'Political parties must look beyond share of voice targets to secure votes’ warn marketers

Speaking on a panel on The Drum's Ad Week bus, Leo Ryan, group head of social at Ogilvy UK, said politicians were struggling to distinguish from social media marketing and marketing in a social world. It is an issue perplexing many advertisers also though compounded for politicians because they are still concentrating on securing share of voice in isolation to other KPIs.

"There's a lot that needs to happen in between the positive share of voice and converting that into an actual vote or sale. Politicians need to dig beyond share of voice," added Ryan. "The idea that the competition in social media is around share of voice and sentiment is a PR-driven legacy and social media is quickly moving into a world where segmentation targeting and measurable actions are increasingly important. Jacques de Cock, a spokesperson for the London School of Marketing, said politicians face an uphill task learning the precision marketing skills needed to win over new voters.

"I think the election is proving to be predictable and boring, contrary to expectations that it will be exciting. From what I've heard, people are already looking to 2020," said de Cock. "Political parties have a difficult job. They have to look spontaneous and concerned with the individual, whilst having strong disciplines because if you a write a Tweet about anything then it can be taken out of context and then the other parties and the media enjoy saying that they're off message as a result.

There is no quick-term fix to yanking politicians from this mindset. The General Election isn't a normal marketing challenge. Politicians can't spend money on TV. They are guaranteed PR but they can't necessarily control it and they can't solve engagement by increasing frequency. It's really binary process to get everyone to vote come May.

Jon Davie, chief executive of digital agency Zone, said: "It's not about saying what should we do on Facebook or what should we do on Twitter. It's about understanding that the audience who are going to be watching the TV debates are going to be engaging with whatever issues impact their local constituency."

It is an issue flagged by former Labour spin doctor Alistair Campbell. Speaking at Advertising Week Europe in London today (23 April) he said the political parties were rooted in a "command and control" approach to their campaigns that had failed to capitalise on the advent of digital media.

"The politicians, brands, businesses and communicators have to make sure that whenever a person comes upon your message, they are getting a sense of what your strategy is every time," he added.

One way for politicians to hit home with people, is to better balance their national messages with their local messages. But what the party marketing machine thinks at a local level might not resonate at a local level.

Fabrice Etienne, marketing director for EMEA at Klout owner Lithium Technologies, said: "If you're planning to be too much inline [with the wider messaging] and not being personal then people will lose interest because it's just the same message that they can get anywhere else."

The disparity between national and local creates a national tension that can lead to ill-informed messages.

Mark Flanagan, senior partner at Portland Communications and former digital communications strategist at number 10 under Gordon Brown, said: "What you find is that one campaign is very dull and risk averse at a national level and a lot more interesting at a local level."

Politicians may be stumbling around in the digital arena, according to Facebook and Twitter but their woes are offering up insightful learnings on how to galvanize online audiences.