PDA

View Full Version : Positive Campaigning



Basil
10-05-2010, 11:56 AM
The Libs are running a TVC for a week, then it will be flicked to YouTube. I saw it last night.

Abbott. Masculine neutral blues. Close-up. All positive messages. Positive campaign. No mention of Rudd. No mention of the terific ammunition Labor has supplied. I was impressed (I hope from a professional POV). I was also unimpressed by the union ads which are running/ have just run proclaiming 'Abbott=WorkChoices by a different name'. I thought those ads were a blunder in that a) that message now had reduced traction with the electorate and b)the union members paying for it would have wished for better value. Equally I knew when I saw the last election anti-WorkChoices ads that they would have massive traction in the community.

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2010, 03:44 PM
Is this the "real action" ad that starts complaining about "Australia's massive debt", that reworks the Yellow Peril into scary red arrows of illegal immigrants coming in from the north and west and invading much of the continent, and then says something perhaps vaguely sensible about hospitals?

Basil
10-05-2010, 03:45 PM
Is this the "real action" ad that starts complaining about "Australia's massive debt", that reworks the Yellow Peril into scary red arrows of illegal immigrants coming in from the north and west and invading much of the continent, and then says something perhaps vaguely sensible about hospitals?
Yes.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2010, 03:16 AM
The immigration one is not positive at all but a flat-out scare campaign in the way it is presented and in the unsubtle implication of terrorism in the choice of nations listed, and the unstated implied consequences of not taking strong action now.

In general scare campaigns work from government and fail from opposition, but these standards are not absolute. What I think is interesting is that there is so much heat on Rudd at present that Abbott is basically getting a free pass on this ad. A few months back it would have been seen as offensive and a blunder but at the moment it is just a curiosity (and it is quite well presented however absurd the boat people scaremongering is.)

As for the WorkChoices ads they have a nice line from Abbott that makes him an easy target for the message they are trying to sell, and I don't think the Abbott-equals-workchoices message is past its scare-campaign-by date just yet.

Most scare campaigns against Oppositions have a life cycle of about one term before the public loses interest in them.

Basil
11-05-2010, 10:09 AM
I should add that regardless of where this discussion heads while considers the finesse of what constitutes a positive campaign, the Liberal ad in question, which doesn't mention Rudd or Laba once, IS NOT A PATCH on the last Laba offerings of

• black and white imagery of John Howard
• melodramatic music
• verballing of what WorkChoices would do (even though it hadn't done it)
• and so on and so on.

There is a world of difference between the two ads. Every party, including The Libs of course, have descended into negative attack ads previously and no doubt will do so again. This thread is about this campaign.


The immigration one is not positive at all but a flat-out scare campaign in the way it is presented and in the unsubtle implication of terrorism in the choice of nations listed, and the unstated implied consequences of not taking strong action now.
I disagree. It is an issue on which both sides are broadly in agreement. I see the ad as trying to own the territory, whereas the Laba (as it has done on so many issues) has just recently tried to pinch Liberal territory! To call that a scare campaign is entirely disingenuous and without basis IMO.


A few months back it would have been seen as offensive and a blunder
I disagree. A few months ago, The Libs (who haven't changed their position for 5 years) may have been convinced it was offensive by a bleeding heart left. But what's actually happened is that Laba and the hand-wringing middle-of-the-roaders have moved to The Libs' position! Hows' that!?

Basil
11-05-2010, 10:27 AM
and I don't think the Abbott-equals-workchoices message is past its scare-campaign-by date just yet.
Not entirely perhaps, but not as punishing but losing its currency nonetheless. A bit like Rudd, really.


Most scare campaigns against Oppositions have a life cycle of about one term before the public loses interest in them.
But this is really a campaign against a not-too-distantly-ousted government. As some swingers are now rightfully doubting much of what comes out of Rudd's mouth, and by extension Labor advertising, perhaps some among 'The 3' are prepared to reject it. After all the, the ads were running prior to the polls being taken.

