Opinion
Why is the ‘Yes’ Voice campaign failing so badly?
So it’s a bit early for a post mortem – the patient isn’t even dead yet! However, even if the polls are wrong and ‘Yes’ squeaks over the line, it’s still squandered an initial 65% lead to be at just 43% in the final week.
So, why has the campaign been so ineffectual? And more broadly, why are progressives generally rubbish at marketing? Tony Singleton, managing partner at MrWolf, explores.
First of all, it’s not just marketing’s fault.
All sides of mainstream politics at least nominally support ‘Closing the gap’. Therefore, the main ‘No’ strategy has been to make The Voice feel too risky.
Unfortunately, the Labour Government seem to have ‘learned’ from the failed Republic referendum, that once you give people the details, they forget they like the overall idea, and support fractures.
So, they’ve offered almost no detail on The Voice to object to. No composition, no numbers, no budget. Nothing tangible.
But this information void is a complete gift to the ‘No’ camp – ‘You don’t know what you’re voting for, and it’s permanent’, sounds like a pretty reasonable stance – especially as it feeds into ‘thin end of the wedge’ fears.
A failure to make the case for change
It fairly fundamental that, if you’re arguing for change, you have to establish that the status quo doesn’t work.
This should have been easy. First, there’s a compelling disparity in the lives of First Nations people compared with non-Indigenous people: they have an eight year shorter life expectancy, and are three times less likely to finish high school, twice as likely to be unemployed, and fourteen times more likely to go to jail!
Secondly, the Government’s own ‘Closing the gap’ targets show the current approaches are failing.
Spending billions over decades to achieve nothing much is a pretty good indicator something’s broken. And suddenly a ‘No’ vote is a vote to keep wasting tax payers’ money – an anathema to most people on the right of politics.
The ‘case’ hasn’t been completely absent from the campaign – three weeks ago ClemingerBBDO launched probably the best ad of the campaign so far, but it been pretty peripheral for such an essential strategy foundation – one that needed to be built last year, not last week.
Preaching to the converted
When progressives believe in the inherent justness of something, it seems like it’s hard for them to comprehend that others won’t automatically see it too.
Take the official ‘Yes’ campaign leaflet. The first benefit outlined is “Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and paying respect to 65,000 years of culture and tradition”.
The second is “Listening”. They’re worthy aims, and clearly motivating those behind the campaign.
But if you agree with these, you’re already voting ‘Yes’. There’s almost nothing there for the undecided and soft No votes they should be targeting. And worse, the idea of more recognition will harden ‘Nos’ for people concerned about more Native Title claims.
Right wingers are just more focused.
The official ‘No’ leaflet headlines that The Voice is “risky, unknown, divisive, permanent” – that’s a way more effective and emotional platform. And they’re ruthless when it comes to marketing, simultaneously promoting the Voice as both going too far and not far enough.
Leading with emotion – but the wrong type
All the data on marketing effectiveness shows that emotion trumps rational arguments. But it’s got to be the right emotion, especially as the ‘No’ campaign is hitting people square in the amygdala with fear.
The most visible element of the campaign — the ‘History is Calling’ television ad, which uses John Farnham’s The Voice — is correctly trying to tap into self-identity. It’s one of the most powerful ways to motivate people around social causes.
But the self-identity they’re trying to connect with appears to be around the idea that we’ve faced big moments before, made the historically right call, so let’s do it again. If this talks to you, you’re already firmly in the ‘Yes’ camp.
However, research shows that if you’re undecided/a soft ‘No’, it just emphasises the momentousness of the decision – making it feel even riskier, and entrenching No voters.
Our inherent ‘sense of fairness’ is the missed opportunity
Australian’s are defined by many things, but the idea of fairness is hard baked into our national psyche – everyone deserves a ‘fair go’. The fact that part of our community will live much shorter, less healthy, less wealthy lives is confronting to that self-identity. If you believe in fairness, it demands that you think the current situation is wrong – and therefore requires change.
I hope that this is a far too hasty obituary.
But either way, it would be great if progressive people could get better at getting into the mindset of those that they need to persuade. We all have a better, fairer society on the line.
Tony Singleton is managing partner at MrWolf an independent, creatively focused agency that taps into behavioural economics to give their clients an unfair advantage.
I think people are ignoring a massive cultural and socio-economic oversight. People are voting no because they are against it, they a resentful for the amount of time and money spent on this issue while they are struggling to pay bills, mortgage, school fees, groceries etc.
A reluctant, resentful voter will always vote negative. It’s as simple as that.
The people who have positioned this as the most important thing in the lives of ALL Australians are the ones to blame for its failure.
User ID not verified.
The industry really needs to reflect on how they performed on this very important moment. And that the best ad of the campaign was not done by an agency, just a couple of mates for free
User ID not verified.
At last an opinion piece that makes some sense. Albeit again with personal bias built in. But it was far too complex in its analysis.
It’s really simple. The Yes camp treats voters like children.
So called progressives are crap at marketing because they tried to play the moral card. You should just vote yes because it’s the moral thing to do. That was the sell – this is the right thing to do. Don’t question it. No need for details. Just shut up and do the right thing. And if you don’t support it you are a racist. That was their marketing. That’s not selling it. That’s treating people like they are children. Don’t question why just do as I say.
