Spring / Summer 2015
Issue 3
Navigator’s folio of ideas,
insights and new ways of
thinking on the occasion of our 15th anniversary.
SPRING EDITOR:
Deirdre McMurdy
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS:
Jeff Ballingall
Randy Dawson
Andrew Galloro
Chris Kelly
Carrie Kormos
John Ratchford
Will Stewart
Laura Warner
Jaime Watt
David Woolley
DESIGNERS:
Justin Brazeau
Janine Pierre
Adam Zabunyan
SPECIAL THANKS:
John Baird
Hope Kamin
Rick Mercer
Navigator Limited
24/7 Crisis Line
1.877.431.9721
www.navltd.com
Very much like having
a child, starting
a business is a
tremendous leap of
faith. Just as it is with
raising a child, however resolved you
may be to doing things differently
than the preceding generation,
the need to make big decisions in
imperfect circumstances invariably
tests the best intentions.
When Navigator came into the world
15 years ago, it had two distinct
advantages: clear vision and strong
values. As the company matured,
everything was shaped by those two
foundational elements.
Our vision for Navigator was firmly rooted
in politics and political campaigning.
Communication in the political context is
unique. It must be highly strategic. It must
be able to withstand withering attack while
remaining sufficiently flexible to allow rapid
and effective response to any number of
unforeseen variables.
It’s a style of communication that is
particularly suited to companies facing
high-stakes issues or crises.
That ability to balance a tight focus on
longer-term outcomes with the need to
recalibrate short-term tactics requires
vigilance, sensitivity and discipline. The
reality is that few corporate teams are
equipped with the skills or tools to execute
at that level — especially in the midst of
a crisis.
The nature of both crises and campaigns
has changed a great deal in the 15 years
since Navigator was born.
Technology has escalated speed and scale
for all issues. Thanks to social media, bad
news has never travelled faster or farther.
That said, social media also provide
at least as many opportunities as
challenges. For those in campaign
mode, the ability to connect directly
with stakeholders and to build virtual
communities with shared views can
be powerful.
Still, the most powerful tool of all
— in either a political or corporate
campaign — is having values
underpin every action.
Navigator’s values have not
changed since its inception. Those
values have enabled us to grow
and to expand nationally, while
maintaining the high standards,
strategic acumen and tightly aligned
teamwork that defined our initial
success.
Our values are simple: hard work, respect,
discretion, honesty, strategic coherence
and giving back to the community. By
adhering to these principles over 15 years,
we’ve been able to attract — and keep —
the right people. And the right clients.
From inception to (almost) adulthood, we
could not be prouder of what Navigator has
become.
When CEOs around the
world concede that cyber
threats and data security
are the key issues that
keep them up at night, all
businesses and organizations that hold data
about clients and customers should take
notice.1
To better understand consumers’
perspectives on security and privacy of
personal information, Navigator undertook
the first in-depth opinion survey in Canada
on the public’s awareness and assessments
of data compromises, losses and breaches.
The research study explored Canadians’
expectations about how the personal data
they have entrusted to retailers, financial
institutions, government agencies and
technology providers is protected.
The findings reveal that Canadians have
little tolerance for security measures that
don’t thwart cyberattacks and they have only
limited sympathy for organizations that have
fallen victim to cybercriminals. Canadians
want much stricter laws and regulations to
protect consumers.
In a typically Canadian way, respondents
balanced their tough assessments with
a willingness to assume some personal
responsibility for safeguarding their own
information and cyber trail. Further, they
were prepared to extend at least some
latitude to organizations that are hacked,
recognizing that in a world of rapidly evolving
technologies and increasing online services
and capabilities, it may be impossible to
fully protect against sophisticated, die-hard
cybercriminals.
But, none of these concessions fully
mitigate a willingness to lay blame for data
breaches squarely with the organizations
that are hacked.
The survey found that 70% of Canadians
were familiar with data breaches and could
easily and accurately identify specific
North American retailers and Canadian
government agencies that have been
subject to cyberattacks. Seventy-nine per
cent said they were concerned about data
breaches involving personal information,
and 38% said they were “very concerned.”