Goughfather
11-05-2010, 11:36 AM
I should add that regardless of where this discussion heads while considers the finesse of what constitutes a positive campaign, the Liberal ad in question, which doesn't mention Rudd or Laba once, IS NOT A PATCH on the last Laba offerings of

black and white imagery of John Howard
melodramatic music
verballing of what WorkChoices would do (even though it hadn't done it)
and so on and so on.

And they worked a treat, unlike the Liberal ads, which were even more negative than the Labor ads, but had absolutely no traction with the electorate. Perhaps this is why this particular ad does not reach the grubby depths of the Liberals previous efforts, but I think it is something of a stretch to call it "positive".


I disagree. It is an issue on which both sides are broadly in agreement. I see the ad as trying to own the territory, whereas the Laba (as it has done on so many issues) has just recently tried to pinch Liberal territory! To call that a scare campaign is entirely disingenuous and without basis IMO.

Just because Labor have moved to the right on asylum seekers post-Tampa does not make this type of advertising any less of a scare campaign. Unfortunately, Labor saw the political expedience of appealling to the worst in Australians and got on board, rather than risk being thrown overboard by the electorate.


Not entirely perhaps, but not as punishing but losing its currency nonetheless. A bit like Rudd, really.

I agree to an extent. The reality of workers losing their protections is not such an imminent reality now that the Howard government is out of power and that WorkChoices has been repealed, so it is likely that the campaign's effectiveness will be reduced. But it also seems to me that it is still a fruitful area from which Labor can gain mileage.


But this is really a campaign against a not-too-distantly-ousted government.

And given Abbott's connection with the previous government, I'm sure that this will be a factor that concerns the electorate.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2010, 12:55 PM
I disagree. It is an issue on which both sides are broadly in agreement. I see the ad as trying to own the territory, whereas the Laba (as it has done on so many issues) has just recently tried to pinch Liberal territory! To call that a scare campaign is entirely disingenuous and without basis IMO.

No, it is clearly a scare campaign. The use of arrows into the continent clearly implies actual entry to Australia, the choice of nations to highlight is calculated to play on negative sentiments about Islamics, Tamils and other potential "terrorists", and the issuing of nebulous warnings is designed to hint that if current government policy continues there will be unbearable consequences for Australia specifically (as opposed to just more work and embarrassment for the government, more overcrowding on Christmas Island, and periodical mini Siev Xs.)

If the aim was just to own the territory then there was no need to have arrows snaking into Australia, no need to highlight those particular nations and no need to imply unspecified warnings. Just a pithy rehash of the Howard doctrine would have been sufficient.

It is indeed significant that Rudd and co recently put up the shutters for asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan specifically, but the basis for that was a claim (however dubious) that there was no need for people to seek asylum from those countries.


As some swingers are now rightfully doubting much of what comes out of Rudd's mouth, and by extension Labor advertising, perhaps some among 'The 3' are prepared to reject it. After all the, the ads were running prior to the polls being taken.

In this case the damning comment came out of Abbott's mouth not Rudd's. By saying that Work Choices was dead in name without ruling out ever introducing anything remotely resembling it again he left himself wiiiiiiiiiide open to the perception that if elected he would simply rebadge the concept.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2010, 01:00 PM
And they worked a treat, unlike the Liberal ads, which were even more negative than the Labor ads, but had absolutely no traction with the electorate.

I think they may have cut the damage somewhat. In the leadup to the election Labor was looking good to win 90+ seats and that didn't happen. Maybe that's down to incumbency effect or maybe scare campaigns against oppositions are an important part of incumbency effect.

If Labor's 2007 negative ads are compared with Labor's 2004 ones, it's clear that the former worked and the latter didn't, mainly because to mount an effective negative campaign from opposition you need to focus on what the government is already doing, not on what it supposedly will do (eg the 2004 Howard/Costello scratchie gimmick that flopped).

Basil
11-05-2010, 01:14 PM
Just because Labor have moved to the right on asylum seekers post-Tampa does not make this type of advertising any less of a scare campaign.

No, it is clearly a scare campaign.
We appear to be at cross-purposes. My definition of scare campaign in this thread was intended to relate solely to 'beating up facts, often with licence, to scare the electorate of what the other party will do'.

