The Yes campaign: a grumpy critique
Note: this article is written by a marketer for marketers about the YES marketing campaign. It is not concerned with the merits of the Voice to Parliament so place your loyalties aside. Campaigns are about winning under the current circumstances and no campaign is above clear-eyed, good-faith critique. Here are a few thoughts:
Messaging requires discipline and focus
Hot tip: human nature reigns supreme and here’s a few things about humans: they don’t want to be made to feel guilty. Or dumb. Or morally inferior. Or passe. Or have strangers they see as elites force an agenda upon them.
Messaging matters and should take human nature into account. However the Yes campaign has got its messages wrong for the best part of a year.
Even yesterday – after months of flagging polls – key Yes spokespeople displayed little discipline and zero insight into 55% or more of the nation.
Guugu Yimithirr man Noel Pearson, one of the Yes campaign's leading lights told AM’s Sabra Lane that the referendum was a moral choice.
“One choice will give us pride and hope and one [choice] will bring shame to the country,” he said.
Does Pearson think that that his dichotomy will draw lukewarm No voters to his side?
It won’t. It is more likely to reinforce a No vote. (See the hot tip above).
Pearson also described voting No as a “travesty for the country”.
So voting No is morally wrong, shameful and a travesty. This is not persuasive to swinging voters. Has the Yes campaign learnt nothing from Trumpism and Brexit? The people outside the bubble have had enough. They have found an identity and are digging their heels in.
Citizen, you may well agree with Noel Pearson but we ain’t chatting over negronis in our medium density, Greens-seat-located apartment with Paul Kelly playing in the background. We are on a national radio program with a week to go and the Yes campaign is losing. Focus on the swinging voters!
Yes has only one audience to target – the genuinely swinging voter, which may total about 10% of the population. Pearson and co must jettison everyone else and address swingers directly at every opportunity with:
“If you are leaning both ways think about this…
“I understand that lots of people considering voting No are good people and don’t deserve to be called racist and to them I say…
"If you were once a Yes voter who has become a No voter...
The Yes campaign from Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney down has consistently stated or implied that No voters are at best victims of misinformation or outright racist.
The Trump reference is silly. Again it implies that anyone who votes No is plain wrong and dumb.
Hating on Trump again tells those who might already feel marginalised that the whole Voice to Parliament push is a woke, elite inner-city project.
You can’t just say whatever you feel.
You have to persuade, cajole and charm your way to victory. That's discipline.
Minister Burney can be quite charming at times but won;t win hearts with this line of attack.
Political leaders never state that voting for the other party is morally wrong or shameful or that voters for the other party are suckers for misinformation.
(Well Hilary did and we know how that turned out.)
That's discipline.
The Yes campaign reeks of a group so convinced of its own moral superiority that it failed to consider how others may see the issue. Rolling out politicians, academics, constitutional scholars and endless corporate brands (above) has not worked.
Breaking: corporates are a tad on the nose these days. Why should some family struggling with the cost of living in Caboolture Queensland be swayed by QANTAS' support? That once-loved brand gave millions to a CEO who sacked workers illegally, sold tickets to non-existent flights and stifled competition.
And then there are the miners, banks, telcos and grocers (above) that have been reaping record profits during this time of economic woe. Hootville pays more tax than Atlassian and we all destroyed fewer ancient sacred Aboriginal rock shelters than Rio Tinto. Yet voters are supposed to be inspired by their support?
You cannot make this stuff up!
What corporate-loving chump within the Yes campaign thought that this was a good look?
I'm surprised that the folks at Yes didn't get an endorsement from COVID-19.
Would you support a politician with that list of endorsements?
Finally - don't mention that this referendum is all about "love". Ick.
This goes double for those with a reputation for aggressive behaviour that seems more based in other four letter words.
And as for the hackneyed "What will the rest of the world think of us if we vote no?"
Who the hell cares? Nothing says "elite" more than this twee concern.
Focus on what low-income, low-educated, outer suburban voters think - polling shows that these are the Yes campaign's greatest foe. And these folks don’t want some gathering of elites smiling lined up at a media conference talking about “love”.
This is all very basic stuff but it seems to have eluded the Yesters.
Oh - this is not a Black and White issue
The Yes campaign often characterises our entire population as either white or Indigenous. This may be the product of misinformation or perhaps they are racist but many who happily see themselves as Australians don’t see ourselves as either.
I only observe English language media but I have not seen the Yes campaign address one HUGE swathe of the population – recent migrants. Do these communities relate to the issue as longer-established migrant communities and Anglo-celtic Australians?
Methinks that such communities may generally feel far removed from indigenous issues, the wrongs of colonialisation or any responsibility for addressing them. Note: "generally".
Do people who have just uprooted their entire lives to settle in Australia chime with: “Always Was. Always Will Be”?
It’s naïve to think that minority groups will support other minority groups in their bid for equity. This is demonstrated by significant Asian American opposition to affirmative action around college admissions and opposition to anti-caste-discrimination reforms in the USA and UK. Identity is complicated.
Conclusion
Campaigning is tough – it’s more likely to be won by smart pragmatists who 'get' the public and are willing to challenge their own arguments as opposed to precious idealists who are high on their own supply. This isn't student politics.
Sure, arguing for No is an easier gig but if you can’t win an argument against Warren Mundine you need to stop and take stock before it's...