Vote Rump

Gourmet Burger Kitchen, the original purveyors of posh burgers in the UK, have released a very amusing new poster promoting their ‘thickest burger ever’: The Rump.

Not quite content with just mocking the Republican Presidential nominee with the formulation of their product, they’ve also given it an amusing brand positioning “it’s a bit of an arse”.

Very good. Credit to You Agency for putting it together and thanks to @ggranted for sending.

Agencies leak Remain ads that never ran

Throughout the EU referendum the Stronger In campaign had a number of ad agencies working for them.

The reason for this was that the organisation was made up of a cross-party group, each of whom had previous relationships with agencies.

Adam & Eve DDB helped build the Stronger In brand, M&C Saatchi were brought on board in May and CHI & Partners, Saatchi & Saatchi and perhaps even BMB (all of whom have had relationships with Labour) seem to have chipped in ideas.

It’s easy to say now that it’s a classic example of too many cooks, but given the vast majority of contributions would have come free of charge I can completely understand why Stronger In entertained them.

Campaign Magazine has an article with comments from many of the leaders of those agencies

And they’ve also run an article which includes ads from the agencies that never ran (which is where I’ve pinched all the adverts above)

I’m not going to comment on the ads as it feels like it’s cheating to do so with the benefit of hindsight.

I’m still digesting the result and considering what lessons we can learn for future elections. Analysis to follow at some point soon (no doubt when you’ve all long since moved on!).


Audi runs blockbuster contextual TV ad during US Presidential Debate

In the battle for ‘best ad of the 2016 US Presidential campaign’ there is a surprise new entry: Audi.

The automotive manufacturer premiered a new spot – ‘Duel’ – during the live televised debates.

It’s a superlative piece of advertising.

The media strategy, brand positioning, creative idea and production are all of the highest order.

Deciding to try and capitalise on a moment in culture as potentially polarising as a debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump takes serious cojones.

Huge props to the client who not only bought the idea, but also gave it the best chance of cutting through by investing heavily in it, and to Venables Bell & Partners, the agency who made.

It’s time to regulate political advertising

restore truthful politics - regulate political advertising change

A petition which calls for the regulation of political advertising has gathered 100,000+ signatures in the 4 days since it launched.

The petition was posted, by John Babarinde from Eastbourne, in response to some of the political advertising that ran during the EU referendum which he felt was clearly and deliberately misleading.

100,000 signatures might not seem like a vast number, but take it from someone who spends too much time pouring over the visitor statistics of a niche political advertising blog – this is significant!

Whenever I bore on about the need to regulate political advertising the reaction is usually along the lines of “ok maybe there’s not specific legislation, but I’m sure there’s a parliamentary committee or division of Ofcom (or something) that keeps an eye on these things”.

So to convince you of the lack of restriction, let me quote the Electoral Commission’s website on the issue of the regulation of the content of political campaigns’ materials and election broadcasts:

“In general, political campaign material in the UK is not regulated, and it is a matter for voters to decide on the basis of such material whether they consider it accurate or not. This includes the design of the material.

There is one exception to this, which is making or publishing a false statement of fact in relation to a candidate’s personal character or conduct (not their political views or conduct), unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true. The Commission does not regulate this rule however, and any allegations should be made to the police.

The Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertising, but non-broadcast political material whose principal function is to influence voters is exempt from its remit.”

In short: if you want to complain about the content of a campaign’s advertising you can only do so with your vote at the ballot box (or your chuntering on social media).

The current lack of regulation means that campaigns are free to make wild and unsubstantiated claims, such as Vote Leave’s headline slogan which promised £350 million worth of savings from the public purse if the UK voted to leave the EU.

The extent to which Vote Leave were aware that the £350 million claim was untrue prior to polling day can be seen when Matthew Elliot, CEO of Vote Leave, appeared before the House of Parliament Treasury Committee on 9th May (watch here from 14:45:20).  His justification for the figure is paper-thin and so poorly argued that it’s as close as you can get to an acknowledgement that it’s a fabrication.

And Chris Grayling MP, a leading member of the Vote Leave campaign, only a few days after the conclusion of the referendum, admitted that the figure was only “an aspiration”.

The Remain campaign aren’t remotely exempt from criticism.  Apart from anything else, the name of the official campaign – Britain Stronger in Europe – is misleading as the referendum was about European Union membership and not the question of whether the country would remain part of Europe.

The decision by Remain to continually refer to remaining in ‘Europe’ and not the ‘EU’ was deliberate and designed to escalate the discussion from one around a political and economic union to one of cultural identity.

