An
Vassy:
during a Canadian election.
Announcer: He's not as advertised.
Vassy:
but third parties run them too.
That's basically any person or organization that spends
a minimum of five hundred dollars on election activities
and they have to be registered
with Elections Canada.
No matter who's running the negative ad,
whether it be third party or a party, research shows
that if you're like most people you're probably not a fan.
We're going to be testing advertising.
The first thing they'll say to you is,
"I hate negative advertising."
Vassy:
in The Journal of Politics
suggests that negative campaigning has the potential
to do damage because it tends to reduce feelings
of political efficacy and trust in government.
So if parties are trying to win over voters,
why do they keep running ads that people don't like?
♪ ♪
First, let's point out how big of a deal advertising
is to a campaign.
Strategists say it accounts for 50 per cent of the budget.
According to Elections Canada,
in 2015 the
28-million dollars on ads,
the
and the NDP spent 12 and a half million.
That money can go toward different types of ads
like positive ones that outline your plan.
That's why I will cancel the carbon tax.
Announcer:
of character to deliver.
Singh:
I'm different from the other leaders.
Vassy:
with your opponent's plan
or you can criticize your opponent -
strategists call that going negative.
You know that Buckley's slogan...
Announcer:
People tell you they don't like them
and that they don't work
by campaign after a campaign uses them.
Vassy:
he's a longtime advertising consultant
who's worked on multiple
and this is David Herle.
He chaired several
If you're a researcher and you look beyond that initial
socially correct response you'll
will have changed their perceptions and their opinion
of something important in a way that got past their guard
against negative advertising.
Vassy:
what makes a negative ad good enough to change perceptions?
Most strategists have their own list of guidelines;
like spark and emotional response,
introduce new information,
creativity.
One they all agree on:
all negative ads should follow this golden rule.
David:
for it to be effective.
If it's wholly made up, if it doesn't
ring true to people at all,
then it's not going to be effective.
You have to be hitting at things that voters already
sort of believe or have a worry about about a candidate
and tapping into that makes them most effective.
Announcer:
Vassy:
on Justin Trudeau didn't work.
David:
And it was a disprovable proposition.
Vassy:
This was unusual because
most parties don't want to draw attention to criticism.
I'm ready to bring real change to Ottawa.
Vassy:
the idea for the 2019 election.
Announcer: Justin Trudeau, he was never ready.
♪ ♪
Vassy:
from third parties during this election.
Announcer:
Alex:
somebody else to convey the negative messages than you,
because otherwise what you're
all sorts of potential backlash.
Vassy:
He studies political messaging
at Memorial University in Newfoundland.
More from him in a minute.
His party was caught breaking the rules.
Vassy:
were trying a tactic on Trudeau
that they also tried on Tom Mulcair.
Announcer:
The idea is to "debrand" your opponent before
they can brand themselves and you'll most likely see
it done to challengers.
Vassy:
Dennis:
ran against you before you've had a chance
to run your own about yourself,
it's kind of worst case scenario.
Not all negative ads hit the mark.
In fact they really risk backfiring.
Take for example this
Announcer:
Vassy:
and the
their website over concerns it could be misconstrued.
I should clarify there's actually another type ad:
the attack ad.
I'm going to let Alex Marland explain that one.
An attack ad is one that is
focusing on personal traits, how somebody looks.
It really doesn't have anything to do with public policy.
Most strategists will tell you
that personal attacks are a "no-go zone".
Woman's voice: I personally would be very
embarrassed if he were
to become the Prime Minister of Canada.
♪ [ dramatic ]
Announcer:
Vassy:
1993 is maybe the best known example
of an attack ad in Canadian politics.
It was widely seen as trying to use Jean Chrétien's
partial facial paralysis
about his leadership abilities.
They tried to make fun of the way I look.
Dennis:
or not to vote for somebody.
But, you know, appearance
isn't really one of those ones that I think,
you know, passes the test of
is this an okay thing to be going after?
That ad came to be seen
as not a fair comment but an unfair cheap
thing to do to Mr Chretien.
Vassy:
[cheering and chanting]
Chretien's
winning a majority government.
Just how effective negative ads really are though is still
the subject of debate in academic circles.
Alex:
effective negative advertising is.
Vassy:
researchers concluded that the evidence
they looked at didn't prove
the idea that negative campaigning
is an effective means of winning votes.
On the other hand researchers have also tested how people
physically react to political ads.
This study published
in The
found that people who watch negative ads
had physiological responses that indicated their body was
preparing to move away.
A study published four years later in
the
that negative ads generated heightened attention levels
compared to positive or mixed messages.
That said, participants expressed more resistance
to being persuaded by the negative ad campaigns.
In the end Marland argues that negative ads
do something that positive ads alone can't.
It provides information to voters that they perhaps
would not have heard otherwise and they have not considered.
Isn't it better to have voters who are able to consider
both positive and negative information
than just only positive information.
♪ ♪