‘Morality’ has nothing to do with it. It’s about changing the fundamental structure of our parliament for less than clear reasons and outcomes.
Think about the arrogance of the YES camp marketing. This is the constitution we are talking about. It’s not just some law that can be repealed via an act of parliament if it doesn’t work out. It’s very arrogant and ignorant on their part to not treat voters like thinking adults who have rightful concerns about changing our most fundamental legal document.
I’m amazed the yes vote is as high as it is given the attitude of the YES side.
User ID not verified.
I remain hopeful that the polls that have been so woeful in recent elections are similarly off the mark now.
User ID not verified.
The yes campaign had no failings other than the proposition. It had all media, all valuable air time and newspapers’ supports, industry, you name it, it had time to explain.. It had this gift, and still couldn’t get it over the line. Nothing more unbalanced, relative to the no vote , in resources available for its promotion .
The proposition is what killed it, and that’s good given the $3–$00m spent on this. The referendum results will show what an informed thinking and careful population has decided.
And a certain small percentage of people voted no just to stick it up the overly condescending , let me think for you, types that populated the Yes Campaign.
User ID not verified.
Some good points here.
Vote Yes or vote no. Just don’t vote No because you’re scared of the boogie man and don’t vote Yes because you think you’re not allowed to if you’re a good person. I am a YES but I can imaging scenarios that one may vote no…haven’t heard anyone use them though.
Big problem is there are No supporters who are too far right to want to see our indigenous peoples progress or supported so they won’t be swayed if that’s the intention.
The other sociological problem is that “othering” plays into the hands of the protectionist right. Re-enforcing we are helping them, or they deserve this, or this will be good for those poor people often has the opposite effect to creating empathy.
You don’t have to have read Hegel or Canales to understand this, but we wrongly presume the government and associated people will spend the money on people who can identify this and then apply it directly to the communication strategies.
Tony makes a good point about our sense of fairness and this is the first part and what so obviously should have been the key strategy. Add to that an underlying sense that creating assistance for a section of Australian society is a norm we do for all subsets of society and a necessity if we are to create the society we say we are and want – for god’s sake, how do we allow ourselves to give up. And finally, what the big difference is in this beautiful country of cross cultures – all cultures that make up this country are protected by virtue of their original homeland (UK, Italian, Indian, Chinese, Colombian), except one…our own. The homeland is here and we all should feel a responsibility to protect its many forms.
User ID not verified.
You’re right, people are emotional in their decision making. It’s also proven that they’re highly irrational. I’ve no doubt appealing to the national DNA of ‘Fairness’ would’ve helped move the needle. But perhaps the Brexit leave campaign had it right. Hijack the social outrage machine, and show big scary numbers. I’m sure the cost to the economy of not supporting the indigenous community will be substantial over time. Now stick that number on a bus and shout about how it could be invested into Aussie sports! Boom!
User ID not verified.
Fear and hate trump compassion – sadly it’s as simple as that
User ID not verified.
Briggs and Freudian Nip’s video was one of the best.
And I think there’s still plenty the industry can do/achieve if we think about it as a step on the journey rather than an end point. Yes might not get up, but awareness of First Nation’s disadvantage is way higher than it was.
And from the noises coming out of Canberra (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-12/lidia-thorpe-backs-indigenous-voice-outside-referendum/102966682), it looks like legislating a version of The Voice might get up (it’s the unintended trap for those that really don’t want anything to happen of basing your no argument on ‘unknown’ and ‘divisive’ – what’s your objection if it’s known and no longer putting ‘race into the constitution’?!)
User ID not verified.
Yeah, it is way easier to move people with fear and hate. But it’s not impossible to win with something else – Obama and ‘Hope’ spring to mind (but telling that’s from 15 years ago!)
User ID not verified.
It quickly became clear that the issue for the yes side to address was the “ I don’t understand how it will work” response. And Dutton and co splashed kerosene on that fire. The Yes side decided a feelgood fest and door knocking strategy would do the trick. What was needed was a good old fashion product demonstration. Show don’t tell. A tv scenario showing showing a remote community with a truancy problem— and a govt funded program that isn’t working. Say that. SHOW the community meeting with their Voice rep to suggest ways of making the program effective—or suggesting other ideas gained from their unique insights into the problem. SHOW the rep going with no grievance to Canberra and holding meetings with the bureaucrats. SHOW how the suggestions opened up new solutions— which help stop the waste of current solutions. Show it and Australians will understand it— the key issue that needed to be addressed.
User ID not verified.
Look at the sponsors of the The Voice… mining companies, Qantas…
User ID not verified.
Without bipartisan support, Yes was unsellable. There has never been a successful change to the Constitution without bipartisan support and Albanese’s belief he could ignore all the lessons from the previous 44 referendums was reckless and delusional.
User ID not verified.
I suspect that if you could get people to sit through that TV scenario, it would work a treat. But you can’t. Almost no one was going to watch it – even more so if you were leaning no.
The information was out there – as Briggs said ‘have you Googled it?’ – but people just don’t want to invest that much effort when they have other stuff to do.
User ID not verified.