comment by [deleted] ·
2015-08-03T06:50:05.928Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why do politicians bother with such offputting political ads?
Posting this in the stupid questions thread because it's unclear to me why obvious question is not, for the most, raised or answered elsewhere.
Requests For Intelligence Information
Political campaigning is expensive. I assume it takes up a large portion of political party's campaign funds. But what if (some of it is) a waste of time, or even counterproductive? If that was the case, as I have reason to believe (follow my links). If that's the case, political entities have reason to spend less in order to push their cause. If they need to spend less, there is less incentive to solicit funds from sources that may have undue influence over them leading to poorer public perception, or corrupt behaviour.
It is not public knowledge how the major Australian political parties assess their marketing effectiveness. They don't use the marketing evalution tools taught in marketing classrooms for the business world and academic studies on effectiveness are decades old, foreign or non-existent. The evidence that does exist, suggests that [most political advertising is a waste of time, except doorknocking. This suprises me, since it would piss me off if an average unelected candidate came to my door. Surveys of trusted political party members from both the Liberal and Labour parties suggests that ordinary members, including those active in subcommittees and minor official positions don't have access to this information. I expect that it is held either by:
a) external political consultants
b) senior party officials
c) elected party members
d) elected party member staffers
e) branch level marketing officials
f) unknown other categories
g) some combination of the above
This post is a call for information to fill in this knowledge gap. If you have any relevant intelligence, feel free to comment. If you have any relevant intelligence that you would like to have shared while preserving your anonymity, you can message me with it and I will post it here on your behalf without your username and reject any requests for identifying information about you should that case arise. If you have relevant intelligence and would not like it posted, I would still be interested to know privately and encourage you to contact me with it.
Replies from: Username, Strangeattractor, Lumifer, gudamor
↑ comment by Strangeattractor ·
2015-08-16T00:06:03.377Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In some cases, being off-putting is the goal. The more you can make potential voters disgusted with the political process, the more likely they are to stay home and not vote. If you are a party that has a base that votes a lot, and your opponents have a more fickle voter base that are more likely to stay home instead of voting, icky political ads serve your purpose.
↑ comment by Lumifer ·
2015-08-06T04:27:47.995Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Given that Western political systems are basically a Darwinian selection process, I would be greatly surprised if the political consultants didn't have a good idea about the effectiveness of their propaganda. They certainly gather and examine the data. Of course, there is not much incentive for them to publish their results.
Do you have any reason to believe that political consultants are particularly stupid?
Replies from: ChristianKl
↑ comment by gudamor ·
2015-08-06T03:34:00.724Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have no idea which of the below are true, or to what extent:
1) They're not off-putting to everyone; you are not the target audience
2) Being off-putting is valuable, as decreasing voter turnout benefits their strategy
3) Being off-putting does not matter, as they remain effective regardless
4a) No one is checking if these are effective
4b) The people who DO check if these are effective have a vested interest in showing they are
If no one is gathering data on the effectiveness, then the next best strategy is to copy your competitor.