Is anyone listening anymore from the clock tower?

There have been riots again on the streets of London.

Legitimate protestors had arguments, rather than arms in the mind.

However, spotting an opportunity for a ‘good kicking’ many illegitimate rioters turned chants of complaint into assaults on democracy.

Meanwhile, following a pleasant lunch at the House of Commons restaurant, MPs, elected by the people on a promise, betrayed voters’ trust in preference to keeping their jobs during tough economic times with new coalition bosses. (Who says Parliament doesn’t reflect ‘real life’).

Long-term commitments, like memories in photo albums seem to be fading relics of the past.  Unsurprisingly people – like the ex X Factor contestant, Cher, are led to believe it is their right that fortune must instantaneously follow fame – even if that fame is over in the rap of song.

Today, pictures of promises are becoming as disposable as people’s jobs at companies into which they invested their lives and from which in return they can confidently expect a ‘Good Luck’ card from their nearest and dearest bosses.

Bravery and independence as displayed by the likes of WikiLeaks has been kettled into place by a society that sometimes appears to have more in common with Stalinism than capitalism.

In the concrete jungle, just the promise of having a job in 2011 to pay the increase in rail journeys to work, has become enough of a carrot to keep the masses from protesting – too much.

With so many sniffing like dogs at the heels or any whiff of opportunity at all, those still with a job grow increasingly desperate to keep afloat.

The only certainty seems to be uncertainty of the future and fragility of the present.

We comfort ourselves in the high-definition lit delusion of our John Lewis TVs broadcasting around the clock Xmas dreams at the price of two for one.

Our sense of self and social demonstration of worth has become defined by the latest release of fashionable phones, computers, celebrity books (on a Kindle of course) or trinkets.

With populations doubling in size in years rather than decades, whilst tightening their grip around the neck of available community resources, the ordinary person in the street is forced to implode his or her id, ego and super-ego – so become increasingly self-centred – and obsessed – simply to survive.

Middle class professionals, complaining about the state of the nation  retreat to a Sony/ Xbox/ Nintendo fantasyland, away from the harshness of the day to a place where they can be the celebrity, sex symbol, speed fiend or thrill seeking rioter  they know they will meet again in their dreams tonight.

Brands such political parties, financial institutions, power-generating companies, and commercial enterprises – all promising to protect our futures – are regularly exposed as primarily concerned with protecting themselves before the rest.

With each exposure, people become much more immune and blasé.  Like watching thousands die in Pakistan, or another story of a cleric abusing a child, shock is no longer shocking enough.

Our trust in leadership – religious, political, social and commercial has become as tenuous as our faith in liberal democracy

The UK government, faced with the cost for recklessly inviting everyone from anywhere to become someone in a land away from their home, has been hoisted on its own perturb.

Overwhelming competition for space, land, and jobs …  has forced Parliament to repress accessible education for the masses, by imposing a lifetime repayment tariff for the foreseeable future generations of brand UK.  Or to put it another way, a further tax for already hard-pressed parents who only want to give their kids some kind of chance for a future.

Perhaps eventually the only ones able to pay for places at top UK universities will be those from India, the Middle East and China (where the UK buys the components for consumer’s trinkets).

The rest will have to settle for the high street college near a MacDonald’s, which offers local students free Fries at lunchtime.

Greed is good - worth fighting for

So money is tight. Cheer is translucent. Christmas has become little more than a sales promotion opportunity for companies to offer hope through gifts for the hapless horde.

Yet despite it all, in desperation to live the moment – capture a ‘buzz’ of happiness whilst they can, consumers consume as if the weeks leading to Christmas day mark the last supper of their lives.

Thanks to the Internet, redemption is just a click away from consumers walking the mile.

In the fervour to spend, consumers inadvertently feed the cycle of needs and wants kept spinning by wheels bigger than the one who guilelessly believes is in fact the biggest wheel in town.

And so the spiral goes on in the circles of the windmills of the minds.

