Recently a report on ConservativeHome about CCHQ’s drive to recruit celebrity endorsements led to some debate about the merit of such endorsements. Whilst there is of course an upper limit on the result (which wearing my economist’s hat I shall call ‘value’) of any electoral tactic where the opportunity cost in terms of man hours or money of a certain action makes it less effective than another action, I am very firmly of the opinion that such a policy is long overdue.
I’m not suggesting that anyone will switch their vote purely because Celebrity X endorsed the Conservatives (though some may), but then very few people beyond children who long to ‘be cool’ switch their shopping preferences because of the celebrity used on the advert, yet that doesn’t stop hugely successful companies paying millions for celebrities to be on commercials for their products or even to be seen using them. They do it for a reason, the reason is that it works.
People don’t directly decide to buy a certain shampoo because Cheryl Cole endorses it, but people who like Cheryl and think she is trustworthy in this field because she has nice hair, and are open to considering a new shampoo (i.e. not bald), might give it a try. It’s a case of finding a well liked person, trusted in that product’s field, and there being a target demographic of ‘floating’ consumers open to the possibility of changing habits. Right person, right product, right target.
In politics rather than commerce the situation of finding the right celebrity for the right target demographic is even harder. The product is not shampoo or perfume but a political party comprising thousands of people, a raft of policies, and a collection of historical baggage, both good and bad, along with the ingrained prejudices such as class war that result. The target ‘floating voters’ are even harder to define, varying in every way you can imagine, and – unlike in the past – by and large not at all region specific, instead being a kaleidoscope of individuals with multiple, non-exclusive attributes to each of their respective multi-dimensional personalities. The MOSAIC database divides us by postcode into 61 groups, but even this is far too simplistic.
But the right celebrity endorsements are of even more value in politics, not only because for floating voters it’s a major decision involving complex arguments where trusted expert advice is taken seriously – we wonder how you can not know whether you’re socialist or not, but as poll volatility shows, we underestimate the sheer indecisiveness of floating voters – but because of the “vox populi” – the voice of the people. Now “the people” do not have “a voice” because, in my opinion, there’s not really such a single thing as “the people”. (To misquote a much misquoted turn of words, there is no such thing as the people, there are individual men and women, and so there are millions of people’s voices rather than “a voice of the people”).
However we are still partly pack animals, and so many don’t like to stick their heads out alone with a different view – which is why so many sitcoms have over-zealous “laugh tracks”, which I understand statistically make people laugh more and rate the programme higher, and why we get economic bubbles and monumental busts, and why so many scientists sceptical of man-made climate change keep quiet. So we look for confidence that we are in tune with the public mood – no one wants to be ‘odd’ – and find it in people around us; friends, family, neighbours, man we met on the Clapham omnibus, and in celebrities who can give a public face to the switching voters. A voter might hold a certain view or be thinking of voting Conservative, but when a figure they respect expresses that view and says they are voting Tory, they may just do it. (Remember Cool Britannia; people voted Labour because “everyone is”, and even Conservative voters claimed to have. We need that same momentum).
Now Twitter is an incredible tool for marketing based on celebrity. Rather than bulk mailing uninterested individuals, they follow you, and by doing so receive your every message with their friend’s messages in an aggregated stream (as if you were best of friends). And if they trust your opinion, that has a huge commercial value. Stephen Fry ‘Tweeted’ saying about a band he had heard and that same day they received 4,000 messages asking about them, whilst another Tweet sent 15,000 hits to a Welsh schoolgirl’s YouTube song. (In the US it has become so large that the FTC will now fine endorsements without disclosure of any payment made, not that payment was made to Fry). A few Tweets from a few celebrities could drive thousands to articles, websites, blogs, and even broadcasts.
And this is where I have my big Twitter nightmare…
When I looked this afternoon 1,122,879 people follow Stephen Fry, with 1,023,932 following Sarah Brown… But where are the big name, non-political, or at least non-politician, Tory Twitterati?