The findings also reveal that the level of
anxiety about data breaches is growing,
with 74% of respondents reporting that they
were more worried about potential breaches
today, even as they become more familiar
with cyberattacks.
Canadian consumers firmly rejected the
notion that hacking is the “new normal.”
When probed specifically about cyberattacks
at retail organizations, 69% believed that
large chains were failing to do enough to
prevent data breaches. Consumers strongly
suspected that companies had been lax
in adopting appropriate security measures
(87% agreed) or had been unwilling to pay the maintenance and upgrading costs (79%
agreed) for systems that effectively protect
transaction data and information. They
demanded rigorous efforts to improve the
security of payment and online systems.
Survey participants were clear about whom
they held responsible for retail security
breaches: after conceding that the criminal
hackers were mostly to blame, 65% of
those surveyed pointed to the retailers
themselves as being responsible for the
breach. Relatively few survey respondents
held banks, the payment system or credit
card issuers as responsible for attacks
that compromised the transaction process
or resulted in criminals gaining access to
personal credit or debit card information.
As concerned as the public is about retail
security breaches, survey respondents
were even more worried about the security
provided by organizations that hold more
detailed and sensitive personal information
about citizens. They were most concerned
about cyberattacks against such entities
as the Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian
banks and credit unions, credit card issuers
and debit service providers. At the same
time, survey respondents registered notable
confidence in the ability of both banks (85%)
and the government (73%) to protect the
confidentiality and security of the data they
hold, including during online transactions.
These large organizations can take comfort
in knowing that the public has expressed
such confidence, but at the same time that
confidence would likely take a dramatic hit
should a breach occur.
The high level
of public anxiety
about security,
confidentiality and
privacy of personal
information combined
with the pervasive
concern about
cyberattacks and data
breaches demands
a regulatory or
legislative response.
Three quarters of survey
respondents agreed that
much tougher laws and
regulations are required to
better protect consumers.
Almost two-thirds (64%)
said that data breaches
would not be effectively
dealt with until government
and regulators imposed
much stricter rules around
the security of personal
and customer information
that companies and
organizations hold.
Clearly, Canadians expect that issues
around data security and privacy of information will receive government
attention. Given the strength of opinion and
concern, the findings suggest that
Canadians view issues of
security as a priority.
In a federal election year,
it will be interesting to see
if cyber security receives
the attention of the federal
political parties and emerges
as a key component of their
policy platforms.
The survey also reveals that
Canadians want organizations
that experience data
breaches to immediately
come clean about the
security threat and the
potential implications for the privacy of personal information. This stems from having witnessed less
than forthcoming responses from some organizations in recent years. Consumers
are demanding immediate disclosure,
they expect to be contacted quickly about
potential compromises of their personal
information, and they want the incident to
be reported right away to the appropriate
government regulator. Our findings indicate
Canadians are likely in synch with the U.S.
government’s push for legislation that
would require that any breach that involves
citizens’ information be revealed publicly.
The findings of Navigator’s research study
reveal that CEOs at businesses and
organizations that hold sensitive information
have good reason for sleeping poorly; the
public has an extremely limited tolerance
for breaches of personal information
or breaches that could affect personal
transactions and finances. CEOs can add that to their list of cyber worries that
includes the security of their systems, the
implications of data compromises and
the consequences of serious potential
reputation damage or liability.
At a time when IT commentators foresee
a breach of the “cloud” as inevitable, and
as consumers are increasingly worried
about the security of their transactions
and information, action from government,
business and consumers is clearly — and
urgently — required.
1pwc, 18th Annual Global CEO Survey: The Marketplace without Boundaries, 2015. Technology findings www.pwc.com/ceosurvey
A problem that began in the
arcane world of online gaming
back in 2011 has become
one of the most challenging
corporate issues of 2015.
In April 2011, hackers accessed the
names, addresses and credit card data of
77 million users of the Sony PlayStation
Network. Suddenly, the public became aware
of the consequences of data breaches.
Initially, Sony offered an apology and some
free games to those affected. It ended up
settling an international class action suit for
about $20 million.
Most experts agree that the PlayStation
breach was relatively minor in the context of
what has happened since.
