The Yes to AV campaign had a big push over the last fortnight. Did you notice?
I suspect that the answer may well be yes if you are an avid reader of Total Politics. But as head of a major PR company and so seeing data of media coverage much more broadly, I can tell you that the answer for most people is that they didn’t even see it.
And if the ‘Yes’ message did penetrate anyone’s consciousness on the last two sunny weekends or as they plan their Easter holidays, they were probably still deeply underwhelmed.
Why? I worked with a leading copywriter and ad creative here at Engine to look at the Yes campaign’s approach.
And the three of us were in complete agreement that the Yes camp has lost the plot in its approach over the last few months. There has been a desperate turnaround towards the very end, but we wonder whether it is too late...
So what has ‘Yes’ done? It’s hard to believe, but since the beginning of the year ‘Yes’ has run a classic establishment campaign.
Lots of prominent places for Westminster insiders; a nice smattering of the usual (boring) B-grade celebs who bang on about politics between filming reality shows, and ads in comfortable shades of pastels that look like every second Department of Health campaign or those posters the council puts on bus shelters up to tell you which day to put out your recycling.
In fact, it seems that ‘Yes’ took its campaign template from that other rip-roaringly successful effort, Britain in Europe. You remember that don’t you? A massively over-funded campaign that saw the chances of Britain ever adopting the Euro diminish for every word it said.
In fact, for the first three months of the year it looked like ‘Yes’ had copied the Britain in Europe template almost letter for letter.
What a terrible missed opportunity.
‘Yes’ was second by second blowing the chance to take up the mantle of great anti-establishment campaigns (before anyone asks, I am not doing an Ed Miliband here. I mean ‘Yes’ should have single mindedly been a continuation of the recent anti-MP expenses energy, rather than standing on the shoulders of Gandhi...) and run “against” Westminster.
What should they have done? Instead of the dull old ads about “fairness” and MPs “working harder”, think instead how effective ‘Yes’ would have been if it had stuck with the campaign briefly tried by pro-AV Lib Dems. Emblazoned under the Banner “No More Safe Seats” was a fat cat, burning under attack from voters’ new AV power:

I personally may have changed the image of the cat (after all, who likes to see a cat on fire? The nation almost lynched that woman who put one in a bin...) to one of an MP sitting on an enormous pile of cash. But the point is the same.
If ‘Yes’ had run with this approach - week after week, after week, after week; coming to a close for the final weeks of the campaign with a crescendo “One chance to change Westminster forever”, we would be looking at a ‘Yes’ landslide heading our way.
Last week saw the two campaigns produce their TV ads (albeit for use as Party Politicals, so unlikely to be watched with the interest and frequency of most ads). In it we see a flash of the campaign that Yes should have been running for months. Purely anti-Westminster, actually quite catchy. Maybe my view of it was helped by the fact that the No campaign’s Party Political is one of the most patronising, almost-parody in its message, pieces of marketing that I have ever seen. My colleague ad creative refused to believe it was real (He thought it was an elaborate spoof; put together by our public affairs team for our next office party. For the sake of good political marketing, if only that were true...)
Despite that flash of focus from yes, what do the next few weeks hold out for the campaign and their prospects?
And before you wonder, I write this as someone who is going to vote yes and actually thinks AV is the system best suited to delivering a representative, but still strong, Parliamentary democracy.
But sadly for us Yes-ers, can’t you already smell that stench of failure wafting towards you?
Can’t you already picture the Z-list ex-Eastenders stars (plus someone who once appeared in Taggart, we think) standing on a rainy stage, grimacing through Ed Milliband’s next rallying cry?
Can’t you already hear the pundits in the early hours of 6 May explaining why ‘Yes’ lost?
It’s not too late, although it almost is...Come on ‘Yes’, bin the campaign plan that created such a terrible January, February and March and, with three weeks to go, come out truly fighting.
Maybe it is time to set that fat cat on fire...
Sacha Deshmukh is a Board Director of Engine, the UK’s largest independent communications company and CEO of its PR and Public Affairs business, MHP Communications













Comments
Tommy / April 18 2011 10:10am
Yeah, great idea, let's stop telling the truth and focus the entire campaign on catchy, albeit untrue lies. It might lead to us winning but wasn't the whole point of the campaign about making politics more honest and transparent, not about misleading people.
Roger Saunders / April 18 2011 10:37am
Still don't understand why no-one has stopped Cameron in his tracks by pointing out that AV is how come he's leader of the Conservatives.
We have to vote Yes, not because its' a good system, but because it is better than FPTP and if we don't people like Cameron will claim that it is a vote for the status quo (which it isn't).
Andrew Campbell / April 18 2011 1:34pm
"Still don't understand why no-one has stopped Cameron in his tracks by pointing out that AV is how come he's leader of the Conservatives."
You could ask the Electoral Reform Society (funder of the Yes campaign) instead. Their website says:
"The Electoral Reform Society regards AV as the best voting system when a single position is being elected."
"However, as AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc."
Or rather it did say that, before they started funding the Yes campaign and erased such embarrassing material from their site. Luckily, the Internet never forgets:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
http://www.av2011.co.uk/NewsERS.html
Why were so many Yes supporters against AV? And why do they now try to hide the fact that they were?
Dan Fox / April 18 2011 1:42pm
The piece points out that both campaigns have been pretty poor. But fails to identify the biggest trap into which they have both fallen: that of being extremely negative about politics. Of which this referendum is a big part.
So. The strategy seems to have been we want more people to get involved with politics and vote in this referendum to reform/retain the voting system so we'll play up to people's cynicism about politics and voting and put them off even more. Not only have the arguments of both campaigns been poor, but their internal logic has conflicted.
And the resolution is to print pictures of MPs sitting on piles of cash, being put to the flame? Eh? Hogarthian satire this ain't.
Where were the positive messages? Where was No2AV's list of achievements of the UK and the policies that supported these, applied by FPTP-elected governments?
Where was Yes2AV's examples of the great work done in Parliament by more maverick MPs, who we could maybe see more of under AV?
Both campaigns have utterly failed to educate. Which is why you get people like Roger (below) claiming that because Party leaders are elected by AV, so should MPs be.
Seems reasonable. But there is a difference between electing an individual to a single, "presidential", leadership post (where AV is patently the best system); and electing a legislative, delegated/representative mass body (where AV really isn't the best).
breezyqueasy / April 20 2011 1:50pm
Wrong on everything. Excellent work.
Rupert Read / April 23 2011 8:19pm
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/region/easternregion/news/fat-cat-makes-big-splash.html
Great piece. Here's a precedent of mine, which helped us [Eastern Region Green Party] make the biggest gain in the entire country in the 2009 Euros, apart from Caroline Lucas in the SE.
Tern / April 23 2011 8:42pm
I am a Yes local activist. Many of us want more actual explanation of AV on our literature, so that the public know exactly what the deal is and its virtues. The national Yes campaign's most exasperating failiure has been to compromise with the stupid prejudice of "I don't understand" -
which all through life, is one of the techniques closed minded bigots use for refusing to listen. There is nothing to be achived from compromising with "I don't understand" and not explaining things. You have to get through to the type of minds who will listen to things.
David Gould / April 23 2011 11:35pm
I think you deserve the too late mate page:
http://pastehtml.com/view/1e7jkoa.html