The BBC story is pretty self-explanatory, with a detailed explanation from Chris Rennard about what the party has been doing:
Share:Lord Rennard argued it was “quite different” to what the SNP and Labour had done previously.
“In the same way as perhaps MORI or ICM or organisations such as that might ring people and ask them which issues concern them most and what are their views on those issues – that is exactly what we are doing.”
He added: “We want to hear from people and our prognosis of the government is it’s out of touch and not listening and Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are a party who do want to listen to what people think.”
He said many people were happy to respond to market research organisations and they were free to end the call if they wanted to without taking part.
18 Comments
Hardly the same – MORI have real people on the phoneline, the Lib Dems just sent a recorded message.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
It may be legal, but is it a good idea?
Speaking as a former professional in the market research industry I can confirm this technique is a well established method of surveying. See here for example:
http://info.opinion-8.com/market-research-using-automated-telephone-surveys.html
IVR also helps address one of the problems with interviewer-led interviews, in the respect that people can tend to give ‘socially desirable’ answers to a live person. See the MORI analysis of that here:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/is-it-safe-to-combine-methodologies-in-survey-rese.ashx
A good example of this were the problems MORI had in the 1990s in getting people to be honest about voting Tory in street and telephone polls, to the extent they had to adjust actual results upwards.
There is also very little difference in respect of level of human contact between IVR, online polling or a traditional resident survey.
Where the party fully deserves a little stick on this is on advertising a campaign technique to political journalists rather than why they’re doing it.
Nearly all methods of public consultation will irritate someone, and it would perhaps have been better to emphasise that the party is testing their new positions on taxes, public services etc. with 250,000 people rather than highlighting how.
A Secret is just that. Talk about it then it voids its purpose. Our party has a long way to go in terms of professional advantage including knowing when to be quiet.
Well well, Andy Mayer is here to defend this nonsense!
I have no idea which idiots in the party decided to do this and which even bigger idiots told the press they were doing it but there seem to be plenty of idiots around at present in high places.
“If you agree with preferential voting by the single transerable vote in multi-member constituencies, please press 1, 2 3, 4, 5 and 6.
“If you agee with first-past-the-post please press X.
If you have no idea what I am talking about, please ring off now.”
Tony Greaves
“Speaking as a former professional in the market research industry I can confirm this technique is a well established method of surveying.”
But surely you wouldn’t have it conducted by a polarising figure like a prominent politician?
The link you give seems to be to a system where people have to an extent opted in to taking a survey (either by voluntarily calling in or agreeing to be transferred).
Entirely valid techniques but different from what is being done here.
Do MORI etc use techniques like this for political polls? It doesn’t seem so from the details they give on their methodology.
“Where the party fully deserves a little stick on this is on advertising a campaign technique to political journalists”
If it’s a campaign technique (ie with a persuasive element) then it isn’t genuine market research.
Tony for once I have to disagree with you. The one person I have had feedback from who was called said it was very professional.
The question is what is the party going to do with the data?
Anyone know?
If it is going to follow up individuals based on the individual responses, then it can only be marketing – unlawful under the regulations as confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s guidance.
The nature of the calls are exactly the same as the SNP’s Sean Connery calls – and the Information Tribunal ruled these calls illegal.
The SNP got off lightly by not getting fined – but we could potentially be fined huge amounts of money given that the position has now been made clear legally by the Tribunal decision.
We should not be doing this kind of thing. It will just hack off our voters.
“The nature of the calls are exactly the same as the SNP’s Sean Connery calls – and the Information Tribunal ruled these calls illegal.”
I don’t think that’s the case – the reports I’ve seen suggest there is more of a “polling” element than the SNP had. All they had was a “press 1 if you are voting SNP” option.
I just think automated phone calls are intensely annoying and will piss people off. Pissing people off who might be our supporters is not the best plan, whether it’s legal or not, surely?
Well said Jennie. Most people find these calls very intrusive and greatly resent them.
“We should not be doing this kind of thing. It will just hack off our voters”
What both of them?
Ouch, my sides are splitting. Your comments tonight are so amazingly funny Scampi. Please, please spend more time making them. More, more, more. You go up in my estimation with every keystroke. Everyone else pales into nothingness in the blazing light of your fantastic comments. I am in awe at your brilliance.
“Pissing people off who might be our supporters is not the best plan, whether it’s legal or not, surely?”
I’ve written a longer piece for LDV on this but I didn’t really go into the “whether people like it” angle
Firstly it depends what the net benefit is. Delivery of Good Morning’s does piss a few voters off but there is a clear net benefit. That said I think the margins for political parties in campaigning which upsets people is much less than in other commercial activities.
I am sceptical about the overall effect of this sort of plan though because a large number of people are firstly very anti being cold-called and even more anti being called by automated messages.
To an extent that was true when phone canvassing was first started. However if you get someone who is anti being phoned and your dealing with them in person you can get some of the ground back with a polite apology – and often when people realise your not selling something they are much more friendly.
You don’t get that opportunity with an automated call.
With “real people” phone canvassing you also get some anecdotal information about negative responses which means you can refine your message. You don’t get that with an automated system.
Whenever I get an automated call I immediately put the phone down. I think this is a crazy idea.
Well, if it’s a survey, I hope someone is going to forward the results for my constituencies to me.
Scampi -
Ho, hum.
Point is that it is legal to use the data as a general survey but not to do something with individualised data.
I suspect that we are going to use the individualised data.
Why would we be putting in 5,000 calls to each constituency otherwise, when the normal data sample size is a fifth of that?
We get loads of these here in the US and everyone I know HATES them
It’s plain stupidity to do this.
Anything’s better – even a hovercraft at the seaside…