Pollinate’s latest research shows ‘You’re The Voice’ Yes campaign is having zero or negative impact; Only 28% of the audience have seen the ad
September 21 2023, 9:26 am | | 26 Comments
Pollinate’s latest research explores Australians’ reactions to the high-profile ‘Yes’ campaign, underscored by John Farnham’s classic, “You’re The Voice” commercial via The Monkeys. Here’s a snapshot of its findings:
34% of ‘No’ voters affirm the ad strengthens their existing stance.
55% feel the campaign hasn’t swayed their position.
Among undecided voters:
66% remain unaffected by the commercial.
16% find themselves more confused post-viewing.
Despite its prominent media coverage and a substantial $4m budget:
Only 28% of the audience have seen the ad.
A significant portion of ‘No’ voters think there is not enough detail and are angry at the lack of clear information for such an important issue.
Says Pollinate CEO, Howard Parry-Husbands: “The ad clearly evokes powerful emotions, but our research suggests it has hardened people’s opinions.”
26 Comments
There are so many real, true, powerful reasons to vote yes. And they just went with a song that happened to have ‘voice’ in the lyrics. Lazy.
If only 28% of the audience has seen this ad, does this say the media spend and platforms / mediums bought were the wrong ones?
It says that they thought a 3 minute, repetitive film was sharable and was going to go viral.
I’m a teller of stories
I’m a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira
And I paint the ghostly gums
I’m Clancy on his horse
I’m Ned Kelly on the run
I’m the one who waltzed Matilda
I am Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We’ll share a dream and sing with one voice
“I am, you are, we are Australian”
this extravagant film has done a lot of damage to the YES vote
what were everyone involved paid to produce this, it certainly wasn’t pro bono
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RIQLIVripA&t=3s
Interesting research; it would be great to compare these results to the recent Clemenger ‘Will I…’ campaign once those stats are finalised. That’d be an excellent case study for future cause-related + political advertising campaigns.
On a separate note: does anyone else have popcorn and Choc Tops at the ready?
There’s an actual issue going on that affects the most important Australian lives, and you adnerds are testing to see which ad performed better? Well f me sideways Australia is a blind country. No stars.
I’m speculating, but apart from the song licensing, I’d say 99% of the crew, overhead agency house etc etc were pro bono.
@Seriously?: I’m afraid I’m not following your argument here. Which of these two arguments (if either) are you asserting?
A) Testing these ads’ effectiveness trivialises the issue.
B) Discussing the ad’s strategy on an industry blog, as opposed to discussing the cause itself, trivialises the issue.
Further clarification would be appreciated if you’re willing to share.
It’s almost as if the Australian ad industry lives in a comically out-of-touch hyper-Leftist echo chamber.
This has to be because of straight white men
Wanna work for free for me? Great exposure. Killer brief. Could win at Cannes. It’s for a referendum that’s being used as a political wedge issue. No, they don’t have any money. But it’s great exposure.
I bet that regardless of the Pollinate research or the outcome of the referendum, we’ll see this campaign submitted to next year’s Effies. The Monkeys are masters at spinning stories about the effectiveness of their work.
When are clients going to realise just how much people don’t watch ads any more.
Anyone who engages with ad-testing in any way can see this is ropey at best, nonsense at worst. And a quick look at the Pollinate services page trumps ‘ideation and innovation’ and ‘communication development and optimisation’, but not the slightest mention of ad-testing. Irrespective of what you think of the Monkeys, you should question whether this is a fair test.
We’re in an industry that expects people to work for free and cares more about pleasing award juries than real Australians. Why on Earth would you think anything we do works?
@Motivation: interesting point. They’ve said ongoing research, but it’s surprising they haven’t mentioned a sample size.
If anyone’s got the link to the report, that’d be great to read.
The entire industry’s been taken over by activists diversity hires elevated to senior positions which has resulted in nothing but agenda-pushing over quality. The writing has been on the wall for a few years now, I’m actively looking to jump ship as we speak.
A good ad will make a bad product fail faster.
Where is the methodology? Sample size? Etc.
And if this industry hasn’t learned by now that by asking punters rational questions and believing their responses is a highway to hell, then shame on the lot of us.
Hoooooooly, that is maybe the most racist thing I have ever heard.
This blog is wilin’ out in 2023
Whooooosh.
Perhaps “Sadie the Cleaning Lady” could get the YES vote across the line?
The research says 55% feel the campaign hasn’t swayed their position.
Does that mean 45% of people feel that is has?
I’m not a huge fan of the ad, but for a single bit of stimulus to open up this many people’s minds is a huge result.
Either way – this is really lazy research. What human would ever admit having their perspectives changed through advertising.
Pollinate know this. This reeks of using research to back up an existing position on something.
Just think about the message for a second. It’s showing white boomers looking at indigenous sports stars on TV over generations. It then tells the boomers they’re the voice – ‘You’re the voice, try and understand it’. But they’re not. And they’re acutely aware that they’re not. In fact, only the contrived indigenous kids popping into an 80s Avoca Beach white home might be the voice. But they’re also not the voice. Nobody is the voice. The outdoor is doubly confusing, showing an Asian woman saying ‘You’re the voice’. No, she’s not. It’s really poorly thought through.