Nanos National Poll – Effectiveness and Impact of Ignatieff Ads
We haven’t spent much time on the topic of federal politics of late, so here are the results of the Nanos poll regarding the effectiveness of the Conservative attack ads. Interestingly, they are having the largest impact on both Conservative and NDP voters. This from Nik Nanos:
Properly crafted and validated by the political target, negative ads can be a powerful political tool.
Research by Nanos on the impact of the recent Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff indicates that in the short term they have not had a significant impact. A majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective and believe that they reflect poorly on the Conservatives.
Of note, the ads have had a marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters. However, the attack ads have had less of an impact in Atlantic Canada and in battleground Quebec.
Factoring the latest ballot numbers and the last six waves of Nanos tracking since the last election, the Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals. The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time. This may well be the first salvo in a narrative the Conservatives are hoping to explore.
Methodology
Polling between May 26 and June 1, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,001 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,001 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
For 626 respondents aware of the ad, the margin of accuracy is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Effectiveness of Ads Question: Would you say the ads were effective, somewhat effective, somewhat ineffective or ineffective? [Recall Only]
Effective 20%
Somewhat effective 15%
Somewhat ineffective 8%
Ineffective 53%
Unsure 4%Impact of Ads on Impression of Ignatieff Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of Michael Ignatieff? [Recall only]
Positive 14%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 45%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 22%
Unsure 4%Impact of Ads on Impression of Conservative Party Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of the Conservatives who paid for the ad? [Recall only]
Positive 7%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 20%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 53%
Unsure 6%
MRM
Mark,
While all data is good, some can be misleading. And (at least in the US experience) polls on attack ads may not be as reliable as other kinds of polls. The whole point of attack ads is to work at the emotional and subconscious level of the electorate, not their rational conscious selves. So when you ask them if the ads were effective, or if they view the target of the ad less favourably, or even how they view the group who PAID for the ad, they tend to answer in consistent ways. We all say that negative advertising is a bad trend, we aren’t influenced by it and we disapprove of those who use it.
But when voting time comes, it seems to have a bigger effect than a similar survey would have suggested.
It is probably like asking people how much reality TV or fast food they eat: if you looked at survey answers we would all be eating homemade local vegetarian lasagna and watching Nova on PBS. But when it comes to ‘voting time’ (ordering a meal, turning on the TV) our actual habits differ enormously from what we would like them to be.