Marginal gains

Silver bullet - some rights reserved by eschipulToo often people come into political campaigning searching for a silver bullet which will revolutionise their candidacy and transform the electorate into ardent fans overnight. It’s the most common mistake of first time candidates. Those of us who have already spent decades stuffing letterboxes know that a quick fix doesn’t exist.

That isn’t to say there aren’t campaign game-changers – the advent of television or how some candidates have harnessed the internet, but in truth they are few and far between. Instead candidates and campaigns continue to be successful by evolving with the times and making marginal gains – small incremental improvements throughout their campaign which combine to yield a substantial leap forward in parliamentary majority.

It’s a technique borrowed from big business. In 1987, American Airlines wanted to improve their bottom line. But how do you improve the bottom line of an already successful business (or candidate)? A bright spark (probably an accountant) at American Airlines suggested removing one olive from each salad served to customers in first class – $40,000 saved over the course of twelve months. $40,000 would be a huge windfall for any political candidate in the UK, but to American Airlines $40,000 is a relatively small saving. But as anyone who have ever run a household budget knows, $40,000 saved here and a little more there, soon adds up to a far larger saving.

It’s an approach adopted by sports scientists more recently, including by British Cycling – marginally improve a cyclist’s diet; shave a few grams off the weight of their bike; develop a more aerodynamic fabric for their clothing; warm the track temperature by a few degrees. Each action in isolation sounds hardly worth the effort, but the reward is Gold. The same applies to electioneering. By making incremental changes or ‘marginal gains’ in different areas of the campaign, candidates can make a big difference to the overall result.

One example of where we as a Party can make marginal gains is by improving how we use data. We are already using smart data, but if we are truly honest, we use it sporadically and it’s often left to individual constituencies to plough their own furrow. As a result, our true understanding of how best to harness demographic and psychographic data is in its infancy.

But it is one example of an area where we can and should start to make improvements. If we can understand our audience better and stay in touch with what motivates them, we can then use that data to improve our communications – the quality of the design, the content and the targeting strategy – all components that played a significant role in my increased majority in 2010.

So perhaps candidates need to spend less time chasing the impossible, less time longing for a miracle which will deliver them victory – and less time worrying about how we are viewed nationally by pollsters or columnists. Instead, head back to the drawing board. Can you use and collect demographic data more effectively; improve the quality of your online engagement; produce better leaflets; build a better relationship with the local press; make yourself more accessible to constituents; target more stakeboard sites; take better photos? Ask yourself: can you lose an olive here and there?

* Tom Brake is Liberal Democrat MP for Carshalton and Wallington, and the Lib Dem Foreign Affairs Spokesman

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Campaign Corner.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Mark Inskip 5th Jan '13 - 2:34pm

    Marginal improvements are crucial when you’re already in a strong competitive position, shaving a fraction of a second here or there to gain the edge of the Ferrari or McLaren or vice versa. However if you’ve found yourself in the HRT you’ll need to make some very radical changes to get yourself off the back of the grid.

  • Good article. Mark’s right that marginal gains won’t win us constituencies or wards where we are in a poor third but in the many wards and seats where we are competitive and where it may well come down to differential turnout, for example, it could be the difference.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMichael BG 28th Feb - 1:54am
    We had a chance to call for and build alliances to reform the EU into a pro-people institution rather than a pro-business or pro-globalisation institution....
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 28th Feb - 1:38am
    Thanks, Ed Thornley, for your enthusiasm for our constituency! It's good to read the differing viewpoints above, and, thanks to Peter Watson, the detailed voter...
  • User AvatarConor McGovern 28th Feb - 1:18am
    David Evans, I agree. We must never, ever again settle for being a small-c conservative party.
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 28th Feb - 1:02am
    Peter and Mike, I love the way you both keep on demanding detailed answers to what Lib Dems offer practically, to fulfill our Preamble ideals...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 28th Feb - 12:33am
    Conor, We had done all that you suggest for over forty years, building our party up from nearly nothing to get up to 57 MPs...
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 27th Feb - 11:10pm
    "in Copeland our vote has snuck above ten percent only twice; in 2005 and 2010" According to the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_(UK_Parliament_constituency): 2001 10.7% 1983 15.9%...