5 Ways Marketers Can Learn from Political Spin

Ahead of the general election final result, Grey London's chief strategy officer, Leo Rayman, makes sense of the subliminal, smoke and mirrored messaging of political spin, and converts his findings into top tips for the creative industry.

In the run-up to the UK general election, at Grey London we decided to run a 'Grey Matter' event exploring the unconscious factors that influence our everyday decision-making - from the products we buy to who we vote for.

Political advisors have long been aware of the power of subtle suggestion and tapping into voters’ existing psychological tendencies to reach electoral victory. But what insights can marketers gain from these tactics and from recent learnings from the worlds of neuroscience and technology? Here are some key takeaways:

1. We may think we are rational, but we aren’t

Neuroscience and behavioural economics have shown that emotion and bias, or in other words the brain’s shortcuts, play a far greater role in our decision-making than we are aware of. This is partly because a lot of our emotional response occurs in the right brain, while all of our language capacity is in the left brain. So to articulate our thoughts, feelings, or decisions, they must be ‘translated’ through our right brain, which often puts a rational spin on decisions that were actually made emotionally.

Marketers should bear this in mind when trying to connect with audiences – rational facts may help justify a decision once it’s already made, but it is usually a consumer’s emotional response that triggers the decision in the first place and builds a lasting connection to a brand.

2. The hard sell rarely works – psychologically, it can backfire

Humans are hardwired to reject any strong and obvious attempts to convince us to do something, which can mean that hard sell tactics can often have the opposite of their intended effect. Political spin doctors have used this knowledge to indirectly sway voters for decades. Marketers can benefit from embracing subtler messaging too.

3. Storytelling is a better way to reach people than static, one-dimensional communication

The old model of political communication has been described as akin to ‘arriving at a dinner party, reading a script and leaving’. Building emotive brand stories is one area where both politics and marketing have made significant leaps in recent years and stories are at their most engaging when they are reactive.

During our Grey London talk, Tim Allan, chief media advisor to Tony Blair in the run up to the 1997 general election told us that in politics it is impossible to heavily script a narrative around a party - it is far better to have clear and simple sense of what you stand for so you can naturally stay ‘on message’. As brand advertising becomes ever more real time and reactive, advertisers can learn a great deal from this approach.

4. Deep-rooted perceptions are hard to shift, so playing the long game is essential

As many ill-fated electoral candidates have discovered, a short, intense burst of fevered pre-ballot campaigning is not enough to sway the outcome if the overall brand of a political party isn’t up to scratch.  Unless long-term attention has been invested in the public perception of a party, voters’ entrenched views - reinforced by the media - will not shift. The same logic applies to marketing: in order to build emotional capital, creating and maintaining positive perceptions in the long-term is essential and can’t be left to the last minute.

5. The filter bubble of digital content has narrowed how people see the world, whether they are correct or not

During our Grey Matter talk, Eli Pariser, chief executive of Upworthy told us how digital recommendation engines such as Facebook, Twitter and Google rely on clicks and thus provide people with content and information tailored to what they’re most likely to like or agree with, instead of exposing them to content that could broaden their horizons or change their minds.

This technological ‘filter bubble’ limits the information both voters and consumers are exposed to, creating a narrow understanding of a particular issue. For example, if people only get news from Facebook, they’re more likely to be shown posts from the people they most agree with and literally ‘like’, compared to in the past when we arguably got news from more balanced, objective sources.

For both politicians and marketers, it is vital to find ways to burst the bubble if people are to be challenged by views and information outside their comfort zones, or are to learn about new brands or experiences.