Mulcair’s behind the NDP rise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Photo credit: Etienne Ranger, Le Droit)



 Alex Marland

Alex Marland (Memorial University) has published about political marketing in the Journal of Public Affairs, political talk radio in Media, Culture and Society, and about Newfoundland nationalism in the International Journal of Canadian Studies.

Ever think about how much goes on in your mind before before you buy something for the first time? You need to hear about it, you need to have a problem that needs solving, you need to prioritize one option over others, you need to make a decision, and once you’ve made a purchase you assess the quality of the product/service while you are using it. Marketers know this and use models of cognition theory and behavioural decisions to figure out how to get you to buy their product.

The same thing happens in politics. And currently commentators seem to be attributing the NDP’s stunning rise in Quebec to Jack Layton. I get this: Layton scores well in leadership polls, did well in the French debate, and was even born and raised in Quebec. But someone else is very much responsible.

Thomas Mulcair.

From a marketing perspective, the party’s lone Quebec MP deserves much of the credit for many Quebeckers currently toying with the idea of voting NDP. This is because he softened the ground as the marketing equivalent of a ‘product trial’. For years, Quebeckers have heard about the NDP, but it wasn’t seen to be able to solve their needs. They had no reason to prioritize it over other parties, and so voting NDP wasn’t a serious consideration.

Since winning a 2007 by-election, Mulcair has been the party’s regional salesman in Quebec, a position augmented by his role as a deputy NDP leader. He has represented Outremont capably and offers Quebec a credible voice in Parliament. A CROP poll in early April predicted he would comfortably hold off a challenge from former Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon – and that was before the New Democratic Party’s province-wide rise.

In other words, Mulcair’s presence means that for the past few years more Quebeckers have been slowly evaluating the NDP, whether they knew it or not. When a number of them recently sensed that voting for other parties, notably the Bloc Québécois, would not fulfill their needs, the combination of Layton and Mulcair meant that the NDP emerged as a better option. Or at least one worth considering.

For all that, I wonder whether this dalliance will materialize on Election Day. Thierry Giasson is also hesitant, comparing the situation to Quebeckers considering a pricy cashmere sweater, who may not go through with the sale. One of my hesitations? Throughout the campaign I have been reading about too many phantom NDP candidates in Quebec. They do not have a sufficient local presence to turn survey intentions into quite the same proportion of hard votes. The Liberal party is mentioning as much in its "Not so fast, Jack" advertising.

Still, just as some Canadians are now looking at how the parties are using marketing techniques such as micro-targeting, we can use a marketing way of thinking to make a case for the NDP to give Thomas Mulcair a big pat on the back.

After May 2, of course.

Of tired brands and cashmere

Thierry Giasson

Thierry Giasson (Université Laval) has published about televised political debates in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, political journalism in the Canadian Journal of Communication, politicians’ image management in Questions de communication.

Big shocker in Quebec this week, the NDP places first in voting intentions, five points ahead of the Bloc. An unprecedented situation!

Something the Bloc’s strategists and pollsters clearly did not see coming in their market research prior to the election call, as Gilles Duceppe’s very emotional public pleas geared toward Quebec nationalists to reconsider an NDP defection can all attest.

They used all the arguments from the political advertising book to reverse the soft nationalist defections. In the last two days, Duceppe tried to stir suspicion by casting this “new” NDP support as a mirage, to mobilize anger by recalling the NDP’s support for the clarity bill in 2001 and for the Lower Churchill power lines project, to create fear by repeating that a vote for the NDP is a vote for a majority Tory government, and to stimulate nationalist pride by launching a new TV ad depicting himself as a Quebec patriot “with a dream in his head and a country in his heart”.

The approach might work. It did in 2008 when Layton benefited from a slight surge in Quebec voting intentions following a surprising debate performance in French. The Bloc managed to crush the growing NDP support by waving the red flag of a majority Harper government. Nationalists went back to the Bloc.

But this time around the fear mongering does not seem to work. Could it be because the Bloc’s brand is tired?