This Christmas and into the new year, the greatest wish is for companies, politicians, students, surfers, bosses, individuals…  to follow the philosophy of human greatness: communicate with honesty and integrity for others and in doing so nurture a market rather than exploit it and then reck it.

Do that and students will eventually inherit more than arrogance bred into them by adults who, by the time they mature, long lose their spirit – apart from the solace still lingering at the bottom of their glass.

Opportunists will link hands rather than take up arms.

Instant gratification will serve lessons for a long-term education.

Politicians will aspire to more than borderline expense dodges or pay checks in the House of Lords.

Brands will actually believe and act upon the message of social responsibility facetiously promised by their advertising.

People will stop feeling that in order for their drum to be heard – they have to bash the skin of their passions until ears burst.

Respect will be returned to the hard working…

But perhaps that’s all just a Christmas faith, that is as realistic as baby in a crib of straw changing the world.

Maybe we are all clutching at straws.

Or just perhaps the one who picks the short straw to make a sustainable change will be you.

Merry Christmas.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

“ I wanted to change the world, but I realised it was too large of a task for one person, so I tried to change my community.

That was also too hard, so I tried to change my family. That was also too hard, so I decided to try and change myself.

And though it was very hard,

I finally changed myself.

And once I changed myself,

I discovered my family changed, the community changed, and the entire world changed.”

Rabbi Israel Salanter

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The final showdown

The general election debates have come to a climax.

Three weeks ago it looked like it would be a two-leader shoot out at the OK Coral.  Then, as with the best spaghetti westerns, out from nowhere rode a new kid into town. Everyone was for themselves.

The debates, the first of their kind in the UK, marked a milestone in British political history.  From the start, pundits and commentators, cast aspersions over the merits of each leader’s presentation style.

Before the first line was drawn in the first debate, the press eagerly scoured the annals of political debating history in search of classic political golden clanger or debating debacles from the past.

You Tube clips from the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate of 1960 received record numbers of hits.

The crucial question was, would this turn out to be more of a political beauty contest offering brand buff than a serious showdown delivering product substance?

In terms of brand delivery, the first debate, which attracted nine million viewers, felt ‘clunky’.  The austere poker-faced PM hedged his bets, repeatedly saying, “I agree with Nick”; leaving the TV audience with no real choice than to concur with Mr Brown’s sentiments.

The second debate attracted some four million viewers. In addition to witnessing a son et Lumiere branding spectacular on behalf of SKY TV, the audience was treated to the leaders gaining greater confidence in their saddles.  Undoubtedly advised by his brand image consultants, Mr Cameron fired off round after round of promises starting with the line: “If I was your Prime Minister…”

Even the media trained Mr Clegg, looked assertively down the barrel of the TV camera – in an attempt to connect directly with the viewing audience.

The third debate had to concentrate on the deal clinching key issues of recession, immigration, housing, the national debt and employment.  The ritzy brand pitches had set the agenda, now people needed to know, one way or the other, what was meant by policies such as, ‘The Big Society’, amnesties for illegal immigrants, jobs for the long term unemployed, or what the parties would do in the event of a predicted hung parliament or what a fair future for all actually meant?

From style or substance to recession or Rochdale

Throughout the three-week debating period, the media had clung on in desperate hope for that ‘golden clanger’ which would lay a media egg for them to hurl with a reassuringly gooey ‘splat’ in the politicians’ faces.

Their opportunity finally arrived within 24 hours of the final debate, in the shape of a 65 year old from Rochdale  – Mrs Gillian Duffy.

Gillian asked Mr Brown what would his party do about immigration?

Whilst initially the PM handled the question with professionalism, in private – but caught on a microphone, he called Gillian a ‘bigot’.

It was exactly what the media yearned for – mud – glorious mud – ready to enliven the debate the next day.

Working on the premise that when credibility is rock bottom the only way one can go is up, the PM opened his ‘pitch’ with the words: “There’s a lot to this job and as you saw last night – I don’t always get it right.”

