What Does The Election Tell Us About Consumers?

The British General Election of 2001 surprised few in its outcome, but almost everybody was surprised by the scale of the fall in turnout. While this is primarily of concern to those in the political world, it may also have wider lessons for companies in general as case study in apparent failure in marketing. In a paper delivered at the Research Show on 2 October 2001, Jessica Elgood and Roger Mortimore of MORI's Political Research team drew on a wide range of polling data surrounding the election to draw lessons from the election. Most of the data is set out, and discussed in detail, in Sir Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimore's newly published book on the election, Explaining Labour's Second Landslide (Politico's Publishing, 2001).

The data shows that there is no single simple explanation for the fall in turnout, and that many of the simplistic explanations that have been suggested, and solutions based on these, are either entirely misguided or address only one part of a complex problem.

Too many of the suggested solutions from within the political system boil down to a conviction that there is nothing wrong with the "product", so the problem must be in the marketing on in the "consumers" themselves. This is the sort of head-in-the-sand approach which it is too easy for companies, as well, to adopt to their problems.

Many of the specific conclusions we drew about the election might have implications for companies if parallel conditions exist in their markets.

• Civic duty and habit are key motivators to voting. This is what helps ensure that three in five adults vote in a general election even in the worst of cases.
• There has not been a fall in interest in politics in recent years - figures have been consistent over the last three decades. Turnout was low because the parties didn't persuade the floating voters - most of whom who have never considered themselves interested in politics - to turn out for them; everyone else turned out anyway.
• This was not "the most boring election ever" in the sense that the public had made up their minds they were not interested; but they were disillusioned with the parties, and the campaign consolidated decisions not to vote by failing to give the electorate the information which they felt they needed to persuade them how to vote - more about local candidates and party policies, less about the campaigning circus and soundbites from the leaders.
• The election campaign failed to connect with the electorate. People voted despite the campaign, not because of it. Two-thirds of the public, and even 3 in 5 of those "very interested" in politics, said it wasn't interesting.
• Media coverage of the election was badly received, and was in fact more likely to cause abstention than inspire voters to decide which way to vote.
• First impressions count: lose the young first time round and they might not come back.
• The public may be increasingly learning to ignore advertising and direct mail: the number who remembered seeing party poster advertising or having received leaflets through the door fell much more sharply than can simply be explained by the objective level of campaigning.
• They won't care if you don't make them see why they should - key factors in the parties' failure to enthuse the electorate were lack of sufficient differentiation between the parties, so that to many it seemed unimportant who won, and apparent lack of relevance to the issues concerning many Britons.
• "Old fashioned" politics and personal contact WORK; the public want a less managed, more personal, more relevant electoral contest.

But above all the lesson for companies is not to underestimate the complexity of their problems, of the market and of consumers' attitudes towards them. Proper solutions necessitate a comprehensive study of all the different factors driving consumer behaviour, and to achieve that there is no substitute for proper market research.