Negative advertising in the form that we have become so accustomed to over the years in many a political campaign is dead. It remains now only of interest to only those in the political bubble who find it “interesting and informative” as the current NZ Prime Minister, Bill English, told me in 2015.
Sadly the remainder of us have to tolerate this archaic form of communication and persuasion in an era where the narrative and the value offering are now on the Iron Throne.
Recent elections, such as the obliteration Francis Macron delivered in France, Stephen Trudeau in Canada, and even the campaign of Tony Abbott in 2013, all relied upon positive messaging that built a strong narrative around a leader that offered a 2 way exchange and engagement.
And why not?! We love a good, positive story in politics. One that inspires and motivates us and makes us dream and believe that there is hope after all, even if some of the facts are massaged or ironed out a bit. Obama was a great example of this, even now, with an ability to use imagery and speeches that instantly became iconic. His Selma speech was one example here.
Trump, even though this is going to upset some, but credit where credit is due, because of his own strong narrative, got people who had rarely voted in the cold of a November Presidential election before out of their doors and voting for him in numbers never seen before because they connected and engaged with his story because to them it was positive.
It is this strong and intense emotional response that politicians and campaign strategists look for as this gives that big M word - momentum. This is why so many believed in negative as they thought that it created this. And perhaps it did once but in the market of 2017 it doesn’t.
In the research that I have done everything about negative doesn’t work - the structure, the format, the placement, the information and the attitude towards the advertisement itself which was by far the most negative of all those factors. If you are starting off with people already detesting the message then you are already way behind, let alone have any ability to motivate people to change or solidify their vote. What advertisement did work was this one - and this is positive.
What does seem to be effective right now, and no surprises really in the information and digital age, is misinformation and fake news. Labor’s famed Mediscare campaign worked so well because, with the exception of political junkies, most people had no idea if this was true or not but it fitted the perception of both the Coalition brand and something that they might do if in government so people reacted to reduce the perceived risk but not the actual risk.
This may give a hint of the strategy of the “No” camp in the months ahead - to use misinformation and fake news as the new methods of altering votes and changing behaviour. The “Yes” camp will build theirs on positive stories, tied very strongly to the use of celebrities and a progressive theme, to hit home the advantage that they already have in the polls but to also ensure that people take the final step and actually vote Yes.
But perhaps here I live in a political advertising Utopia. Old habits do die harder than Bruce Willis in Australian politics. If negative advertising is used, and I expect that the No camp will be the ones who resort to it more than Yes as they’ll want to highlight what will be lost more than what will be gained, then the loser will be society as a whole.
It will create division, hatred and long term after effects on those who it targets if it is done inappropriately and lacking in respect. Negative advertising in political campaigns has already done this. It has influenced how people feel about politics, politicians and democracy, in a negative way. Negative has only ever created more negative towards politics.
If we want our politicians to focus on the positivity in their policies, products, and people then restricting or banning negative advertising may be one way to start to make debates more about the issue than the person.