British game show contestant shows you everything you need to know about political strategy in 6 minutes.
Takes EDIT: a variation of the classic prisoner’s dilemma and “solves” it by thinking forward and reasoning backwards.
Ever read a line and it hits you as a WOW! moment? You know a paragraph that when you read it clarifies something so well that it is embarrassing that you haven’t connected the dots on your own?
I had one of those moments this past week when reading How Voters Decide. It is a good read that takes Behavior Decision Theory and applies it to politics in an attempt to look inside the black box of how people actually make a political/voting decision.
However, there was one paragraph that made me take notice. I am not sure why this point struck me as so profound, but it did.
Eureka!
“Of course, one can make a judgement even when no choice is involved. The evaluation of an incumbent between elections represents on such “choiceness” judgements in politics.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)
“Evaluation is about making a judgement on some dimension of interest about an object regardless of how many objects are being evaluated, while choice is inherently about selecting from a set of alternatives.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)
“Finally it becomes quite clear that global evaluations – at least in elections – do not have to translate directly to a vote. Strategic voting, for example, might lead to a choice of a candidate with a lower evaluation if the voter believes that candidate has a better chance of winning, as might a vote made for other external reasons, such as based on group affiliation or please someone else.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)
“Choosing one alternative from a set can invoke different psychological processes than judging alternatives, which are presumable evaluated one at a time.” (Johnson & Russo 1988)
The separation and distinguishing of choice and evaluation is a major realignment of a framework for me.
When you separate out the two functions, then you can develop distinct communication strategies to affect each process. Once you place these two processes independent of each other, differing communication strategies start to percolate.
Evaluation happens between elections….choice happens at elections. Off season communications versus campaign communications.
The processes of evaluation & judgement require different types and amounts of information. Choice requires less information.
You can also see the ramifications of voters voting for some other candidate other than the one they evaluate the highest.
Finally, when you understand this distinction, you understand that the rational voter model doesn’t exist and you better tailor your communications properly to account for your audience and the communication process being employed.
I know, maybe not Earth-shattering, but still a significant framework structure to help organize your communication programs.
Welcome to ‘science time’ with Ozean Media (Yes, it normally it is Science Friday, but I have recently become aware of NPR’s Science Friday so we must re-brand!)
While we re-brand, I came across some literature that I found interesting. We are embarking on a messaging discovery phase for a client, and I began to wonder what studies are out there on structure of messaging and the reception of those messages .
Basically, does rhetoric influence reception of the message?
This question lead me to Max Atkinson‘s research on the 7 rhetorical devices and the applause they generate. This lead me to a paper by John Heritage and David Greatbatch from the University of Warwick who used Atkinson’s research. This paper reviews Atkinson’s research and applies it to political speeches made in Britain.
It is an interesting read, and you can download the entire paper at the end of this post; however, in summary:
What the findings are showing is that audience responses to political speeches are influenced by the verbal structuring of the statements that are being made. Statements that use 1 of the 7 rhetorical devices were “between two and eight times as likely to be applauded as those who did not.”
In fact, the verbal structure had more to do with the applause and response generated than did the actual argument.
1. Contrast – This is the Daddy Mack of devices, the mother sauce if you will. If you take away nothing else from this post, remember CONTRAST / ANTITHESIS. It has been used since the Greeks for a darn good reason: it works. Contrast works so well because the core assertion is said twice – in the negative and the positive – and the audience knows exactly when to react.
2. List, in three parts – This is the Daddy Mack, Jr. of devices. In the use of item1, item2, and item3, the “AND” signals to the audience the conclusion of the point and primes them for applause.
3. Puzzle-Solution – The speaker establishes a puzzle, and then provides the answer with the answer being the core message.
4. Headline-Punchline – Similar to Puzzle Solution, but more simple and less potential for elaboration (think soundbite).
5. Combination – combining all the devices above, with most combinations using contrast together with another device.
6. Position Taking – describes a state of affairs that the speaker is expected to take a strong stance with the description containing little to no overt evaluation. At the end, the speaker unequivocally praises or condemns the state of affairs.
7. Pursuit – When all fails, if an audience fails to respond, speakers may actively pursue applause by simply priming the message and then restating.
As you can clearly see, contrast by far is the greatest deliver of applause – the mother sauce.
