Messaging and Design: Thoughts and Suggestions for the GPC
I had the pleasure of attending Elizabeth May's 12th Night Party last night. As usual, it was an enjoyable night with many fascinating people mulling around with glasses of wine, discussing political events after a holiday hiatus between munching on Elizabeth's delicious appetizers. If you ever go, make sure you try the cheese bits – the slightly and purposely burnt edges are to die for!
Not long after arriving there, I met a designer who had worked with Elizabeth at the Sierra Club in the 1990s, designing their logo and look. We got to talking about the importance of messaging and design in politics and it reminded me that I had wanted to write about this topic for quite some time.
There are very few things more important than messaging and design in politics. Every political campaign – whether good or evil – has had to address these two. The message and design of “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality” from the French Revolution drove its success and altered world forever. In communist nations, a critical ingredient to suppressing dissent and maintaining central power was to completely control messaging and design in all socio-political fields. When Benito Mussolini was rising to power in Italy, he wanted to promulgate a message of greatness. To achieve this, he had the roads in Rome rearranged in order to pass the nation's ancient monuments of greatness. The monstrous investment by the Conservative Party to frame Stephane Dion as a weak leader unable to communicate basic ideas was perhaps the single largest determinant in their recent election victory. The message and design around the idea of 'hope' in Obama's Presidential campaign was just as critical as the specific policies he proposed.
So what is our message? Some may say that it is: “be green”. They aren't entirely wrong, but it is not really our message - at least not exclusively. It is more the popular message of the day. In recent years the word 'green' has become extremely common as society has come to understand its importance and corporate culture has come to understand its value. Perhaps the slogan from the election: “Vote for Tomorrow” is the message, but – and I am open to debate on this – I don't believe it is a strong message. Its inherent idea of thinking about the future is good, but it is also ambiguous and confusing. Does not everyone vote for tomorrow, just different tomorrows? If I vote on October 14th, does the message imply that I'm to vote for October 15th? Should I not act now for tomorrow rather than wait for my vote?
The questions abound. What I think is necessary is to invest in our messaging by hiring a firm that can utilize focus groups. If this isn't possible than a process that is based on broad consultation with a variety of experienced individuals inside and outside of the Party should take place. Creating messaging mustn't be overly complicated either. If it is, people won't buy it and the message will fall on deaf ears. The trick is to answer the question what do voters want to hear from us, put it in 5 words or less and frame everything within its context and the message will successful. We must think like we are selling a product, that product is our message, and we want as many people to buy it.
Mike Nagy and the Guelph team framed its entire campaign within its momentum-driven alliterate slogan “Guelph's Going Green”. The Okanagan-Shuswap campaign around Huguette Allen stressed the importance of the future and came up with “A Future Worth Voting For”. Both are clear and concise messages and it's no surprise that these campaigns were amongst the most successful in the last election. The message was simple and voters bought it.
As for our design, I believe the Green Party needs to take an opportunity to develop its look. It may, for example, be time to shed the sunflower look – I have always been bothered by its uncanny resemblance to British Petroleum's sunflower logo. Another important change that might be considered is our colour scheme. Personally, I feel that yellow is not a political colour as it doesn't espouse strength. I also feel that the shade of Green we use should reflect one of the most widespread, powerful and beautiful symbols in Canada: the evergreen forests. We can use evergreen green because we're ever green Greens! Lastly, I am not sure whether the font of a mature political party ought to be all small caps. At the very least, it may be time to investigate whether the Green Party logo and colour works by asking Canadians about their impression of it and see whether it fits our messaging.
Certainly the Green Party has emerged as a major force on the political scene with tremendous momentum, unprecedented influence and strength. Our messaging and design should reflect that.
- Mark Kersten's blog
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Commentaires
Protecting our commons
I've always seen gray economics as an affront on what we have in common: public space, clean air, clean water, etc.
"Protecting our commons" could be our message.
----
http://www.julienlamarche.ca - julien.lamarche@gmail.com
Yes for BC-STV: http://www.stvforbc.com/
The 4 electoral systems: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hzoxl
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
----
http://www.julienlamarche.ca - julien.lamarche@gmail.com
The 4 electoral systems: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hzoxl
Please leave a message
I think our lack of unified messaging is our biggest weakness. I suspect there are many greens who would feel uncomfortable with, as you say, "hiring a firm that can utilize focus groups". They might feel that it is succumbing to the manipulative, marketing and partisan style of mainstream politics and big business that are often criticized. Heck, we even have greens who think you shouldn't vote green in some circumstances.