Once in the swing, the leaders agreed that difficult decisions would need to be made in order to help the economy recover. Rather than accept responsibility for political mismanagement, bankers instead were universally made scapegoats.

In supporting his tax pledges and policies, rather than pointing to economists and think tanks, Cameron turned to high street brands as his greatest advocators (A sure sign of an era where high profile brands rather than anonymous ‘civil servants’ are used to carry weight for the public in national debates).  Even Clegg lamented over how workers at a great British brand, Cadbury’s, had been short-changed by government policy.

Within minutes of the debate an instant poll from YouGov revealed:

Leaving aside your own party preference, who do you think performed best in tonight’s debate?

• David Cameron: 41%
• Nick Clegg: 32%
• Gordon Brown: 25%
• Don’t know: 2%

YouGov questioned 1,151 viewers of the TV debate among the party leaders immediately after tonight’s debate. The data were weighted to the profile of all those ‘absolutely certain to watch’ the debate from a nationally-representative sample.

The real change in Britain

In hindsight, the debates turned out to be less of a media circus and more of a stage which helped opened up politics to a much greater conversation -including on the web – than may have remained under stimulated without the televised pitches.

For example in 2005, voter turnout only reached 61.28%  (although that was better than the 2001 election which only saw a 59.17% turnout out at the ballot boxes).

So now the studio lights have been switched off all that is left for the leaders is to make their way home in the Birmingham rain and wonder who this time next week will be looking forward to a ministerial saloon and who will have to ride off into the sunset.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

It’s a classic tale.

A given brand promises to deliver exactly what consumers need. That brand appears to truly reflect those consumers’ passions. It demonstrates value, empathy and the chance for genuine choice, consistency or change.

The brand presents its cause through polished advertising, marketing and so on – all designed to show steadiness, lucidity and most importantly, understanding with its targeted group of consumers.

In other words, ‘Everything we do, we it for YOU.’

From the consumers’ point of view, the vital thing is that, given the presumption that the brand’s services or goods are of a high enough quality, the ‘YOU’ in the brand’s slogan, accurately reflects the ‘ME’ in the consumers’ mind.

Any seed of doubt through a lack of transparency, and so tangible value, leaves the all too often promiscuous consumer seeking an alternative brand offering a similar service or range of goods with greater depth, practical use and meaning.

From top to toe
All brand values must be sincere and embraced by everyone directly connected with the brand’s ethos.  This is especially important for the brand’s figurehead.

In the UK Labour party’s case, that brand ethos is captured in the slogan:

‘A future fair for all.”

Throughout the political campaign leading to the May general election, as with all the party leaders, the Labour’s figurehead – Gordon Brown presented what his team planned as a carefully managed platform.

The campaign was designed to encourage the electorate – through a series of policies offering to improve the nation’s circumstances.

Debates offered the opportunity to slickly, and with humility, summarise such policies as well as enthuse the electorate through a leadership approach.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
The recent gaffe, in which the PM was caught privately calling Gillian Duffy, a 65 year old potential voter, a ‘bigot’ simply for asking what she thought was a reasonable question regarding immigration, shows a chink in the hitherto albeit shakey but reasonably consistent brand message.

With less than 200 hours left until the actual election, that PR blunder is potentially disastrous for the Labour brand.

Firstly, it throws out the eagerly anticipated political gaffe ‘bone’ that the press pack has been baying for during the last month.

Secondly it offers a huge electorate perception gap that opposing political brands such as the Conservatives, can quickly step in to fill for a voting public which, according to the polls, is so confused that currently it is more than happy for the political parties to hang themselves.

Thirdly it goes spectacularly against what every great brand must deliver: empathy with the ordinary working class (essential to Labour’s demographic) man or woman in the street.

For example, Mrs Dufy, said:

“He’s supposed to be leading the country and he’s calling an ordinary woman who’s come up and asked questions that most people would ask him… It’s going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he’s calling me a bigot.”

Once a brand’s kinship with its core market is lost , everything else suddenly becomes jeopardised.

