04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 65

4

Political Advertising in the United Kingdom

MARGARET SCAMMELL AND ANA INÉS LANGER

THE POLITICAL ADVERTISING shares with Northern Europe a history of ENVIRONMENT: THE MEDIA SYSTEM strong mass-member parties operating in party rather than candidate systems, highly partisan The political advertising environment of the newspapers, and regulated television markets United Kingdom splits into the two sharply dominated by well-funded public service demarcated sectors of print and broadcasting. broadcasters. To get a clearer idea of the over- Paid political advertising is permitted in news- all environment for political communication papers and on billboards and is restricted only and the particular development of advertising, by the normal law of the land and electoral it is helpful to analyse United Kingdom media finance rules. By contrast, it is prohibited com- as two distinct markets: national newspapers pletely on television; instead, major parties are and television. allocated rationed blocks of free airtime for party political broadcasts (PPBs), which are Newspapers: Class and Party labelled party election broadcasts (PEBs) dur- ing official campaign periods. This dual con- Although newspaper circulation has figuration of unregulated print and regulated declined steadily from its postwar peak of broadcasting mirrors the media system and more than 16 million in the 1950s to about sets the parameters for the overall importance 12.5 million now, it remains relatively high by of advertising, both to parties and to voters. It comparison with Southern Europe and the emerges out of a media system that sits United States. Approximately 25% of the pop- between the free-market “liberal” model of ulation over the age of 16 will buy a national the United States and the more regulated newspaper, or more than 50% of all house- “democratic corporatist” orders of Northern holds. The press is characterised by commer- Europe (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). It shares cial ownership and national circulation, and with the United States a commitment to free readership splits much in line with the socio- markets, freedom of speech, and self-regulation demographic characteristics of class, educa- as the guiding principles for newspapers. It tion, and income and by political partisanship. 65 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 66

66 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

These divisions lead naturally to the prime significant respects. Television from the outset cleavages in the press market. The first is was designed as a compromise with a publicly between the elite and the “popular” press. The funded broadcaster (BBC) and a commercial popular press (the tabloids) dominate the rival (ITV), within an overall remit of public market, with 79% of total circulation, with service obligations. The public service load has The Sun the clear market leader. The tabloid been gradually lightened on the commercial response to market decline and increasingly sector as it has grown over time; also, despite intense competition has been ever more sports nervous years in the Thatcher era, the BBC coverage, celebrity gossip, and scandal. has been accepted by both Conservative and The second cleavage is by partisanship. Labour governments as the cornerstone of Coverage of politics generally, and Parliament quality for the system as a whole. Notwith- in particular, has declined relatively over the standing the highly charged dispute between last decade, a casualty, at least in part, of the Labour and the BBC over its reporting of the circulation wars. However, the press, and Iraq war, the government appears committed especially the tabloids, remain powerful polit- to protecting the BBC as an amply funded ical players, willing and at times apparently domestic broadcasting giant.1 Slow evolution able to shape the political agenda, and they also characterises the life of political advertis- continue to throw their weight behind or ing on television; the system of allocating against parties and individual politicians at PEBs, first started in 1951, has been retained election times. The days are gone when papers in principle and adapted in practice as more would operate virtually as propaganda mouth- channels came on stream and some smaller pieces for their favoured parties (Scammell & parties, especially the Liberals and the nation- Harrop, 2002). However, alignments remain alist parties of Wales and Scotland, established and are taken seriously by the parties. In the themselves in Parliament. postwar period, most, occasionally almost all, However, beneath the big systemic picture national newspapers have supported the there are changes of detail that reveal a more Conservative Party. However, Labour brought radically transformed political communication about a historic shift in 1997, when most titles context. By 2004, the long-predicted revolu- declared for Tony Blair. The courting of the tion in the media market seemed to be gather- tabloids, their proprietors, editors, and leading ing pace. For more than 40 years, British political journalists was the key to Labour’s broadcasting had been dominated by the “big communication strategy. It was determined to two”: BBC1 and the main commercial chan- avoid the tabloid “assassinations” of previous nel, ITV1 (or Channel 3, as it is now known). leaders, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot, Despite the challenge of multichannel satellite which in Labour mythology were devastating in the 1990s, driven by Rupert Murdoch’s for the parties’ chances in the 1980s and early BSkyB, with its suite of dedicated sports and 1990s (Scammell, 2001). movie channels, the old “comfortable duop- oly” provided the country’s most-watched television. However, by 2004, the new tech- Television: The Decline of Deference nologies of cable, satellite, and digital had Gradualism and compromise have been massively expanded the number of available suggested as the defining features of British channels, from four in 1990 to more than 270 media (Tunstall, 1997, pp. 244–245): “contin- by 2004, and for the first time the new com- uous evolution and policy consensus” coupled petitors achieved a combined audience share with compromise between commercialism that outranked ITV1 and BBC1 in the ratings and public service. This description is apt in (see Table 4.1). 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 67