Yet, it's exactly 100% what's needed if we are to be a real party with real elected representatives. We have an opportunity to use our limited media exposure to define to Canadians exactly where we are uniquely positioned on the political spectrum and in comparison with other political parties.
Right now, I think we are perceived as another left wing opposition party apparently comfortable with operating under the aegis of a Liberal/NDP coalition even before we have seats in parliament.
I think our messaging should focus on our uniqueness. Pounding home the message that we are socially progressive, fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious in equal measures would be an example of one place to start. In particular, I think the fiscal responsibility part of our message has not gotten out there, so we probably have to overcompensate in order to put things in balance again.
What's even more important than the content of our messaging is that fact that we have unified messaging period. At least that way the impression formed in the electorate’s mind is on purpose as opposed to accidental.
Whatever those messages are, we need to define ourselves with a handful of them and make sure that whatever precious media airtime we do get hammers those messages home until the electorate knows what they going to get when they vote green.
When we spend a few million dollars on national tv advertisements, spending a few hundred thousand on fine tuning the content and messaging therein and elsewhere is a smart investment.
It would be a dream project for a professional firm to help come up with messaging for the green party. The gap between our mind share among voters and our actual performance (ie, not having any elected representatives) is huge. The way to fill the gap and get from one to the other is with a well thought out, professional messaging strategy.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
consistent messaging is crucial
As we saw in the Guelph By-election / General election consistent messaging is crucial. When the Party's message on strategic voting became unclear in the minds of voters the broader message got muddled with the local message we lost ground in Guelph, in my opinion.
As a lay person I do like Mark's thoughts on fonts and colours and a succinct slogan.
I think the message/slogan should come from the party members so that it is real and heartfelt. We should have professional help fine-tuning, packaging and delivering that message.
With apologies to Ard I do take umbrage with tossing around "spending a few hundred thousand" in a somewhat off-handed way. I do take his point that compared to a national ad campaign the costs are much smaller.
I do think however, it is important to spend the money to do it well and not necessarily go with the lowest bidder; there are hundreds of competent-to-excellent firms out there that would do a good job. I'm am confident that there is a green-minded firm out there that would fit the bill in the tens of thousands range or even at cost. I mean...how often do you get to makeover a political party?
Thanks for bringing this up,
Thanks for bringing this up, Mark. Obviously it's important for us to have a consistent message and I would agree that it's something that we, as a party, have not been successful with. This in spite of the fact that we have a very consistent platform.
I'm going to suggest something that may be very controversial, but I have been mulling it around for a while in my own mind, and that is that the Green Party should actually consider changing its name. I understand that we are part of a global Green movement, but in terms of messaging and defining ourselves, it is becoming increasingly hard to do so with the term Green because we don't have exclusive ownership of the term.
Part of this is because big business and other outside interests have taken over the word. We can buy Green products and are urged to "Think Green" by various organizations, and it doesn't necessarily benefit us in terms of being able to define what it means to be "Green" or to have a Green Party government.
And for that reason, we are easily defined as a one-issue party. Being "Green" has come to mean buying recycled toilet paper in many people's minds. So, being the "Green" Party (sorry for constantly putting the word "Green" in quotation marks) doesn't necessarily say enough to Canadians about what we really represent on a political level.
If we wanted to keep the word "Green," perhaps we could be called the Progressive Green Party (the PGs?). Fact is that many Green policies are in line with the now-defunct Progressive Conservative movement (compassionate conservatism / Red Torie conservatism), and I think it would be fair game for us to take on that moniker.
Or we could utilize the word "Sustainable" in our party name, which a lot more descriptive of what we actually stand for.
CKN
Controversial Indeed
Dear Chris,
Interesting idea indeed. At the moment, however, we haven't even accomplished the minimum of our goals as a party(like electing an MP), so to change names now would be a bit premature.
Yes some people misuse the term "Green." But there is also a lot of good feeling associated with the term. I think the good outweighs the bad and until there is a pressing need for change we should stick with it.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Great Discussion!
Wow, where to start?!
Julien: I have to admit I don't think "protect our commons" works for a number of reasons. First, it's inactive and conservative whereas Greens have to get somewhere and inspire action in their slogan. Also, I don't think you would find people understanding what you mean by commons.
Ard: Great points and I agree with basically all of them. At the end of the day it would be not only silly, but in my opinion a detriment to the GPC, to deny that we as a political party are selling a product and we need people to buy it. . Our product is our policies and our candidates and we need people to vote for them. We must understand that and have faith that our ‘product’ is the best one to buy, rather than fear that it is too corporate, mainstream or partisan. Growing and maturing as a party to me, in part, means understanding this and employing it in messaging and strategy.
