The congestion charge reaches a “marketing climax”
I thought it would be an easy decision with the congestion charge: a resounding “no.”
One of my reasons is that it seems that governments, or ruling bodies, have made a recent habit of putting controversial issues to a democratic vote and then simply re-running the election if the vote did not go their way. You only have to think about all the countries that voted “no” to Maastricht / EU changes. If the government didn’t like the result it simply had another election.
The campaign run by a local Manchester PR agency that used models as “genuine” case studies caused controversy. But it was all the billboards with so many different individuals saying it wouldn’t affect them that swayed it for me. If so many people benefit and / or will not pay because they use public transport / are students / do not travel into the centre, why introduce it?
So when the voting papers came, the “yes” campaign had actually decided it for me, somewhat ironically.
The issue seems to have been fought more through PR and advertising campaigns rather than through debate, be it for or against. The “against” camp seems to have been a word of mouth campaign by and large and the “for” campaign an above the line marketing line of communication.
But when I read the proposals, well it seemed very reasonable. Another sign of bias? Where is the harm in expanding The Metro and other public travel initiatives? Where is the downside? Was this careful manipulation of the issues?
Yet for all the campaigning The MEN reported that just 38% had voted (three days before the poll.)
What does that say about all the marketing spend and its effect?
December 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Your mistrust of government is interesting and that people generally vote against things they don’t understand backs that up.
You’re thinking of other countries in terms of rerunning referenda, but that does illustrate that referenda are a poor way to govern. Ireland has said no to Lisbon, but the EU still needs to be reformed. You could avoid asking them to vote on reform again by asking them to vote on leaving the EU altogether, but what if they voted to stay?
If Manchester has said no, then do we simply forget about trying to secure investment in public transport?
December 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Stephen,
I agree that there is a mistrust of government as you point out, and this is reflected in my view.
I think people feel they are being squeezed and indeed conned. Look at traffic parking penalties. They were first introduced to cut down on parking congestion. Local government at first saw it as a burden and then realised it could make money. Now it seems it is about cash generation.
I think government has to take a look at itself. A good marketing campaign will not dispel the distrust they have built over the years.
Saying that, investment in public transport is needed. Clearly there is a need for all to engage positively. I think government lost people rather than the other way round and it will have to make the first steps.
The issue is still very much on the table and needs to be resolved and given direction.
Rob
December 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Who was the agency for the ‘Yes’ campaign Rob?
Check out our blog for an alternative take on the failure of the ‘yes’ campaign, and the relative success of the opposition…
http://www.the-lever.com/our_blog.html
December 20th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Tom,
I know SKV had a little debacle with an earlier piece of direct mail but not sure on this campaign
Rob