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 67

Table 4.1 Annual Percent Share of Audience Viewing (Individuals)

Channel

Year BBC1 BBC2 ITV1 C4 C5 Other

1990 37 10 44 9 — — 1995 32 11 37 11 — 9 2000 27.2 10.8 29.3 10.5 5.7 16.6 2004 24.7 10 22.8 9.7 6.6 26.2

SOURCE: Broadcasters Audience Research Board (TV facts, 2006).

The media explosion has had a double- opened under a voluntary stricture to report, edged effect. It has multiplied opportunities but not interfere with, the processes of politics. to catch political news; viewers of free-to-air The BBC inherited from World War II the “14 digital can now watch three 24-hour news Day Rule,” which prohibited it from reporting channels and the BBC’s dedicated parliamen- any controversial topic in the 2 weeks preced- tary channel. However, it has also squeezed ing debate in Parliament. Although the rule the space for political news and documentary was abandoned soon after the advent of in prime time on the mass-audience enter- commercial television in 1955, both channels tainment channels. ITV1, in particular, has continued to adopt a “sacerdotal” attitude to shifted and shortened the time slot of its politics going into the 1970s (Blumler & flagship evening news program to make way Nossiter, 1989) and well beyond for election for movies and feature-length dramas. At the news. The aggressive grilling of politicians in same time, analysis of the main (ITV1 and one-to-one interviews did not become staple BBC1) news over successive elections from fare until the 1980s, and the normal public 1992 shows, on both channels, a significant service requirements to deliver impartial and decline in political news compared to nonpo- balanced news were interpreted in a particu- litical stories, less visibility for political actors, larly strict way for elections. The allocation of and a reduction in the length of politicians’ PEBs provided the guidelines for appropriate sound bites (Semetko & Scammell, 2005). In balance between the parties, with both Labour short, the window for political news in the and the Conservatives receiving equal news United Kingdom has been narrowing on both time. Liberals were apportioned a share flagship evening news programs, and within according to their ration of PEBs, typically one that reduced space there is less opportunity for third to four fifths. The parties and the broad- the parties to get their messages across in their cast organisations timed “balance” with a own words. These declines are from a rela- stopwatch to ensure fair dues. This interpreta- tively high base, as compared to the United tion meant that television was uniquely States, for example. Nonetheless, the predicted vulnerable to politicians at elections, as time effects of increased competition are biting at quotas had to be filled, regardless of news val- last: As Harrison (2002) put it, “television ues. Moreover, it meant that parties could since 1997 has been ‘cruel to coverage of have an effective veto over some stories by politics.’” refusing to put forward a spokesperson.2 The “cruelty” is relative, when considered The restrictions have been gradually loos- in the light of a history of at times extraordi- ened over time. The ITV unilaterally aban- nary deference to politics. The television era doned “stopwatch balance” for the 1992 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 68

