ADVERTISING
Selling the election
ROGER PEMBERTON
First prize for political advertising in this general election must on present form go to Guinness (Guiness for PM—or even earlier') for three reasons: first, they have achieved a memorable single-minded cam- paign which can be expected to stay the course until election day; second, there is a strong probability that its promise can be fulfilled; third, it consists entirely of words.
Words are, after all, the beginning and the middle, if not the end, of politics. But this election looks like breaking new ground by being the one which, for the first time, words, by which I mean emotive phrases or slogans whether contained in manifestos, speeches or advertising, gave way to what I can only call impressions—to the detri- ment, some may think, of the whole political debate.
Why should this be so? A number of possible reasons spring to mind. Television looms larger than ever before a medium through which oratory and sloganeering seem too gross a diet and in which the general impression, with picture dominating words, is paramount, whether it is a party leader performing a set piece or being inter- viewed, or 'vox pop' interviews as edited for party political broadcasts. On the Conser- vative side. Ted Heath's strength as a doer and his relative weakness as a speaker have unconsciously perhaps set a style for Tory propaganda in which key phrases, formerly the life-blood of a party in opposition (Set the people free, etc.,) have no place. It is worth noting that the Tory slogan for the 1966 election was: 'Action not words'—a slogan which was derided by Enoch Powell as denying the whole substance of politics. On the Labour side the absence of any central slogan (I discount such phrases as 'responsible government') may represent yet another method whereby Harold Wilson keeps his options open. For while 'safety first', which seems in effect to be his elec- tion platform, may be appropriate as a strategy for a government in office, why be committed to anything, even a slogan, if you can get by without? Finally—and perhaps this is the core of the matter—if this election is about any- thing in particular it is about economics; and the business of clothing economics in words likely to warm the heart is one of the most difficult problems any politician can face.
None of the parties' advertising cam- paigns really had time to blossom in the short period between the moment when it was reasonable to start preparing the ground for a general election at any time up to May 1971 and the dissolution of Parliament on 29 May. This last date is crucial, be- cause after it any advertising is liable to be included as part of candidates' election expenses (severely limited by the Represen- tation of the People Acts); national adver- tising immediately stopped.
Before that date, however, the Labour party had created a furore with, and then withdrew their 'Yesterday's Men' campaign, while the Tories were devoting full pages in the national press mainly to a photo- graph of an overflowing waste paper basket ('Labour's broken promises'). Apart from the fact that these campaigns lacked any evocative words, both were entirely concerned with attacking the other side. It will be said that had they lasted longer these campaigns would have moved on into a positive phase; but one wonders whether advertising as generally understood • can ever achieve anything solely by attack with- out offering any promises of its own: whether too, given the less than enthusiastic feelings of the electorate about the general carry-on of politicians, it is sensible to risk further alienation by methods that may seem not only remote but even unreal. Having said this I think Labour had a point in trying to cash in on the Tories', own implicit identification of themselves with the past by their constant references back to their achievements before 1964. But as has been said elsewhere, their method of ex- ploiting this identification was surely grossly misconceived.
As for the Tory campaign, I found the preliminary advertising on the declining value of the pound, showing a pound note being burnt up and ending with the line . . . you'd be better off Conservative', much more telling than the waste paper basket. Nor can I take seriously the phrase 'a better tomorrow'.
In any case the validity of the waste paper backet advertising rests entirely on the assumption that voters expect political promises to be honoured. I am sure Harold 'A week is a long time' Wilson understands well enough that this assumption is today invalid.
It is said of washing powder advertising that any attempt to get away from 'whitest of white' superlatives and generally revalue the language is doomed because housewives have come to expect that (one of voice. To them an advertiser who moderates his lan- guage simply isn't trying. So I believe, alas, with politics. Today's voters somehow instinctively know that politicians promise far more than they are likely to perform and thereby open politics to an unusual spectator sport; yet if politicians do not commit themselves to grandiose undertak- ings, who shall hear them at all?
As for the Liberals they are slightly less wordless than the major parties. At least they have a slogan—'show 'em you care'. My only difficulty is: whom am I supposed to show that I care about what?
Previous page