The protection of personal information
has quickly emerged as one of the most
complex legal issues and top-of-mind crises
that companies face, whether the threat
is hackers or human error. The situation is
exacerbated by the multinational networks
of partners, suppliers, vendors, customers
and employees who have direct and indirect
access to that information.
Under current privacy law, those collecting
personal data are prohibited from
distributing it without obtaining
prior consent. The number
and the scale of data
breaches, however, may
portend a shift towards
much more explicit
obligations to keep such
data secure, and penalties
for failing to do so.
Already, the pressure
on governments to take
action is on the rise
and legislation is before
Parliament in the form of Bill
S-4, the Digital Privacy Act.
Navigator’s proprietary
research (see previous
article) indicates a growing
intolerance for the status
quo. An overwhelming
number of Canadians
indicate that much tougher
laws and regulations are
required to better protect
consumers. Almost as
many believe that data
breaches will not be
effectively dealt with until
government and regulators
impose much stricter
policies and practices.
In the near term, it is
reasonable to conclude
that the political traction of
this issue is likely to have
a material impact on
the purview of corporate
general counsel.
It is the GC’s role to
identify laws that apply
to their employers’
operations and to ensure
there is a rigorous
compliance process
in place. That means
increased focus on
internal information
technology systems, as well as those of an
array of business partners.
The search for compliance
gaps will be increasingly
difficult, given the global
nature of information
acquisition, use and storage.
For example, Canada’s anti-
spam laws place restrictions
on Canadian companies
but do not affect those who
conduct business outside
the country.
Another consideration is how
the rules in key jurisdictions
affect practices beyond their
scope. In the case of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (also known as the
Public Accounting Reform
and Investor Protection
Act and the Corporate and
Auditing Accountability and
Responsibility Act), new
reporting requirements in the
U.S. reverberated globally.
However these emerging
trends play out, one thing
is already certain: For
companies of all sizes,
there is an urgent need
to plan for data breach
crises and their steep
reputational — and financial
— costs in competitive
markets. The widespread
public expectation that
business leaders will be
fully prepared to contend
with data breaches and their
consequences is already
well entrenched, according to
Navigator’s research.
Of course, successfully
managing those expectations
is just one part of the data
breach challenge.
I worked on my first political campaign
in 1978. I was 18 years old, and the
candidate, Rollie Cook, was 26. He
was seeking the provincial Progressive
Conservative nomination in the newly
created riding of Edmonton Glengarry.
In those days, there were no computers,
no email, no cellphones. People still
opened their doors if you knocked. And they
answered their telephones when they rang.
Lists were typed out on paper. And hundreds
of volunteers came together to do the work.
Even 15 years ago, email and cellphones
were just starting to become more common.
Some computers were used for rudimentary
list management, but when it came to
targeting voters, we manually searched
through books of census data, picked up
land-line phones and knocked on doors.
Since then, however, the
pace of change in political
campaigns has accelerated
rapidly.
Technology is the most obvious
driver of that change. It’s now
used to target voters and to
constantly refine campaign
strategy using data that’s
collected on an ongoing basis
through social media and the
use of specialty software.
The application of advanced technology
has significantly diminished the reliance
on volunteers — although their retreat was
already underway. In general, Canadians are
not only busier, but the volunteer base is
spread more thinly because more sectors
than ever rely on volunteers.
Replacing those volunteers
is an emergent professional
management caste,
specializing in voter
mobilization. While many of
these political experts reside
within party organizations, the
ranks of third-party contractors
is also growing — a trend
that’s migrating from the U.S.
to Canada.
These professionals have
become essential because of
their specialized skill set and
also because fixed election
dates have extended the length of campaign
preparation time. Instead of six months of
campaigning ahead of an election, it’s more
typically a year. And that’s more than most
civilian volunteers could handle.
Financing is another aspect of traditional
campaigning that has radically changed.
The move from large, single donations to
multiple individual contributions is partly a
function of technology. Certain programs
allow parties to narrowly target contributors
based on the resonance of specific issues
with their personal interests and beliefs.
Financing has also changed because of new
rules and attitudes.
Even where corporations are still free
to contribute to campaigns, some
companies consider political donations an
unacceptable use of shareholder capital.
