Anything’s better – even a hovercraft at the seaside…

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?

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.

What both of them?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com