Partner Article

Battered, bruised and victorious political brands

By Wayne Halton, director at MHW PR

After a long and bruising 2015 General Election the Conservative Party (Tories) emerged as the victorious political brand. And against all predictions.

For Labour supporters, including myself, this was an unwelcome outcome. If we use a marketing analogy, you might say the stronger political brand won the sales battle, with more people believing the Tory product would do what it said on the tin.

Looking back over this election, before, during and after, there’s a fascinating communications story and lesson, particularly if we see the two main parties as brands and the election as a marketing campaign.

An immense marketing toolkit was put to use; from the traditional – posters, leaflets, TV, press and battle-buses – to the more dynamic and digital – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Vine and some newer tools.

The jury is still out on which tactics proved the most effective. However, it seems the Tories had more success via the more traditional media (TV and press), which analysts argue is still the most powerful for influencing opinion; there is a consensus that Labour won the social media battle but clearly this did not convert into votes at the ballot. Much more analysis needs to be done here.

But as all PR and marketing people know, you can only use tactics to ‘spin’ so much; ultimately, you can’t ‘polish a turd’ or disguise a weak product; and this is where the issues of proposition, messaging, trust, and vision are much more important than tactics and media channels.

Tories: came into the election with an improving economy and a falling debt mountain. Most economic indicators (ignoring low wages and productivity) were pointing in the right direction and this was clearly going to be their communications focus and campaign narrative. The ‘sales team’ was coherent and consistent in its messaging. Clearly there were issues to overcome, not least of which was continued austerity. Offering cuts and giving your customers less is an unattractive sell. However, the brand promise was simple and understandable – ‘trust us to manage the economy; don’t change direction and put the recovery at risk.’ Austerity was positioned as an essential ingredient to ensure ‘jam tomorrow’, delivering long term prosperity for hard working families that funded fit-for-purpose welfare and social services.

Labour: was never as confident or clear about its product offer and proposition. The brand and sales team was still a little tarnished from the last recession. Brand Labour felt obliged to attack the offer from the Tories and challenge the assumption that austerity was necessary. Their brand promised fairer distribution, closing social divisions and protecting the vulnerable. Labour’s vision was to represent the many, not the few. But there was a big problem with the ‘sales team’; following the leadership battle in 2010, Brand Labour was never comfortable with its ‘sales director’; there was a trust and credibility problem that was never fully resolved. This allowed rival brands to regularly exploit, aided by a largely hostile media. Several PR fails didn’t help. Brand Labour tried to sell a promise that offered less pain and austerity, a stronger economy along with enhanced social services. Economic growth was promised but the language seemed anti-business. In a confused attempt to deflect criticism of big tax and spend plans, Labour offered less investment in public services than rival brands. The messaging got confused and tactics got muddled. The game was up.

Both brands were imperfect; they both had weaknesses to overcome. As customers, we were being offered weak products with some unattractive ingredients. The options polarised opinion but ultimately floating shoppers took a lead, ignored brand loyalties and chose the brand they trusted most and had the most compelling sales proposition.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by MHW PR .