Negative
Advertising Fails
 |
| Concerned Citizens for BC's extremely negative attack ad style |
That's
what research and British Columbia's experience shows
Tuesday
April 9, 2013
By Bill Tieleman
"The
research clearly shows that negative ads are not more persuasive than positive
ads."
- Bill Benoit,
Ohio University communication studies professor
New
Democrat leader Adrian Dix is taking the biggest political risk of his life --
and his party will win or lose this election because of it.
No,
it's not by promising
well in advance that an NDP government would increase the corporate tax rates
or put a minimum tax on banks and financial institutions nor is it an
ill-advised policy in the party's forthcoming platform.
Dix
rolled the dice a year ago when he publicly pledged the NDP will not
run negative or personal attack ads, period.
The
NDP has not and will not respond in kind to the vicious $1 million
assault on Dix's own character launched by Concerned Citizens for
BC, a BC Liberal-linked group led by Jim Shepard, an ex-Christy Clark advisor
and former corporate CEO.
But
is Dix being risky or is it really Clark's team taking dangerous chances by
gambling everything on the success of negative advertising?
After
all, the NDP is 20 points ahead of the BC Liberals and Dix's approval rating is
miles ahead of Clark's, according to the last Angus Reid poll.
The
focus on negative ads may be because while political operatives strongly
believe negative advertising works, those who actually empirically study
advertising for a living say the research tells a different story.
Confused
consultants
"Everyone
remembers the races where a negative attack or series of attacks appears to
have been decisive. That's the kind of knowledge candidates and consultants
have -- it's anecdotal evidence. The scholarly evidence doesn't back them
up," says Stephen Craig, professor of political science at the University
of Florida.
"Here's
the deal -- why are there so many negative ads? Because candidates and
consultants believe they work," Craig says.
"If
you've got a powerful negative message that resonates with voters, then yeah,
it's going to work. But if it's about something voters don't care about, if
it's a message that's poorly presented, then they're not going to be moved by
it."
"Can
it work? Yes. Does it work? Sometimes," Craig sums up.
Another
expert who has done the research says policy trumps so-called
"character" issues time after time.
"It
would seem that the candidate who talks more about policy may be more likely to
win," says Bill Benoit, an Ohio University communication studies professor
who studies
negative political advertising.
"We
found public opinion data from 1980 through 2000 where they asked voters what's
the most important determinant of your vote for president and more people said
policy or issues than character or image."
"So
in fact, the candidates who talk more about policy are more likely to win than
if you stress character," Benoit concludes.
Familiar
weapon, new era
I
know firsthand that negative advertising can work very well -- because I was
Premier Glen Clark's communications director when our NDP campaign used it
against then-opposition leader Gordon Campbell in 1996. And my colleague then
was Clark's chief of staff, Adrian Dix.
The
NDP launched a pre-emptive negative TV advertising strike against Campbell that
started before Clark was even chosen leader in Feb. 1996.
Those
ads, brilliantly created by NOW Communications, featured grainy black and white
photos of a scary Campbell with an ominous deep male announcer's voice talking
about BC Liberal plans to slash public services, then asking: "Gordon
Campbell: Whose side is he on anyway?"
In
the election campaign that followed, the NDP slogan was "On Your Side"
and it was illustrated by the government freezing tuition fees, BC Ferries'
fares, ICBC auto insurance rates and increasing the minimum wage.
All
of that was counter posed to Campbell's agenda to cut 15 per cent from the BC
budget, sell BC Rail, reduce the number of rural seats in the BC Legislature
and generally shake up the province.
The
BC Liberals ill-advised slogan -- "The Courage To Change" -- even
reinforced the NDP message that bad things would happen if Campbell were
elected.
The
combination of heavy negative advertising against the BC Liberals – who
initially held a 30-point lead -- and positive action by the NDP government
combined to give Glen Clark a stunning upset victory.
'We
need to bring people back to politics': Dix
Clark
won more seats but fewer votes than Campbell's battered crew.
But
the approach Dix takes to politics today has evolved since 1996.
"A
lot of people think the way to respond to negative ads is to run negative ads
ourselves," Dix told
the Parksville Qualicum Beach news last May.
"The
reason we are not going to do this is very simple. First, 1.7 million people
didn't vote in the last provincial election.
"We
are not going to bring anybody back to politics by deciding the winner of an
election is the person with the best ad agency to run the nastiest negative
ads. We need to bring people back to politics and that means offering some hope
that change will happen," Dix argued.
And
despite being the target of extensive personal attack ads, Dix has not wavered.
For
their part, the BC Liberals surprisingly say they aren't going to go negative
either.
Mike
McDonald, the BC Liberal Party campaign director, claims his team is going to
play nice.
"We're
not going to run a nasty campaign," he told
The Province's Michael Smyth.
"A
campaign is where you debate. You talk about your strengths and your opponent's
weaknesses. That's what we intend to do and we'll do it in a very fair, honest
and factual way," McDonald says.
But
even if McDonald is correct, he leaves unsaid the role of CC4BC and possibly
other BC Liberal supporters running third party advertising.
Big
turn-off
Regardless
of that, other academic research should also concern the BC Liberals and their
ad buying allies in CC4BC because it shows that increased repetition of
negative advertising has the reverse effect on voters -- they are turned right
off by it.
A
new study
out last month showed participants a series of ads, including negative
political attack ads.
The
study found that "after three exposures, participants had more favorable
opinions of the candidate who sponsored the ad. But, after five airings,
viewers' opinions became increasingly negative."
Juliana
Fernandes, an assistant professor at the University of Miami in Florida who
specializes in political communication, conducted the research and cautions
that those using negative ads "should use negative ads strategically, not
overwhelmingly."
Whoops
-- that doesn't seem to have been the CC4BC approach with its carpet-bombing
negative ad campaign.
But
don't just blame political parties and advocacy groups for going negative –
blame the media, says Benoit, who has extensively studied both American and
international elections.
"We
know that news coverage is always more negative than the candidates and the
news coverage does not emphasize policy as much as the candidates do – the news
focuses on horserace first and then character," Benoit argues persuasively.
Will
Dix's boycott of negative advertising not only help the BC NDP win the election
but also change the channel from nasty politics to policy?
If
so, Dix will become the second B.C. opposition leader to easily win an election
without running a single negative attack ad. Ironically the first was Gordon
Campbell in his 2001 landslide victory over the NDP.
Disclosure:
Tieleman supported Adrian Dix's NDP leadership bid.
.
