Advertising, it seems, can actively switch people off and turn them against your brand, even make them hostile to the whole marketplace you operate in.
Young people between the ages of 18-22 were asked about their levels of awareness of the main parties' political advertising during the 2001 election and then asked to judge that advertising. Many of the findings are quite surprising and may help to bury some myths not only about so called "apathetic youth" but also about how young people engage with advertising.
Young people were watching
Recall rates for the advertising was unexpectedly high at more than 80%. Given that typical recall rates for big brand commercial advertising is often reported in Marketing at even lower than this, it is clear young people were not simply ignoring the political messages. This idea of a mass "sleep in" by young potential voters whenever political ads were shown simply isn't what was happening. So perhaps some good news for the politicians -- your message is getting through but there seems to be some very large twists in the tail.
But were they pleased with what they saw?
Firstly, those people most interested in the election were much more likely to recall the advertising. So, as with many commercial settings, there seems to have been a lot of preaching to the converted taking place. This might normally be fine if the marketplace was stable, however, with a record low turnout especially among the young (MORI estimates that less than 40% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted at the last election), it means much of the advertising activity was being wasted. We know how advertising can play a rich and important role in the lives of many young people -- think Nike, think Tango. It could act as an access point for the politicians to connect with this group of the electorate, but it appears that they are missing the boat here by producing ads that appeal to those who least need them.
Where's the integrity?
The overall judgement of the advertising was negative. A large majority of those questions regarded them as unhelpful (79%), untrustworthy (84%), dishonest (80%) and lacking in information (72%). To some extent, this may be explained by the fact that the advertising was seen in a wider context of adverse media coverage of politics, so for some the ads had to be considered in a disapproving way -- "it's politicians so it must be deceitful". In addition, many young people said the general tone of much of the advertising seemed to be helping to reinforce the view that politics is something one naturally distrusts. This brings to mind the typecast picture of a secondhand car dealer saying: "Trust me, I'm only a salesman". If politicians really are concerned about re-engaging the electorate, they must move away from using images and language drawn from their own stock of stereotypes to knock each other.
Advertising that mirrors something with an ugly reflection and advertising messages that fuel negative comment seems to be advertising without a sound purpose. As with awareness levels commented on earlier, there was a big difference in views between those interested and those not interested in the election. The more interested the young person was the more positively they judged the advertising. So again, the advertising seems to be considered least useful by the very people who most need it in order to help them connect with politics and voting in the first instance. Far from providing a platform of trust, a nugget of truthfulness and helpful information, the advertising seems to be contributing to the rejection of mainstream politics by many young people.
Strange bedfellows indeed
The picture our research paints of young members of the electorate is one that does not necessarily reject politics, does not switch off automatically in droves from political communications. But one that currently judges political parties attempts at persuasive communication very harshly, far more severely than they judge commercial advertising per se.
If politicians want to exploit the many possible benefits of running an advertising campaign, their advisers need to overcome what we call the "gatekeeper" effect. Their marketplace (politics) and the individual brands within it (parties) have low levels of trust and integrity attached to them. The advertising and other forms of communication must contain these ingredients in abundance if the rest of the message is going to be attended to by the majority of the young electorate.
Politics seen through political advertising; a no go area
Imagine if brands in the financial marketplace were constantly pointing out, in their advertising, how their competitor brands were risky, unscrupulous and downright useless. The impact would no doubt see mattress sales soar to accommodate the glut of people storing their money under them! This is how a lot of young people currently make sense of the political advertising they are confronted with.
Richard Scullion, Bournemouth Media School, Bournemouth University.
Dr Janine Dermody, University of Gloucestershire.
A presentation and detailed written account of the full findings from this study will take place at the Academy of Marketing 'Political Marketing' conference being held at Aberdeen University, September 19-21 2002. For further details .
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .