Yet analyse what they actually do and a different picture emerges. They infer quality from brand names they have never heard of. They do the same from packaging. They will prefer one of two identical products because one of them somehow feels more premium.
Consumers are strange. So why should they be any different as voters?
As it turns out, they are not, and the proof is in Ipsos’s latest survey of New Zealand voters. Voters may know no more about politics than about an unfamiliar brand of dishwashing detergent, and they go by the brand regardless.
Four times a year, Ipsos releases its Issues Monitor. It tracks not just what issues New Zealand voters care for. It also shows which parties New Zealand voters believe are best suited to dealing with each of these issues.
There are a few oddities in the picture that emerges, not just in the latest survey but in every survey as far as I can remember.
When it comes to the question which party is best able to handle issues facing Māori, the top answer is Te Pāti Māori, the Māori Party. And when asked which party is best on climate change and the environment, the answer is – surprise, surprise – the Green Party.
These rankings have always struck me as remarkable. On each of these issues, there is a broad range of opinions and policy ideas across the political spectrum. Without wishing to judge their policies, it is probably fair to say that both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens occupy an extreme end of the spectrum on those issues for which they are ranked at the top.
Now, it is of course possible that a majority of voters would prefer radical policies on issues affecting Māori, climate change and the environment. Except, I do not believe that is what is going on here.
For a start, the Ipsos Monitor does not suggest that voters particularly care about the issues in question. When asked about the three biggest issues facing New Zealand right now, climate change did not make the top five, while Māori issues came 18th out of 20. Would voters really tend to favour radical policies for issues they barely care about? It seems unlikely.
But there is another reason why I would be careful not to read too much into the parties’ rankings for these issues. Te Pāti Māori has built its entire platform around being the best voice for Māori. And yet, it appears that even within the Māori community, they are not the dominant political voice.
Against a Māori share of the population around 18 per cent, Te Pāti Māori’s current polling is hovering around the 3 per cent mark. Which is to say that at least five in six Māori voters give their party vote to other parties. So, it would appear unlikely that overwhelming support from Māori voters would propel the party to the top spot in Ipsos’s issues ranking for this one category.
With the Green Party and environmental issues, it is similar. Yes, voters usually say in polls that they would like to see stronger environmental protections.
That said, one wonders what voters would make of the Greens’ stated priority of phasing out the dependence of our economic systems on fossil fuels and economic growth. Given that petrol prices are still the equal seventh most important issue in the Ipsos Monitor, I would suspect there not to be too much enthusiasm among the electorate to make petrol even more expensive in order to move away from it.
And all this brings me back to my marketing studies, all those years ago. Could it be that both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens benefit from having brand names that automatically imply competence in their fields for uninformed voters?
In my marketing classes, we differentiated between extrinsic and intrinsic product attributes. The extrinsic attributes were things like brand name, packaging, price and country of origin.
Just to illustrate this, imagine a new watch from a brand you had never heard of. All you knew was that it was from Switzerland, packaged in a leather box and very expensive. Well, without knowing anything else, you would think it is high quality.
Conversely, imagine an unknown watch brand from Cambodia that comes in a cardboard box and sells for a bargain price. Again, you would suspect that it is a cheap, low-quality watch which will soon show the right time precisely twice a day.
With Te Pāti Māori and the Greens it is quite clear what their extrinsic attributes are. The parties’ names say what they are about.
For anyone who knows nothing about politics, the party’s name has to suffice as a marker of competence in the respective fields. And that makes them the Swiss watches of Māori affairs and environmental policies. Or maybe the Cambodian one.
But if that is the case, what does it tell us about the rest of the issues in the Ipsos Monitor?
If survey respondents use heuristics such as the parties' names to judge parties on their policy competence, their level of political awareness may not be the strongest.
Labour and National, though, are such rather bland brand names that they do not work well as extrinsic attributes. And so, voters may have to help themselves to other mental shortcuts. They will look at the sorry state of the economy, the health system and education, ask themselves which party is in power, and assign the better competence to the opposition.
Indeed, that seems to be what happened before the 2023 election. National was seen as the most competent party in 15 out of the 20 most important issues. And today, when people still feel dissatisfied with the state of the country, it is the other way around, and National is only ahead on one of the 20 issues. That issue is crime, which is the one distinct issue in which New Zealand today feels different compared to three years ago.
Which raises the question: Have the parties’ other policies really changed so much that voters changed their views of party competence? Or have voters flipped mainly because they are still unhappy but now project that unhappiness on those parties currently in office?
Well, if voters are about as rational as those consumers I encountered in my marketing classes all those years ago, I think I have a suspicion. Except at least shoppers seem to be a bit better at learning from past mistakes.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
Four times a year, Ipsos releases its Issues Monitor. It tracks not just what issues New Zealand voters care for. It also shows which parties New Zealand voters believe are best suited to dealing with each of these issues.
There are a few oddities in the picture that emerges, not just in the latest survey but in every survey as far as I can remember.
When it comes to the question which party is best able to handle issues facing Māori, the top answer is Te Pāti Māori, the Māori Party. And when asked which party is best on climate change and the environment, the answer is – surprise, surprise – the Green Party.
These rankings have always struck me as remarkable. On each of these issues, there is a broad range of opinions and policy ideas across the political spectrum. Without wishing to judge their policies, it is probably fair to say that both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens occupy an extreme end of the spectrum on those issues for which they are ranked at the top.
Now, it is of course possible that a majority of voters would prefer radical policies on issues affecting Māori, climate change and the environment. Except, I do not believe that is what is going on here.