68 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

general election; news values were to deter- advent of commercial television in 1955. mine the bulletins. Changes to electoral law However, the broadcasters preferred to take removed the parties’ power of veto, even at voluntarily the system of party political and constituency level, by 2001, and the rise of party election broadcasts, which had been celebrity television interviewers, of whom the established by the BBC, extending long- BBC’s Jeremy Paxman is the prime example, standing radio practice to television. Another fuelled a much-imitated style of distinctly non- opportunity came with the 1990 Broadcasting deferential questioning of political leaders. Act, which encouraged expansion of competi- The result overall has been declining news tion in the television market and reduced the space for politics and political spokespeople public service burdens on the private sector. (as noted earlier), more robust interrogation of Once again, and with relatively minor dissent, leaders, and a wide gulf between the news the paid advertising option was disregarded; and parties’ agendas (Norris, Curtice, Sanders, instead, the PEB-PPB system was written into Scammell, & Semetko, 1999). law for the first time. The third opportunity It might be thought in these circumstances came in 2002-2003, with the Electoral that parties looking for new ways to reach vot- Commission’s review of party political broad- ers might turn to paid advertising as poten- casting. In the light of audience fragmentation tially the most effective means to spread their across an ever-mushrooming media market, messages. After all, PEBs, even though strictly the commission inquired whether the system limited in number, remain the most important was valuable or indeed viable any longer. It direct, journalistically unmediated means of expressly raised the prospect of paid political party communication. However, paid political advertising and questioned whether prohibi- advertising on television continues to be uni- tion might be a breach of the freedom of formly opposed by all the major parties and expression provisions of the European Con- broadcasters. vention on Human Rights. Again, the major parties and broadcasters all opposed paid POLITICAL ADVERTISING: advertising, frequently citing the “level playing 3 THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT field” argument. The PPB-PEB system has been protected by Regulatory debates over the last 50 years have law since 1990, and the overarching frame- centered on three main aims: work is now overseen by the BBC and Ofcom, the new regulator of the commercial broad- 1. Provision of a relatively level electoral play- casting and telecommunications sectors.4 ing field for the major parties Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code lays down mini- 2. Control of campaign costs mum requirements for designated television 3. Balancing freedom of speech against the and radio channels in regard to carrying party other two aims broadcasts of specified lengths, currently between just under 3 and 5 minutes. All the There has been substantial cross-party con- main terrestrial channels (ITV, Channel 4, and sensus on all three aims. The first two are Channel 5) must air PEBs in peak time for gen- closely linked and between them explain the eral elections and national referenda. ITV and historic and continued reluctance to open the Channel 5 must carry broadcasts for European airwaves to paid political advertising. There parliamentary elections, and ITV additionally have been a number of occasions on which is tasked to transmit PEBs for Scottish, Welsh paid TV advertising might have been consid- and local elections and to run nonelection ered as a realistic option. The first was the broadcasts for the major parties, scheduled 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 69

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 69

Table 4.2 Summary of PPB and PEB Rules

General Scottish, Allocation Elections Welsh, Time and and European Local, and Spec: Schedule Scheduling Referenda Elections Nonelection PEBs Regulator Guidelines Decisions

TV BBC1 and BBC, BBC, 2:40, Ofcom Major BBC and 2, ITV, ITV, ITV 3:40, and BBC parties: designated Channels 4 Channel 5 or PEBs must broadcasters and 5 4:40 be shown in peak time Radio BBC, BBC BBC Max Other Classic 2:30 parties: FM, talk between SPORT 5:30 and Virgin 1215 11:30 p.m.

SOURCE: Ofcom Rules on Party Political and Referendum Broadcasts (Broadcast guidance: Ofcom, 2004).

around key events in the political calendar (see Pro-Life Alliance, bizarre exhibitions of tran- Table 4.2). The broadcasts must be offered to scendental meditation from the Natural Law select “major parties”: Conservative, Labour, Party, and pop music from the Monster Liberal Democrat, plus the Scottish Nationalists Raving Loony Party. and their Welsh counterparts (Plaid Cymru) The Ofcom code sets the guidelines but and four parties in Northern Ireland (the leaves the detail of allocation and scheduling Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein, the Ulster in the care of the individual “designated” com- Unionists, and the Social Democratic Labour mercial broadcasters. In practice, together Party). “Minor” parties may also qualify for with the BBC, they pool their deliberations PEBs, provided they are registered with the in the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group, which Electoral Commission and contest at least one decides how many PEBs each qualifying party sixth of all seats up for election. should get and at what dates and times they Thus the PEB rules keep political advertis- should be shown. By convention since 1964, ing on television tightly within the party the Conservative and Labour parties have ambit. They prevent “soft” support from received five PEBs each per general election semidetached party backers, which was such a and the Liberals not fewer than three, usually feature of the 2004 U.S. presidential cam- four. Allotments to minor parties are based paign. However, at every general election in loosely on preexisting strength in Parliament recent times, there have been a variety of and current strength in the polls but rarely single-issue, special interest and fringe groups amount to more than one each. willing to meet the costs of the qualification It is not immediately obvious why broadcast- benchmark. The 2001 general election, for ers should be granted power of allocation, and example, saw PEBs from the anti-European the Electoral Commission’s review revealed anx- Union U.K. Independence Party, the Green iety among many political parties that broad- Party, and two left-wing groups (the Socialist casters’ self-interest might outweigh wider Alliance and Socialist Labour); previous cam- democratic concerns. The minor parties in par- paigns have aired PEBs from the antiabortion ticular complained that present arrangements 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 70

