Federal Election 2016: The campaign videos that turned us on and off politics

WE’VE been bombarded with political campaign ads that are meant to be believable — but experts reveal where the major and minor parties failed.

AUSTRALIAN voters were bombarded with a raft of campaign videos this year. Some of them got the nation talking, but many turned us off politics.

We looked at some of the ads that hit our TV screens and social media channels, and asked two experts for their verdict on which ones were good, bad and just downright ugly.

After doing a recent study of campaign ads himself, Dr Andrew Hughes, a lecturer in marketing at the Australian National University’s (ANU) Research School of Management, said the videos showed the election had been about one of two opposing messages: fear and progression.

“Usually it’s the Government talking about fearing what will happen to all of its deliverables if it were to lose office except this time it’s offering progression to the electorate,” Hughes said.

“And the Opposition, usually the one to offer up hope and positive changes, have instead tried to use fear and negativity as they did so well in 2007 and in 2013 when Abbott and Howard both fitted that perception so well to offer the reason why it should become the Government come Saturday evening.”

Mike Pritchett, CEO of video production start-up Shootsta, said most political campaign videos aren’t like Superbowl commercials, but they need to be effective.

“They aren’t big budget blockbusters, they’re simple pieces that are supposed to be effective and believable. Some have failed to reach that, however some of them have reached that goal,” he said.

From Mediscare to tradies, Dr Hughes and Mr Pritchett provided their analysis below:

NSW NATIONALS: ‘NOT THIS TIME TONY’

Pritchett: This video is shot well, scripted nicely and gives the audience the respect of assumed knowledge, without having to spell everything out as so many political videos do. It has a good level of humour and uses the relatable language of text messages and a casual conversation in a cafe. It’s very rare for political ads to have actors, that can actually act and are not contrived. “Amazingly, the Nationals haven’t even pushed their own brand or multiple policies down the audience throats, which is great to see! They’ve stuck with one straight forward message, ‘Not this time Tony.’ To be honest, there’s not much I would change about this spot, it’s very rare that I would say that about a political ad, however it’s not annoying or condescending and ends with a nice simple tagline, so it gets a thumbs up from me.”

Dr Hughes: “This is terrible. One of the worst for the campaign. Highly personal and no use of a credible third party to back up the claims made, which can help somewhat to ease the negativity of the message. And definitely made from a party perspective, seriously would be surprised that anyone would watch this all the way through and if they did highly unlikely to be swayed by it. How to improve? Talk more about what Barnaby has done and if that can’t work then talk about the history of the Nats in standing up for people on the land.”

BOB KATTER: ‘Vote Bob in Kennedy’

Pritchett: “I honestly believe the producers of this video vote against Bob Katter, they would have been laughing while drawing up the storyboards — if there were any boards at all — it’s quite possible, they bought themselves a shiny new drone and had a few too many drinks while shooting this piece. The timing of its release and nature of the message coming from someone at his level is not appropriate. Having strong ties to the country myself, I find this spot insulting. The folksy stock production music underlies how horrible it’s going to be before the vision even starts. The production values are extremely low, the acting is horrible, especially from Bob. The underlying message of gun violence is simply unacceptable for someone in his position. If I run my repetitive test over this spot, it annoys me the second time it comes on, and I want to throw my TV out the window every time I hear it from then on. Start again, come up with a new concept altogether that doesn’t involve shooting your competition.”

Dr Hughes: “Pretty sure that the intention of this ad was to get people talking about it, hence why it’s so low on anything specific about anything that Bob Katter may actually do if re-elected. Then again this plays well with his target market who have voted him back in time and time again. And that’s what matters with any advertising: that the message is liked enough by your intended target market so that it changes or reinforces behaviour.”

LIBERAL PARTY: Andrew MacRae, a real tradie who was thought to be fake

Pritchett: “Well, we all know how this video went. It’s in the same camp as Bob Katter’s spot when it comes to publicity for all the wrong reasons. This may have been the point, but it’s questionable as to whether the media storm this video generated actually helped the Liberal party. This spot is so close, but so far! If they worked the real trade angle harder and cleaned up the obvious imperfections — like the clean clothes and the bright blue coffee mug — then the messaging could have been good. At the heart of what they were trying to do, it’s a good idea, just poorly executed. Quite often a “real” person on camera comes off more “fake” than an actor. The messaging is also extremely weak, “we should see it through and stick with the current mob for a while” is not exactly inspiring. The script could use work.”