I accept that that Kevin's treatment of the arrows is a scare campaign in the sense of 'here comes the German invasion' - but as I have said, Labor is trying to own that space as well. If the campaign is grubby on that front, so be it (I have neither interest nor comment); but I stand by my original in that it isn't grubby politics that blackens the other party.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2010, 01:51 PM
In terms of advertising both parties can repeat 2007 campaign.

1. Coalition ads in 2007 portrait Labor as incompetent. Last three years vindicated those ads, why don't Liberals run them again?

2. Labor can safely use the same promises they used in 2007, as none of them were fulfilled:lol:

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2010, 02:36 PM
We appear to be at cross-purposes. My use of scare campaign in this thread was intended to relate solely to 'beating up facts, often with licence, to scare the electorate of what the other party will do'.

I think it is more or less exactly such. The implied message of the ad is that the current government's stance, if allowed to continue, will result at least in many people from these nations gaining entry to the Australian continent illegally, and potentially in them blowing things up while here. While that implied message is in all probability nonsense there are a couple of demographics that buy it, and the ad is pitched very craftily to those demographics' fears while also being harmless enough on the surface for "plausible deniability" should the government whip up a fuss about it.


If the campaign is grubby on that front, so be it (I have neither interest nor comment); but I stand by my original in that it isn't grubby politics that blackens the other party.

I agree that it doesn't accuse the other party of a particular intention to cause harm. But it does imply that the other party's position is negligent to a degree far exceeding reality and that certainly makes it an "attack ad" of some kind.

Basil
11-05-2010, 02:40 PM
I agree that it doesn't accuse the other party of a particular intention to cause harm. But it does imply that the other party's position is negligent to a degree far exceeding reality and that certainly makes it an "attack ad" of some kind.
Given the adversarial nature of politics, I am more than comfortable with the ad. I feel your scope for messaging that isn't classified as negative is very narrow. What would make the message acceptable? Removal of the graphic?

Goughfather
11-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Given the adversarial nature of politics, I am more than comfortable with the ad. I feel your scope for messaging is very narrow. What would make the message acceptable? Removal of the graphic?

Do you not read the responses of others:


Just a pithy rehash of the Howard doctrine would have been sufficient.

In other words, the rather inane "We decide who comes into the country ..." would have helped to clarify that the Opposition has not moved forward in the last nine years.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2010, 03:09 PM
Given the adversarial nature of politics, I am more than comfortable with the ad. I feel your scope for messaging is very narrow. What would make the message acceptable? Removal of the graphic?

I'm not really getting into acceptability; I just disagree with your classification of that part of the ad as "positive campaigning". I don't have a view against attack ads in general; I just think this one should be seen for one since that is what it is. Tedious as they are they are all part of playing the game of appearance as opposed to reality that is a big part of modern politics, and the ones with the best material are remarkably effective.

I think this ad would be much more credible if it did not have arrows coming in over the Australian continent and if those arrows were not labelled with the names of a highly selective set of nations. But even so, an open-ended claim that stronger measures are needed on illegal immigration now just leads to the question: Why? What will happen otherwise? What's the big deal here?

You've suggested that the ad "isn't grubby politics that blackens the other party." In my view, attack ads are more of a concern not when they smear the other party but when they smear innocent third parties in pursuit of a point.

An especially vile example was an attack ad issued by the Exclusive Brethren in Tas in 2006, which later turned out to have been covertly funded by the Tassie Liberals. This ad whipped up fear about the supposedly family-destroying impacts of Green policies on transgender and intersex rights, in a way that demonised some very small and politically obscure sexual minorities for the sake of fearmongering. That it was a grubby attack on Greens policies is one thing (the Greens have made plenty of grubby attacks of their own), that it was also a grubby attack on people who had nothing to do with those minorities quite another. The attack ads led to successful anti-vilification complaints.

So when it comes to the Abbott attack ad, my question isn't so much if it is an unfair attack on Labor policy and its consequences, since that sort of thing is expected on both sides. What I am a little more concerned about is whether it may have a detrimental impact on attitudes within the Australian community to Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Sri Lankans and Indonesians already living here and doing so legitimately.

I exempt my former Iranian flatmate (1994) from this concern. :lol:

TheJoker
11-05-2010, 03:54 PM
The Libs are running a TVC for a week, then it will be flicked to YouTube. I saw it last night.

