Understanding influence - what do you vote for?

If you go to http://voteforpolicies.org.uk you can read policies and vote on which ones you like. You are then told which party you have voted for. Over 200,000 people have voted and the results at the moment show:

Green party policies are the most popular with 25% of the vote
Labour second with 19% of the vote

Whilst the conclusion to the voting results is that everyone actually had to read the policies (or at least skim read them). What percentage of the population is able or will to do this?

Much of the media attention is on people and what they say. Yougov.co.uk suggests:

34% Conservatives
28% Labour
28% Libdem

The conclusion must be that it is not about policies. So what is it about?

There is the "Leeds United" syndrome. From supporting them since the age of 3 I will never choose another team. Whilst some float as voters, many do not. Many of the "safe seats" are simply that - they are safe seats containing enough people who simply could not vote for anyone else. This guarantees a certain number of seats for each party and a certain share of the popular vote. These people may be interested in policies, but they do not vote for them. Creeping into this section is also the "local" candidate, where you may vote for a good local MP. As long as they are still standing you continue to vote for them.

We also like to vote for "winners" - or the people with a chance of winning. Underpinning this there is some "critical mass" to the size of a party, so the Greens may have the policies - but they have not got the advertising or presence to make an impact. Its a bit like an Oligopoly - we all know there is choice, but due to market power we buy from the most available.

As part of the "critical mass" - exposure and advertising are important, but do remember bias. Different papers "come out"  and back particular parties. To what extent are we influenced by this? Whether you like Gordon Brown or not - it was interesting listening to Max Hastings (Former Sun editor) suggest that Gordon Brown has had a really hard bashing by the press. Partly this is "because they can", and whoever gets into power will get what's coming to them sooner or later. Does this influence the floating voters? This is simply a "replacing strategy" either locally or nationally.

If you are into Game theory there is the "hawkes and doves" argument. All parties have finite resources and focus them on the seats that are marginal and where there is "hope". In some seats parties will choose to be "hawkes" and really try and get your vote, hoping that the other parties will not put their resources into the same seat. In other areas you may be a "dove" and not put any resources in. For instance in Chippenham, due to the boundary changes it could be likely that the Libdems take the seat ahead of the Conservative party. Whilst the Libdem leader has visited the Chippenham - David Cameron has not (as yet). If the Conservatives want to win the election they need 118 new seats. In a list of key marginals Chippenham is the 43rd. So why the "no show"?

Finally we do not all vote. Indeed a turnout of 60% is expected. Who doesn't vote? The "don't cares", "too busy", or simply unable to fill in the form and register. The reasons be be very simple, or very complex, but not everyone votes.

If you relate this to products and services sold by SME's it helps explain why businesses and consumers do not buy the logically "best" product or service. Perhaps it is the easiest, the "Leeds United", the "winner", or where tactical marketing has been effective. As a way forward tactical marketing is an available choice, but you must know your market to know that you have a chance of success. This suggests some research and analysis that is followed by some targeted action.

To understand further about "plugging into" your market - visit our main site and download a free worksheet.