Crosby/Textor
God knows how the SST thinks it is front page news that the National Party uses focus groups and advisors that Nicky Hager doesn’t like.
They breathlessly report:
An April 2005 Crosby/Textor report described how the focus group questions probed for latent negative “hesitations or concerns” about her. “Regardless of your overall view of Helen Clark,” the moderator asked, “what would you acknowledge are her weaknesses at the moment, even if they are slight or begrudging weaknesses?” The report’s “strategic opportunities” section concluded that the research revealed “an emerging perception that Helen Clark is too busy with `minorities’ and `other people’ to worry about the concerns and the pressures on `working families’.”
This is of course normal fare for parties, but only front page news if done by National. I blogged back in February how Labour were testing attack lines in their polling. And I concluded:
So that poll, presumably on behalf of Labour, was entirely legitimate as a form of message testing. They were trying to find out which attack lines on Key will have the most effect on reducing National’s support, and conversely which lines about Labour will be most effective at increasing support for them.
Yet the SST thinks that it is front page news that National does the same thing.
But wait you say, isn’t the issue that the firm is Crosby/Textor who were associated with Don Brash.
Well no, that is crap. I am going off memory but Mark Textor has been giving advice to National since the 1993 election. So 2008 would be the 6th election where he has been involved. So what is the news value in National having the same advisor as the last five elections?
Matthew Hooton aptly summarises the situation on National Radio yesterday describing Nicky Hager as the Patricia Bartlett of NZ politics – wanting to be the moral guardian of NZ, yet he himself is a political activist himself.
Even Russell Brown has a reasonable balance:
A sense of perspective is worthwhile here. Political strategy is a cynical business by its nature. Labour’s people were not appealing to higher ideals when they ran the “slippery” campaign against Key this year. Even the Greens once (in 2002) hired themselves an electoral shitkicker from Australia.
Predictably the Hager árticle’ in the SST had all the usual left voices acting as if John Key had been found indulging in an act of bestiality, rather than doing what politicians do, that is acting rationally and legally in taking advice from a variety of sources on how to win.
That is what party leaders are supposed to do – win elections.
Textor and Crosby are centre right campaign and research advisors. In some countries they actually run the campaign (such as in the UK), while in NZ (as far as I know – I am not privy to exact details) their role is far less. National has its own Campaign Manager and campaign staff.
The only documented wrong doing was an alleged push poll in 1995 – 13 years ago. Now I think push polls have no role in politics or market research (but make sure you do not confuse push polls with testing attack lines) but their real sin seems to be that they are often sucessful, rather than one mistake in 15 years.
The Hive also highlights an apology to Crosby and Textor from Crikey in 2007.
David Cohen notes that Crosby Textor offered some blunt advice last year to Australian Liberal Party:
Still, last year’s Australian federal election campaign does offer a useful test of the article’s overall judgment.
This was the same federal election, of course, in which at least one political pr outfit famously advised the ruling Coalition that it had left voters disillusioned over broken promises and dishonesty, even while Labor leader Kevin Rudd was acquiring a deserved reputation as compassionate, human, genuine and likeable. .
Excellent advice, that; honest, open and straightforward, too. Unfortunately for Hager, it also came from Crosby/Textor
Colin Espiner also looks at the fuss:
So far National’s leader John Key has not denied he is using Crosby Textor, and indeed his staff are confirming it, off the record. National is playing down Hager’s story, and indeed there is a “so what?” component to it. More than 70% of respondents to a Stuff poll this morning agree with them.
Let’s be honest – all political parties use polling companies and image consultants if they can afford to. Labour uses UMR. The companies road-test ideas, probe communities for hot-button issues, test the weak spots of opponents, and help political parties form an attack plan for election campaigns.
Colin then looks at Crosby Textor specifically:
However I think his decision to continue using Crosby Textor was a mistake, for a number of reasons. If he was trying to rid the party of the remnants of the Brash years, why use the same image makers? Why use a company that has a controversial reputation in Australia and Britain? A company that has been involved in scandals such as push-polling over a candidate’s mythical support for abortion to the ninth month of pregnancy? Who wants to be involved with a company tied up with stories about baby killers and the children overboard fiasco in Australia?