70 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

favour the status quo and unfairly restrict their established independent body, the Electoral opportunities to reach the national audience. Commission. The commission defines the The commission recommended that the alloca- official campaign period—normally 4 to 5 tion should be handled directly by Ofcom weeks—and sets spending caps for national (Electoral Commission, 2003, p. 21). At the time campaigns, currently just under £16 million of writing, the government was considering the per party. Print advertising remains the largest recommendation, following a further public con- single item of expenditure in the two major sultation, but it seemed unlikely that there would parties’ campaigns, accounting for 34% of the be any major changes. In part, this stems from Conservatives’ total 2001 election spending reluctance to undermine broadcasters’ goodwill, and 46% of Labour’s, according to the without which the entire PPB-PEB system might Electoral Commission’s official register. collapse. Further, successive governments have Freedom of speech is the third regulatory upheld the principle that Parliament should not aim, and this is protected in the Ofcom interfere with the broadcasters’ independence to Broadcasting Code, which states that editorial control the schedules and content of their own control of PPBs and PEBs rests with the parties. services (Electoral Commission, 2003, p. 21). Thus party broadcasts are free from the normal The second aim, control of costs, has also commercial advertising consumer protections been a powerful argument in favour of the of “honesty” and “truthfulness” and are not PEBs and against the introduction of paid subject to the complaints procedures that political advertising. The ban has “almost cer- Ofcom adjudicates for regular commercials. tainly” contained the costs of national cam- However, freedom comes with two caveats: paigns, such that “central election spending in PEBs and PPBs must be announced—“There Britain is no higher in real terms than in the now follows a party political broadcast from 1960s and is barely higher than in the pre-war the _____ party”—and the broadcasters are years” (Pinto-Duschinsky, 1992). The stan- required by law to comply with taste and dard contrast, which Pinto-Duschinsky makes, decency standards. The latter led to a landmark is with the United States, where, despite test case by the Pro-Life Alliance against the reforms of campaign finance regulations, costs BBC. The alliance claimed that the BBC had continue to spiral upwards amid the paid tele- overstepped its powers by insisting, on taste and vision advertising free-for-all. Moreover, the decency grounds, that graphic images of aborted PEBs effectively offer a subsidy in kind, offset- foetuses be cut from an alliance PEB during ting to some degree the historic fund-raising the1997 election. The case was appealed up to advantage of the Conservative Party. The the House of Lords, which in 2003 eventually Conservatives have at times flaunted their ruled that the BBC had acted within the law. greater financial muscle with heavy spending Political freedom of speech in press advertising is on newspaper advertising. They spent more near total. Any party, group, or individual may than twice Labour’s campaign total in the buy advertising in the usual way, and the con- 1983 and 1987 elections, most of it on print tent is exempt from the complaints process advertising. Those campaigns threatened to administered by the commercial self-regulatory raise the stakes for campaign spending and body, the Advertising Standards Authority.5 exposed the historic anomaly whereby there were tight legal constraints on constituency THE DEVELOPMENT OF candidates but no regulation at all of national POLITICAL ADVERTISING campaign spending. The rules changed in 2000, when national campaign expenditure There are two seemingly opposed ways to tell was brought under the control of a newly the story of political advertising in the United 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 71

