Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 13
Lessons from the 2014 Campaign.
I am writing this whilst recent events are still
uppermost in our minds, as I believe we need to learn from what happened. Please read this not as a criticism, although I am critical of some aspects, but as constructive feedback from someone impartial. Why did we not get to 5 %? It would be easy to say that we failed because the Nats were so well supported but that in my opinion would be only part of the reason. It would also be correct to say Rachels exit cost us as it portrayed Colin as manipulative and added to his creepy persona, but that on its own was not enough to really hurt us, but it gave Winston Peters ammunition to damage Colins reputation and cast doubt in the minds of swinging voters. Lets face it the Jason Eade debacle was not helpful to John Key, but his brand was strong enough to shrug it off. Colin as a brand was still seen as risky and a bit hard to understand, so being labeled manipulative was damaging, and he did not handle this event well with the media. Why not release the email? Why not go on the front foot? Why leave so many unanswered questions and allow the media to make their own story?
Another key decision which in hindsight is difficult to
understand is, why when we knew we would have only a small amount of TV allocation why did we not spend money before the cut off to get our message out? We had a story to tell and ground to make up and electronic media could have helped us engage with voters and gain attention. So what were the other issues that caused us to fail? I believe we failed because of five things Lack of clarity around core message Lack of key resource at party HQ Negative portrayal of Colin as loopy No effective media relations Too many last minute decisions LACK OF CLARITY When we became involved the first thing that was apparent was no clear positioning of the Party. This is why after interrogating your existing brochures and website we uncovered the 4 main planks which needed to somehow be brought together to mean something Referendum, One Law, Tax, Crime. That is why we suggested, Stand for something as your rallying cry. It also made the point that you as a Party have principles and strong beliefs.
It was a claim that was true and it was competitive
as it suggested other Political Partys did not really stand for anything, (other than getting elected). This Stand for Something positioning line worked well and we brought it to life with our July press ads which dealt with each topic in turn and we created the www.standforsomething microsite to allow readers to find out more, in a concise manner. We believed our target audience of voters are intelligent, and would respond well to a reasoned argument laid out for them, which brought the particular core issue to their attention. (and dealt to the loony tag Colin had acquired). But we never followed through. After July, Colin changed all the billboards and removed the line stand for something, he wanted very sparse one word signs that said for example One law which on its own might mean something to those who are engaged in politics but for the undecided voters they were easy to ignore. This was an ongoing issue that we never solved; The dilemma of; Were we talking to the potential voters? Or were we connecting with our loyal base of voters who gave us 2.6% last time? Our focus was on getting the new people on board, but Colin seemed to be concerned about the party faithful.
This I believe proved to be a fatal flaw, as Colin
changed the well thought out press approach for the last week Make your Party Vote Stand for Something and used the funds to send out more brochures. I have always believed that brochures have an important role to play, but they need air cover to work properly. You do not read something stuck in your letterbox unless you have an interest sparked by an impression you have gained from other sources, an awareness of who the sender is and what they are about. I understand Colin believes passionately about mail drops but I believe people are getting very selective about what they consider that is sent to them, (particularly during an election) and unless they already have some connection to the author it is very often ignored. Colin said to me the mail drops worked last time and yes they did, they delivered 2.6%, and again this time they delivered that. But we needed more and that is why I was so disappointed when he cancelled the last weeks press and then made, in my opinion, a mess of the final ad and its message. Why abandon the Stand for Something theme we had developed and replace it with People you can trust?
It was reactionary to the dirty politics saga and it was
ill advised. The swinging voter was not going to respond to that ad, they did not trust any political party, and we needed to explain how they could make their Party Vote count. We should have been convincing the undecided to vote Conservative rather than carpet-bombing the whole country with mail drops and letters. I really recommend you invest in some research to assess the effectiveness of the mailers or Colin will make the same mistake in 2017. Lack of Resource This was a critical issue; Some budget should have been allocated to ensure the Party machine operated efficiently. I was amazed when I first met you how thin on the ground you were. Regan was swamped at times. Andrew was stretched. Christine was so tired her health gave up. There was no obvious cohesive team working together even after Colin moved into the building. There was no clarity around the CEO role. Christine was effectively sidelined as Colin made all decisions. This led to confusion, time wasting and frustration all round. Colin needs to understand that he cannot appoint someone and then not give him or her the authority to operate.
The Party understandably has been totally focused
on Colin Craig, but the Party is now, and must be in the future, bigger than one individual and Colin needs to set a clear direction, delegate and then let people get on with it. And by trying to do it all himself Colins health also began to fail towards the sharp end of the campaign, just when he needed to be on top form. The lack of resource was also apparent around the media relations. Colin has no one in a Chief of staff role and he needs one. Rachel was ineffective and at times embarrassing, but Colin seemed very confident about her ability when outside the Party she was poorly regarded and at times a laughing stock. Her departure was a disaster. What happened? What caused her to turn against Colin and label him manipulative which the left wing media loved and amplified? We need to know, as a journalist will be digging. And finally regarding resource, we needed visibility of the Party at the coalface where voters could engage. I continually suggested a pop up shop in Browns Bay staffed by HQ people, visible to the voters and real and tangible, somewhere people could walk in and meet a member of the staff and see for themselves what the Conservatives were about.