The Bloc’s has been in Ottawa for 20 years. Many voters in Quebec have not experienced anything else, being socialized politically with a majority of Quebec MPs in opposition. Yet, those under 25 have not been strongly affected by the post-Meech constitutional psychodrama the country experienced between 1990 and 1995. Support for sovereignty in Quebec is not soaring and this new generation of voters is entering the electoral market ready to listen to alternatives to the Bloc’s offer. 

These voters are now considering the NDP as such an alternative. It presents a more palatable electoral product than the Tories and Liberals are. Ideologically, their left-to-center option seems close to the Bloc’s. And the NDP does not suffer from the Sponsorship scandal stigma the Liberals still endure in Quebec.

Furthermore, the Bloc’s core message – in Ottawa to defend Quebec values and interest – could also feel old to many voters. From 1993 to 2004, when elections were called every three or four years, the Bloc was great at marking its relevance in Ottawa. The political context, deeply rooted in constitutional debates, gave the party lots of ammunition against its liberal opponents (close referendum campaign in 1995, clarity debate, sponsorship scandal…).

That context sifted dramatically with the Tories arrival to power, the succession of minority governments and the consequential acceleration of election cycles. Constitutional politics are on the back burner, and the over-repeated Bloc’s message on Quebec values in the last four campaign sounds like a broken record. What seemed inspirational in 2004 now simply feels tarnished, used. Could recent message over-repetition have killed the Bloc's brand value?

During this campaign, the Bloc’s been saying to Quebecois voters that it would go to Ottawa to “speak of Quebec” (“Parler Québec”) in the House. What the surge in NDP support seems to signal, is that many Quebecois now feel the BQ should'nt have a monopoly in voicing Quebec’s aspiration and interests any more. The NDP is now seen as a valuable option, a fresher brand.

But the NDP product, as its 2008 reversal in Quebec voting intentions indicates, is not an impulsive purchase for voters in La Belle Province. It’s still generates a lot of uncertainty. The NDP has difficulty in closing the electoral transaction with Quebec voters.

Like a rich – yet pricy - cashmere sweater, Quebecois electors like the NDP’s color, its soft feel, its warmth. But many voters still fear its purchase might be to expensive, that it could alter their budget, that it could change form once washed. The temptation is there. It’s been attractive since 2006.

The NDP’s challenge this time around will be to brake this cycle of uncertainty and to make sure the electoral transaction is completed. They will need as strong ground organization to achieve this goal an dget out the vote. And this is precisely their weak spot in Quebec.

Ultimately, electoral consumers in Quebec might end up putting the orange cashmere sweater back on the shelf and instead choose yet again the slightly faded – but familiar - blue cotton knit.

See you at the register on May 2^nd.

Internet dating?

Tamara A. Small

Tamara A. Small (Mount Allison University) has published work on online election campaigning in Party Politics and in the Canadian Journal of Political Science and about Internet regulation in Election Law Journal.

I've been reading a lot of tweets written by Canada's party leaders over the last few weeks. This one struck me as a bit odd:

@elizabethmay: Hi Josh! What can I say? I love you too! @joshrachlis #elxn41 #GPC

Elizabeth May (@elizabethmay)and the the Green Party @canadiangreen have certainly been the most conversational on Twitter during the campaign -- thanking supporters and responding to request for information. But love?

The tweet is in respond to a YouTube by Josh Rachlis called "Love song for Elizabeth May."

 

Viral videos are continuing to playing an important role in this campaign.

Stephen Harper’s been pinned

 
Photo source: www.zimbio.com/Stephen+Harper/articles/14/Stephen+Harper+Wins+Election+Refuses+Wear

 

Alex Marland

Alex Marland (Memorial University) has published about political marketing in the Journal of Public Affairs, political talk radio in Media, Culture and Society, and about Newfoundland nationalism in the International Journal of Canadian Studies.