The direct appeal for financial support from
individuals gained momentum in Canada
with the emergence of the Reform Party
movement in the 1990s. Reformers had
no established network, no big backers, no
institutional framework. They had to learn
how to raise money directly from supporters
— and how to find those supporters. It was
an innovation born of necessity.
Another key difference in campaigns is
the role of media. Where 15 years ago we
worried about media concentration, now the
issue is extreme fragmentation. It’s hard to
know whom you’re talking to or dealing with
when you try to communicate your message.
Then there’s the issue of speed. We’ve gone
from a 24-hour news cycle with CNN to a
24-second news cycle with Twitter. It’s not
just the issue of speed trumping accuracy;
it makes it much more challenging to cover
big, complex issues in a meaningful way.
In the end, politics and campaigns haven’t
fundamentally changed in 15 years. There’s
still a bus, there’s still a plane, there’s still
a war room — though now everything is
monitored around the clock.
Furthermore, today — as it was 15 years
ago or three thousand years ago in the days
of Cicero — the best way to reach voters
is through direct personal contact. We may
be doing that in new ways, but the reality is
that people want to engage. And campaigns
are all about finding the best ways to do just
that.
Of the many campaigns I’ve worked on
over the years, I have to say my absolute
favourite was Jim Prentice’s 2003 federal
Tory leadership campaign. It was a real
underdog endeavour and we had to slog
hard, constituency by constituency, dollar by
dollar.
That said, the calibre of the people who
stepped up to participate, especially at the
convention, was absolutely remarkable. It
really was an A-team.
It was all clearly chronicled in the convention
coverage: the suspense, the momentum,
the tension. In the end, we lost. But it was
all redeemed by the fun, the excitement and
the electricity.
This campaign is also my favourite because
of the issue at its heart. The whole focus
was on uniting the Conservative Party and
putting an end to all the fighting that had
been going on for too long.
In my mind, Jim Prentice came the closest
to articulating a vision for a united party.
And I have never lost sight of how special —
and how important — that process was. And
the legacy the debate created.
Mastering social media
has become critical for
politicians and aspiring
politicians: powerful
tools like Facebook and
Twitter provide new ways to directly reach,
understand and motivate voters, while
enhancing traditional means of contact.
The same tools and tactics have
revolutionized the way campaign-style
communications strategies can be executed
by organizations seeking to engage
stakeholders and win their support.
One of the most powerful of these new tools
is NationBuilder.
Used by the Obama 2012 campaign and
Idle No More organizers, it manages
campaign websites, merging and tracking
individuals across multiple platforms. It
allows for contact and communication
via text message, email and other social
media. A matching capability also connects
with an individual’s public data, including
photographs, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
Access to such detailed information allows
campaign managers to filter and target
voters as never before. For example,
NationBuilder can filter and email
those who have signed a petition on a
particular date, live in a particular area
or taken political action. Not only that, it
does so using language that is already
familiar for having been used in previous
communications. Such specific targeting
allows campaigns to continually refine their
audience, language and tactics for optimum
results as well as cost efficiency.
From that point, user contact can be made with customized social media posts, petitions, surveys, donation requests or direct emails. The 2014 American Congressional mid-term campaigns had particular success in leveraging this insight for candidate door-knocking. Even before the resident opened the door, the person standing on their porch had the most resonant messages in hand.
In political or corporate campaigns, these technological tools give campaigns enhanced power to gather relevant data, build popular support, muster financial resources and incite action. It also eliminates the “middleman,” side-stepping mainstream media and directly influencing opinion and results.
When community-organizing tools like NationBuilder are combined with the insight gathered from the analytics available through Google, Facebook, Twitter and social media listening software, all campaigns can communicate more intelligently, measure performance, cultivate desired action and build awareness.
Reprinted with permission from Campaigns & Elections, August 18 2014. Featured artwork was not included in the original article.
Neuromarketing sounds big,
bad and evil, but it’s really
quite simple. Perhaps it’s best
described as marketing to our
subconscious.
Bud Light uses humor. That’s
neuromarketing. Chevy trucks use
visualization — “Like a rock.” That’s
neuromarketing.
Imagine you’re hiking and you see
something brown, thin, and long in your
path. Instinctively you jump back before your
conscious brain has had time to process
whether the thing is a dangerous snake or
a harmless stick. Your subconscious brain,
the same brain that jerks your finger back
off a hot skillet before you can process it as
a danger, “overrode” your other sensations.
Marketing to that ultra-powerful
subconscious brain is neuromarketing.
How does such marketing relate to politics?
Is it evil? Does it “cheat” or somehow trick
the voter? No way. Another term for it might
simply be “good advertising.”
The idea of neuromarketing is that the use
of a base emotional appeal — love, fear,
humor, anger — will be more effective than
a factual appeal. It suggests that visuals are
more readily accepted by the subconscious
than words.
Is that new? Well, didn’t we hear as children
that one picture is worth a thousand words?
That’s neuromarketing.
While it might surprise some, we’re really
not talking about a new concept in politics.
Neuromarketing is a tactic that has been
in use in some form for many cycles now,
and my firm has applied the basic principles
behind it on ad campaigns dating back more
than a decade.
Let’s start with an example from 2004: We
produced an ad for the reelection campaign
of George W. Bush. There were zero spoken
words in it. It showed a powerful static shot
of a rock being pounded by ocean waves.
The rock never moved, never wavered. After
thirty seconds, a simple graphic with three
words appeared, “Peace through strength.”
The Bush campaign debated the approach,
but never chose to use it. That one ad,
though, was why the McCain presidential
campaign said that they hired us to head
their ad team four years later.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was up for
reelection in California in 2006. It’s easy to
forget that, when that campaign began, he
was behind by double digits to the generic
Democrat. The theme of the campaign was
whether voters wanted to go back to the
days of the previously recalled governor,
Gray Davis, or to continue Schwarzenegger’s
reforms.
Traditional marketing would have
suggested that we use details, numbers,
facts and figures to prove we were better
off under the new governor. The use of
neuromarketing, however, provided a more
powerful way to message that backward-
or-forward choice to voters. We simply ran
all of our advertising visuals that referred
to our opponent backward. Birds flew
backward; cars drove backward; people
walked backward.
Bob Garfield, the advertising critic from
Advertising Age, wrote, “Between now and
November, Schwarzenegger can get caught
groping Miss Teen Fresno, the California
Republican Party can make Barry Bonds its
chairman and President Bush can declare
war on Oregon. Arnold is still a lock.” That’s
neuromarketing.
Sonny Perdue, a relatively unknown former
Democrat, ran in 2002 as a Republican for
governor of Georgia. He had two well-known
primary opponents and an immensely
popular and well-funded general election
opponent in incumbent Gov. Roy Barnes.
His message was seemingly simple, but
unusual: the governor had become a
monarch, autocratically ruling the state and
ignoring the people. That would be tough to
prove with facts and figures.
As a visual, though, it proved arresting. A
giant rat named “King Roy,” as tall as
Atlanta’s skyscrapers, was soon seen in a
campaign film, rampaging through Georgia
and doing as he wished. It caught fire.
Sonny Perdue won the primary without a
runoff and became a two-term governor of
Georgia.
Use your brain. That’s Neuromarketing.
Fred Davis is chairman and founder of Strategic Perception Inc., a Republican media firm.
In addition to being celebrated with
cake, anniversaries and birthdays
typically mark a time of reflection.
A review of what has been. A
reckoning of what is still ahead.
Coincident with its 15th anniversary,
Navigator is moving from its rather elegant
headquarters in an iconic heritage building
to expanded premises in the heart of
Toronto’s financial district.
That pending change in our physical space
got us thinking about change in a broader
context. Specifically, how could we better
reflect Navigator’s growth in size, scope
and influence in our corporate brand?
To be clear, the subsequent descent into
the rabbit hole of logos, typefaces and
templates is hardly unique to Navigator. It’s
a process that all companies undertake at
some point in their history: an attempt to
visually represent a corporate identity that
has evolved over time.
It’s much more than a question of cosmetic
surgery — eliminating a few lines, tweaking
a feature or two and presenting a smooth
new face.
This is complex stuff. In fact, it’s close to
being a form of corporate group therapy.
After all, everyone has ideas about what
matters most and how to best express the
values and the essence of an organization.
