The official Yes and No campaigns for the referendum on a Voice to Parliament will launch this month. As the government straps in for a neutral ride to educate the public and equip them with the tools — not the answer — to vote, Crikey put the call-out to a collection of creative agencies to determine their vision and version of the who, what, when, where and why in such a campaign.
An audience of many
Creative director of Indigenous creative agency Ingeous Studios Leigh Harris, a Kanolu and Gungarri man, called the critical “who” a motley mix of middle-aged white Australia, “allies”, pro-treaty (and No-voting) Indigenous peoples, fresh-faced voters, and rural and remote Indigenous communities. He said that a one-size-fits-all campaign won’t reach each piece of this puzzle.
The 30-to-65-year-old “Australian bogan” cohort might respond to someone on par with the late Chopper Read talking to them through a television commercial, Harris said. But for a Black audience that is pushing for treaty and saying no to a Voice, traditional advertising has its limits.
“If you go and roll out this ad campaign with blackfellas, some of them will come for it, others will just say, ‘Bullshit, I’m going to vote No,’” Harris told Crikey.
“For a lot of mob, unless they hear it from the horse’s mouth, they’re not going to believe it as true.”
Rather than a single agency at the helm, Harris wants lots of little local creatives — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — to feed content into a big umbrella project. He said that allows for tailored talking points to Black and white Australia.
Based in Cairns, Harris said northern mobs are far removed from what he calls the “golden triangle” of Indigenous decision-making: the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra collective that “propagates everything”. Remote Indigenous communities in these parts are not focused on the to-and-fro of a Voice because they’re “battling day in and out to survive”. Any campaign delivered to rural and remote areas from a city focus simply “won’t hit the ground”.
Instead, Harris wants to pump the nation with an animated rendition of the 1987 Warumpi Band hit “Black Fella White Fella”.
“A lot of white fellas haven’t heard that song, but it’s got the strength of what needs to be said. It’s not a Qantas song, it’s this down-to-earth desert song that tells a story that is holistically about blackfella and whitefella and any fella,” he said.
A call for copy
The 2016 same-sex marriage plebiscite’s Yes campaign boiled down to four no-frills words: “Say yes to love”. Unlike that campaign, which had near-unanimous support from the community being voted on, Indigenous peoples are currently split on the vote for a Voice to Parliament.
Gurindji man and strategic director of Indigenous creative agency Little Rocket John Burgess told Crikey this is because Indigenous peoples are not a homogenised group, albeit sharing “commonalities and similarities”.
“When has this ever been attempted, to unify hundreds of nations behind one voice?” he said.
It’s no small task, but from a marketing perspective Burgess says the messaging should lean into the “once in a lifetime, once in a generation opportunity”. It’s a “step of self-determination” that he says starts with First Nations peoples at the vanguard of any Voice campaign.
“Mainstream agencies without adequate representation, cultural training, staff and links to the community will be working off an inadequate base that has the potential to derail the movement further.”
Pitching to a white voter base, advertising agencies say there is a real need for something short, sweet and simple.
Sydney-based agency Common Ventures executive creative director Brian Merrifield is confident a simple catchphrase (on par with the plebiscite’s use of “love”) will cut through. Whether it comes from community, from a politician pushing back on a narrative, or from a soundbite in the evening news, he said it’s up to advertising agencies to listen, watch and capitalise on what’s playing out in the public sphere.
“We all know that most people can’t ‘make a viral’ — unless you’re Mr Beast — but when it happens organically, you’d hope that the agency involved would help it grow,” Merrifield told Crikey.
In terms of fleshing out the finer print of a Voice to Parliament, Merrifield said that an explainer campaign risks “unintentionally endorsing a No vote” (in line with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s calls for more details), but if done right will serve as a source of strength for team Yes.
Advertising 101 is to talk to those that need to be made aware (inform), those who know a little bit or need more information (educate), and those who need a push to do something (act).
But right now Merrifield is opting for straight and simple: “The only question to be communicated is ‘Do you believe in a democracy?’”
Let’s get people talking
The vote on a Voice to Parliament is at minimum seven months away — Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney ballparked it as August to November — but debate and division among politicians, prominent Australians and the public is well underway.
Creative director Karen Ferry said this is all the more reason for a “no drama” approach: “The No campaign is trying to make it hysterical and dramatic. The government is doing the right thing by saying, ‘No, this isn’t a dramatic thing.’ They’re taking the fuel out of it. They’re removing the drama.”
Instead of hype, she argues advertising agencies should tap into the “social permissibility” side of things. The current culture in Australia is to keep your vote to yourself — a practice that Ferry says makes people think their choices, often underpinned by racism, seem more acceptable. She says it’s on the advertising industry to show people that “my friends, my family, my community” are on-side. This socialises the vote and drains any “stigma”.
Up in Cape York at the bowls club on a Friday night, Harris is already making inroads: “The white people I talk to, they’re mostly farmers, a bit rednecky. They’re still a bit uneducated about Black politics, but when we all rock up, it’s open arms. Those mob have an attitude to say, ‘Ok, I know it’s time to pull blackfellas in.’ They’re on-side.”