Not just relying on a mention of the Conservatives in
the newspaper or on TV for those interested to get the feel of the Party. But that idea went nowhere, because of lack of resource, that is nonsense it went nowhere because there was no one available to drive it and Colin was not listening. The day after Colin announced in East Coast Bays we should have been in the midst of it all. Colins image and persona When we came onboard we quickly identified that Colin was being demonized by the media for some slightly nave and perhaps unwise comments often taken out of context which the left wing media and the opponents seized upon and labeled loony, weird, strange etc. And then, the strange photos he allowed of himself in the long grass etc. compounded this. These continued to haunt us and are still out there today. Our advice was to take this head on and we used the July press to defuse this with ads that communicated our 4 core policies. Binding Referendum and other crazy ideas etc. It worked, by the end of July the media were backing off and taking him more seriously.
But again we did not follow up with the digital plan
we had in place, as Colin wanted to move budget to fund the replacement of his face on the billboards. This was nonsense. And frankly slightly vain on Colins part. We selected the serious shot of him because we wanted him to look serious. Not your normal smiley politician. Okay, the shot that we used from your files was severe and he got comment about it but that was what we wanted. They were being noticed. In the end his hoardings got more publicity and exposure than any other party and people saw it for what it was, the left having a go at Colin and having a crack at him. The point is that Colin was worried that the Party faithful did not like them, but who cares they are going to vote for him anyway, the people we wanted to engage with were still making up their minds and the noise around the billboard helped until we went soft and started replacing his with a smile. A waste of resource and a bad signal to the media that Colin was a narcissist. And his edict that nothing was to be displayed in HQ or sent out with the unsmiling face was pure ego. Visitors and staff should have been able to see our press ads and key messages .
Colins media relations were not great; he mistakenly
thought the media were his friends. They are not. They want a story and if they can get one by trapping a politician they will. I personally killed several negative stories that were being worked on through my own relationships with journalists. There were too many missed opportunities such as The Campbell Live leaders at home segment, which unless it happened after I left NZ had still not been organized even though I gave Rachel John Campbells private mobile number. We needed a more effective media relations person to make sure things happened. The other problem is that Rachel had no communication with HQ. No one knew what was happening with Colins media commitments and she made no effort to work with Christine, Andrew and the wider team. This wasted time; meant decisions could not be made and created a big void between Colin and the wider operation. Next time, you need a Chief of staff, and a proper media /PR person. And Colin needs to respect more the professionals who have been hired to provide expert advice.
I managed to forge a relationship with him, but it was
not as it should have been and I could have contributed more had I been allowed. He believes he has great judgment as to what advertising and promotion should look like, and from my experience he doesnt. He should not allow his personal feelings to override professionals who know what they are doing. I have worked on political campaigns for three decades, yet Colin seemed to think he knew better than me and had more creative ability. The fact is, he has no feeling for communication. He is far to lineal and does not understand composition and emotion. He is a property man not an advertising expert. And Colins refusal to write a speech prior to a meeting was just daft. The media are used to getting speeches embargoed, and use them to write their stories or prepare their coverage. Colins refusal to do this meant he could be misreported, or the facts could be wrong and he had no way of refuting this. And it meant he strayed off message at times. No effective media relations I think I have covered this in the sections above, but it was a real Achilles heel and cost us dearly.
Last minute decisions
Any campaign must be flexible and able to respond to changing circumstances, but you do need a basic plan that you agree and stick with. A plan to get your brand platform agreed, and established, your key positions understood, your campaign theme, your key messages nailed. An agreement on who is the key audience we need to convince. We tried to do this but Colin refused to commit and things were done piecemeal. Things were stalled and key programs like how East Coast Bays could help our national effort were never planned properly. The Epsom decision was too late, and it was a nonsense and disrespectful that Colin had research regarding Epsom that he would not share with Christine or people like me who could have benefitted by this. Now I understand there are reasons behind the late announcement of Christine standing, and I am not wanting to be overly critical, but frankly too many things were left to the last minute and we always new September 20 was the date from March 2014 when John Key announced the date. A strategic group should have been formed earlier, a strategy developed, research undertaken to establish voter priorities. Key roles should have been assigned and regular meetings planned.
Colin appeared to operate as a one man band
and that disempowered the team. NOW SOME POSITIVES We increased our vote. Our awareness grew. We became seen as a contender Of the minor parties we punched above our weight. Colin grew in stature during the campaign and was more assured in interviews etc. Adding people like Christine and Garth gave the Party more credibility. The media gave us credit for running a professional campaign. Finally, The question I have is will Colin and the Party, Board etc., learn from this experience? Colin has now had two cracks and used the same core strategy of letters and mailers and fallen short. The party organization was found wanting. Some tough questions need to be asked. I would hate to think we fall into the same trap again next time, as Einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result .