The exercise is not made easier by the
fact it also involves synthesizing all the
bits of branding that have evolved in an ad
hoc way. Those who have contributed the
most to that end result are often the most
reluctant to relinquish the hodgepodge of
the past.
Aesthetics inform this process, of course.
But there’s also an essential strategic
significance. In the information age,
branding and logos are imperative for
resonant communication across a number
of internal and external channels and
platforms.
For Navigator, as for other companies, the
greatest challenge lay in matching our look
to our position line: “When You Can’t Afford
To Lose.” From the outset, our guiding
principle was to reflect that in our updated
look.
Navigator will roll out its new look — and
its new space — over the next few months.
And on the occasion of our anniversary,
we are renewed, refreshed, and always
grateful for a remarkable 15 years.
Let us eat cake.
Winston Churchill once
declared that: “The
best argument against
democracy is a five-
minute conversation
with the average voter.”
It may be a snappy line, but these days
politicians don’t have the luxury of
disregarding anyone. The “average voter”
is no longer a thing. Even within seemingly
clear regional, demographic, ethnic and
gender groups, there are myriad shades
and variations.
That’s precisely why political parties spend
such vast amounts of time and money
trying to figure out what voters want — or
think they want.
In an election year, each scrap of voter
insight is critical. That’s all the more true
given the extent to which technology allows
parties and politicos to tweak every plank
of every platform to optimize their appeal.
For that reason, ENsight — Navigator’s
government relations sister company
in Ottawa — has undertaken a
comprehensive cross-country survey to get
a sense of the issues that are top-of-mind
in 2015. After all, it’s the best indicator of
the policies that will shape the agenda for
whichever party is elected.
With a fall election looming large, we’ve
compared initial 2015 election survey
results with the issues that resonated
most as Canadians exited the polls in
2011. Here’s a first cut of the deck:
The Harper government received a “green
light” to move on economic issues. While
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was still
viewed as somewhat polarizing, Canadians,
including his opponents, perceived him as
a sound economic manager. With the help
of then-finance minister Jim Flaherty, Harper
and his government were perceived to have
deftly handled the economic crisis. On that
score, Canadians were clear: they strongly
trusted Harper on economic issues.
In the 2011 election, the Harper
government hammered home the
importance of “jobs, growth and long-term
prosperity” with effective ad campaigns.
Survey results showed that with a new
majority government, the Conservatives
could continue their push to lower taxes,
stimulate job creation and cut red tape
for Canadian businesses; ultimately,
Canadians expected Harper’s government
to remain a friend to businesses large,
medium and small.
By 2011, the global financial crisis was
still reverberating in Canada and around
the world. The scale and scope of the
crisis reinforced the fact that however hard
sovereign nations tried to control their
domestic economic fortunes, international
capital markets and trade made that almost
impossible.
Even though Canada and the Canadian
banking system were less damaged by the
collapse and the subsequent recession
than many others, the toll on major trading
partners — in particular the U.S. — made it
clear that boundaries and borders no longer
offered protection.
Voters in 2011 expressed an acceptance
of that new reality, although the lingering
mistrust of foreign direct investment
continued. It was an issue that was set
to resurface as the world economy, and
demand for oil and gas and metals, began
to recover.
Because health care is largely a provincial
jurisdiction, and because economic issues
trumped all others in 2011, it did not take
centre stage in the last federal election.
The Conservatives promised to renegotiate
the 2004 Health Accord, but to abide
by the existing commitment to increase
provincial funding by six per cent annually
until that happened. They also won the day
by extending fitness tax credits for children
and adults alike, linking this to evidence
that improved fitness could help to reduce
some long-term health-care costs.
In 2011, Canadians, particularly aging baby
boomers, seemed open to the idea of an
expanded, two-tier health-care system.
There were, however, some conditions.
Many viewed Jack Layton, the newly minted
Official Opposition leader, as the right one
to preserve the Canada Health Act. In its
platform, the NDP promised to train 1,200
more doctors and 6,000 more nurses.
Election results showed that Canadians
were willing to explore innovative options for
health-care delivery if it increased efficiency
and saved money. However, they remained
wary of an American-style health-care
model.