On top of all this, for all its fearsome reputation, Crosby Textor’s results are mixed at best. It has advised National in its last four campaigns. National has lost three in a row. It advised John Howard last year. Howard lost. It advised Michael Howard in Britain. Howard lost. Its sole recent success was Boris Johnson in the London mayorlty, and Red Ken was history after introducing the congestion charge.
I think Colin is off the mark here somewhat. First of all it is simplistic to judge campaign advisors simply by the result. Minor little things such as leaders, policies, political and economic environment all affect the result – not just the campaign. In the US people like Bob Shrum are well respected as campaign managers despite not having advised a winning presidential campaign.
But even if one does want to look at results, then Colin should not just quote the 2007 election loss for Australia but also the four previous wins. Likewise in NZ, Mark Textor had a role (going off memory) in the 1993 and 1996 election campaigns, so their record is a positive one, and the fact they are in demand is because they are very good at what they do.
The real irony is that I have heard from a friend of a friend who has taken part in a recent focus group for what was obviously the Labour Party. The entire thing consisted of testing attack lines against John Key. They were left in no doubt that Labour will be using their research to try and undermine John Key on all fronts. Watch this space.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
“..Even the Greens once (in 2002) hired themselves an electoral shitkicker from Australia..”
come off it dpf..!..i worked on that campaign..
you are really equating an aussie green party person who was hired to run the campaign here..(and a very ‘nice lady’ she was/is..)
..with the throwing babies in the water/push-polling antics of textor-crosby..?
getouttahere..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
especially when that direction of key..has gone on since the first week of his leadership..
nah..!..this one has legs..dpf..
..and will enter the lexicon..
‘getting textored’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
“as far as I know – I am not privy to exact details”
So who is?
One little point, if there is no issue here why does Mr Key, or his office, refuse to confirm that he is using Crosby Textor to manage his image?
[DPF: For the same reason Helen Clark never confirms the exact extent of what Brian Edwards does for her I guess.]
July 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Does Helen Clark deny using Brian Edwards?
Nice try at spinning this away david, but we both know this is news.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
David when you have allowed your troll situation to get to the point when the first FOUR comments are from TWO of Helen Clark bastard offspring talking to themselves there’s no hope for the thread.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Meanwhile outside the “beltway” life goes on. Badly for most I hear.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Murray, if you do not wish to expose yourself to any opinions that may be contrary from your own, why not stick to the desolate wasteland that is your own blog?
As your own site has zero comments, you will be safe forever from having any of your half-assed predjudices challenged.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
“Their reputation for dirty tactics includes Textor being caught conducting `push polling’ against Labor candidate Sue Robinson in a 1995 Canberra by-election.” 2008 – 1995 = thirteen years ago ? Clearly they learn from their mistakes if this the primary example offered by the left of Crosby Textor’s wickedness.
“Mark Textor has been giving advice to National since the 1993 election” so something that has been going on for 15 years is front page news ? LOL
The Matthew Hooton/ Laila Harre discussion on “Nine to Noon” was fascinating. There are clearlu a number of skeletons waiting to see daylight in the Lefts closet. It is going to be an entertaining election campaign.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Isn’t the very fact that any – let alone all – political parties are using PR consultants a cause for concern for the state of democracy in New Zealand? Isn’t the degree to which PR consultants are used reflective of the degree to which a party doesn’t believe themselves to have good policy, or doesn’t believe the voting populace to be capable of recognising good policy, or both?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
whaa whaaaaa.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
I wonder which spin doctor suggested the ‘Cancerous and Corrosive’ attack from Clark – certainly the most nasty and personal attack from a major party leader since Muldoon. Couldn’t have been that nice Mr Edwards could it?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
I agree entirely with Murray.
I really like DPF’s blog but the trolls are starting to reflect badly on the Kiwiblog site and inevitably on DPF himself which is regrettable.
It is a form of graffiti. And it doesn’t matter who does the graffiti. If you don’t clean it off it reflects on your house anyway.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
I have to say Murray that coment typifies your level of political thought.