In summary, the study states about the table above:
Taken as a whole, table 5 provides impressive general support for the hypothesis that political messages that are packaged in rhetorical formats embodying emphasis and projectability are more likely to be applauded than messages that are not so packaged. The distribution of applause in association with the various formats described is generally stable regardless of political party and type of speaker. This conclusion is qualified only by a slight tendency for more practiced political speakers to gain a higher proportion of their applause from rhetorical devices than run-of-the-mill conference participants. These results suggest that there is a fundamental tendency for audiences to respond to political statements that employ the rhetorical devices and that experienced political speakers use them more often, or more appositely, or deliver them more effectively.
As you may guess, the politician’s skill at delivering the speech greatly affects the outcome.
Something as simple as eye contact was greatly noticed. When a line failed to generate applause, the researchers were “struck by the repeated failure of many speaker to sustain eye contact with the audience when making significant points.”
Tucked into the study is the following conclusion: “while they (the audience) may have been able to recognize that a significant point was being made, were generally reluctant to respond to it in the absence of any additional signal from the speaker that the point was of real importance.”
Speakers can do this by the stress they place on their points, and speakers generate this defined stress in 5 main ways:
While every politician or aspiring politician may not be able to hire a full time speechwriter, there is no excuse NOT to learn the basics.
It is clear, The mere way one structures & delivers an argument has a huge impact on the effectiveness of an argument.
Any politician would improve their stature not with long, boring litanies of facts, but rather with an understanding of how to construct an argument using these 7 rhetorical devices. Then one must practice, practice, practice delivering them.
OR
As my Mamma said, “Son, it is not what you say, but how you say it!”
Read the entire study: Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences
I am bummed. The failure of our attempt to save Talk of the Town kicked me right in the gut. We lost money, time, and ego, and if you know anything about me, you know that I don’t take losing easily. Losing hurts, and I admit upfront that I am a horrible loser.
I have spent my time reflecting constructively – riding my bike 100 miles, running over 10, and swimming over three in the past 5 days in an effort to process failure.
Like many “start ups” in the postmortem phase, one dissects the situation in an effort to learn from it, and I seem to do this best while exercising.
Here is what we have learned from the demise of Talk of the Town:
We were horribly under-capitalized for this endeavor. In fact, we were non-capitalized for this endeavor. Never do that again.
We were unable to attract commercial advertisers for the show. The advertisement package consisted of in-show reads & spots, website advertising, email newsletter advertising, and newspaper print advertising. Not one business bought in the time frame we needed. We realized that we would have to attract believers in the show willing to take this leap of faith with the show’s mission, and in the end we were unsuccessful.
The simple economics of the show:
Hard Costs
Equipment: $659.12
Internet: $125 month (we needed a robust upstream to broadcast the show)
Software: $1,000 in one time cost.
Software: $5,000 ($399 per month for streaming for 12 months) This was for third party streaming and mobile application licensing fees. Interesting Fact: Talk of the Town became Live365’s #12 ranked talk show in a matter of 6 weeks.
Board Operator: $10 per hour for 2.5 hours a day. 4/5 weeks per month $500/$625 for a month
Website hosting: $49-$65 per month depending on bandwidth used. Streaming requires more bandwidth than other websites.
Sales Commission: a percentage of sales & automobile mileage
In-kind Contributions:
Talent/Diva Fees: $600 to $750 per month depending on 4 or 5 weeks per month
Website development: $2,500 & $250 per month for maintenance and changes
Construction of Studio: approximate value: $5,000 of time of three people
Equipment: $1,500 (we were able to get some equip. donated from third parties)
Ozean Equipment & Expenses: $10,000 (Ozean’s existing computers, hardware, software, office, electricity, etc)
Bottom Line
We were on pace to raise about half of what we needed to cover just ongoing operating costs, let alone get to a level to compensate talent or upgrade equipment in order to move from a patchwork system to a more professional set up.
What many may not realize is that these two worked without compensation and even passed on other financial opportunities to continue the show. Not only that, but they cared so much that they were willing to take the slings and arrows that came with speaking out. They took the bullets so that the rest of us didn’t have to. When people talked of “toxic hate” radio (when they really meant the expression of a different opinion) they weren’t speaking of us. Ward and Jake stood there like men and took it all in order for our community to hear a different opinion.
Local advertisers have not embraced an Internet model of advertising. With limited advertisement dollars available, they choose to spend their money elsewhere. I think they are wrong, but I understand.
Some didn’t like the Internet, digital model and were working on a plan to purchase a small radio station. When trying something new, it doesn’t help when supporters of the show implicitly signal they don’t believe in its form. But, I understand that is business.
This is the one I am most disappointed in myself for, because I know better. I spent years in fundraising for political campaigns at the Congressional level. I know the drill. “You have my support – call me.” Then we spend the next three weeks calling with no answer. DAMN IT, I know better than to trust people’s good intentions, but in my thrust to get the project off the ground, I ignored the voice.
Went there.
Yep, went there too. From Commissioner Bottcher requesting lists of advertisers to PIO officers warning businesses “not to tarnish their image”, there was a concentrated effort to kill the show.
Some people refused to be affiliated with the show financially because I personally was involved in the show. Shame, it is well known that I had my disagreements with the show – in fact we had some of them on the air. Yet, I realized the over-all good the show was doing, and I was willing to set aside any petty, lingering feelings to help save the voice of the loyal opposition. Shame others couldn’t do it.
Funny, the same people who called the show the most talking of their ‘deep appreciation for the show’ and lamenting the loudest about the show’s demise, never would be bothered to donate $15 per month. In fact, they wouldn’t donate a dime in any form – one time donation, monthly, etc.
In fact a vast majority of the donations received to keep Talk of the Town going were from small donors with limited means – THEIR $15 a month meant a lot.
I would rather someone had said honestly “This Internet stuff won’t work and I am not giving you a dime.” than call the show every other day talking about their appreciation and praising the wonder of Talk of the Town while sitting on their fat wallets.
Funny, some of the same people that were the most adverse to the Internet streaming saying or emailing such silly things as “all my friends don’t use the Internet” were some of the most consistent listeners.
In retrospect, what I would have done differently was to advised Ward & Jake NOT to launch the show immediately. I would have advised a period where the show went dark, and we used this time to launch a “Save the Talk of the Town” campaign. We would have collected pledges and only when we raised $x would we have continued with the launch. In fact, Talk of the Town sounds like a perfect kickstarter project.
That process would have saved time, money and fleshed out the scoundrels earlier.
In the end, while disappointed and a bit bruised by the failure, I am not bitter. I will get over it and move on (may take another 50 miles on the bike). We learned a lot from the experience and collected very interesting data about Internet streaming.
In the end, I hope the show or something similar to it is re-born, because as all political scientists & practitioners know “when the political elites agree with no countervailing opinion, consensus is assumed.”
And at this point, there is no one left to stand guard.
I am asked all the time, what makes a good candidate?
While we all know a great candidate can get beat when the political environment and/or district are not in his/her favor or at least even, we will set this aside.
We will just look at the simple question, “What makes a good/great candidate?”
The ability to craft and tell a coherent story that emotionally connects with voters. There it is – that is the secret sauce.
While all political consultants are all excited about the latest scientific studies, big data, predictive analysis, and changes in media consumption, it still comes back to the basic building block of good ol’ fashion storytelling.
Before we write campaign plans, strategies, tactics, we need the story to tell.
When we first meet with a candidate, we ask them the basic question: “Please, why you are running?”
If the candidate tells me that they are going to run an “issue-orientated” campaign and proceeds to rattle off 10 issues with solutions and facts, we know that we have a ton of work to do or that we should focus on other candidates.
What we really want to hear is: “Thanks for asking Alex, you handsome devil, please allow me to tell you a story…..”
I dream to hear a candidate tell a story connecting with the values and emotions of most of the voters AND contains BOTH protagonists and antagonists.
We need a story that defines who they are and what they stand for, and a critical element of the story is that it will be rejected by 20-30% of the voters.
If they tell us a story that attempts to attract 100% of the vote and never offends anyone, we want out or a really weak field. Without conflict, there is no story! Yes, the tone is up for discussion, but we must have conflict.
The dream candidate? The dream candidate can make the difficult transition of constructing the story without themselves as the central character. However, in the beginning, we will just take a story, any story.
Why? This is not because I think it works.
It is science.
Our brains need stories. In fact, our brains actively search for stories, and when our brains have difficulty, our brains will just make stuff up to fill in the gaps.
It appears from all the research, our feeble brains must have stories to construct neat, little packages so that we can retain & understand. It is why we have listened to and told stories since we were children, it is why Hollywood exists.
If I could, I would require the following reading list for candidates to include but not limited to:
I concede, it is probably asking too much to have candidates – especially first time candidates – approach campaigns with fully crafted stories.
However, instead of jumping right to numbers and strategies, political consultants need to spend more time upfront convincing our clients the importance of storytelling and then working with them developing their story.