Initial data from ENsight’s recent cross-
country election survey is clear: Canadians
see an urgent need for the government to
focus on job creation, a balanced budget
and lower taxes. And while Canadians
are somewhat optimistic, they reveal
significant anxiety about the current period
of economic sluggishness. Many think
we’ve gone from economic stabilization to
economic stagnation and there is a clear
desire for a government that will kick-start
the economy.
While Canada’s economic prosperity is
a top priority, there is a warning for the
Harper government in the results: 35%
believe the Prime Minister is headed in the
wrong direction. Whether Liberal Leader
Justin Trudeau or NDP Leader Thomas
Mulcair can capitalize on this remains to
be seen; however, results suggest that
Harper retains credibility as a proven
economic manager and as a safe steward
in tough economic times. Canadians, by
and large, indicate they trust him to handle
the economy, balance the budget, and
pragmatically react to plunging oil prices
and a weak Canadian dollar.
Canadians still view international trade
as an important component of Canadian
economic prosperity. More than ever,
Canadians have become a nation of “free
traders” who believe that government
must look beyond the U.S. for investment
and partnership. Only 17% of survey
respondents believe that Canada should
maintain its more traditional focus on the
U.S. Fully two-thirds (68%) believe we must
look to new economies and new trade deals
for opportunities and growth in the future.
While international trade is important for
respondents, no monitoring of issues could
avoid Canada’s role on the world stage
as it relates to terrorism and the ongoing
fight against ISIL. Sixty-four per cent of
Canadians see anti-terror legislation as
a priority in the lead-up to an election,
with 34% seeing it as an “urgent priority.”
Despite this urgency, only a slight majority
of Canadians support the extension of the
ISIL mission. Interestingly, respondents
in Quebec, the province with arguably the
most heated discourse regarding Islamic
fundamentalism, expressed little interest
in engaging with the overseas fight against
ISIL.
Building on the opinion shift first seen in
2011, almost 70% of respondents today
believe a new approach to health care
— even a two-tiered one — was either
an urgent or important priority for the
government.
Although research suggests that Canadians
have a somewhat more positive view of the
national health-care system than they did in
2004, timely access remains a persistent
issue.
Early polling suggests that voters recognize
that the existing health-care system and
its insatiable demand on public finances is
unsustainable. Voters show an openness
to at least considering a two-tier system
that alleviates costs but maintains access
for all. At the same time, with a voter focus
almost exclusively tied to the economy, it is
unlikely that options for health-care delivery
are likely to gain momentum or form a high-
profile component of policy platforms for
any of the parties.
As a guest of the Centre for
Israel and Jewish Affairs, I
was in the country for the
unexpected re-election of
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Even Mr. Netanyahu’s closest strategists
were surprised: the night of the election,
we were joined at dinner by his campaign
manager, Aron Shaviv. Although he has an
international reputation for winning election
campaigns for centre-right candidates, as
we chatted over dinner even he failed to
realize how resonant was Mr. Netanyahu’s
eleventh-hour call to action.
The problem, he said, was that Likud
voters had been tempted by a “package
deal” — they believed they could vote for
a centrist party within a potential right-wing
coalition but still get Mr. Netanyahu as the
prime minister.
Still, the decision to scare Israelis into
voting — and voting for him — by casting
Arab voters as a threat, stirred an
international controversy. Such tactics may
be expedient in the short-term, but they
can also carry a steep price.
Now, as efforts to build a coalition
government get underway in Israel, the
extent to which Mr. Netanyahu’s strategy
has poisoned his own chalice, remains to
be seen.
Over the past 15 years, both
the media and the message
in political campaigns have
been driven by advanced
communications technology and data analytics.
Partisan political advertising has evolved
from crude mass marketing efforts
roughly based on past voting behaviour to
highly strategic, research-driven custom
messages.
Fifteen years ago, the Internet was not yet
a mainstream campaign tool. In the 2000
Canadian federal election, the websites
of political parties and candidates were
skeletal, disorganized and difficult to
navigate. But campaigns were on the
cusp of fundamental change. In the U.S.,
Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign
deployed a progressive Internet team
that began collecting email addresses of
voters in order to craft more personalized
messages. This marked the start of efforts
to build voter profiles in order to deliver
focused information that aligned closely
with the recipient’s beliefs and
behaviour.
Political advertising content also changed
with technology. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, it relied on symbolic imagery or
general footage of a party leader mingling
with potential voters at Tim Hortons or on
an assembly line.
Over time, political leaders have begun
speaking directly to the camera and to
viewers. As attention spans have decreased
in the Internet age, so too has the length
of traditional ads. From a full minute in the
1960s, television ads have become much
briefer — some as short as 15 seconds.
Online, however, spots may last closer to 90
seconds.
This change reflects a shift in viewing habits
among the electorate. It used to be that
everyone was glued to a TV set for specific
hours every evening, and people watched
things at particular times. With the extreme
mobility of laptops, tablets and smart
phones, people now expect the message
to come to them, rather than the other way
around.
While the cost to produce and distribute
online political ads has fallen, parties are
under pressure to produce and distribute
them faster to capitalize on breaking news
or to respond to events.
That means simple, low-cost videos have
become the new normal. Within hours,
campaign workers can produce timely web
videos that build momentum by allowing the
electorate to comment on and share them.
Furthermore, sophisticated research and
data analytics make these ads more
strategic and effective. The advent of Big
Data allows campaigners to analyze viewer
responses and patterns in real time, quickly
identifying the issues and responses that
resonate most. This insight is then used
to create customized but mass scale
messages for Twitter, Facebook and YouTube
accounts.
In the information age, as never before,
political campaigns prove that we shape our
tools — and then they shape us.
Canadian federal election
is held on November 27.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau dies on
September 28.
Air Canada completes its takeover
of rival Canadian Airlines.
World leaders meet for the
United
Nations Millennium Summit,
September 6 to 8 at UN Headquarters
in New York City.
Human Genome Project:
Scientists
successfully map and record
human
genomes in DNA (1984–2003).
The 2000 film Gladiator went on to
win
Best Picture at the 73rd Academy
Awards.
St. Louis Rams beat the
Tennessee
Titans to win Super Bowl XXXIV.
Jennifer Lopez stuns in a Versace dress
at the 42nd annual Grammy Awards.
The West Wing wins for outstanding drama
series at 52nd Primetime Emmy
Awards.
The Soprano’s James Gandolfini named
outstanding lead actor in a drama
series
at the 52nd Primetime Emmy
Awards.
Cupcakes become a food trend.
Cargo pants and camouflage
become
fashion trends.
As we prepare for the
pending election
season, here are some
of our favourite political
and campaigns movies
and documentaries
1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
On a dock without a deadline in sight.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Wrongfully convicted.
3. What is the trait you most deplore in
yourself?
Procrastination.
4. What is the trait you most deplore in
others?
Chronic tardiness.
5. Which living person do you most
admire?
Tony Clement.
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
Travel.
7. What is your current state of mind?
On-the-spot questionnaire-related anxiety.
8. What do you consider the most
overrated virtue?
Patience.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
See question 5.
10. What do you most dislike about your
appearance?
Too tall.
11. Which living person do you most
despise?
Have you seen my act?
12. What is the quality you most like in a
person?
Honesty and a filthy mouth.
13. Which words or phrases do you most
overuse?
Sent from my Blackberry wireless handheld.
14. What or who is the greatest love of
your life?
Laughing.
15. When and where were you happiest?
Performing a drum solo in a grade eight school assembly.
16. Which talent would you most like to have?
To be a song and dance man. I am in awe of
the triple threat.
17. If you could change one thing about
yourself, what would it be?
I can’t sing.
18. What do you consider your greatest
achievement?
Gainful employment.
19. If you were to die and come back as a
person or a thing, what would it be?
A duck. I’ve always admired ducks. Not a
fois gras duck but a wild one.
20. Where would you most like to live?
Newfoundland.
21. What is your most treasured
possession?
Happy to report I have no treasured possessions.
22. What do you regard as the lowest
depth of misery?
Sitting in caucus wondering how that idiot became leader.
23. What is your favorite occupation?
Prime Minister of Canada.
24. What is your most marked
characteristic?
I’ll try most things.
25. What do you most value in your
friends?
An outrageous sense of humour.