Abbott. Masculine neutral blues. Close-up. All positive messages. Positive campaign. No mention of Rudd. No mention of the terific ammunition Labor has supplied. I was impressed (I hope from a professional POV).

The big problem with postive campaigning at this stage is the opposition doesn't actually have any policies, so when people are interested in what "real action" the Libs are going to take you end up drawing a blank.

If you are going to go with positive campaigning you need something to talk up.

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2010, 03:41 PM
Speaking of election advertising, this was rejected by the Adelaide Advertiser for various reasons, some of them clearly spurious.

http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/14-05-2010-12-21-52-PM.jpg

Basil
17-05-2010, 03:08 PM
Campaign Gets Down And Dirty (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/campaign-gets-down-and-dirty/story-e6frg6zo-1225867462598) says The Australian, about the ALP (with Rudd up to the second knuckle). I'm assuming we're waiting for The Libs to follow suit?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2010, 03:35 PM
Does positive campaign allow to reveal incompetence and fraud of the government?

Basil
17-05-2010, 04:30 PM
Does positive campaign allow to reveal incompetence and fraud of the government?
Well, perhaps it depends on who you ask, the tone of the message, the context of the message and truth. Paying attention and repect to all of the above, it be possible to slaughter the incumbent clowns without overreaching at all! :D

antichrist
17-05-2010, 06:37 PM
Howard, your excitement about all this reminds me exactly of B. A. Santamaria frothing at the mouth all those decades ago about unions etcf. And his appearance for certain reasons is not all that different from your own???

And he had his own magazine as well

Basil
18-05-2010, 08:29 PM
Black and white images? Attack ads? Why not?

uS2V7S7Iv-Y

Goughfather
19-05-2010, 04:12 PM
Just waiting for Howie to froth at the mouth over this one. You've got to love the pageantry of it all ...

XOT6PZhBPKo

Basil
19-05-2010, 04:50 PM
Just waiting for Howie to froth at the mouth over this one. You've got to love the pageantry of it all ...
No frothing on these ads. They are what they are. I think they might even work against the government.

Basil
20-05-2010, 08:55 AM
Evza9cgv5QQ

Another one straight from the mold. This time from a union. Cast, creative agency and the braincell that conceived it straight from the anti-Workchoices vault.


Mono images (except for the living, breathing 'real' Australians).
Haunting music.
Desperate voice-over.

:lol: I'm genuinely interested to see if these ads have traction with the electorate. Preaching to the converted is a synch but what will the swingers (The 3) make of all of this? :hmm:

ER
20-05-2010, 09:42 AM
Another one straight from the mold. This time from a union. Cast. Creative agency and the braincell that conceived it straight from the anti-Workchoices vault.


Mono images (except for the living, breathing 'real' Australians).
Haunting music.
Desperate voice-over.

:lol: I'm genuinely interested to see if these ads have traction with the electorate. Preaching to the converted is a synch but what will the swingers (The 3) make of all of this :hmm:

I wouldn't fall for such primitive, prosaic, el cheapo motions!
The (half) brains behind this "masterpiece" however, seem to forget that this ad is not only directed to the swingers (regardless of their Nos.) but also to the respectable percentage of hard working Aussies who actually have bought shares in the mining industry!

A share holder who felt the sting of BHP's (just to name one company) loses in the share market since our PM's announcement will certainly be very infuriated when exposed to this sort of unnecessary, uncalled for and definitely insensitive rubbish!

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Another one straight from the mold. This time from a union. Cast. Creative agency and the braincell that conceived it straight from the anti-Workchoices vault.


Mono images (except for the living, breathing 'real' Australians).
Haunting music.
Desperate voice-over.

:lol: I'm genuinely interested to see if these ads have traction with the electorate. Preaching to the converted is a synch but what will the swingers (The 3) make of all of this :hmm:
Of course, the usual leftard lie that they are being "asked" to pay more. No, a tax forces people to pay.

And there is the nonsense of "putting something back". But they didn't take anything illegally or immorally, so have no moral obligation to give anything back.

