The 3 Things I took away from the Voice Referendum
Scott McLaughlin
Oh, the places you'll GROW ?? | Leading Startups since 1994 | ?? Reach & ?? ROI | "The Hunger Map Guy" | Expert in Human Behaviour, Business Intelligence ?? & Influence | Driving Growth, Transformation & Impact ??
Now before I start, my personal opinion on the Voice was "no harm, no foul". Did I expect things to change for Indigenous communities as a result; NOT REALLY! Did I expect any harm coming from it; NO
Did I expect the 3,500 bureaucracies hoovering up enormous amounts of funding to finally get that funding to disadvantaged Indigenous communities; NO
But did I think, that when we say "we pay our respects" (which is completely tokenistic in my opinion, because we don't actually respect our First Nations People, actions not words are important here), would this be at least symbolic of some level of respect; YES
Now let's break down the lessons:
Understanding People; Your Audience
It was easily understood that older Australians were going to be a NO. Why, resistance to change and decades of watching poorly executed Indigenous programs fail. So they needed reassurance about any potential risks before they looked at advantages. There clearly needed to be more work done to understand this cohort’s predispositions and understand how to break through most effectively.
领英推荐
Being Clear on the Value Proposition
The lack of clarity of the implications and advantages of a Voice to Parliament were not clearly and simply articulated. (in fact, they were MIA). For specifically predictable NO cohorts, resistant to change, this needed to be super simple and super clear; and it was a long way from that. It's akin to the internet providers who continue to define services by Mbps download and upload to an aging market that just wants to know if they can video call their grandchildren and stream Netflix without a hitch.
Ensuring communications are targeted effectively
For younger Australians, this was a moral issue, and a no-brainer: For older Australians (in many ways thanks to the media they consume), this was a threat. The disinformation was coming thick and fast from right-wing media. There needed to be specifically designed communications, particularly for likely NO voters (anyone watching Sky News for instance). For Indigenous people, this needed to be communicated as a stepping stone, not a revolutionary shift. Many First Nations peoples are just as frustrated with the 3,500 bureaucracies that never seem to do the basics for them, such as provide better opportunities for their children, through better education and employment possibilities. They also have low levels of trust in these bureaucracies which are self-declared representatives of their families. All that money and I can show you the data on the levels of disadvantage, it's a National disgrace.
So there you have it, some key marketing lessons: Do the work to better understand your audience, make sure your value proposition is super clear, and target communications and communication styles to suit your "buyers", who are in the NO, or NOT YET camp.
It's pretty simple stuff, and whilst not an uncommon marketing problem, that's what needed to be done differently for a YES to be even a remote possibility.
I'd love to hear your thoughts! What did you think of the YES campaign ?
Commercial Intelligence Services
1 年The fourth may be "talk to your customer" - a vote is a purchase. Lets face it, when a bunch of Politically Correct get together to communicate, the wish-wash they create is a sea of nonsensical noise. Not once did "Yes" come out and say it like it is. Despite the fact I voted Yes, I despised their language and lamented their lost opportunity to put some stakes in the ground and shift the conversations at home to be more decisive around the ideas of Yes. Not once did we seem to hear any dialogue around the below; - Should Aboriginals be classified like 'flora & fauna' (instead of humans) under the Constitution? - Why should we recognise and do some truth-telling around places like our Australian Stonehenge (*and the travesty of the destroyed one they like to avoid talking about)? - How we as individuals make a difference to each others lives, and what a Yes vote will do for others, and what it can do for you. - How can we have candid frank conversations about how society measures the success of the integration of indigenous into our western culture, and whether we ought to interfere in some tribal cultures of theirs. And bring back the great TV debate too please - it would have been bigger than Friday night footy.
Referendums are difficult to get up - even with bipartisan support. Sadly the second it was politicised, it was never going to get up. Next time, let’s do the homework and get broad consensus (ie constitutional convention or some other mechanism) before we embark on the difficult task of getting a double majority. It can be done (will be done). Let’s codify the learnings.
Open to lunch
1 年Scott, I get what you’re saying but have two quibbles. The first, and least interesting, is that I am an old Australian who was and is very keen on the Voice. The second is your support for logic. This is not what determines matters such as this referendum. The key determinant of the triumph of the No vote was the opposition of the NP and the LP. The history of referendums and the trajectory of opinion over the past 9 months support that. The NP - the descendants of the Squattocracy - fear any suggestion of justice for our Indigenous people. History is clear on that and for obvious reasons. The LP? Well, they have long put justice aside for the sake of power (to paraphrase Paul Keating, “never stand between a Liberal MHR and the government benches “! These matters are decided by emotions,not logic, irrespective of which viewpoint one supports.