It’s not that there are fundamental differences between the
beliefs of either side, but more to do with the fact that one side was able to
win the marketing war whilst the other lost. After all it was not long ago that
David Cameron referred to the UK as being “swarmed” by a “bunch” of immigrants
and it isn't as if Borris Johnson and Nigel Farage come from underprivileged
backgrounds or are really anti-establishment.
Here below is an analysis of both #remain and #leave campaigns:
1. Market
Research & Marketing Problem Definition
I suspect that the whole immigration issue was not so much that
17 million people are racist, but the pressure on services that left the locals
disgruntled. Nigel Farage did mention that when they asked people to outline
their biggest concern, they were faced with answers surrounding the NHS and
immigration. So whilst the remain campaign banged on about the economy
referencing status quo and how much worse it would be if we exit, they failed
to offer any indication that they understood the concerns of the people who are
already suffering in the economy of status quo.
Therefore, the definition of the marketing problem for the #leave
campaign (as it seemed) was:
How do we get people to believe that an exist would alleviate
pressure on services and therefore benefit Britons?
Whilst the definition of the marketing problem for the remain
campaign (as it seemed) was:
How do we get people to believe that remaining is better for the
economy, security and a bunch of other things like inclusion and love between
Europeans?
Here it seemed that there are two countries and two people in
which two different campaigns were operating, neither side promised anything of
substance, mainly just insinuations of resolving the marketing problem with a
leave/remain vote
2. Expert advice
One of the most tragic ideas (in my opinion) the remain campaign
had, was to parade Obama in order to preach to the converted and annoy so many
at the same time. As a committed pro-Europe citizen, I found Obama’s take on things
and his mere invitation to speak on the topic, extremely irritating and
therefore, I cannot help but wonder how many remain supporters switched sides
and how many undecided voters went for leave due to the American idea of
intervention that has never been less welcomed after the Iraq war.
As if that wasn’t enough, the remain campaign delivered the final
blow by having Bank of England’s Carney tell people the economy would suffer
gravely if they voted exit where people already blame the banks for much of the
economic misery in the country! Did the remain campaign miss the last six years
on British streets and social media? if there are people less trusted than
politicians by the British public, those would be bankers!
General expert advice may appeal to those who are already in
favour of the motion and it reassures them that they are doing the right thing.
Furthermore, it may act as a push for those who are undecided but only if it
specifically addresses the needs of the voter. What the remain campaign did, is
in fact introduce experts to push and convince people of status quo by offering
a bleak alternative to status quo and not expert advise on how to tackle the
concerns that the voters have.
3. Brand Image
In a way or other this became very much a brand Cameron v
Borris/Farrage.
On the one hand you had the prime minister with all the greatness
that this carries who appealed to Tory Britain, on the other hand you had Nigel
Farrage who surgically disguised his public school, privileged upbringing
successfully. Farage was often seen with a beer in one hand and cigarette in
the other portraying a “jack the lad” one of the people type of image, not to
mention the way he spoke (does he really
speak like that in real life?), furthermore larger than life Borris Johnson who
plays football and drives around in a hatchback
couldn't be further away from the conservative party image which he
indeed is part of. Granted the brand image may have deteriorated since the
referendum as the brand promise became compromised but this doesn’t detract
from the fact that it was very successful during the campaigning period.
4. Call for Inaction
The remain campaign claimed victory from day one and this was
almost a call to their voters for inaction, they hoped that people will tick
the remain box once they arrive at the polling station, yet did not plead
enough with people to turn out to vote. In some areas they did provoke
minorities who traditionally have a lower turn out, but there was no drive en
mass. There was a general disbelief that a leave vote would actually
materialise whether a person voted or not and this specific issue was never
tackled by the remain campaign as they too believed success was inevitable.
On the other hand the leave campaign continuously called for
action, vote to change NHS, vote to get rid of migrants and finally vote for
independence! as if Britain is actually under occupation by the EU. They called
for action at every turn.
5. Advertising
The remain campaign offered articulate, clever, question time
type of advertising whilst the leave offered sound bites easy to digest without
giving half your evening to analyse it and frankly with the longer than
European average working week (8 long hours longer than France) many do not
look for escapism in the BBC Debate or Hard Talk.
When the leave campaign advertised £350 million for NHS the
remain campaign should have advertised 26% of doctors are foreign, when they
controversially advertised images of masses of migrants almost attacking
Britain, the remain campaign could have very visually showed how many people
would be left untreated if immigration is disallowed.
There was never any bite size information on how many European
programs and funds the British benefit from; there were no (or very few) human
stories on how the EU funds helped
farmers and other people in society. There was some dehumanisation of the
remain vote whilst the leave campaign managed to make the vote as one of the
oppressed, the people (no matter how untrue) the anti-establishment vote which
is the vote many are choosing across the world, only the remain campaign seemed
to have been carrying on with a business as usual attitude ignoring this drive.
6. Product and packaging
The product that the remain campaign was offering is the same old
thing, there was no “new and improved version” to satisfy the voter, no
decrease in university fees, no increase in income support, no extra nurses and
doctors, no extra primary schools, no extra affordable housing basically they just wanted people to buy the old product basically, no Jermey
Corbyinsm what so ever, which would have seriously helped get him and his
voters onboard. Whereas the leavers
offered a change, so people wanted to try it out.
I know this is simplistic but as I said earlier most
people don't have the time or motivation to examine the ins and outs of the
products on offer, they scan the label and go ahead and here it was easy, the
one product they already knew and didn't like or were indifferent to it and the
other product has a fancy label promising euphoria, which would you choose?