I see “labour are scum” is continuing his crusade for free speech, still awaiting word from your lawyers about suing me , did you not get the email address?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
All I can say is that a PR firm that gets John Howard elected, and nearly gets Don Brash elected but for 40000 odd votes knows what they’re on about.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
I have been contacted a number of times by UMR asking about my opinions of John Key. The general theme is a series of questions essentially probing which derivation of “slippery”, “inexperienced” or “lack of policy” I most associate with. It’s about 10 – 14 days before you hear these lines on Morning Report from the usual suspects.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
IMHO all political parties should be banned from hiring spin doctors in the year of an election Sort of a citizens payback for the EFA
July 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I really like DPF’s blog but the trolls are starting to reflect badly on the Kiwiblog site and inevitably on DPF himself which is regrettable.
You accuse others of being trolls when you call yourself “Labour are scum” ?
Good lord.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This is classic projection bias in action. Labour are running a specifically nasty personal campaign based on throwing as much mud at Key in the hope that some will stick. They receive advice on this from bottom feeders like Edwards amongst others, and they are raising this issue via their paid poodle Hager quite deliberately to try to circumvent accusations about them running these tactics themselves.
A campaign based on hatred, envy, and lies sounds about all that Labour are actually capable of, which I’m sure is why Sonic is so supportive as it fits neatly with his own character as displayed daily on this blog. The downside of this sort of campaign is the polarizing effect it has in general, and how it very often reflects back on the originators. It might get Labour back to 35-40% (though I doubt it), it could also send them to the 20% or so they are polling in Auckland.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The Farrarator is back! This is what I’ve been missing – collecting information and opinion from various sources, with extensive analysis. That trip overseas must have done you wonders.
Splendid post, DPF.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well as a “leftie” I am embarrassed by Hager, and by extension, by any comparison to him or discussion of him. The man is truly a discredit to the whole movement.
I would have thought if the SST is pointing out that Hagar doesn’t like these groups national is using, that is a way of complimenting National!
July 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I pointed out to a journalist chum this morning:
I just spotted something interesting at the base of Colin James’s ‘poll of polls’ article in today’s Herald. He points out that UMR data was included in earlier polls but “UMR has withheld data since April.” Gee, to my mind that reveals a giant double standard. According to the PM Crosby Textor is “secretive.” But here we have the company doing exactly the same role for Labour (as CT is for National) withholding polling results – and UMR has longer political polling history than any other polling company in the country, so its results have always been of significant interest. If Crosby Textor are “Tory tricksters,” then perhaps UMR deserve the label “Labour lackeys”?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
we just know him as/call him..’scum’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Because some PR adviser from Labour with decided to spoonfeed this to Nicky. Probably because it worked last time.
Think it won’t work this time. Because Nicky Hager became “known” to be biased when his investigative journalism into dirty NZ politics somehow missed finding Labour had stolen $800,000 to finance spin and because he then took government funding for his play. Nicky Hager is “known” to be a mouth piece of the Labour Party, with an equivalent credibility to Chris Trotter. He is also a lot more famous in NZ than C/T, so Nicky publishing a frontpage article saying National is bad is so clear & obvious a Labour Party hatchet job that it’ll backfire.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Wasn’t Hager the one who took the Labour government to task over the GE corn?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the MSM gave Ian Wishart as much column-space as they gave Nicky Hager.
Meantime, I heard Helen Clark on radio this morning talking about National’s “secret agenda” – oh, how quickly she forgets…
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hollow-woman.html
July 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Yeah, thats right. That means he has a known affinity to the Greem Party. Even more bias.
Apologies to Chris Trotter might be in order.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“We” would be you and all the other labour party hack in the phone box with you phool?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
no muzza..it’s more a ‘royal’ ‘we’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I just called Labour Party HQ and asked them about their use of consultants. I wanted to know who came up with the “slippery” attack line. Were consultants involved? Was the line market tested? I asked them what other attack lines they were intending to use during the election campaign. I asked them what issues they were going to emphasise during the election campaign.
The answer to all my questions was that they weren’t going to tell me. So it looks like Labour are running a SECRET (copyright Sunday Star Times) election campaign with a SECRET (copyright Helen Clark) agenda using SECRET (copyright Nicky Hager) consultants.