I agree that part of our messaging should revolve around our uniqueness and such things as "socially progressive, fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious". Together, these messages imply that we provide an umbrella of inclusiveness for the concerns of people across the political spectrum. But on top of that we need a unified message, whether it be about the future, about hope, about time, about inclusiveness or about whatever.
For example, one slogan that I have bandied about in my spare time is "Because it's time" or "It's about time". Now, I'm not saying that that's what our message or slogan should be - I fully believe we should invest in getting data from professionals before decisions like this are made. But in this example, we would be offering socially progressive policies - Because it's time. We would be environmentally conscious - Because it's time etc.
You are 100% right about being consistent and unified in messaging. It's just as important as the message itself. With that in mind, I very much hope that candidates and EDAs have a message to go forward with long in advance of the next election. Otherwise uniformity and consistency will be impossible.
Jeff: I agree that the membership and the Party should be involved. It is they who would define the parameters of the discussion, like Ard has in his messages. We would agree what is most important to us, but I really do believe that we need data and professionalism in getting the right message. In Guelph, polling data, for example, showed that residents associated the Green Party mostly with the idea of "positive change". If that's the case generally, that should be reflected in messaging.
Chris: I have to humbly disagree. I think part of the strength is that others use Green and how popular and accepted it is. I think that it's a fortunate place to start, but we have to take it farther and really define it in design and messaging for political purposes. In that sense it's not enough for a message to be "be green" because so many organizations, corporations and even parties use it (Liberals and NDP in particular). But it should build on that and use the familiarity, popularity and effectiveness of the brand "Green".
Idea time
This is a great use of the blog - debating and thinking about any and all routes towards growth of the party and marketing it is one of the biggest elements (after setting our policies and general viewpoint).
The name has a lot of value right now, so I'd stick with Green Party as it is known and gives a default view that any idea we present is a 'green' one (much like the Conservatives are viewed as good fiscal managers, NDP as a pro-labour party, Liberal as middle ground). The party name has value, thus why the Conservatives didn't keep the Canadian Alliance name or the Reform Party name (both were viewed as unelectable western extremists by many east of Manitoba). For an extreme example, we could come out and say 'build coal plants everywhere' and people would default to thinking it must be a good environmental thing regardless of facts (see people voting CPC last election thinking the CPC had a clue on how to get us out of a recession).
Slogans are very important. We should have an internal team go through a ton of them and cut down to a group of about 5-10 to run through candidates and riding associations to make a final decision before the next election - ideally adjust it annually until an election is called so we are ready with an up-to-date slogan that will be remembered and timely.
A standard flier for all ridings with a slot for the candidate photo and bio, which ridings can choose to use or not to use. Ideally a few of them, one which is single sided, another double sided, another folding, etc. as these would, at the very least, allow ridings with few members to put something together quickly while providing larger ridings a starting point.
A list of talking points for local papers - when the local paper does an editorial about, say, the carbon tax our local candidates should have a letter set to send that has key points about where we stand as a party and why it is a good thing with ideas on how to counter common complaints. Same for other major stances of the party. The more info candidates have, the easier it will be to respond especially if it is set up for them to just paste in a few local items (name of paper, name of candidate, etc) and send off the moment they see the article.
Just a few thoughts while eating lunch :)
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Good topic, No to focus groups
Dear Mark,
Thanks for raising this important topic. I had to face this very issue when doing canvassing in the last election. Often you only have a short time period to connect with someone in that situation so having a focused message(that you can explain in more detail later) is very important. It can also work good as a pamphlet eye catcher or website banner.
Just for the record I would be against using a focus group to develop a message. I think this works against the kind of party we're trying to be. I like the fact that different ridings came up with their own slogans, but that they were still within a "green" way of thinking. That fits with our values, especially RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY. I see no reason why different EDAs in a region couldn't get together and develop their own.
At the national level, however, I do see why it would be important to have one consistent message. For example we got criticized in the last election for one of our television ads where Elizabeth May spoke, but the Green Party was never mentioned. In keeping with our goal to be grassroots, why not have members submit their own ideas for slogans(or other ideas, say a campaign song, etc...) Again I see no reason why there couldn't be an online vote to decide this. The ideas John mentions above are also good.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Yes to the science of focus groups and marketing
Let’s not be afraid of science. We embrace the science of climate change but eschew the science of winning political campaigns. We need to market the Green Party and there’s a lot of social, cognitive, and psychological science to back up how to best go about that. Focus groups and 'market research' are part of it.