Pictures of a bewildered elderly lady insulted by the Prime Minister become spread throughout the land quicker than you can say, “Twitter”.

MP3 recordings of the PM’s gaffe become top of the iPod pops…

All the Mr and Mrs, Jones and of course Duffys, start thinking ‘well, the brand says one thing but, based on the contrary evidence I think it actually believes something else’.

A vital final ‘last chance to pitch a brand promise’ debate becomes hijacked by a leader’s own perturb.

So what could/should Labour do?

Classically – apologise – which he has.  But it must be a strong apology, delivered with modesty. Backed with simple clarification of what the true Labour brand message and values are.

Once a positive message is clarified and steps are publicly seen to rectify any misunderstandings and clarify true intents, the brand can begin to recover.

However, an apology alone – worst still one that sounds more of a desperate confession than a rational admission of human error- can actually weaken the brand.

In this case, Mr Brown said:

” I’m a penitent sinner”.

Not exactly the words of a positive leader one week away from renewing his morning milk delivery orders.

On the other hand, to the brand’s favour, within hours of Mr Duffy’s complaint, the press reported that she was being represented by by a public relations agent and would not be giving any further comment that evening on her dealings with the prime minister.

(Now who is manipulating who?)

Duffy: Why chase pavements when you could chase media deals?

What not to wear on your sleeves

What a brand must not do is attempt to spin itself out of situation – especially blaming others or worst still, name calling – as in the case of Mr Prescott’s response to ‘Duffygate’:

“Yet again, the dying Murdoch empire is doing all it can to influence a British election. First, Murdoch’s News of the World editor Andy Coulson joined Cameron – to use the same tricks for the Conservatives that his old newspaper employed.

“Then the Sun came out for the Tories during our conference. What an effect that had! The Tories have seen their poll rating go from 41% poll to 33%!
So then the News of the World backed the Tories. Effect? Nothing!

Murdoch’s son James and News International head (and former Sun Editor) Rebekah Brooks then resorted to bullying the editor of the Independent (oh, the irony) in his own office to stop him criticising daddy!

But today, the Murdoch family reached a new low in their desperate attempt to turn the election for the Tories. News International’s Sky News broadcast a private conversation between Gordon and his staff.”

Such a move by Mr Prescott only serves to exacerbate a situation, creating even greater confusion in a voter’s (consumer’s) mind.

Labour’s brand slogan, ‘A future fair for all’ suggests that everyone has the right to ask the advocates of such a promise questions.

As with life, not all answers will be liked.

However, just as with all other brands, not all parties can please everyone – neither should they.  (We live in a democracy offering choice to suit different tastes and needs).

As the closing days approach, it is more crucial than ever for any political party to deliver a clear and consistent message that is understood and practiced by everyone: from the very top to the humble helper who switches on and off public microphones.

-      A fair and timelessly classical vote winner for any brand.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The direct mail piece went to named recipients at 250,000 households. Before long some of the indignant recipients were on the phone to the media complaining about the inappropriateness of the leaflets – given that they personally suffered from cancer.

In terms of campaigning, this seemed to be the lowest of the low strategies- using scare tactics on people who were suffering from what could be a fatal disease. (It felt like Labour was now down to desperate measures for desperate times).

Within moments the Conservatives and Liberals were pushing out press releases condemning the under-handed Labour ploy.

On its part, Labour categorically refuted that it had purposely targeted cancer patients.

On their parts, the Liberals and Conservatives were suddenly locked in a contest to be the first to throw stones at Labour.

The mailshot was indeed a complete debacle and totally ill conceived – but for other reasons than first assumed.

Out of context

Diane Dwelly, the 48 year-old lady whose picture was featured in the mailing said she had initially presumed her photograph was being taken to be used in a magazine for the National Health Service – rather than part of Labour’s election campaign.  This could potential pose serious issues with the UK advertising standards authority.

