The ‘Yes’ campaign’s first ad misses the mark and could be costly
Those in the ‘Yes’ camp for marriage equality need to start releasing more effective advertising if they want to convince the unsure and definitively win the campaign, explains Jamie Clift.
If the ‘Yes’ campaign manage to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory in the upcoming postal plebiscite, they may look back at their advertising and wonder ‘what if?’
We’ve all witnessed unlosable political campaigns go in unexpected directions, but it seems lessons haven’t been learned. And let’s not kid ourselves, this is a political campaign.
Whilst their ‘No’ campaign counterparts rolled out three innocent looking, concerned, middle-Australian women straight from their living rooms and kitchens, the ‘Yes’ campaign responded with a highly manicured Dr Keryn Phelps – direct from her Eastern Suburbs of Sydney doctor’s surgery. They got the optics all wrong.
To me, as both an Historian of Gender and Sexuality and someone who lived in California during and after the Prop 8 debacle, I know a thing or two about poor campaign strategies. Equality California showed no interest in reaching out to people of color LGBTQI+ communities and only talked to people that roughly looked like and were in the same tax bracket as them. White cisgender gay men. For crying out loud, you have that demographic. Please talk these folks into doing what you suggest. If you’re stuck with this idiotic plebiscite, you need to reach out to conservative Australia, blue collar folks of mixed demographics. Not upper middle class and elite toffs. We lost the Prop 8 campaign because the strategy did not include the very people you properly suggest. I have friends in Australia, please don’t let Rodney Croome screw this up with a tepid strategy. Geoff Kors certainly did in California’s case.
Thanks Jeff, I completely agree. A Yes vote will not be won in the streets of Surry Hills and Newtown, but in regional Australia and Western Sydney. The Yes campaign needs to think about how they can get their message outside of the inner-city bubble in order to make a real impact.
The sticking point with any referendum/plebiscite is the unintended cosnsequences. For a republic it was how the head of state will be appointed. For SSM it is what will be enforced under anti discrimination laws. Sunday Agenda had a long form interview and the issues raised by the no case were not addressed. This is not to say they cannot be addressed but it does mean they need to have an answer, people see through avoidance.
To get an idea of how “Values” are important, more than 40% of secondary students attend non-government schools. If most of those 40% feel threatened, the plebiscite is lost.
Just remember, this isn’t either a referendum, nor a plebiscite – it’s just a survey.
But agree – the finer points may be needed for those yet to make up their minds.
But it can’t be a survey of opinions as that is outside the ABS’ remit which has to deal in measurable, quantifiable facts.
Kim, I’m sorry but this isn’t a survey, it’s a direction document on how the parliament should vote for same sex marriage. If the ‘survey’ as you call it dictates results in a NO, then the politicians ‘conscious vote’ is in jeopardy. If it’s YES, then the same applies. My only hope is that the results from particular electorates aren’t disclosed.
Ifonly,
A plebicite is neither ‘won’ nor ‘lost’. Are you intimating that the ‘Yes’ campaign is lost or that the ‘No’ campaign is lost?
In the republic debate, the emergence of the issue of the appointment of a head of state was not an unintended consequence, but a neglected fundamental issue. It led to open antagonism between republican politicians, who favoured appointing one of their own as a head of state, and all the other republicans, who wanted to choose the head of state themselves. Each found the other’s preference to be anathema. Since either alternative involved overturning the monarchy, the possibility of an executive presidency on the U.S. model also entered the public mind. All sides in the republican camp opposed this, but the general public saw it as a logical choice. In short, the whole thing went off half-cocked because its fundamentals had not been thought through. None of this was unforeseen, just unaddressed, which is how it remains twenty years later.