Furthermore, no pinko propaganda would be complete without the zero-sum fallacy. This ad insinuates that these mining bosses became wealthy at someone else's expense. But in reality, rather, they found a way to make useful materials out of stuff that was in the ground uselessly for eons. Sure, they became wealthier, but they made the country wealthier too.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2010, 02:05 PM
Furthermore, no pinko propaganda would be complete without the zero-sum fallacy.
Indeed. I want them to explain where did 24bn from the sharemarket value go.
If a businessman gains because of share price appreciation, it means someone become poorer. By that logic if share price drops, someone must become richer. I'd like to know who is this someone.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 02:21 PM
By that logic if share price drops, someone must become richer. I'd like to know who is this someone.

Someone with put options;)

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2010, 02:42 PM
Someone with put options;)
You are quite welcome to be pedantic. But then you should consider those who wrote the put options and lost as much. Unlike sharemarket value, options are a truly zero-sum game.

TheJoker
20-05-2010, 05:45 PM
You are quite welcome to be pedantic. But then you should consider those who wrote the put options and lost as much. Unlike sharemarket value, options are a truly zero-sum game.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, not meant to be taken seriously. You know ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2010, 09:59 PM
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, not meant to be taken seriously. You know ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
I suspected suh, but knowing your views and support for the mining tax I couldn't be hundred percent sure. :lol:

TheJoker
21-05-2010, 11:25 AM
I suspected suh, but knowing your views and support for the mining tax I couldn't be hundred percent sure. :lol:

I don't necessarily support the new mining tax, I am just not willing to condemn it. I certainly support the idea of reforming the inefficient royalties system with a charge for resources that reflects changes in global commodity prices. Whether the specifics of new arragnement will be detrimental to the competitiveness of the mining industry, is unclear.

Basil
29-05-2010, 03:50 PM
Apparently the Lib attack ads are on the way. Are they on free to air atm? Saw a grab of one this morning.

Goughfather
30-05-2010, 04:31 PM
Apparently the Lib attack ads are on the way. Are they on free to air atm? Saw a grab of one this morning.

Is this the cartoon ad featuring Frankenstein? If so, the Liberals seem to be intent on ripping off their few remaining shreds of dignity. I haven't laughed so heartily in quite a while ...

Igor_Goldenberg
17-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Another Labor hypocrisy:

Accentuate positive, eliminate negative (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/accentuate-positive-eliminate-negative/story-e6frg6zo-1225880612255) (thanks to Andrew Bolt for pointing out)

Anthony Albanese on ABC1's Lateline yesterday:

WE'RE relying upon our positive agenda. We're not relying upon the fact that Tony Abbott is a huge risk to our economy, that he's a huge risk to national security. Tony Abbott . . . what he stands for . . . is an extreme position on industrial relations, he's a climate change sceptic who thinks climate change is crap . . . on a range of social issues he's completely out of touch with the . . . public. Our job, Leigh, is to return to the substance. Because Tony Abbott represents a throwback. Tony Abbott represents the most extreme ideological leader the Liberal Party has had. He is John Howard without the pragmatism.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:41 AM
I don't necessarily support the new mining tax, I am just not willing to condemn it. I certainly support the idea of reforming the inefficient royalties system with a charge for resources that reflects changes in global commodity prices. Whether the specifics of new arragnement will be detrimental to the competitiveness of the mining industry, is unclear.
It seems quite clear to finance ministers or the equivalent in Canada, Chile and South Africa, who are delighted that KRudd's greedy tax grab will drive miners to their shores.

TheJoker
18-06-2010, 01:26 PM
It seems quite clear to finance ministers or the equivalent in Canada, Chile and South Africa, who are delighted that KRudd's greedy tax grab will drive miners to their shores.

Of course they'll be saying they have a better tax system that's their job. The question is whether in reality whether the cost structure is actually lower in those countries or not. It depends on a lot of factors, such as the nature of the resources (quality, ease of mining, size of deposits etc), the availibility of skilled labour, cost of shipping exports to buyers, cost of debt finance, exchange rates etc, etc.

I'd like to see a comparision of the profitability of mining operations, in various regions to see if Australia's mine are really super profitable compared to the profits being earned from mines in other countries.