Putting the pieces together

Reportedly the list for the mailing was based on Mosaic data. Mosaic is one of the UK’s leading sources of direct marketing data. Using a combination 85 variables, such as census, housing, financial and electoral roll data, it classifies households into 12 lifestyle groups – broken into 52 sub-groups. This delivers demographic and psychographic profiles which as accurate as possible. (In direct marketing, the correct or incorrect spelling of a recipient’s name can make or break a campaign).

Mosaic data is commonly used by major parties.

More broadly, in terms of direct marketing, the other parties such as the Conservatives are certainly no strangers to highly targeted messages on, for example, the web.

Last year, the Conservatives specifically targeted people enjoying incomes up to the mid -£40k who were looking for dates on match.com. (Not the most romantic of suitors). It also targeted young adults via the music download site, Spotify.

So what went wrong with this specific targeted mailing? Simply put, the data -driven number crunching direct marketers behind the campaign were more concerned with the technical accuracy of names on the list than the campaign’s core creative message -certainly in terms of who would be reading it.

According to the charity, Cancer Research, about .05 per cent of the population is annually diagnosed with breast cancer. That’s around 45,500 people (2006) figures.

So if you wrote to 250,000 people, approximately 200 would have been diagnosed with cancer.

Write to a household and you can multiply that figure by around four. (Spouses, etc, who suffer from the disease). That also does not take into account people diagnosed in previous years to the last 12 months.

By naming a recipient rather than addressing the household as a whole, it can come across that a mailing is picking on them – so creating the much-publicised panic. (Incidentally one man who had treatment for a form of cancer recently told the BBC that he received another leaflet on policing – but – even despite the mailing being addressed personally to him – he didn’t feel that he was being personally picked upon).

So the lesson from all of this is firstly:

When campaigning – consider the message as well as the recipient of the message – will one compromise the other?

Secondly – when it comes to scares – know your facts before being goaded by the opposing teams.

Finally, when it comes to ‘big Cs’ stick to carefully considered campaigns.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The political brands get into second, third and in one case, even fourth gear with their marketing communications.

In second gear rolls in the Liberal Democrats

Within hours of the election being announced, the Yellow doves turned their website homepage into a clear series of manifesto promises. However, having ‘borrowed’ Labour’s slogan referring to fairness, their message could come across as confused – and to exacerbate matters further they mixed in the ‘change’ message from the Conservatives.

Checking the site at 17.10, the first article about their progress in the election was still discussing how their President, Ros Scott, was resting on Easter – (Not exactly an encouraging start for would-be voters checking to see how fast their team would be off the starters block).

Most worrying was how they marketed their leadership team: mainly through a collection of curriculum vitaes – as if they were candidates for a local management job.

When it doubt - plagiarise

In third gears revs up Labour

In addition to introducing a new icon of a rising sun to go with their ‘a future fair for all’ slogan, the party site features a picture of a rolling landscape and neatly designed words graphically set out to appear like an extract from a holy book quoting a spiritual leader:

From now until polling day I will travel

the length and breadth of Britain with one clear message:

Britain is now on the way to economic recovery.

And now is not the time to put it at risk. -

Gordon Brown

Once inside the site a clearly marked section called, ‘inside our campaign’, gives hot breaking, up to the minute – well at least, ‘hour’, views from Labour’s top leaders on how the campaign is progressing,

By 17.25 on the first day, the latest piece was three hours old from Douglas Alexander, along with piece from the PM (six hours old) and even one from Peter Mandelson (four days old). The usual social networking links to Twitter et al appear, along with a link to something called, ‘Labourmembersnet’, which apparently is still in BETA. (Hmm someone needs to tell their branding coordinator that the election is officially under way).

In fourth gear speeds along The Conservatives

Within24 hours of the election being called, the campaign team put up a YouTube movie of Mr Cameron’s wife Sam, pottering about the house helping her man ‘Dave’, prepare for various engagements.(Mumsnet ladies will admire it – but will the girls shopping at Primark?)