The same-sex marriage proposal has likewise not been thought through. Declarations about all love being “equal” cut no ice when you are talking about overturning a fundamental institution. If a proposal had been put up with a comprehensive set of guarantees for rights and customs that might be affected by the creation of same-sex marriage, it would have stood a chance of being accepted. As it is, it looks like same-sex marriage has been derailed by lack of preparation, accompanied by a frenzied activist attack on the very first traditional-marriage advocates to appear on TV. The Get Up! petition, since disowned, to deregister Dr Pansy Lai just put the icing on the cake.
Back to the drawing board!
I disagree completely. This ad is trying to convince no voters to vote yes or perhaps not vote.
Who is going to vote No and watches TV? Old people. Old people trust doctors. Young people are voting yes and don’t watch tv.
The noncommited vote probably won’t vote. You need to engage with “the pig” because the pig is the opposition. If you don’t counter arguments people might accept them. There is no leaders debate, this is not an election. A response is warranted and needed.
This is not a usual political debate where there are legitimate arguments on both sides. It’s a civil rights issue. The No argument is basically, “some people have rights that other people don’t have and we want that to continue”. The Yes argument can waste it’s time with feel good stories or it can try and convince the people who might vote note. That’s what they are doing. Also I’m sure they will have other ads later. They are starting by attacking their opponents. This isn’t PR where you try to control a message to sell Juice or Salad and get press attention. This is trying to convince people to vote when it’s not compulsory, to do something nice for other people by pointing out they are being lied to. They know what they are doing.
What a typical comment by a yes supporter. That only old people will vote no. Any thinking parent of school kids will vote no because of the irreparable damage Safe Schools is already doing to Victorian and south australian kids. SS agenda was designed by a lesbian RozWard, to indoctrinate kids into LGBTIQ persons to increase their numbers.
The emotive advert by Yes ” I am voting yes for my brother” is not a reason to change SSM.
What about the statistics that reveal most gay couples will not marry even if SSM became law. Who then is all is all this Yes support for – only a small percentage of LGBTIQ people. The lobbyist groups are only there to justify their own existence .
Agree.
Also – this ad made it sound like a win is inevitable. It’s not.
Forgot to include a call to action.
Totally lacking in empathy and feels cold and out of touch.
Did they hire someone from Hillary’s campaign?
This article seems to assume it is an advert – it was a social media response to a no advert, clearly aimed at their base. It was one of three social media videos they released in response. They are still fundraising for their advert!
Well his point exactly. The Yes team don’t have the resources to waste the sending videos to their base to make them feel nice or energized in the middle of this campaign. These will achieve zero toward the outcome they want. Why did they not create videos reflecting and aimed at middle conservative or apathetic Australia, and amplified them at that audience? They are the people who will either not vote, or vote No because they’ve been spooked by the very deliberate fear campaign being aimed at them by the No crowd.
Jeez I get pissed off when I hear of a demographic called “Old people”. Just what IS old these days? 50? 60?
What a crock…. you make it sound like folk in this demographic have no concept of Netflix, email, torrenting or their brethren. Mate, we were doin’ this stuff before you were probably born.
“No concept of Netflix, torrenting or their brethren. Mate, we were doin’ this stuff before you were probably born.”
Well you certainly told all those 15 year-olds (torrenting) and 10 year olds (Netflix streaming video users – yes Netflix was founded in 1997, but didn’t start streaming video until 2007, before then it mailed out DVDs.)
Convenient omission of the word “email”.
But you’re right … in a way. We were pretty fucking busy inventing them!
Not sure it has only been online. I had Sky News on in the background today (Sunday) and it was broadcast, presumably during an ad break.
I don’t think FreeTV would agree that only “old people” (whatever that means) watch TV. And it’s a massive stretch to suggest “young people” will automatically vote “yes”.
Whether “yes” supporters believe there are no legitimate opposition arguments is not really the issue. A no/unsure voter has an opinion and to them it is legitimate. For better or worse one may be “Marriage is an old tradition. We’ve lost so many traditions in recent times, let’s hold onto this one.”
Arguing for change because “it’s f-ing 2017” is unlikely to sway anyone.
