Chaos and bewilderment, or a Parliament that reflects modern Australia by Ian Zakon - Primary Communication.

What the election can teach us about today’s communication

There is a saying in entomology (study of bugs): what may look like utter chaos from the ground is actually a very intricate and well-functioning system when viewed from a high perspective.

While Primary, along with the rest of the country, awaits the final outcome of last week’s election (hopefully there won’t be any hanging chads) it is not too soon to begin looking at the lessons that this election has taught us as communication professionals.

The election result has come down to two particular chapters of communication professionals’ textbook: operating on the ‘big picture’ and personal level; and compressing complex issues into easily digestible and appetising morsels.

The first lesson is straight forward – the Australian electoral system has always operated on two levels, big picture (national) and personal (local electorates). While in the past it was possible to address the entire nation on multiple issues, these days only really critical and crisis issues will cut-through on the national level. This means that anyone seeking to communicate something that cannot be described as ‘life-altering’ for most of the country needs to find a way to localise their issue and communicate it at a ground level.

Communicating at a personal level is a difficult and time-consuming proposition, as it requires a better understanding of local issues and vagaries. However, if done properly, it is much more likely to create an engaged and supportive audience. It’s also much more likely to generate a better relationship, with a more obvious ROI.

The second lesson is often abused and maligned. Most people these days lead extremely busy lives (haven’t we always?), and are now bombarded by more information from more directions than ever. Today, a communicator will be competing for attention with others not just from the same city, state or country – but with the entire world.

I speak from experience – sure, I should read the local newspaper editions to find out what’s happening, but what if I can find media that better suits my tastes coming from UK or US or literally anywhere else in the world. Add to that the ability of Australia’s multi-lingual community to continue accessing information in other languages, in a way that was impossible just a decade ago.

This means that if you are lucky to get 20 seconds of someone’s attention (or, for that matter, 140 characters), you have to get your entire issue across in that short space. The election provided a clear demonstration of how this can be done easily if you’re prepared to give up on any form nuance or subtlety – such as, ‘Save Medicare’ or ‘No Halal in Australia’. But what if your message is more complicated and does not easily lend itself to a three-word slogan?

The answer, as always, comes from looking at that question in another way – what about my message do people already care about, and how can I communicate it in a way that connects with their existing notions.

Finally, this election has signalled a return of ‘value-based’ campaigning. Based on extensive voter surveys and feedback, we can safely say that most were not voting out of a pre-conceived idea about their local candidate or based on the latest economic modelling.

Most of the electorate were voting to express their connections with the perceived values of the different parties and well-known party leaders. This is why we have seen a greater proportion of the electorate, than in the past, willing to vote for candidates they’d never heard of with policies they didn’t know. The electorate sought to connect with parties and their leaders on a ‘value’ basis, whether those values were around a belief in free markets or in protection of Australia from foreign investment, to name a few.

The lesson here, while more straight forward than the previous two, is much harder to execute well -how does your communication clearly position values? The two main categories that were evident at this election were: institutional – well established and representing a form of ‘stability’, and agitators – representing an unknown and a move away from ‘business as usual’.

As this election demonstrated, no matter how much someone might talk about innovation and agility – if the audience sees them as institutional, then all of their communication will be perceived through that prism. This is also why voting for a ‘non-major party’, no matter how big – is still viewed as a protest rather than a positive affirmation.

If your brand does not already have clear and strong values that speak for themselves, they will need to be established – otherwise, your communications might as well be about black hole deficits.

Ian Zakon is Primary Communication's Account Director - Public Affairs. https://www.dhirubhai.net/company/primary-communication?trk=biz-companies-cym