To get your campaign messaging right, first burst your elite bubble

Anyhow, it seems that John was not alone in there.

An array of campaigners from all parts of the social and political spectrum seem to actively avoid exposure to what we might call the real world. This isolation manifests in messaging and media performances that are at best tin-eared and at worst actively offensive. No wonder their campaigns flop.

Campaigns tend to be created by insiders who know all the facts and all the background and are generally convinced of the virtue of their arguments. This is where the disconnect originates, because their audiences have only a tenuous grasp of the facts, know nothing of the background, and are not convinced of anything.

Every campaign starts from a different place

The campaign to ban or severely restrict gambling advertising has gathered huge momentum. The anti-gambling campaigners have several advantages:

• The public have a pre-existing awareness of the issue – they see the ads and know the impact of gambling, possibly from personal experience.
• The public has a broad distaste for the advertisements – we’re sick of them!
• The preferred solution – a severe advertising ban – is simple. Nuanced arguments are very grown up but make it harder for the campaigner.
• The solution is seen as victimless – individuals can still bet, betting won’t become harder or more expensive.

No wonder pollsters Redbridge found that 72 per cent of those surveyed supported banning online gambling advertising.

This campaign – which is being driven by many groups including the Alliance for Gambling Reform, the Australian Medical Association and the Grattan Institute – gets it.

The messaging focuses on the risk to kids, the impact on families and, more recently, the links between gambling and family violence. Solid. The solution is easy to understand – even better.

The nuclear messaging option

Let’s look at the federal Opposition’s push for nuclear energy, which is being opposed by many environmental organisations, most of which I have worked with as media trainer or communications consultant.

Remember: the best campaigns aim to win, and winning requires compromise.

Compromise means being sensitive to people’s current understanding of the issues and catering to their mood. It means talking to them in ways they understand about the angles that matter to them, which may not be that important to you at all.

In multiple media opportunities, anti-nuclear spokespeople have warned us of the perils of a nuclear accident, the impact on local communities, and of course the issue of nuclear waste.

Context is king, so let’s check the top concerns of garden-variety Australians today: the costs of living and housing top the chart, with the economy at number four. Environment ain’t exactly top of mind. So in a time when money really matters, it might be smarter to talk dollars:

• Even if nuclear energy happens, it won’t make any difference to your bill until at least…2035. How does that help you?
• Would you like lower bills in 2025 or 2035…maybe?
• Nuclear energy has a bad habit of making bills higher, not lower. Ask the people of Georgia in the USA or the Australian experts who estimate that the Dutton nuclear option will increase your bill. Yep – increase it.
• The nuclear plan is too slow, too expensive and too uncertain.

Play to emotions

We live in a time of high scepticism about governments’ ability to do big things on time and on budget – especially infrastructure. Play to the public’s current emotional state (cynicism) and concerns (cost of living).

• Victoria has been waiting 50 years for a train to the airport. And now we’re going to build seven nuclear reactors in 11 years? Good luck with that.
• Australia hasn’t built high-speed rail in 200 years – yet the nuclear age is 11 years away? And trains already exist – these reactors don’t!
• Start paying now. Delivery in 20 years…or so. Buy now, fry later.
• Why would we risk buying unproven technology at the highest cost?

And stop using the term “emissions”. Pollution is easier to picture, far more emotive and broader in scope.

The view from the ivory tower

It’s lonely at the top. So lonely that nobody told the elites of our university sector that one poll found 69% support for the federal government’s cap on overseas students. (Remember – housing is issue #2 with Australians.)

So, when Group of Eight* top brass, including University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott, staged a media blitz to challenge the reform, Scott was perhaps unwise to proffer this argument: “International students represent only four per cent of the rental market.”

Four per cent is huge. How huge? The historically low vacancy rate that underpins our current rental crisis is 1.3%. But Scott thought this message should placate pesky renters as they queue in the rain to view another one-bedroom delight. It did not.

Then Scott said – I kid you not – that the public has no reason to complain because the accommodation universities build is exclusively for oversees students – not Australian residents. (Note that this was supposed to make us feel better and oppose the student caps.)

In a time of scarce homes, scare prime land and scarcer construction workers, universities are creating homes exclusively for other people. Can’t wait until they start doing the same thing with hospitals and childcare centres.

One must be living in an elite bubble** indeed to think that these arguments are persuasive, but heck, what do I know? I went to TAFE. Pro-tip: try to not sound self-interested.