There is a notable omission amongst all the verbiage, finger-pointing, hollow triumphalism, and handwringing emerging after the predicted result of the referendum became a reality.
That omission is the failure of marketing, at least by the ‘Yes’ supporters.
The ‘No’ campaigners did get something right, in the ‘If you don’t know, vote No’ slogan. It was very effective, but was never truly tested in the public arena. It was just left to gather momentum.
Any student of marketing knows that facts and data by themselves struggle to gain and keep the attention of most. If you have ever sat in a presentation where the presenter was reading densely packed PowerPoint slides, you know what I mean, no matter how relevant, intriguing, or important the information being imparted, it fails to be engaging. Telling a story gains the initial attention of an audience, but that attention will be lost in the absence of a connection created by a few facts relevant to that audience. That connection is most powerful when it is both emotional, and quantitative.
Such a combination of the quantitative and personalised qualitative creates empathy that changes minds and generates action.
The ‘No’ campaign had a very good headline, gaining attention, and for many, was enough in the absence of any contrary facts or emotional magnet from the yes campaigners.
The ‘Yes’ campaign failed on both accounts. It did not have a headline, so failed to gain attention, and it did not use any facts to back up the weak and non-personalised emotional connection it set out to make.
At the disposal of the Yes campaign were plenty of facts. They needed to go no further than the statistics articulating the size of ‘the gap’ between education, health, and incarceration rates of first nations people and the general Australian population. What stopped them asking the question if these differences were acceptable to Australians? how would they feel if their child was statistically 14 times more likely to end up in gaol than a white kid, and would die 8 years before the average Australian? They failed to use these emotional doorways at all, at least in my line of sight.
It is easy in hindsight, but the foregoing has been obvious to any serious marketer for a considerable time. The politicians on both sides, and not only the elected ones, allowed the whole ‘debate’ and I use that word cautiously, to become a binary choice. Yes or No, argued in the absence of any basic marketing discipline or strategic thinking.
As an aside, it is my view that the referendum had reasonable odds of being the first in our history to pass despite the lack of bi-partisan political agreement. Australians are in general tolerant of difference. We could not be otherwise, and still be a reasonably successful multicultural and multi-religious nation. Those odds crashed to zero at the recognition that among the Aboriginal leaders, there was not only disagreement, but quite emotional and deeply held disagreement. Those in the electorate who had no strong pre-existing view, or base from which to create one, simply felt that if those who the referendum was about could not agree, who am I to vote for change?
Header photo courtesy SMH