This was closely followed by an email from Conservative HQ pointing to yet another video – shot, edited and broadcast within hours – showing Mr Cameron rallying his team that very morning.

The official Conservative blog also features posts from Samantha Cameron along with the top brass at CHQ (no doubt a planned branding touch to show that this is a family as well as business affair).

So, the end of first day branding report reads:

Liberals – could do better, very neatly laid out CV but suspect copying from the other students.

Labour – needs to concentrate on areas outside religious liturgy, and update their workbook.

Conservatives – excellent understanding of IT and Web 2.0 but do try to keep your mind on work and not home.

Jonathan Gabay www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Within hours of the design being revealed, The Conservative’s aimed to turn the Ashes-to-Ashes debacle into a blue-streaked phoenix flying the flag for Tory principles.

Spin 'n' spiv poster

The Labour poster was suggested by an ordinary party supporter, rather than ad men.  As such it was meant to herald the UK’s first truly democratic piece of political advertising.   The concept was to bring about anxiety throughout the electorate over the threat of a Conservative win; causing the country to regress to the old days of 1980s Tory spiv ‘n spin.

However lack of understanding of psychographics meant the creative execution failed to grasp that the central character upon which the poster was based, was actually considered as a modern day straight talking cult hero.

David Cameron was so pleased with the handiwork of his opposition’s campaign team that he even offered to chip in some money for the campaign.

His party was quick to draw PR capital from the blunder.  It produced its own version of the poster – which cleverly featured the line:

“Idea kindly donated by the Labour Party”.

Conservatives jab back at jibes

However by responding with even more images of the near-same thing.  In some ways both parties fell into an open branding trap.

Certainly in its initial stages, negative political campaigning receives media and voter attention.  However by constantly having one party use advertising to take a jibe at each other, the net effect can be the electorate feeling rather like children caught in the middle of a messy divorce and coming to the conclusion that there should be a plague on both houses (parties).

Message not meanderings

A strong political branding campaign requires a clear political message based not just on taunts but appreciable relevant tactics.

From Labour’s perspective, the new poster isn’t the first time the party miss-calculated public perceptions surrounding campaign headlines.

1979 Labour poster

In 1979 Labour produced a poster warning of “the last time the Tories said they had all the answers” (referring to the three-day working week of the 1970s).  However at the time of the poster’s publication, the country had just suffered from ‘The Winter of Discontent – accredited to Labour’s miss-management.

The ‘war’ battled throughout the winter of 1978–1979, during which time there were extensive strikes by local authority unions.

In the end, the 1979 election went to the Conservatives with the largest overall swing in the popular vote (5.2%) since 1945 and resulted in a working majority of 43 for Margaret Thatcher.

(Interestingly enough 1979 was also the first time in British politics that the Conservative Party employed the services of an advertising agency to manage its election campaign).

Classical political point scoring in general elections

Just as consumer brands use classic communication tactics to woo consumers and so defeat competition, so political brands have certain campaign approaches that, over the years have swayed the electorate.

These include:

Contradiction

This focuses on disagreement and division either between parties or within parties.  (For example Blair versus Brown).

Human Interest

When political brands manipulate political leaders to show the ‘human face’ of a party’s approach to key issues.

Consequences

When political campaigners warn the electorate of dire consequences – usually in taxation – that would occur if votes go to the opposition.

Morality

This is when political campaigns take the moral high ground by pointing to the ethical lows of the opposition.  For example, in the last election, the war in Iraq or currently Hamas in the Middle East  placing innocent children in the front line behind terrorists and then blaming a (from its point of view) defensive Israel  for resulting casualties.

Responsibility

This places responsibility for a cause in the hands of the people rather than government alone.  For example the Conservative party’s  ‘Big Society’ campaign that calls on ordinary people to stand up and be counted through volunteer work, rather than relying on local authorities alone.

Once the Easter break is over, the real crusades will begin.  Then the electorate will decided which party offers a life of real sustainable change and which a life that may as well be lived on mars.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Can you do better at poster design?