For a start, the Ipsos Monitor does not suggest that voters particularly care about the issues in question. When asked about the three biggest issues facing New Zealand right now, climate change did not make the top five, while Māori issues came 18th out of 20. Would voters really tend to favour radical policies for issues they barely care about? It seems unlikely.
But there is another reason why I would be careful not to read too much into the parties’ rankings for these issues. Te Pāti Māori has built its entire platform around being the best voice for Māori. And yet, it appears that even within the Māori community, they are not the dominant political voice.
Against a Māori share of the population around 18 per cent, Te Pāti Māori’s current polling is hovering around the 3 per cent mark. Which is to say that at least five in six Māori voters give their party vote to other parties. So, it would appear unlikely that overwhelming support from Māori voters would propel the party to the top spot in Ipsos’s issues ranking for this one category.
With the Green Party and environmental issues, it is similar. Yes, voters usually say in polls that they would like to see stronger environmental protections.
That said, one wonders what voters would make of the Greens’ stated priority of phasing out the dependence of our economic systems on fossil fuels and economic growth. Given that petrol prices are still the equal seventh most important issue in the Ipsos Monitor, I would suspect there not to be too much enthusiasm among the electorate to make petrol even more expensive in order to move away from it.
And all this brings me back to my marketing studies, all those years ago. Could it be that both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens benefit from having brand names that automatically imply competence in their fields for uninformed voters?
In my marketing classes, we differentiated between extrinsic and intrinsic product attributes. The extrinsic attributes were things like brand name, packaging, price and country of origin.
Just to illustrate this, imagine a new watch from a brand you had never heard of. All you knew was that it was from Switzerland, packaged in a leather box and very expensive. Well, without knowing anything else, you would think it is high quality.
Conversely, imagine an unknown watch brand from Cambodia that comes in a cardboard box and sells for a bargain price. Again, you would suspect that it is a cheap, low-quality watch which will soon show the right time precisely twice a day.
With Te Pāti Māori and the Greens it is quite clear what their extrinsic attributes are. The parties’ names say what they are about.
For anyone who knows nothing about politics, the party’s name has to suffice as a marker of competence in the respective fields. And that makes them the Swiss watches of Māori affairs and environmental policies. Or maybe the Cambodian one.
But if that is the case, what does it tell us about the rest of the issues in the Ipsos Monitor?
If survey respondents use heuristics such as the parties' names to judge parties on their policy competence, their level of political awareness may not be the strongest.
Labour and National, though, are such rather bland brand names that they do not work well as extrinsic attributes. And so, voters may have to help themselves to other mental shortcuts. They will look at the sorry state of the economy, the health system and education, ask themselves which party is in power, and assign the better competence to the opposition.
Indeed, that seems to be what happened before the 2023 election. National was seen as the most competent party in 15 out of the 20 most important issues. And today, when people still feel dissatisfied with the state of the country, it is the other way around, and National is only ahead on one of the 20 issues. That issue is crime, which is the one distinct issue in which New Zealand today feels different compared to three years ago.
Which raises the question: Have the parties’ other policies really changed so much that voters changed their views of party competence? Or have voters flipped mainly because they are still unhappy but now project that unhappiness on those parties currently in office?
Well, if voters are about as rational as those consumers I encountered in my marketing classes all those years ago, I think I have a suspicion. Except at least shoppers seem to be a bit better at learning from past mistakes.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
5 comments:
Oliver, you prove a valid point. Mass voting is never going to produce a competent govt. Apart from accidentally, possibly. What a shame that we are never likely to establish a fit-for-purpose system. (Except for post-collapse, of course.)
The headlned message has been gratefully received by the Opportunity Party, cynically named to evoke a straight line from misery to those sunlit uplands where we will all reside in peace, love, and prosperity. Maxism concealed by Flower Power, but not necessarily a workers paradise because no-one needs to get off their couch to work for it. It reminds me of that other abberation of the 60's, the awful pop group called the Monkees that was carefuly created from scratch by the recording industry to appeal to the most uncritical sector of American society, affluent female teenagers, thereby making their creators lots of money. TOP are the new Monkees, starting with its hired gun of a leader, a carefully curated young female, (and don't the voters love a young female leader), through to its nonsensical promise of gratification for the undiscriminating. But for TOP the cynicism continues because they know that under MMP they can promise the moon but even if they break 5% they will never have to deliver. That's how coalition building works. The whole strategy depends on their taking votes away from the parties who CAN make a difference. Look at their list. TOP would be more truthfully named The Retribution Party. And in the midle of an economic recession, that's the last thing New Zealand needs.
Not remotely true. Nearly half of New Zealanders dont wish to vote for National nor Labour anymore since they both failed the nation. We are in the bottom ten out of 200 nations in the world for real GDP economic growth, along with Haiti, Iran, Yemen and Myanmar. People are tired of brand managers like Ardern and Luxon making fake promises about their empty products and then not delivering. People are fed up with image and messaging. Tired of words over action and form over substance. This article could not have misread New Zealanders minds more wrongly.
TOP is a Labour asset. It will take the victim vote, get over 5pc, and support Labour in power and , of course, its policies will not be implemented. As regards party names I still find people who are staunch Labour voters because, well, it is Labour ''for the workers''. More for DEI CRT, Tranny agendas and handouts but the name Labour works. National, as in for the nation, keeps older Nats on board.
No-one over 65 in their right mind should vote for TOP. No increase to the pension because the UBI just substitutes for part of it, it doesn’t add to it. But the land tax on your family home goes on until the day you die.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.