon the author is spot on. The best creative shops in town definitely go beyond purely comms these days, and they’re the ones you want to be working with.
Beyond that, I think if Bluzer-Fry genuinely wanted the thread to discuss the challenges that much of adland and many other creative agencies face, his mistake was pushing too far out with a pretty radical idea that looks to have it’s challenges and needs much more explanation than he’s provided in this forum. He probably would have been safer to stick to something like the fact that David Cameron could have designed two referendums to be done in a month, or force Leave to win minimum 60% threshold (or something similar) to help get the stay result he was looking for.
That said, looking at the responses to comments, I do like the fact that he’s at least put his name to something that he looks to care about and has sparked some engaged discussion around it. It’s amazing to see some of the vitriol that’s come out in this piece and the number of keyboard heroes who are more than willing to jump up and down with their own righteous opinions, yet lack the conviction to actually put their names to it. If we’re to believe the author about the fact that he chatted this through and got agreement with a 92 year old veteran – something I think we have to – then in my books, I’d say this masked criticism goes beyond the author to somebody who fought to protect the democratic privileges we have in Australia today. To me, slamming somebody in this position feels pretty gutless, and I reckon a few people should think about that and be ashamed for the way they’ve behaved.
Thanks for publishing Mumbrella, and more stuff that pushes the boundaries going forward please!
User ID not verified.
@Squaring up. You make a good point about process. Some of these issues; Brexit or same-sex marriage should actually be decisions made by government rather than the cowardly (or pandering) act of putting it directly to the populace. But if you think these responses to a contentious political proposal are anything approaching ‘vitriol’, you really need to get out more. The commenters’ disapproval of Daniel’s ideas have been expressed with conviction, but also with restraint. Do I really have to point you in the direction of genuine vitriolic attacks on social media?
The ‘truth’ about creative agencies is something that’s been discussed on Mumbrella many times, with many speaking up. You have misinterpreted the silence on that part of his piece, no-one here has been dumbstruck by this ‘uncanny’ truth. It’s a given that we all understand (which is why some of us creative types read this site as opposed the the other one), and the analogy with Brexit is tenuous to say the best. This is piece is poorly structured, poorly argued and poorly considered.
You say Daniel’s opinion should be applauded simply because he put his name on it? I’ll reserve my applause for substance of argument.
You can find me in other articles on Mumbrella that I write under my own full name and respond to comments under this abbreviated form.
So I’m not really hiding from anyone, but there’s no way I’m putting my surname in proximity to this piece. What about you?
User ID not verified.
To all the people “disgusted” by the author’s suggestion: why aren’t you disgusted that 17 year olds and 16 year olds can’t vote? And hell, why not 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3 year olds?
Zero to 2 year old might be a little too young, since they might struggle to even hold a pen – but surely the ones that can should have the very sacred right to vote too?
People with dementia have the right to vote (but a relative can have them removed from the roll). People with a severe intellectual disability can vote.
So why not a 3 year old? They can decide what they want to eat, so why not let them decide who governs us all?
In all honesty, I’d trust an intelligent 10 year old to have a much better understanding of the electoral system and important issues than many of the people who are (in many cases willfully) ignorant about politics.
User ID not verified.
For the same reason that 0-16 year olds are not allowed to have sex, drive cars, enter in to legal contracts and are legally required to be in the care of a parent of guardian. Because their brains are physically and emotionally developed enough to understand the consequences of their decisions or be given the legal responsibility to vote.
There is a valid argument that 16 & 17 year olds should be allowed to vote as they are arguably capable of understanding and accept that responsibility. But as a society we have decided that only 18 years and up should be given it. If we want to change that we can lobby for a referendum and everyone, regardless of their level of information on the consequences would be allowed to vote.
Once people are at an age where they are biologically equipped they are allowed to vote and NOTHING justifies taking that right away from citizen who abides within the law. It is up to a citizen to decide how they execute their right to vote, if they want to inform themselves they can. If they don’t they don’t have to. Like their vote, that is their decision.
It’s perfectly logical that we don’t advocate extending the vote to children but are disgusted because he is advocating taking votes away from adults.
User ID not verified.
Squaring Up,
I notice you didn’t put your name on your comment either… Should your opinion count for less because you didn’t put your name on it?
I’ll drop it though because it doesn’t matter. Quite frankly I don’t care who is expressing the opinion whether they are a CX Strategist or WW2 veteran.
Just like how we don’t put our names on our votes for obvious reasons, we don’t feel the need to add our names here either. That opinion is as valuable as the meaning and logic readers find in it. Someone’s name, occupation, job title, income and so on are irrelevant to that opinion. Just as how in an election everyone’s vote counts the same.
User ID not verified.
Governments don’t make decisions. People make decisions. People delegate some of these decisions, and ONLY those decisions, to people who representative them through legal frameworks like constitutions. This is the essence of representative constitutional democracies. It is not cowardly for these representatives to seek the public’s direct decision on issues of great substance. In the case of Brexit it was legally required by the constitution to give this decision to the population as entering and exiting the European Union was NOT a decision the public had delegated to their representatives.
However I agree with the rest of your post.
User ID not verified.
Votes from Oxford graduates effectively had three times the power in the UK until 1950. There are two universities in Ireland that currently give it’s graduates extra voting powers there.
User ID not verified.