In what is supposed to be viewed as the ultimate in politcial democracy, the UK Labour party has turned to its 2.0 social  community to design Labour’s next political poster

Campaign chiefs  booked digital poster boards in London and Manchester to carry the poster to be unveiled over Easter weekend. Labour believes it has learnt lessons from the online lampooning that greeted the Tories’ advertising efforts. However by openly inviting the public to design a poster, their plan could still backfire. Coincidently working closely with Saatchi & Saatchi (rather than Conservative party’s agency – M&C Saatchi) Labour’s ad agency, have issued Labour supporters two creative briefs:

• Labour’s pledge to protect frontline services and

• David Cameron’s lack of substance.

The winning poster

The Labour poster official brief in detail

1. Labour’s pledge to protect frontline investment in key services Objective Highlight Labour’s pledge to protect frontline investment in key services.

What single thought should people take away from your poster?

Labour will protect frontline investment in policing, schools, childcare and the NHS, with a new guarantee of cancer test results within a week.

Why should they believe us?

Labour has always valued the public services on which mainstream families rely. In 1997, when the British people entrusted us with the job of protecting our public services the task facing us was clear – to rebuild and restore them after decades of neglect. Standards have risen and now we need to give guarantees of high standards to everyone – not just the lucky few – at the same time as delivering value for taxpayers’ money and services which are tailored to everyone’s personal needs

. 2. Highlight David Cameron’s lack of substance

Objective:

Let people know about David Cameron’s lack of substance. He’s boasted about being a good salesman – he’s not the conviction politician we need for these tougher times.

What single thought should people take away from your poster?

Running the country is a serious matter and David Cameron doesn’t have the substance to take on that job.

Why should they believe us?

All David Cameron’s focus has been on changing image – airbrushing posters, sledding at the North poll or being photographed cycling. Because of this he seems to think that it’s easy to get away with the same old Tory policies – telling people he’s for fairness when promising a tax giveaway for the wealthiest and cutting Child Trust Funds and Child Tax Credits when families need them the most. Instead of taking on the old fashioned, hardline Tories in his Party, he has appeased them by giving in on the issues they are obsessed about like foxhunting, grammar schools and Europe.

Write and then get it right

Budding campaign copywriters were advised by Labour HQ to keep the campaign message simple; use strong images and to weave in humour wherever possible. Douglas Alexander MP, Labour’s General Election coordinator, launched the initiative saying

“In recent weeks progressives across the web have produced some striking political imagery on websites like mydavidcameron.com. We’ve stood back and admired this work. For those who want to extend their creative skills we are now offering them the chance to produce a poster which we will publish over the Easter weekend.”

The winning poster was written by Jacob Quagliozzi, 24, a Labour supporter from St Albans.

The battle of the Photoshops

Virtually as soon as the winning poster was revealed, the conservative party rebutted. Mr Cameron said he was flattered by the comparison with Hunt, a hard-drinking warrior against political correctness who describes criminals as “scum” and is not afraid to bend the rules to secure an arrest. The Conservative leader said:

“I think there will be thousands of people, millions of people, in the country who wish it was the 1980s and that police were out there feeling collars and nicking people instead of filling in forms.”

He offered to “lend Labour the money” for more posters on the same theme.

Conservative party alternative poster

Tory supporters pointed out that the winning design featuring a ‘nod’ to the character Gene Hunt from the hit series Ashes to Ashes, was the experienced, fast talking and witty good guy in the show who may sometimes do the wrong thing but for all the right reasons.  They also pointed out that the car on poster – The Audi Quattro was an excellent example of British design, as the Quattro was styled by an Englishman.

Ian Dale, the renown Tory Blogger published an alternative poster showing an 80s PM and union leader Bob Crow

Dale's alternative Labour poster

Even Labour bloggers were dismayed about the poster.

For example, the left-wing blogger Alex Smith, of LabourList, said the poster made the Tory leader “look cool, young and fairly modern” rather than a dangerous 1980s throwback.

Jonathan Gabay www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: