As Labour lurches towards utter destruction with David Cunliffe at sixes and sevens there are some out there with good advice.
Lew at Kiwipolitico had this to say about National’s excellence at data-driven campaigns:
I have been criticising Labour, in particular, since at least 2007 on their unwillingness or inability to bring modern data-driven campaign and media strategy to bear in their campaigns â effectively, to embrace The Game and play it to win, rather than regarding it as a regrettable impediment to some pure and glorious ideological victory. Mostly the responses I get from the faithful fall under one or more of the following:
- National has inherent advantages because the evil old MSM is biased
- the polls are biased because landlines or something
- the inherent nature of modern neoliberal society is biased
- people have a cognitive bias towards the rightâs messaging because Maslow
- it inevitably leads to populist pandering and the death of principle
- The Game itself devours the immortal soul of anyone who plays ( which forms a handy way to demonise anyone who does play)
But data is not a Ring of Power that puts its users in thrall to the Dark Lord. And, unlike the One Ring, it canât be thrown into a volcano and the world saved from its pernicious influence. Evidence and strategy are here to stay. Use them, or youâre going to get used. The techniques available to David Farrar and the National party are not magic. They are available to anyone. Whether Labour has poor data or whether they use it poorly I do not know. It looks similar from the outside, and I have heard both from people who ought to know. But it doesnât really matter. Data is only as good as what you do with it. Whatever theyâre doing with it isnât good enough.
The best example from this campaign isnât Labour, however â itâs Kim Dotcom. He said on election night that it was only in the past two weeks that he realised how tainted his brand was. He threw $4.5 million at the Internet MANA campaign and it polled less than the MÄori Party, who had the same number of incumbent candidates and a tiny fraction of the money and expertise. Had he thought to spend $30,000 on market research* asking questions like those asked by Curia about what New Zealanders think of Kim Dotcom, he could have saved himself the rest of the money, and saved Hone Harawira his seat, Laila HarrĂ© her political credibility, and the wider left a severe beating.
That is effective use of data: not asking questions to tell you what you want to hear, but to tell you what you need to know. This electoral bloodletting is an opportunity for the NZ political left to become reality-adjacent, and we can only hope they take it. Because if they donât, reality is just going to keep winning.