On rereading the Uluru Statement I saw that we were given an invitation to support the Voice. The people who wrot the statement invited the rest of Australia to support the Voice, Treaty and Truth. For me it’s simple I will RSVP Yes to my invitation. Can I suggest that others RSVP Yes?
It would be interesting to see polling based just on the innate fairness of giving our indigenous peoples a voice. Maybe I’m being naive, but almost everyone in my family and friends grouping will vote yes. Except, of course, for that one in every family…
The fact that the National Party are against it and the Libs will probably oppose it is good enough for a yes vote from me. And yes the indigenous do want a treaty and rightly so. Dont be guided by Mundine and Price, both no talent, lazy political chancers doing what the LNP selected them to do.
Well Jules, someone had better come up with some pretty convincing reasons why I should vote “Yes” at the forthcoming referendum, because, on balance, from what I have seen and heard so far, I shall, at this stage at least, be voting “No”.
Oh good. Another no voter unable to articulate a single reason for his stance.
Well Here, we meet again!
Thank you for that post too. It provides me with the opportunity to give you more than a single reason why, at this stage, I will be voting ‘NO’ in this referendum.
Firstly, (and in no particular order of priority of reasons), I have been listening to indigenous spokespeople such as Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price being interviewed on a number of occasions on SKY TV (I do not have a subscription to this channel, I simply catch up on the interviews for free on some news service that I seem to have access to on my computer). These two indigenous spokespeople make a lot of sense to me.
There are other indigenous spokespeople such as the irrepressible (to be as kind as I possibly can) Lydia Thorpe who are at best equivocal about the proposal for a Voice. Their priorities seem to be more for some kind of treaty.
Secondly, it is not as though indigenous Australians are without a ‘Voice’ in Parliament at the moment. As I understand it (a simple Google check is all that should be necessary to verify this claim), there are currently six federal MP’s who identify as being indigenous, or as having indigenous backgrounds. More specifically, these include two MHR’s and four Senators.
Thirdly, Here, I see this move for a ‘Voice’ as being somewhat ‘racist’. It proposes to give a certain sub-group of Australians special rights or privileges that others will not enjoy. In that sense, I see it as being divisive. Indigenous Australians already enjoy special consideration in areas such as education. How many times have you completed a form that asks you if you are an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? (Requests for this information do not particularly bother me. I am quite used to it.)
Fourthly, it worries me that if this ‘Voice’ thing is approved then it will be the signal for other groups of ‘vulnerable’/’minority’ Australians such as Muslims to start arguing for their own version of a ‘Voice’. Specifically, in the case of the Muslims, it will be for some form of Sharia Law for their community. And of course, if such a request were to be denied then all sorts of accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ will be thrown about that will send the ‘wokeys’ and the ABC into hysterics. On this point Here, you may recall (then again, you may not) the submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils in 2011 to allow Muslims to be able to marry, divorce, and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law. I am sure that the reports on this will still be available on the (ohhh .. so politically correct) ABC News website.
Fifthly, speaking of the ABC, this organization has been a staunch supporter of Indigenous Australians for decades. If having the national broadcaster firmly ‘on your side’ is not providing indigenous Australians with a ‘Voice’ already, then I do not know what does.
Sixth, I remain unconvinced that any ‘Voice’ will materially improve the situation ‘on the ground’ for the indigenous community in Australia. I saw ATSIC which was set up under Bob Hawke’s administration in 1990 become a useless farce that was disbanded in disgrace some 15 or so years later.
To suggest, as The Hon Linda Burney MP, Minister for Indigenous Australians did in an interview with Radio National’s Patricia Karvelas a week or so ago, on the RN Breakfast program, that if the ‘Voice’ had been operating now then we would not have witnessed the lawlessness and anarchy that the nation has seen occurring recently in Alice Springs. Such a claim is nothing less than wishful thinking at best or pure fantasy at worst.
So Here (or should that be Mr Woke?), thank you for providing me with the opportunity to outline the main reasons why it is my current intention to vote ‘No’ in the forthcoming referendum.
Please feel free to respond to this post by outlining the reasons why you think I should not vote in this way. I look forward to reading your coherent and logical arguments for a ‘Yes’ vote.
Sorry Here, I wrote a detailed reply to your post. It seems that you will have to wait until next week for it to be (possibly and hopefully) approved.
It seems we are fated never to get the”details”! Always happy to read points made, whether or not I agree, so I shall look forward to it. But I react badly to comments without reasons.
How about common human decency and fairness RR?
Sorry Bref, you will have to do better than that.
“Decency and fairness” are grounds for a treaty, Bref.
The voice is neither a treaty nor compensation for past wrongs. It is a symbol of an intention to take a step in the right direction towards helping Australia to begin to evolve into a better nation than the one which has failed to implement the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody for the last 30 years.
So basically not a single one of the “creatives” interviewed had a single idea.