Published:


Frayne JamesJames Frayne is a political and corporate communications consultant. He was previously a Director of Communications in Government and worked for a number of independent political campaigns in the UK. 

Given the extreme competence campaigns have developed on the
operational side, where they have now have the ability to reach very specific
groups of voters, the next logical step is for campaigns to develop greater
expertise in the science of persuasion and influence. This will take campaigns
into areas they have traditionally overlooked, such as neuroscience and
psychology. Campaigns will investigate the process by which people make
political decisions, and how they can intervene in that process to make them
vote for a particular party. Just as campaigns have got used to having
pollsters around, soon campaigns will start working with experts on how the
mind works.

It is becoming increasingly clear that people make political
decisions based primarily on emotion rather than reason. Even on issues like
the economy – issues that should encourage a more objective, cost-benefit
analysis about what is at stake financially for a given voter's family – within
reason, people make decisions based on judgments around the perceived
competence of parties, the extent to which they can be trusted, and whether or
not a party's approach feels fair. People will always know when the economy is
doing really badly and when parties have messed things up – think back to the
ERM – but in less extraordinary times people are more likely to be moved by
their emotional response to what they see and hear.

That people are moved by emotional arguments is not a new
discovery. What is changing, however, is that we are starting to learn much
more about how the human brain works, and therefore why messages that appeal to
emotion work much better than those that appeal to reason. Messages that touch
people on an emotional level cause a physical reaction in the brain that makes
such messages more likely to be stored in our long term memory – and therefore
more likely to affect our political outlook moving forward. Messages that are
backed by powerful audiovisual stimuli are particularly likely to affect us.  

Scientists believe different types of messages affect voters in
different ways. Non-surprising, partisan political messages that we agree with
touch our "disposition system". This is the part of the brain that
enables us simply to go about our everyday lives operating on autopilot. Such messages
do not surprise us or make us think deeply. Rather, they act as reminders,
putting certain messages in our head. Such messages tend to be positive and
partisan and they are useful to campaigns in reminding party supporters to
vote.


On the other hand, some messages affect our "surveillance
system". These messages, which tend to be negative, often make us worry
about something or make us scared. They make us question our world view and
have the effect of making us inquisitive about issues raised, making is more
likely to seek out additional information. While messages that touch our
disposition system are likely to make us firmer in our views of the world and
therefore surer in our vote, messages that touch our surveillance system are
likely to make even partisans think again about an issue or candidate. This
explains why so many campaigns turn to negative messaging when they are trying
to fracture support for a political party.

How will the developing research into decision-making change
campaigns? Firstly, it is likely to mean that they take a much more emotional
approach to their general communications around key issues. For example,
instead of selling policies like low tax on the basis of it being "good
for the economy", campaigns will focus on arguments around fairness, or
about why hard-working families struggling in a downturn should be able to keep
more of their money. On even the most technocratic issues – pensions,
transport, energy – campaigns will seek to inject messages that make people
feel something.

Secondly, it will mean that campaigns become keener to enter into
more controversial, high visibility stories where passions run high. Instead of
clinging closely to the position of their opponents to avoid becoming
distinctive on stories they fear they may not be able to control, or lining up
behind the narrative of a major newspaper on a story, campaigns will see
controversy as a welcome opportunity to cut through to the public and
deliberately ramp up certain stories. The risk of having fingers burned will
now be weighed more seriously against the pay off of actually moving the
public.

Thirdly, it will mean that in some close races, British campaigns
will become as negative as American ones. While positive emotions can be as
powerful as negative ones in moving voters, those campaigns that doubt the
ability of their leaders to project a positive vision to the world are likely
to take a scorched earth policy instead of trying to run a campaign that
amplifies both positive and negative messages. Such negative campaigns are
likely to focus increasingly on personalities rather than just issues, and
leaders are more likely to come under more serious attack.

Finally, British campaigns will finally start to take visuals more
seriously. While it seems unlikely that they will have the confidence to start
talking to the public directly through ads – preferring to let journalists
continue to act as intermediaries – they will start to devote more time to
ensuring launches, visits, speeches, and general interviews receive more
planning than before. They will spend more time thinking about what image it is
that they want to project to the public, and more time coming up with specific
creative ideas to achieve this image projection.

Campaigns on both sides of the Atlantic do make
emotional appeals all the time, and many consultants know the power of such
messages. However, the increased understanding of the brain and decision-making
is such that campaigns will begin to take a much more self-consciously
emotional approach. 

> James' article on the importance of targeting

Comments are closed.