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.

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?

Delivery: The Quebec City Conundrum

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.

Do you know Régis Labeaume?

Régis Labeaume is the Mayor of Quebec City and the most popular/trusted politician in the province these days. Quebeckers appreciate his exuberant personality, his confrontational style and his profound dedication to the development of his city. He speaks very candidly about what he wants to achieve and his simple no-BS approach to politics has gained him legions of dedicate fans all over province. He wants residents of the Old Capital to be proud of their city. He wants to transform the municipality into one of the most thriving and attractive metropolis in the world. And he’s got a myriad of projects to achieve this goal. As all know by now, one of them is the building of a multifunctional arena to replace the decrepit Colisée, once the home of the Nordiques. Mayor Labeaume considers this new arena as the infrastructure Quebec needs to play in the major leagues (pun intended!). It would help attract large scale cultural events and rock concerts, contribute to an eventual Olympic bid and, maybe, bring back professional hockey to Quebec.

Labeaume was very acute at rallying public support behind the arena project. He made it the focus of his reelection bid in 2009, which he won by a landslide. Quebec not only needed the building to achieve its development goals, his argument went, but the city actually deserved it. Quebeckers ate his pride filled rhetoric up! The faith of the arena was sealed. From then on, it became the most prevalent political and economic issue for Quebec, its Mayor and its population.

Which brings us to the current Federal campaign. Last week, Prime Minister Harper launched his campaign in Quebec City, just as he had done in 2008. His entire speech focused on his government’s accomplishments in the region. As my colleague Jennifer Lees-Marshment reminded us last week, an incumbent administration as only but one task to achieve during a campaign: clearly demonstrate that it delivered on its electoral product. Delivery! Delivery! Delivery! The Tories hypercontroled and über-choreographed the  Quebec event followed this goal.

Yet there was another reason why Mr. Harper chose Quebec as his launching pad. Polls in the Quebec Metro region show his party trailing the Bloc by a significant margin. In the 2006 election, the Conservatives won 6 seats in the Quebec metropolitain area, all at the Bloc’s expense. In 2008, the Bloc regained one of these seats. Their prospects for 2011 in some Quebec ridings are uncertain (Charlebourg-Haute-St-Charles, Beauport-Limoulou, Lévis-Bellchasse) as the PCC’s market research must indicate. Which is why the Harper campaign made its first stop in Quebec. The party wants to maintain its hold on the Old Capital’s electoral market. This might be a difficult feat to achieve for this campaign. The problem: Delivery! Except this time the failure is not necessarily due to the Tories lack of achievements in the region, it’s associated to their incapacity to deliver on someone else’s promise!

The Québec City conservative caucus failed dramatically to insure federal funding for the construction of the Labeaume’s arena. Quickly, after his reelection in 2009 Mayor Labeaume and the provincial government announced that public funds would pay for the building’s construction. The Mayor declared that he was now waiting for some form of funding from the Federal government. Fast forward to the Fall of 2010. Following a meeting in Quebec City, the caucus of Tory MPs from the Old Capital posed for an incriminating photo showing 7 of them wearing Nordiques jerseys, thumbs raised in support to the prospect of a professional team coming back to Quebec. (See picture right, courtesy of CTV) 

Whoops! Many saw this ill-advised photo-op as a clear sign the MPs were in favour of the arena's construction and that the Feds would most probably contribute funds to the project. [UPDATE] Others, including the Bloc Québécois and some conservative talk radio hosts, saw in this photo a silent strategic message from the Quebec Tory caucus that laid out what was to come: "We know the arena is dedicated to a professional team, and we won't support it's funding!" In any case, the picture generated irate reactions in the rest of Canada and urged PM Harper to publicly close the door to any form of Federal contribution for an arena dedicated to professional sports. Remember, we have a deficit to pay off!

Yet, Josée Verner, minister in charge of Quebec City in the federal cabinet, kept the hope alive. For six  months, pressed by reporters, Minister Verner said that the government’s final decision had still not been reached and asked the Mayor of Quebec to submit documents and business plans detailing how private investments would be included in the funding scheme. The charade went on until Mayor Labeaume and Quebec Primer Jean Charest held a press conference in February announcing they were going at it alone. Labeaume had waited long enough for the Federal government. Things had to move. Furthermore, the Mayor did not hesitate to publicly express his malaise and anger at the inhability of the Quebec City tory caucus to defend the project in Cabinet. From then on, conservative support in the region started to decline.

As Prime Minister Harper indicated in his Quebec City speech last week, the Conservatives delivered on a number of their 2008 promises for the region. The arena? It wasn’t part of their platform then. Still, the party failed to recognized this impact of what became a dominating issue in the region. Sometimes, delivering your product is just not enough! Sometimes, you must also deliver on someone else’s product, especially if this other producer is a strong actor in the market you want to conquer. The situation in Quebec City illustrates that delivery must always be achieved on the electoral product offered during an election, but that emerging issues in the inter-election context must often be dealt with and answered as well for support to be solidified and insured. The Tories in Quebec can only claim success on the first part of the proposition.

So how do you resolve this conundrum? Is there a solution?

In the case of Quebec, the solution rests with the ubiquitous Régis Labeaume. This week Mayor Labeaume is expected to present a list of projects he wants to undergo in the coming years, including public transit expansion and a Quebec-Windsor Speed Train line. The Tories will have to broker a deal with him on at least one of these ventures, gain his support and have him say publicly that they are strong advocates for the city’s interest in Cabinet. Anything short of this could have detrimental electoral implications for those MPs, but also for Prime Minister Harper, who wants to cling to his Quebec seats in order to present, if a majority were to materialize, the image of a real pan-Canadian, national Conservative government with representation from all provinces.

They also need his support because they share a constituency. The white-suburban-middle-income-young family electors representing the main targets of Conservative marketing are the same voters who elected Mayor Labeaume in 2007 and again in 2009. They gave him his dominant majority in city council and most of them believe in his publicly funded arena project. In Quebec City, Federal politics is very much local politics. Labeaume’s support could therefore prove determinant in some close contests between the Bloc and the Conservatives. The Tories MPs from Quebec must make an ally out of him. But don’t expect to see them achieve this task wearing a Nordique’s jersey anytime soon!

What are your thoughts on the impact of local politics on product delivery? Are local issues also prevalent in your riding? Does Prime Minister Harper need a strong Quebec caucus to lead a majority government?

Of Motors and Men

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.

This picture of Prime Minister Harper taken at a campaign event in Ontario today (Photo by CP) reminded me of another...

...great photographic moment in Canadian conservative history.

 

The rides are different, but the message of these two photo-ops is the same: 'Trust me, I can steer this country!'

The Marketing of Confidence

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.

It is understood in academia that political marketing is akin to the marketing of services, where a strong relationship based on confidence, credibility and trust must be achieved between a producer (the political party) and its targeted consumers (the voter). It is such because a political offer is intangible, it deals with values and ideas, it is based on promises of delivery, and it imposes an act of faith from the potential consumer when evaluating the producer’s ability to fulfill those promises once elected.

Not unlike the marketing of insurance, financial, or legal services, the marketing of politics should be anchored in confidence building, an exercise achieved by creating real dialogue with voters and including them actively in the creation and development of an offer. This is why notions of trust, experience, competence, integrity, and transparency are so often mobilized in brands political parties try to embody during an election. These concepts are refered to because they help alleviate consumers' uncertainty associated with the selection process of intangible goods, such as political programs and promises.

A brand is the public image, the core value, the very definition of what makes a product distinct from its competitors. In marketing terms, it is also referred to as the “unique selling proposition” of a product. Consumers should be able to identify it quickly and without hesitation. The brand is promoted in advertising campaign and in slogans.

So how are federal parties doing in terms of brand positioning this time around? Are they actively promoting confidence and trust with voters in their communication?

The PCC’s slogan is ‘Here for Canada’. The core ideas underlying it are presence, patriotism and action. This seems to say  ‘We are taking charge, we’ll take care of you’.

The NDP’s slogan, putting party leader Jack Layton at the center of their offer, states ‘That’s Canadian leadership’. It is always presented in ads contrasting the NDP’s offer with Conservative and/or Liberal actions. This is saying ‘they failed as leaders, we’ll do better’.

The Liberal’s slogan ‘Your Liberals' addresses voters directly and seems to say ‘we listened, this is what you want’.

Will these brands reach their markets? Can they help parties broker political confidence in what many described as a sceptical and demobilized Canadian electorate?