Dr Hughes: “I am 90 per cent certain that this was a distracter ad: Get the message away from Labor and Medicare by distracting the market with an ad that bad that everyone will be talking about it. The Republicans have used something similar in the US for years so no surprises to see this used here. As an ad, bad, real bad. But effective for the purpose it was designed for. Absolutely.”

CFMEU: Real tradies

Pritchett: “I have to say, despite my own political views, I was impressed by this piece, it was turned around very quickly, making it relevant and current, something that most political campaigns miss. They had taken the mistakes that their opponent made and were sure to avoid any of the same issues in this spot. The only way to make “real tradies” appear to be good actors is to give them a sign and tell them to stand still. Once again the sad melodic music kicks in, however in this case, it’s not completely horrible. Personally I feel this is too long, the cut-down version has more impact. Once again this is a case of political parties thinking that putting more messaging in means their audience takes more on board, this is simply not true. It doesn’t pass my repetitive test, however that’s hard to do with this type of reactive piece. For what this ad was, (a response to the Liberal Tradie spot) I think it’s pretty spot on.”

Dr Hughes: “Good start, engaging, low on information so we have time to read the images. That said there were a lot of those cardboard posters being used. My only advice here would have been to go more positive on the cards, and have less on each one.”

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: National apology to taxpayers

Pritchett: “I struggled to watch to the end of this video. I really have nothing good to say about it. It’s way too long, no one wants to watch him talk for that long. Political commercials seem to have this horrible addiction to using depressing or scary music. We’re not that stupid and we’re not swayed by your scary, or in this case, sad soundtrack. The graphics used in this spot are horrible, the colours, the alignment, everything is off. One of my pet hates is a bad autocue. David Leyonhjelm is clearly not even using a professional autocue, he is reading off to the side of the camera, once you actually look at his eyes, you can’t take him seriously at all. It definitely doesn’t pass my repetitive test as I can’t even watch it once without going insane. Cut it down. Find the top three or even better top one point that David wants to get across, then spend 30 seconds making sure that point is driven home, don’t try and dribble out every thought you’ve ever had in one video.”

Dr Hughes: “Nice backing track, but way too much information to process so that kills the engagement. While the policies may appeal this message does not at over three minutes long. I would have varied the message here far more and used images of the policies he was discussing to highlight the points being made but also to keep the engagement high. At least 90 seconds off, and a slightly more engaging and passionate speaking style and this may have worked quite well.”

LIBERAL PARTY: Turnbull’s life growing up

Pritchett: “The concept of this video is good, the idea of getting to know Malcolm Turnbull and hear more about his background. However, the execution of this idea is not strong here. I can only assume they were given very little material to work with. The shots are not relating to what Malcolm is talking about, there are shots of Malcolm on a successful political path while he talks about his Dad being a battler, this doesn’t make any sense. Overall, I didn’t feel as though I relate at all to Malcolm after watching this, watching him look out the window of a private jet, while talking about the fact that he was the centre of his Dad’s world, does not inspire me to vote for him at all, which I think is a shame. I feel the producers of this content have missed the point, and taken the wrong parts of his interview. This is a missed opportunity on Malcolm Turnbull’s behalf.”

Dr Hughes: “Positive, life story ad, definitely designed for the internet and the viral share on social. Good story, really liked this one, but here’s the thing on this: the cynics out there will find it hard to watch and believe due to the low credibility of the source.”

LABOR PARTY: Malcolm Turnbull, seriously out of touch

Pritchett: “Well, it’s hard for me to say what’s good about this video as it’s possibly the most annoying spot on TV at the moment, if I had to be subjective, I would say that they have achieved the one message goal, they have clearly delivered this message in the voice over and the graphics, for the budget, it’s an effective piece. Scary music strikes again! There’s nothing more annoying and condescending than thinking that a bit of scary music under a commercial will make me believe that we’re all doomed if we vote for one party or another. The jump cuts between a tight shot and a wide shot at the start are simply distracting and don’t add to the piece. We’ve also seen a lot in the media about some of the statements in this spot simply being untrue. Personally I would hold off on the annoying music so this spot could pass the repetitive test without getting on everyone’s nerves. I also feel that a spot that focuses on positive policy rather than scare tactics is generally more effective.”