There are vast numbers of reasons for legislating on political advertising, but my top five (each of which could be an essay in themselves) are as follows:

  1. False claims made during the campaign reduce the moral authority of the result.
  1. Untruthful assertions in political advertising perpetuates voters’ lack of trust in politics more generally.
  1. Lies from one political group dilutes the contentions of every political group (even ones that tell the truth) and debase the campaign discourse.
  1. It brings advertising more generally into disrepute as the public might fairly assume that commercial messages are similarly unscrupulous (when they are in fact carefully regulated).
  1. It puts media owners in a difficult position when there’s public outcry about the content of political ads as they have to decide for themselves whether to drop the advertisement (risking infringing on freedom of speech legislation in doing so).

It was not always the case that political advertising was completely unregulated.  Until 1999 political advertising was covered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for matters of ‘taste and decency’ and ‘the privacy of individuals’, but not ‘honesty’ and ‘truthful presentation’.

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the body that writes the Advertising Code – decided that this ‘half-way-house’ arrangement wasn’t working, as partial regulation was leading to public confusion and was discrediting the standards held by commercial advertisers.

The CAP felt that either political advertising should conform to all of the ASA’s normal advertising standards or none.  A 2003 Electoral Commission report into the issue opted for ‘none’.

The ASA has a justifiable concern about ruling on political ads; as an undemocratic body it would face a legitimacy deficit when intervening in elections.  A previous ASA Director was quoted as saying:

“Can you imagine the situation if during the course of an election we are asked to adjudicate on an advertisement on a matter of truthfulness. Say it takes a week for us to judge on it and in the meantime the party making the false claim wins the election. Are we then to rule that they lied their way into power?”

Given the history of the issue, I don’t think for a moment it will be will be easy (or even possible) to create a perfect regulatory solution.  But the status quo, where the Electoral Commission, the ASA, the Houses of Parliament, Ofcom and any other body you might care to name refuse to take responsibility, is unacceptable.

I don’t advocate reducing political organisations’ ability to make powerful or controversial claims.  Nor am I subscriber to the belief that campaigns should be ‘positive’.  I’m not even suggesting that those elected should be held accountable to promises made in their advertising at election time.

It’s just very clear to me that there should be a formal process that enables citizens to challenge claims – often positioned as facts – made by political campaigns which they feel to be untrue or misleading.

To use a well-worn political advertising refrain: it’s time for a change.



Artists IN

One of the impressive things about the Stronger In campaign is that they have managed to capture the imaginations of taste-makers and those who contribute to popular culture. Everyone from celebrities, to athletes and – in this case – artists have felt able to put their names to the campaign.

This was by no means a given at the start of the campaign: the proverbial political establishment milkshake doesn’t always bring the boys to the proverbial yard.

Below is a collection of work by 14 internationally-renowned artists each of whom designed pro-remain posters for Stronger In.

There are some truly stunning bits of work in there and it’s not surprising that supporters have been more than willing to wear them on t-shirts and post them online.


Breaking Point

UKIP have released a poster in the week prior to the EU referendum ballot on the issue of immigration.

The headline reads “breaking point”, the ad also carries the body copy “the EU has failed us all” and a call to action which implores voters to vote to leave the EU in order to take back control of UK borders.

The copy on the poster is similar to the sorts of messaging that we have been seeing from the official ‘out’ campaign Vote Leave.  


So why has one of the leaders of Vote Leave, Michael Gove MP, been on the airwaves over the weekend saying (amongst other pejorative comments) that he “shuddered” when he first saw the UKIP advert?

The differences between the Vote Leave and UKIP attacks on immigration are subtle. Which is why the furore that emerged upon the Breaking Point poster release is so illuminating as to the differing perspectives held by groups like UKIP & Leave.EU and those supporting the more mainstream campaign Vote Leave.

The UKIP poster is seeking to capitalise on the anxieties  of those who are concerned about asylum seekers and illegal immigrants gaining access to Britain from war torn / unsafe / economically troubled countries outside the EU. The image chosen is deliberately symbolic of pictures voters will have seen accompanying humanitarian news stories, such as those about Syrian citizens fleeing their homeland.

Vote Leave’s poster on the other hand, on the surface at least, takes exception to extending EU membership to Turkey (et al) on the basis that it would increase the number of people who could legally enter Britain.

As I said, it’s a fairly subtle difference. But it’s clearly the line in the sand that politicians like Michael Gove and Boris Johsnon have drawn.

I’m not sure voters, with plenty of other much more pressing things on their minds, will be as willing to decode the distinction.

Both posters will appeal to those who have strong perspectives on immigration, but I suspect neither speaks to the crucial swing voter who has not experienced any significant personal problems with immigration, nor recognises any major economic benefits from Britain’s EU membership.

If the result doesn’t go their way on Thursday I suspect Vote Leave will wish they had spent more time worrying about finding an approach to communicating their position on immigration in a way that could convince the undecideds that it’s a reasonable policy stance and less time bickering over the precise pitch of the dog whistle.