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 71

Kingdom. First, the narrative of decline: Conservatives’ splurge of the 1980s was Advertising has become increasingly marginal against the trend and left the party in consid- to campaigns constructed for television news. erable debt. Since then, newspaper advertising Second, the rise of political marketing: Parties has decreased at every election. Total pages rely increasingly on marketing and advertis- purchased in 2001 were less than one third of ing expertise to map electoral strategy and the 1997 figure, and Labour was the only develop party and leader images. In fact, these major party to advertise nationally (Scammell two views are not contradictory. Both are true. & Harrop, 2002, pp. 178–179). Print advertis- Political advertising fails to compete with ing spending has shifted to billboards, which television news as the site of the campaign bat- can be targeted more precisely to battleground tle. TV provides the most important and the constituencies and which offer the added ben- most trusted source of national news for most efit of doubling as photo opportunities. people,6 and given its obligations for impar- The story of the decline of PEBs is in one tiality and balance, the major parties can be sense inevitable, given the history of television. assured of airtime. Since the 1960s, by which Before the introduction of commercial TV, the time television had arrived in virtually every PEBs were the campaign on television. The home, a succession of party leaders has felt BBC was so concerned to appear politically that they won or lost because of television neutral that it eschewed any campaign cover- (Scammell, 1995, p. 37). Campaigns have age at all, apart from an election night results become increasingly dominated by television, service (Scammell & Semetko, 1995, pp. 22-23). to the detriment of some traditional activities, Instead, the BBC persuaded the parties to take such as local hustings and doorstep canvass- PEBs, one each for the major parties in the ing. Leaders’ tours have been redesigned 1951 and 1955 elections. From such unique around news deadlines and camera-friendly beginnings, there was really no way but down images are de rigueur for all facets of the cam- for the PEBs. However, the true golden age of paign, from the daily round of morning press PEBs came later, from 1959 to 1966, with the conferences to evening rallies. Parties compete arrival of commercial television and the rapid to influence the television news agenda, to growth of the audience. By 1959, most homes drive their favoured sound bites and issues up had a set, ITV had transformed political cov- the bulletins, and to derail opponents with erage, removing some of the self-denying instant rebuttals and sometimes ridiculous shackles of the ultracautious BBC, pioneering gimmicks. Advertising itself has become a the reporting of campaigns and rejecting the device to influence the news agenda, with the former BBC custom of supplying an advance now common practice of combining press list of questions to interviewees. At the same conferences with unveilings of billboard time, PEBs were becoming established as the posters. At the same time, the parties, espe- main campaign tool on television. The alloca- cially Labour, have tried with some success to tion gradually increased in number to the cur- extract news mileage from the PEBs, with pri- rent ration of five each for the Conservatives vate previews for the press and by capitalizing and Labour by the 1964 election. The broad- on celebrity, with broadcasts made by film casts were shown simultaneously on both directors and featuring pop stars and other channels, thus ensuring a huge captive household names. national audience. Initially reluctant, politi- Given assured opportunities for free public- cians began to adapt to the new monster of TV ity through television and partisan press, it is and to relish its potential power. The 1959 no surprise that relatively costly newspaper campaign was the watershed, the first “TV advertising has been in long-term decline. The election.” Labour seized its opportunity to 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 72

72 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

reach over the heads of the mainly institutionalised and were a major part of the Conservative press and talk directly to voters. campaign on television, broadcast simultane- It produced the first genre-conscious PEBs, ously on all channels; their allocation set the using a news bulletin format with a presenter terms for “balance” in political news. Blumler (Labour MP Tony Benn) introducing themes and McQuail (1968) provided the first in- and party spokespersons. However, it was the depth study of broadcasting of an election Conservatives who made the first “great” campaign, and they concluded that PEBs were PEB, one of the few that could ever be said to too dominant; they might guarantee balance in have had significant electoral influence. It was political reporting but risked boredom and the last ad of the campaign and featured alienation of viewers. They suggested scrap- then–Prime Minister Harold Macmillan alone, ping the simultaneous transmission of PEBs standing and speaking directly to the camera. and urged journalists to make more bold and It was rehearsed, with Macmillan tutored for challenging programs. the performance, and, what was highly In fact, concurrent transmission continued unusual for the time, it was recorded in advance. on BBC and ITV until the 1987 general elec- Toward the end of the broadcast, Macmillan tion. However, by then the decline thesis walked over to a vast globe, spun it, and was strongly rooted. Although Blumler and turned to the camera: “Let me tell you what McQuail (1968) found that PEBs were the I’m going to do about the rest of the world,” most significant source of campaign learning he said. The Supermac PEB entered Conser- for undecided voters in the 1964 campaign, vative mythology as an election winner: It was the expansion of news coverage had long since “dramatic,” according to future Conservative usurped their educational function. Martin Prime Minister Ted Heath; “It changed every- Harrison’s reviews of broadcasting in every thing” (Cockerell, 1988, p. 74). general election from 1974 tell a consistent Television historian Seymour-Ure (1991) story of decline. Although by 1974 PEBs had called the period from 1960 through 1974 the dwindled to less than a tenth of television’s coming of age of political broadcasting. From election output, Harrison (1974, p. 158) could deeply deferential beginnings, television still comment that they had “a special place in expanded the boundaries of political coverage, campaign strategy.” At every election since but prudently, picking its way toward an then, he has remarked on their withering sig- appropriate balance between the public’s right nificance, as they were undermined by contin- to know and undue interference in the political ually shortened time slots and loss of audience process. The emergence of investigative docu- as the television market expanded out of all mentary and more direct interviews gave rise to recognition. “Election broadcasts have been TV’s first celebrity political journalists, but the wasting away for many years” was his verdict politicians were the real personalities of the on the 2001 offering (Harrison, 2002, p. 149). screen. Typically, politicians complained at The decline thesis is unarguable in some television treatment: Labour Prime Minister ways. It is undeniable that the value of PEBs Harold Wilson, in particular, felt the BBC was has decreased. How could it be otherwise, as biased against him, and his first period of gov- we have moved from the time of two channels ernment (1964-1970) saw the first stirrings of and captive audiences to an era when there are threats to privatise the BBC. However, in ret- some 270 television channels and only five of rospect, it is fair to say that the politicians had them are obliged to show PEBs? However, it is never had it so good. Parliamentary and politi- equally true that advertisers and their crafts of cal coverage had a protected place in the sched- attitudinal research have moved to centre stage ules in peak time. The PEBs had become in party communication. The Conservative 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 73