If we don’t learn how to fight fire with fire in electoral politics, by using all the tools at our disposal for marketing and selling the green party, we will not get elected and either would we deserve to be elected.
I’ve forgotten a lot about marketing courses I took but one thing I clearly remember is that one of the worst things you can do in marketing is to assume that your tastes are like someone else’s. This leads someone to open up a small retail store with things they would like to buy but not many other people want to buy. They might be happy but they aren’t going to get big. A political party needs to be big to have influence.
Growing our own messaging is a little bit incestuous. You might appeal to Green supporters but totally miss the input of all the voters who we are trying to win over (ie, the other 90%).
Just to be clear, when I say messaging I don’t mean a catchy slogan. I mean no more than a dozen GPC wide statements that stake out our political territory.
Examples, for the sake of scope not content, might be
1) The Green Party is socially progressive, fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious
2) The Green Party is a genuinely conservative party. We want to conserve our environment and our economic prosperity for future generations.
3)The Green Party is committed to responsible fiscal management.
4)The Green Party is dedicated to greater accountability and transparency in government. It’s all about responsible government.
5)The Green Party committed to sustaining our global economic competitiveness by greening our economy. Greening our economy will create new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
6) The Green Party is committed to ending poverty in Canada.
7) The Green Party is committed to providing fiscally responsible leadership on environmental issues.
8)The Green Party believes in social justice while still encouraging self-reliance and respecting the principle of reward for effort and risk.
9) The Green Party is committed to developing policies under a long term time horizon.
How these types of messages later get packaged into slogans, ads, web sites, brochures, press releases, interviews etc is a separate exercise. But they, whatever they turn out to be, need to be hammered home over and over again.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Is this really a topic for the blogs?
I am enjoying the discussion immensely, but I would feel much better if it were in the private forums. It is not wise to brainstorm any sort of strategy publicly.
Just my opinion.
Kim Stevens
Good point about forums
Good point Kim. I've created a forum for "Brainstorming Time" to get the ideas out and to push this further.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Don't take this discussion into private forums!
In the spirit of Joe Trippi (The Revolution will not be Televised), keep this discussion in the public eye.
The people discussing this are not on any strategic committees so we are not giving away any secrets to the "opposition". At least, the "secrets" we're discussing isn't anything new to them. If anything, it's signalling that the Greens are going to be even more of a presense in the next election.
Secondly, there are tons of "non-members" who are watching the Greens and waiting to see if we ever become more politically focused. When we demonstrate that we are operating as a political party, then they are going to join and participate. Taking this within the walls of membership removes the ability for these observers to see our evolution into a larger political force.
Mark Taylor
Frontier, SK
Mark Taylor (Cypress Hills - Grasslands)
http://ReportonGreens.blogspot.com
This statement is purely my own opinion and no way is to be mistaken for the viewpoints of the party
Focus groups
I agree with Ard regarding the focus groups. We need messaging that is consistent and true to our values, but it also has to appeal to a wider audience than those of us who are already commited to voting Green, or there is no point in the whole exercise.
Jeanette Dietrich
Update: sent along
Hi all,
Just a quick update. I sent this blog and all of the responses in it to our Director of Communications and other staff. I hope that it has an impact and our opinions are taken into consideration. The internal discussion has been great as well in the brainstorming forum.
Cheers,
Mark
unified national green messaging
We were given the best support any party could have asked for from the Council of Canadians. The creator of the "Voter's Guide - Election 2008" chose 5 topics about which the CoC was most passionate and compared the positions of the 5 largest parties. My hunch is that most CoC supporters voted GPC.
If we could agree on up to 10 overarching topics from the 30 in the EM blog and specify the actions we would take when elected, it would really help struggling newly formed associations like ours. Our Campaign Manager, Jim Elve, did a first class job of self published election literature with a slogan which was very easy to promote - "Live Green - Vote Green". Unfortunately we were blindsided by the campaign from the red party which had a booth close to ours at the County Fair. They latched on to the ABC lobby which was supported by some green members and they just kept up the "a green vote is a wasted vote" rhetoric to the ~ 100 000 attendees in the last week before election day.
We have 3 or 4 possible nominees for the next run and hope to be better prepared with materials and greater ability to blanket the riding with brochures/flyers and signage.
Looking at EM's 30 points, they could be grouped under larger headings such as HEALTH, ENERGY/SUSTAINABILITY, PLANET/ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY, ECONOMY/FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY, NON-VIOLENCE/PEACE, DEMOCRACY/SOCIAL JUSTICE.
I defer to members of long standing for help with the rest of this exercise.