“Focus groups replace real policy development based on principles - and leadership becomes a reflection or shadow of the "findings"…this interesting observation was made by Neil Lawrence in a recent op ed for The Australian (3August2010). The full article is attached.

Lawrence’s article explores the issues of political leadership, values and advertising messaging. When Lawrence talks about a decade of the Liberals outmanoeuvring Labor with superior campaigning skills this is a direct reference to the campaigning advancements pioneered by Wirthlin Worldwide and adapted in Australia and England by Crosby-Textor operatives Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor.

Interested to know if any of you have had personal experience of these techniques—ever been polled on a dog-whistle or a hot-button issues? Ever received a piece of direct-mail that was about playing a political wedge?

Wrong turns lead to focus group hell

Neil Lawrence From: The Australian August 03, 2010 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/wrong-turns-lead-to-focus-group-hell/story-e6frgd0x-1225900254988

I WONDER if Labor's idea of having a "great big focus group" citizens' forum on climate change was itself focus-group tested?

Probably. But what is certain is the growing consensus that modern campaigning - this campaign in particular - has descended into focus group hell.

Many are nostalgic for the days when campaigns were free of modern marketing techniques, and long to see Robert Menzies or Gough Whitlam in full oratorical flight, arguing their policy case from principle. The warm reception the public gave self-deprecating John Hewson for his Gruen Nation appearance on ABC shows an electorate crying out for something human.

A curious thing about the chorus of complaint is it is mainly from and about Labor. John Della Bosca and Mark Latham are two of the most recent to speak out. You don't hear John Howard complaining. Yet it was the Liberal Party machine's adoption of US campaign techniques that drove the current trend. For a decade the Liberals outmanoeuvred Labor with superior skills.

The fact is all sides of politics use marketing and research techniques and no one is about to lay down their weapons. But is it the technique of focus groups themselves that is the problem, or the way they are being used? Focus groups (often referred to in political circles as "qual", or qualitative testing) have been used by generations of marketers to listen to consumers, test ideas and messages, and refine advertising. There is nothing wrong with that - especially in politics, where it can stop politicians from only hearing the community's loudest voices.

Quantitative techniques seek to put hard numbers behind what the public thinks. Techniques such as regression analysis can reveal not just which issues are foremost but which have the most power to persuade. Considerations of latency and saliency seek to show which issues have the most transformative power. And because they are numbers, not hard to pin down words and feelings, "quants" are often seen as the most credible form of measurement.

There is a legitimate use for focus groups in an election campaign. A party's values and beliefs set the agenda. Policies are formulated to achieve these goals. But complex policy issues need to be communicated to every voter, many of whom are relatively uninterested. How does a party or government "cut through"? As one of the last steps in the policy-making process, focus groups and research can help. But there are few who are good at it.

In the wrong hands, problems arise. Focus groups replace real policy development based on principles - and leadership becomes a reflection or shadow of the "findings". Lindsay Tanner has an excellent metaphor for all this. He talks about "turning the telescope around the wrong way".

When that happens we see the problems many are livid about now. Focus groups commissioned by people whose aim is to win turn into fishing expeditions. Fears, prejudices and concerns are uncovered. "Messaging" is developed and tested to best exploit these. Some methods are so crude as to put up, say, six different expressions of the same message, without context, and get people to give a score out of 10. The message with the top score is the winner.

This message is delivered as holy writ to the party. Message becomes policy. The aggregate of such policies is "leadership".

In political parties, custodianship of these messages lies in the hands of the same people who make and break leaders. They track the popularity and performance of leaders against their rivals (inside and outside the party) and use the research as they see fit. It gives immense power and in the hands of the unprincipled or unskilled can cause immense damage.

Is there a way out of this? Perhaps, but it takes courage and true leadership - or perhaps devastating loss - to regroup and rethink.

Forty years ago, David Ogilvy listed 10 rules for creating great advertising, but it was his footnoted 11th rule that is the most potent and may offer some clue: "Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools."

Yesterday news came that Julia Gillard wants to take back control of her campaign after conceding it had been poorly run and stage-managed. She will no longer run a "traditional" safe campaign strategy focused on avoiding gaffes, conceding voters had only caught a "glimpse" of who she really was. She said: "I'm going to be really going for it now."

Bravo. But we'll have to wait for 18 more days to see whether it's too late.

Neil Lawrence is the founder of Lawrence Creative Strategy and executive creative director of STW. He was the creative mind behind the Kevin07 campaign, credited with helping Kevin Rudd win the 2007 federal election

As Campaign Organiser I promised to alert you to new research and articles on campaigning from around the world. To be effective campaigners we must change attitudes, perceptions and then behaviour.One of the fundamental learnings of values-based campaigning challenges the assumption that people are reasoned beings that form opinions, attitudes and behaviour based on facts. The truth is dramatically different.

Campaigns are about changing behaviour or opinions and attitudes. Each campaign pushes change because people feel that the status quo isn't so good any more. However campaigns don't exist in isolation.