Pierre Trudeau famously sported a rose in his lapel. Sometimes politicians wear political ribbons. Women often wear broaches. Stephen Harper? He wears a Canadian flag pin. Look closely: it’s there. You probably didn’t notice it before, but you will now. The book cover of Harperland is a good example.

What does this little piece of metal symbolize? The Harper brand. At least, the brand of Harper that his handlers are trying to convey. Specifically, that Stephen Harper is a patriotic Canadian. His flag pin is a subtle reminder that only he stands up for Canadian values. Or, at least, the version of Canadian values that the Harper Conservatives value.

Here are some of the many ways that the Conservatives try to position the party and their leader as defenders of the Canadian way of life:

• Stephen Harper is regularly surrounded by Canadian flags. Jean Chrétien was a pro at this. The flag is now so entwined in Conservative images that they appear to be on a mission to edge out the Liberal party' brand as the foremost choice for national unity;
• Conservative policies support the Canadian military and thereby 'support the troops' and they feature a defence of Canadian sovereignty including the Arctic;
• Harper spends time at Tim Hortons coffee shops, a business whose own marketing has branded itself with Canadian identity;
• He hangs out at Canadian sporting events such as curling, the Calgary Stampede, CFL games and of course hockey and the Vancouver Olympics;
• His ties often include the colour red and during the campaign Harper has been wearing a jacket emblazoned with “CANADA”; and,
• The Conservative party campaign slogan is strategically titled, "Here For Canada", their platform document features a Canadian flag, and their newest TV ads are full of Canadian iconography.

This nationalist positioning is really only a Conservative party strength if it is a corresponding weakness for the Liberal party. So Conservative advertising positions Harper’s main adversary as someone who ‘came back’ and is ‘just visiting’. In contrast, Harper quietly works at his office desk with the Canadian flag positioned behind him. His handlers have used flags for a long time, but not the flag pin. It wasn’t there in the 2005-06 campaign; that’s when promoting his young family was a good way to contrast with an older Paul Martin. But the Harper flag pin was prominent during the 2008 coalition crisis when he was defending national unity, for instance.

Sure, nationalism is prevalent in all elections, and not just in Canada. Flags are the most common way to convey this. They are present at protests, at leaders’ summits and at sporting events. Different ones are used depending on the audience, especially where Quebec's concerned. In Newfoundland, where I’m writing from, there are people who do not vote who have branded themselves with a tattoo of the Newfoundland independence flag which symbolizes their political identity. Flag tattoos are common elsewhere too. Maybe our PM even has one.

I would say he does – it just happens to be a highly symbolic piece of metal on his lapel.

(Incidentally NDP advertising is noticeably wrapping Jack Layton in the Canadian flag. So does the Bloc Quebecois with Gilles Duceppe... just a flag with slightly different symbolism)

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Hanging with Michael Ignatieff

Tamara A. Small

Tamara A. Small (Mount Allison University) has published work on online election campaigning in Party Politics and in the Canadian Journal of Political Science and about Internet regulation in Election Law Journal.

This weekend, I spent an afternoon with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.  Seriously.  No, he wasn’t campaigning in New Brunswick.  He was in Regina.  I spent the afternoon with the virtual Michael Ignatieff.  The Liberals hosted online town hall on Saturday afternoon.  If you followed Ignatieff on Twitter or are a friend on Facebook you received an invite. 

For one hour, Ignatieff along with candidate Monica Lysack (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre) took questions on the "Liberal Family Pack."  In total, Ignatieff answered about 24 questions on wide range of issues, including the Canada Health Act, same-sex marriage, childcare and post-secondary education.  Questions were asked and answered in both official languages. Overall, it was a lively Q&A. The transcript of the event is posted on the Liberal Blog.

Ignatieff has participated in other online town halls in his terms as leader including the launch of the Liberal platform earlier in the campaign. Other leaders, too, have chatted with voters online. Stephen Harper participated in a YouTube chat in 2010.  While during the English language debates, Green party leader Elizabeth May responded in real-time to the same questions asked of the other four leaders.

In the early years of the Internet, cyber-optimists thought the Internet would usher in a new age of democratic politics. It was argued that through the Internet, citizens could initiate, discuss, and vote on policy options. Representative democracy would be strengthened because politicians and citizens could directly communicate with one another.

 This isn’t exactly what happened, however.  Research concisely showed that election after election, two-way communication between voters and Canada’s party leaders was uncommon. Canadian politicians have tended to avoid online chat rooms on their websites, and sometimes even turned off commenting functions on blogs and Facebook pages. This isn't just a Canadian phenomenon either.  Barack Obama aside, most American politicians don’t spend too much time engaging with citizens through the Internet.  Digital politics has been very top-down.   

While I am curious how many people actually participated in the Liberal town hall by either submitting questions or just as lurkers. Also I would really like to hear more about the how the questions were vetted. As the questions were all remarkably on-topic, focussed on policy not politics. This said, I do laud this use of the Internet.  The use of online chats is a welcome addition to digital politics. 

 

Part two: The Silence of the lambs, er, of the media

Thierry Giasson

Thierry Giasson (Université Laval) has published about televised political debates in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, political journalism in the Canadian Journal of Communication, politicians’ image management in Questions de communication.

Shopping for votes is a first. It’s officially this first time an important Canadian news outlet opens its electoral coverage to political marketing analyses, and dares calling it what it is: political marketing. I’ve recently completed a vast content analysis of electoral press coverage of the last four Federal elections to see how Canadian news media speaks of marketing during campaign. The big conclusion: they don’t speak of it. Well actually, they refer to parts of the process, but they never call it political marketing.

It could be understood why political parties would rather not mention their market research, microtargeting, voter profiling and product positioning procedures to the electors. Political actors (politicians and their advisors alike) believe such revelations could cast a negative image in the public. How can parties abandon their values, ideologies and social ideals to such consumerist appeals and undemocratic processes? Parties still want public opinion to believe that they care for everyone’s needs, when actually they mostly care for their electoral targets needs.

But why is the media not telling Canadian voters about this? Instead, electoral coverage still predominantly focuses on tactical decisions, ads, negativity, partisan web presences, leaders’ tours and televised debates. There is a constant decline in issue coverage. The media speak of electoral communication and strategies, not of the election. Is this information really useful to citizens?

Furthermore, political marketing implies that a relationship based on confidence must be brokered between parties and voters for support to be generated. The insistence in electoral coverage on party internal dissent, organizational failures, gaffes and campaign problems represents a significant hurdle parties’ must overcome in order to communicate their message to and engage with voters.  How do you generate trust when you’re constantly depicted as untrustworthy, weak or obsessed with tactics?

What do you think? Should the media, such as the Star’s initiative with this blog, tell Canadians more about political marketing processes and less about their application via electoral communication exercises, such as ads, social media uses and leaders’ debate performances? Why does the vast majority of Canadian news outlet remain silent about political marketing practices? Political reporters know it exists. Why are they not covering it?

Confessions of a debate pundit

Thierry Giasson

Thierry Giasson (Université Laval) has published about televised political debates in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, political journalism in the Canadian Journal of Communication, politicians’ image management in Questions de communication.

So the debate on the debates has finally come to an end. Voters now enjoy a bit of calm in from the media bubble they are forced in during debate week. One of the intriguing aspects of this 48 hours political frenzy relates to whom is invited to partake in the experiment of evaluating debate performances. Most debate analysts are ex-politicians or ex-political advisors who have engaged in debate preparation and/or performance in the past and ground their observations and comments on these experiences. Many are field reporters who speak of contextual factors like set design, negotiations over questions formats, choice of themes and ease of the participants during the exchanges. Some are pollsters who serve the clichéd one-two punch about who won and who lost according to their in-house flash polls (the Voice of the Electorate!). And others, like myself, are academics who have studied different aspects of televised debates and/or are Canadian politics specialists.

What is intriguing about the phenomenon is the pundits’ selection procedure. Any news outlet will obviously ask its chief political correspondent to join in. But for the other panel experts, selection seems somewhat random and there are those usual suspects asked to return to the spin process every election cycle. Why them?

I’m one of those usual suspects. Every election since 2005, I’m asked by different Canadian news organizations to comment/analyze leaders’ performances during federal and provincial televised debates. The media contacting me change every time but their questions remain the same: Who won? Who lost? Who threw the best punch? Will the debate have an impact on voters?

The same questions every single time.

Nevertheless, I accept to participate because I’m a debate junkie. I wrote my dissertation on them, I find them both informative and entertaining and I still believe they represent the highest form of tactical marketing politicians can use to both convey their positions and ideals directly to the electorate and confront their opponents’ positions and ideals. So every election I watch the debates and answer the same questions. And I’m always wondering how useful this information is to voters. I base my analyses on comparisons of numerous (debate freak I told you!) provincial, federal and even American presidential debates that I have studied and analyzed in my research. My comments might offer an added value over those from advisors, pollsters and reporters. My big advantage over ex-politicos: my comments are non-partisan. My big advantage over pollsters: I’m not promoting my business. My big advantage over political reporters: I’m not cynical about politics. 

Yet what I’m considering important in debates could be completely irrelevant to voters. For instance I shared the opinion tweeted by many last Tuesday night that Prime Minister Harper’s constant camera stare was inappropriate, disrespectful to his opponents and made him look robotic. Many pundits felt otherwise, seeing in this awkward strategy a great way for the PM to address the nation directly. How then are voters combining these two very opposite view points in their evaluation of Mr. Harper’s performance? Robotic or Prime-ministerial?

Therefore, I can’t help wondering what voters are really gaining from this generalized exercise of impressionist punditry (pardon the redundancy!)? Do you follow the debate over the debates? What do you make of this process? How useful is it for you?

Negative-option marketing

Jennifer Lees-Marshment

Jennifer Lees-Marshment is a world-wide expert in political marketing who was visiting professor at McGill University in 2009, and who has conducted research and published on Canadian political marketing.

 

I’ve interviewed several advertising consultants who have worked for political parties around the world and devised attention grabbing pol ads in elections.

Whilst we know negative ads are common in politics, what they told me was that for them to be successful, they need to fit certain rules:

1. Reinforce views by using advertising that simply and clearly expresses existing views and emotions
2. Use advertising to reach people less interested in detail
3. Utilise negative advertising, but carefully, with humour

The Liberals recent ad ‘it’s time to stop the Harper gravy train’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi86pDt30D4) fits these rules. Firstly, although it’s negative, unlike previous attack ads from both sides which could alienate anyone other than core supporters, it is humourous, using carnival type music and showing cartoon type trains, which gets the message over but in a much darker way, making it more accessible to floating voters. You can feel comfortable watching this critique of the prime minister.

Secondly, it uses facts/figures but in catchy way – so tells people the detail of the problem in simple ways, but it is also legitimized by the use of numbers.

Thirdly, it reinforces existing views because the issue of potential mis-spending by the government for the G8, which has already been covered by the media and so is already in public consciousness, and tied to official rebuke from auditor, so legitimate and believable.

This is effective negative advertising.

But even then it can only get a party so far. What it can do is open voters minds to the possibility of taking their vote away from Harper.

The Liberals still have to then give voters a reason to buy their product instead. So what the Liberals have to do now is offer a clear, positive alternative. This could then change the course of the election.

Online Ads: The benefit (Part Two)

 Tamara A. Small

Tamara A. Small (Mount Allison University) has published work on online election campaigning in Party Politics and in the Canadian Journal of Political Science and about Internet regulation in Election Law Journal.

Last week, I blogged about the Liberal Party’s online ad, Hey Stephen Harper, stop creeping me on Facebook. I have another one for you:

The video is the first episode on the YouTube channel, It's Over Steve!! According to the channel, “If enough women vote, Harper's Regime will fall.” As we saw last week, the gender gap remains important to electoral politics in Canada. It's Over Steve also encourages women to make their own videos and link them to the channel.

Not only are political parties and candidates producing web-exclusive ads, so too are interest groups and individuals. Independently produced online ads came to prominence in the 2004 American election. However, this phenomenon was magnified in 2008 with the growing popularity of YouTube. Millions of people watched videos like Vote Different and Obama Girl in the American election. While Culture en Peril was a gamechanger in the 2008 federal election. Produced by Québec singer, Michel Rivard, the French and English videos were viewed by more than half a million people by election day. These videos also received considerable coverage in the mainstream media.

Videos like these demonstrate the power and reach of the Internet for politics. Using technology freely available, individual citizens and organized groups can potentially get their political messages out to millions of people for little to no cost. This is something that would have been nearly impossible in the pre-Internet world.

Only a couple thousand people have viewed It's Over Steve in the first 24 hours of its existence. So it is not quite on the level of Obama Girl and Culture en Peril. Not yet. However, the video has already gone viral. I didn’t go looking for the video, it appeared in my Facebook feed this morning. Word of mouse can be powerful.

Seen any interesting independent online videos? Let me know.

Debates: It's how your friends see you

The Potential Impact of Debate Performance

By: André Turcotte, Ph.D
School of Journalism and Communication
Carleton University

As I was driving my kids to school this morning, I heard radio talk show hosts musing that the upcoming Leaders’ Debates “may be the most important ones we have witnessed in a long time.” For an election campaign largely devoid of excitement so far, the prospect of oratorical fireworks is both needed and appealing. But what do we know about the impact of Leaders’ Debates on electoral outcome?

In general, scholarship on the topic suggests that the impact of debates is minimal. While some leaders have experienced a surge in support after a good performance – Mulroney in 1984, Turner in 1988, Charest in 1997 - it is generally suggested that the positive impact is short-lived and dissipates by the time voters head to the polls. This is the main reason Leaders’ Debates are scheduled well-ahead of Election Day. However, we can identify some interesting dynamics when we evaluate this event through the prism of partisanship.

If we look back to the 2008 Leaders’ Debates, we know, from the Canadian National Election Study data, that 38% of Canadians watched the English Debate and 47% of Quebecers watched the French Debate. As  is customary, media coverage will focus on ‘who won?” In 2008, 28% of those who watched the English Debate gave the nod to Stephen Harper, ahead of Elizabeth May at 24% and Jack Layton at 19%. Only 8% favored Stéphane Dion. Among those who watched the French Debate, 34% said that Dion performed best, ahead of Gilles Duceppe (24%). Both Harper (7%) and Layton (5%) were far behind. But if we want to better understand the potential impact of the debates, it is more insightful to examine how the leaders performed with their own supporters.

Arguably, Stephen Harper consolidated his support with a strong performance in the 2008 English Debate. Specifically, 57% of Conservative voters thought Harper performed best – well ahead of all the other leaders. Both Dion and Layton were unable to do the same with their respective voters. Among Liberal voters, 26% believed May performed best, slightly ahead of Layton at 23%. Dion came in third (17%) amongst his own supporters and lost all hope of salvaging his campaign in English Canada. May also outperformed Layton among NDP supporters (38% vs. 31%). Needless to say that Liberal and NDP strategists will be glad to see the Green Party Leader excluded from this year’s debates.

In Quebec, Dion stopped further erosion in Liberal support with a stronger performance in the French Debate. In fact, 51% of Liberal voters in Quebec favored Dion at the time. The same proportion of Bloc voters gave the edge to Gilles Duceppe. Harper’s performance likely hindered Conservative growth in la belle province with a poor performance amongst Quebec Conservative voters (only 10% thought he performed best with 38% favoring Dion) and was poorly evaluated by Bloc, Liberal, and NDP voters.

With all eyes on them on Tuesday and Wednesday, Harper, Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe will try to inject some life into a lifeless campaign. Party strategists will be paying close attention to how the leaders are seen through the eyes of their respective supporters.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!