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 73

Party intermittently had employed advertising party advertising, adopting commercial agencies since the 1929 general election, but it production values, radically reducing politi- was the hiring of Saatchi & Saatchi in 1978 cians’ speaking appearances, all but abandon- that broke the mould. At first the difference ing the tired format of politician talking head, seemed relatively modest. The agency was and pioneering an aggressive negative style of tasked to script as well as produce the party advertising. Three Saatchi ads stand out in broadcasts, thus enabling them to import tech- particular; all were controversial, and two can niques from product commercials, with the use stake claims to electoral influence. The first of actors, music, and voiceovers. Until then, and their most famous was the summer 1978 PEBs had largely been controlled by politicians, poster, “Labour isn’t working.” This was and the media experts’ role was confined pri- posted on only about 20 sites nationally but marily to technical advice. Saatchi prepared all created such strong protests from Labour that advertising and collateral material, such as it generated millions of pounds worth of free leaflets for doorstep delivery—again, a small publicity in news stories. Labour complained but significant step toward the unified, disci- that the poster’s picture of a dole queue plined communications that have become a snaking into the distance was a fraud, made up defining feature of modern campaigns. Print not of the genuinely unemployed but of actors and television advertising became coordinated, or Saatchi staff. As with all individual pieces the one to reinforce the message of the other, of advertising, it is virtually impossible to and all party publicity was linked by common estimate its overall impact on the election. themes, slogans, and visuals. It is no exaggera- However, some Conservative campaigners tion to describe much of modern campaigning believed that it unsettled the then–Labour as one long advertising campaign. Most impor- government, encouraging them to delay for tant, the agency pioneered the use of focus 9 months the general election that had been group research that supplemented the quanti- widely anticipated in the fall of 1978 and tative polling that had already become fairly thereby squandering their best chance of standard for the two major parties. It was a victory (Scammell, 1995, p. 72). The second decisive innovation, because the agency’s striking Saatchi effort was the combined expertise in rendering market data into com- poster and PPB “Labour’s Tax Bombshell” munication strategy effectively transformed the offensive for the 1992 general election. Not role of advertisers. It elevated them from tech- for the last time, Saatchi’s broadcast owed nical and tactical advisers to communications much to U.S. political advertising in use of strategists and “ensured their involvement in imagery and sound effects reminiscent of the political machinery to a degree unprece- George H. Bush’s attack on Michael Dukakis. dented for an advertising agency” (Scammell, The “Tax bombshell” became a motif of the 1995, p. 274). Labour copied much from Conservative campaign, and again, although it Saatchi for the 1987 election, establishing the is impossible to be precise about the effective- Shadow Communications Agency, whose lead- ness of individual ads, there is some polling ing figure, Philip Gould, remains close to Tony evidence that suggests that the issue of taxes Blair and a key party strategist. leapt in significance as a barrier to a Labour It is no coincidence that nearly all the more vote (Scammell, 1995, p. 261). memorable party advertising belongs not The third Saatchi ad, New Labour, New in the “golden age” but in the Saatchi and Danger, again a combined print and PPB post-Saatchi period. With the exception of campaign, came in the year before the 1997 Supermac, few ads of the pre-Saatchi era stand election. It has become colloquially known out. The Saatchis transformed the look of as “Demon Eyes” because of one ad that 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 74