I expect the media will be all over this breaking story tomorrow morning.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You mean david that the Labour party was not willing to reveal its planned election strategy to some loony on the phone with too much time on their hands?
Quelle suprise!
“Wouldn’t it be interesting if the MSM gave Ian Wishart as much column-space as they gave Nicky Hager.”
The slight difference is that Hager’s stories tend to pan out as true, while Wishart’s tittle tattle usually turns out to be a bunch of nonsense.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It seems to me that the Nats are getting some pretty good advice from these PR people – take the trend in the polls for example. Admittedly Helen and company are helping things along as well but what a load of BS. I got a copy of the SST for the first time in ages last Sunday – there is still nothing to read in it and so it will be ages before I get it again. Nicky Hagar can write what he wants where ever – no-one takes him seriously. The wheels are spinning and about to fall off and this sort of shite is another thing that 55% plus of the population are sick of.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“The slight difference is that Hager’s stories tend to pan out as true, while Wishart’s tittle tattle usually turns out to be a bunch of nonsense.”
Bullshit sonic, the truth hurts darling, hence NO litigation fallout from the book “Absolute Power.” !!
July 1st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
no dad..everyone just studiously ignored that pile of toilet-paper..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The media of New Zealand have something in common with sonic , nome and phool. They’re all spineless jellyfish that make me sick.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Nicky Hagar can write what he wants where ever – no-one takes him seriously”
There is a certain Mr Brash who may possibly disagree on that.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
sonic, what did you think of ALL the corruption contained in the book “Absolute Power” ? Disgusting Heather!
July 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dad4Justice, my policy of ignoring you is still in place.
plunk.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
You just spoke to me dumb arse Heather !!
Edit; What a plonkeress.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
National hires political consultants (T-C) to advise them but won’t divulge details.
Labour hires political consultants (UMR) to advise them but won’t divulge details.
NZ First doesn’t hire political consultants because they know that Winston has a direct line to god.
The Greens might or might not hire political consultants but only if they are vegetarian.
ACT does not hire political consultants because Roger Douglas has already written their script.
Wots the story?
July 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Murray and LaS
the answer to DPF letting the left trolls on his site is simple….
They are there to balance the right wing nutters like you two, Redbaiter, Big Bruv etc
That way it isn’t accurate to say that Kiwiblog is full of right wing nutjobs (which is good because in general it isnt)
July 1st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
You mean 6 out of every 10 voters?
Actauly DPF lets them in for the free hits he gets from people coming to watch the train wreck that is their support for the epic failure of government as presided over by Helen Clark. Beside this is the only place that will them them spout their crap. The rest of us have no dickhead policy.
Oe noes D4J, chronic is ignoring you whatever will you do????
July 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Oe noes D4J, chronic is ignoring you whatever will you do????”
Murray ; I shall take appropriate measures to avoid such a toxic creature as sonic until the fumigation of all Liarbour Lickspittles is completed to the satisfaction of yours truly.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
” The rest of us have no dickhead policy.”
Is that why your website’s comment section is about as busy as the Sahara desert at high noon?
July 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
And which main party’s “image consultants” are responsible for air-brushed pictorial images of political leaders that are not true to reality? Eh?
July 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Interesting that an “un-newsworthy” item generates quite a long blog entry.
D4J, do you still hang around here? Haven’t you been committed yet?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
More to the point Mr Tan, strange you haven’t been deported yet?
July 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“Interesting that an “un-newsworthy” item generates quite a long blog entry.”
The length of the blog post reflects the amount of time given to the story in the media, not the original news-worthiness of the story itself.
Notice how the complete destruction of your point only took one sentence?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Wow Charlie… knocked that one out of the park didn’t you? When you wake up feel free to join the conversation.
Ed Snack (12:11pm) – Absolutely spot on.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Wonder how C/T will manage their way out of this one?
I believe Karl Rove is available, but his tactics suit Hulun’s style more than Key’s.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“The length of the blog post reflects the amount of time… blah blah blah”
Reporting about news on this issue just draws attention to the original issue anyway, so if you are a National Party hack why bother doing it unless it is damage control?
D4J: “you haven’t been deported yet?”
No. Instead I’m doing your ex and I have adopted your kid.