Dr Hughes: “Whoever designed this loved throwing copious amounts of large sized font using colours that have got our attention thanks to the retail world. Sadly, with that much information, even in a short ad such as this, no one is going to care that much to remember anything more than how much these things seem to be making democracy a battle of the nasty and not issues that move Australia forward. If you are going to insist on making an ad like this then slow the pace down, let people actually read the words on the screen, use creative to carry the information so the viewer can relax more, and be clear on what they are meant to do at the end and be real about what that actually is. And no, that does not mean instantaneously voting for you.”

LIBERAL PARTY: Four reasons to back the Coalition

Pritchett: “He’s clear about the points he’s wanting to make and he presents them well. The graphics may be boring, however they’re clear and concise, without being distracting. I have to say however my favourite part about this spot is, that if you watch it in fast forward, you get to see Malcolm Turnbull playing the maracas. It’s never a good idea to have repetitive hand gestures. This production could also appear to be a little elitist based on Malcolm’s shiny modern office, I feel that most of the voters he needs to win over will not relate to this. Avoid repetitive hand movements and maybe look at a more relatable background.”

Dr Hughes: “Not too bad for a positive ad apart from one thing: no one but no one is reading those words. Like so many positive and negative political ads this one suffers from an information dump that kills any real interest and engagement. The biggest interest going on in this one is how much Malcolm uses his hands.”

THE GREENS: Stand up for what matters

Pritchett: “This spot engages “real people” that have presented fairly well, it’s definitely relatable and gets a few key messages across well. The Greens triangle logo is very distracting at the start of the piece, the lighting on the talent’s face is also very average, this piece has clearly been shot on a tight budget. Personally, I would have worked the triangle logo into this piece in a more subtle way to start with and bring it to the forefront as the ad goes on.”

Dr Hughes: “Not too bad, but still that is a lot of information to digest. Good music, good cross-section of targeted voters, but too fast for anyone to keep up with. Here’s my tip: six word sentences max and allow at least six seconds for those words to be read. Do not, I repeat do not use them across the entire screen and if necessary have them break across lines on one side.”

JAMES MATHISON: Why he’s taking it to Tony Abbott

Pritchett: “James reminds me of a political activist at uni. Overall, there was so much talk of coming out against the system and the need for change but out of all the ads I’ve seen for parties I can say that this piece felt the most genuine. It felt like an Aussie bloke who wants to rise up above the carefree culture of Warringah and try and make a difference. His presentation and the way he wore his heart on his sleeve really makes it stand out among the hundreds of other “soap opera” ads that plague my TV. The piece was specifically created for the audience of young Australians and the language and costuming really emphasised this which was great to see. The biggest downside was the length. Maybe cut it up into a few different videos? But, at the end of the day, 90 seconds of content would serve him much better than eight minutes worth.”

Dr Hughes: “This is amazing — the YouTube stats are low but the Facebook ones are off the chart. And this is the 8min plus version. But this for me will be proof of the power of social media to engage, but not to lead to behaviour change a la Brexit where a YouGov poll had only 36 per cent of people aged 18-24 voting yet 81 per cent for those aged over 65. Liking is one thing, but the doing is what you are aiming for. Undoubtedly a strong message, and helped by some publicity with his arrest at a WestConnex demo, he should do well but I don’t think he’ll stop Tony from winning Warringah again or from outpolling the Nick Xenophon candidate who launched in much fanfare earlier in the year.”

THE ARTS PARTY: Creating With Kevin!

Pritchett: Shoot me now, but not with a camera. I wish I could say there was a redeemable element to this piece. But if I did I would be lying. I have a feeling that low budget was the look they were going for. But I don’t feel that this actually helps their brand or adds any incentives for me to vote for them. In fact after watching this video I now know which party I’m not voting for. The ad sets no concrete ideas on what The Arts Party stands for or what their goals are. So I’m left actually wondering if this video is a joke or a serious platform for a campaign. If this was an attempt at humour, I have to say, it’s pretty atrocious. This video is more ambiguous than an Arts degree. Your audience must be clearly laid out. Who is this for? University students? Labor supporters? Trying to capture those indecisive voters?”

Dr Hughes: “Half negative, half positive, but high on the humour, which is one of the ways people won’t be that angry with you on an ad like this, but still humour dates quickly and then becomes more annoying than some of the other negatives out there. It also appeals only to a very narrow demographic and strangely makes fun of the former and not current PM in the caricature. Had they perhaps made these into short 15 second spots that each added on the next, like a mini series, then perhaps this may have got a viral hit. For raising awareness of their issue they hit the target but don’t expect this to make people change votes.”

Originally published as Federal Election 2016: The campaign videos that turned us on and off politics