74 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

depicted Labour leader Tony Blair with a features of elections over the last 10 years. scary smile and crazed, red eyes. “Demon Shock is a continuing tactic, especially for the Eyes” achieved infamy by being the only party Conservatives, who produced more fear-laden political advertising to fall foul of the shockers for the 2001 campaign, with scenes Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) code of street muggings and truant school children of practice. The ASA ruled that Blair had been burning cars and taking drugs. However, shown in a dishonest and sinister way and Labour, in particular, has developed a strategy asked for the advert to be withdrawn. The par- of capitalizing on the media appetite for ticular Blair poster was withdrawn, but the celebrity. Mike Newell, again, composed Conservatives kept a less personalised demon Angel, the final broadcast of the 1997 eyes motif. This episode encouraged the ASA campaign: It was a politician-free zone, a to withdraw altogether from adjudication of minidrama starring actor Peter Postlethwaite, political advertising, arguing that its integrity the working-class hero of the popular British would be threatened if it were to be drawn movie Brassed Off. Lifted, the party’s opening into party political disputes. Instead, it shot of the 2001 campaign, was a pop video– brought the matter up with the Neil style celebration of Labour’s record in govern- Committee on Standards in Public Life, which ment, which stoked media interest with the suggested that parties might agree on a volun- appearance of former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell. tary code of conduct. To date, no progress has Trevor Beattie, celebrated for his controversial been made in that direction. “Demon Eyes” “FCUK” advertising campaign for the fashion upset the regulator, but it impressed the adver- chain French Connection, was awarded the tising industry. The trade journal Campaign Labour account for both the 2001 and the awarded it the “campaign of the year” acco- 2005 elections. The hiring of Beattie itself lade, claiming it raised effectively the legiti- ensured news value, adding the allure of mate issue of Blair’s character and generated “cool” to Labour advertising and prompting £5 million worth of free publicity on the back attention from the normally nonpolitical of a £125,000 expenditure (Culf, 1997). media sectors of fashion and lifestyle. The Conservatives’ use of shock tactics to Chariots of Fire director Hugh Hudson whip up news value has been emulated by started the trend to celebrity admakers when, Labour, most notably in its 1992 weepy, in 1987, he made the first biography spot in Jennifer’s Ear. This was a groundbreaker in that PEB history, with a 10 minute film of Neil it was a minidrama made by a celebrity director, Kinnock, then Labour leader. The acclaim for Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) Kinnock—The Movie encouraged politicians and purported to be a fictional but true-to-life to step into previously off-limits territory. story of a little girl forced to wait in agony for an In 1983, Margaret Thatcher had rejected ear operation because of Conservative govern- Saatchi’s offer of a biopic, saying it was too ment neglect of the National Health Service. The presidential for British taste and the “Grantham Jennifer’s Ear saga became a bizarre news event, tape,” a rough cut made by (Lord) Tim Bell, as the Conservatives reacted with outrage, the was not authorised for development. How- name of the girl on whom the PEB was based ever, after Hudson’s breakthrough, all three was mysteriously leaked to the press, Jennifer’s parties have emulated the formula, and the parents gave conflicting accounts of the accu- biog PEB is now standard electoral fare. John racy of the story, and the media began its own Schlesinger (Midnight Cowboy) produced one mole hunt to track the source of the leak. for Conservative Prime Minister John Major The energetic effort to turn advertising into in 1992, acclaimed documentary film maker news has been one of the most impressive Molly Dineen made a home movie portrait of 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 75

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 75

Table 4.3 Campaign Experiences of the Electorate (2001 British Election)

Q: During the past few weeks, have you. . . ? (If Yes) Which party was that?

All (1997) Conservatives Labour Liberal Democrats

Received leafletsa 69 (89) 43 40 23 Saw TV PEBs 58 (73) 39 43 28 Saw posters 50 (70) 31 35 7 Saw leaders on TV 43 (36) 32 32 23 Saw press ads 37 (na) 23 25 11 Heard radio PEBs 16 (15) 10 10 7 Was called on 14 (24) 6 7 2 Received letter 12 (20) 6 6 2 Was telephoned 5 (7) 2 3 0 Party Web site 2 (na) 1 1 0 Attended meeting 1 (2) 0 1 1 Received party video 1 (na) 0 1 0 Received party e-mail 1 (na) <1 <10

SOURCE: Market and Opinion Research International, Ltd., for 24-30 May 2001 (from Butler & Kavanagh, 2002, p. 214). Note: PEB indicates party election broadcast. a. All candidates are enabled by law to post, free of charge, one leaflet to all registered voters in the relevant constituency.

Blair in 1997, and the Liberal Democrats have doorstep canvassing—in fact, all other campaign produced, albeit less celebrated, bio ads of material except individual candidates’ leaflets, their leaders, Paddy Ashdown and Charles which, by law, are posted free to all registered Kennedy, for the 1997 and 2001 campaigns, electors. All these factors have contributed respectively. to a recent revival of research interest in the Saatchi’s impact and the response from content and effects of PEBs. Labour have transformed PEBs such that they now bear little resemblance to the broadcasts POLITICAL ADVERTISING: of the “golden age.” They are documentary TRENDS OVER TIME evidence of the rise in prominence of the advertiser in British political communication. Overall, the main features of party advertising Even in the early 1980s, commentators might over the last 10 years may be summarised as have hesitated before labelling PEBs as adver- follows: tisements; in the cases of Labour and the Conservatives, at least, there would be few • Reduced length of PEBs • such qualms now. Ironically, although PEBs Cultivation of nonpolitical language and pro- motional styles have indisputably declined as a proportion of • Dominance of issue advertising the overall electoral information environment, • Conservative negativity within predomi- they have significantly raised their profile as nantly positive campaigns news. Moreover, survey data for recent elections indicates that advertising, PEBs, and posters Reduced Length of PEBs are the most commonly experienced direct party communication with voters (Table 4.3), The maximum length has declined pro- eclipsing meetings, rallies, phone calls, and gressively, from 30 minutes in 1955 to four 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 76