The task for the Yes campaign is to convince undecideds that (a) the change is only a symbolic one (b) it’ll make some people’s lives happier (c) it won’t cost you anything.
Well said Jamie.
Another neat example of the progressive left talking to itself – and alienating many in the process.
And as for reinforcing the ‘no’ vote this is beyond unfortunate.
Whoever is doing these ‘yes’ ads please read Jamie’s article and communicate yes as ‘popular’ not ‘progressive’.
I agree with Jamie’s article, and Adam’s support of the argument it contains.
At this point, to argue “doctors are trusted figures” and that will get YES across the line because it’s a doctor speaking is insufficient. The NO campaign plays out similarly to most conservative campaigns: to the Fear factor that things will change for the worst if any change occurs. For those not directly affected by marriage equality (they know few gay couples), the old “what’s in it for me” kicks in – iow, why should I bother?
The NO campaign using the fear factor says “why risk it?” and then as per its usual means, proposes a “slippery slope” into the loss of community standards and morality, yet offers no evidence because fear requires no evidence – it’s a sensation and one often built on non-reasoning.
In the US, the Dems in 2008 got over the line with a campaign of Hope, not Fear. There are lessons to be learnt here for the YES campaign.
An ‘Own goal’ by the “yes” campaign. They have an ad that plays the “NO” ad, so anyone undecided will believe that the “NO” campaign is the more important one to talk about.
People who have already made up their minds years ago really love being told what to do.
Why have they focused on the ‘no’ campaigns ad? Crazy
Missing out on a huge opportunity to unite Australia using well thought out, emotional content.
Airbnb did a much better job with their acceptance ring campaign: https://untilweallbelong.com/share-your-acceptance
This “discussion” is going nowhere at the moment. Australians are famous for rejecting constitutional change in referendums. At face value, the No ad is better than the Yes ad. The assumption by the Left and the “Yes” campaign that this is a done deal is misguided. A number of people who I have talked to have said that they don’t like the left or minorities generally preaching to them about how they should think or how things should be, hence why this Kerryn Phelps things flops.
To the majority of people in Australia (Who aren’t Biggots and Homophobes – despite what the ABC tell you,)this is a non issue and it is an annoyance and inconvenience to have to participate in this process. Personally I couldn’t care less either way but the way things look at the moment The No’s seem to have it…..
“To the majority of people in Australia … this is a non issue and it is an annoyance.” Agreed… which is perhaps the insight that should be used to get people who are ‘meh’ to vote Yes? Basically, it’s an issue that’s not going to go away until same-sex couples can get married – waste of money and time for the government to be running this postal survey when they could just vote it into being in parliament themselves – and more time and money will be lost until they do. That’s a pretty good reason to vote Yes if you ask me.
Jamie,
“They have also allowed the ‘No’ campaign to dictate the strategy, by responding to their deliberately alarmist message.” In what way is the ‘No’ vote Ad ‘alarmist’? Just three women stating their views. Just for the record, I’ll probably vote ‘Yes’.
PS I’m gay but I’ll be buggered if I am homosexual.
Maybe all those agencies who rushed to virtue signal by being part of the “Say No to No” movement, would be better off donating their services to make a better ‘Yes’ ad.
I agree with you but hesitate about the moniker Pete from Penrith. It’s dangerous to stereotype. I would cringe if I were a Pete from Penrith!
Totally agree. Pete could just as easily be from Bondi or Bella vista. You’re actually falling victim to you’re own echo chamber assuming Penrith is some yes voting suburb. You should visit it sometime.
Run a yes campaign with a jingle and a clip like the “It’s Time” campaign and it’ll be a shoo in.
I’m one of the “oldies” fed up with Newtown trendiest saying “no” voters are wrong, and now that “yes” activists have made a bid to deregister GP Pany Lai for her “no” campaign – I’M VOTING NO.
Sebastian,
With respect I think it would be a great shame for you to deny two people the right to marry as a reaction to the actions of a few; just as it would be wrong to vote YES merely to please a select few.
If it were up to me (which I’m well aware it isn’t) I’d suggest that:
– If, like me, you believe two people of the same sex and/or gender should be allowed to marry, then vote YES;
– If you believe they shouldn’t, then vote NO; and
– Given that this is a non-compulsory survey and not subject to AEC rules, if you really really don’t care to have input either way then don’t vote at all. But dispose of your ballot paper carefully so no one else can use it.
Well I was going to vote no till I saw a registered doctor who has previously proclaimed the virtues of conversion therapy telling unsubstantiated lies on TV. Now I’m yes for sure. Gosh- we are so easily swayed in this “debate”
I’m with you, Sebastian. The original question really isn’t something that keeps me awake at night, so my default position would typically be an easy-going ‘yeah, righto’. But then the bullying nonsense started, with the Novotel phone threats and the ACL bombing and the whole Margaret Court vilification thing. Then it became personal, with genuine questioners on social media being shrieked at as homophobes and bigots for questioning the orthodoxy on anything to do with the matter.
SSM is being widely likened to racial equality and universal suffrage, when it has nothing in common with either. As to it being a human right. I mean, what? Decriminalization of same-sexuality was achieved decades ago, to warm easy-going approval from most.
In light of the practical rights (property, critical care decision rights etc) having been addressed by John Howard”s 2004 Marriage Act revision (again, to wide acclaim), the current SSM push seems to be about seizing an indulgence rather than redressing a right.
The public discussion has become just hectoring denigration that burns off much good will and makes people who whould have comfortably voted YES in a plebiscite now have second thoughts.
The reality is we shouldn’t even be having this $122million postal vote – it is an expensive and time-consuming waste of taxpayers money, and voting “no” rewards the conservative politicians for running it – despite there being no reason why this can’t be sorted by a vote in parliament without such an expense. Conservative politicians (both those within NLP and Labor) should never have changed the legislation in 2004 in the first place. This issue will keep resurfacing until there is marriage-equality, because Australia’s current laws are clearly not in-keeping with our society’s values and expectations. Even if you are against same-sex marriage, this is not something that is going to go away until it is made legal.
This first YES ad is absolutely fine. It is a fair, compassionate and reasonable argument in favour of same sex marriage, focusing on the facts of the matter and not aiming low like the no side. Not only is the no ad based on complete falsehoods, the ‘average, concerned’ mothers have been revealed as an evangelical pastor and a vehement anti-gay activist. Apparently this is only the yes campaign’s first ad, with the next one coming soon.
As a ‘no’ voter I think the Yes campaign has to come across as more statesmanlike to reassure people that any change will be in safe hands. So far the loudest Yes voices have been the extreme nutters. They make undecided voters feel like a bunch of radical anarchists are going to be in charge. Sorry, but ‘love is love’ completely goes out the window with daily news reports of ‘we hate anyone who disagrees with us’. The other thing is they have to convince us that post SSM marriage being law, they can and will allow people who disagree to live in peace with them. This is where things are going very badly for the Yes campaign. Without even a whisper of compromise in their mantra they make no room in their bravery new world for people who won’t accept SSM. Whereas many No voters I know have developed a mindset to handle the likely scenario of SSM coming in. In fact SSM being legal won’t make me hate gay people. They may grab the title of Marriage but all things point to traditional marriage supporters simply adopting another word for traditional marriage. That will be ‘matrimony’. The sad thing is that the exaggerated claim that marriage will make every gay person feel better about themselves is likely to be lost because they still won’t have access to the traditional marriage they crave. I think gay people are equal to me not because of the marriage issue but because they, like me, are inherently people of worth and value. Marriage doesn’t make a person ‘equal’. Sadly once they ‘catch this rabbit’ they have been chasing it’s highly likely they will find this truth to be so.
Ya this is a Drama. I think they only wanted the drama. This doesn’t have the fun of most of the lamb spots (the ones that offended people, and the ones that didn’t) and I don’t think that was ever a priority.