76 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

Table 4.4 Politicians Speaking in PEBs: Leaders Versus Other Party Spokespersons

Party (Year) Leader (%) Other Party Spokesperson (%)

Labour (1992) 29.2 70.7 Labour (1997) 100 0 Labour (2001) 100 0 Conservatives (1992) 81.3 18.6 Conservatives (1997) 100 0 Conservatives (2001) 100 0 Liberal Democrats (1992) 60 39.9 Liberal Democrats (1997) 99.40 0.6 Liberal Democrats (2001) 94.5 5.5

Note: PEB indicates party election broadcast.

minutes 40 seconds for the 2001 campaign. and values rooted in life experience. Although Harrison (as noted earlier) inter- Moreover, leaders have progressively eclipsed preted reduced length as evidence of decline, all other party spokespersons. As Table 4.4 the parties themselves encouraged the trend. shows, speaking appearances by party The Conservatives once again led the way. In spokespersons other than the leader have all the 1983 election, they decided unilaterally but disappeared in the last two general elec- not to fill their then 10-minute full quota but tions. This is a striking effect of professional- to produce shorter, sharper broadcasts. The ized communications and a stark contrast to 10-minute slot had become the standard from the pre-Saatchi era, when it was the norm for 1970 onwards, but increasingly, parties have the various members of leadership teams to opted not to run to the maximum. In 1997, present issues related to their individual port- only Labour ran a full-length piece—the biog- folios. It is, as a number of researchers have raphy PEB for Blair. All the other PEBs, from noted (Hodess, Tedesco, & Kaid, 2000; all the three main parties, kept to the mini- Scammell & Semetko, 1995), an indicator of mum prescribed length of just under 5 min- Americanization. utes. The pattern was repeated in 2001, when Less noted but equally striking is an the maximum time was cut to 4 minutes increasing tendency for ads not to use politi- 40 seconds and the minimum reduced to cians at all. The politician-free PEB was 2 minutes 30 seconds. Again, only Labour, unthinkable in the golden age and well and only on one occasion, chose the maxi- beyond; on the contrary, the PEB was the cam- mum. Declining length was a predictable step paign platform through which politicians as soon as production was put in the hands of could talk directly to voters. However, by agencies: Commercial advertisers are most 1997, we started to see PEBs that did not fea- comfortable with films of less than 1 minute. ture any images of politicians, even nonspeak- ing ones. The only politicians who now seem assured of speaking parts are the party leaders, Cultivation of Nonpolitical and even the leader’s place is not sacrosanct; Language and Promotional Styles rather, it is contingent upon strategic calcula- This trend is marked in a number of ways tion of his or her vote-winning appeal. Thus but most clearly by the personalisation of the Figure 4.1 shows a dramatic plunge in speak- PEBs, as exemplified in the leader-focused bio- ing time allotted to William Hague in 2001, as graphy ads that emphasise personal character compared to John Major in 1997. The agency 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 77

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 77

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0% Percentage of total time

10.0%

0.0% 19921997 2001 Election

Labour Conservatives Lib-Dem

Figure 4.1 Party Leaders Speaking in PEBs (Percentage of Total Time), 1992 to 2001

SOURCE: Based on all 42 PEBs for the three main parties. Note: Lib-Dem indicates the Liberal Democratic Party; PEB, party election broadcast.

Yellow M replaced Saatchi for the Conserva- apart from both their main rivals (Scammell & tives for the 2001 campaign, and its PEBs were Langer, in press). The Conservatives’ genre extraordinary in that they cut back radically range has been far more limited: In 2001 espe- on the use of any speech at all, preferring cially its PEBs borrowed heavily from the music, sound effects, and inter-titles to carry crime and horror genres. In 2001, the Liberal the message. Democrats were the only party that did These trends, the personalised leader por- not stray at all from the news-documentary traits, the absence of other politicians, and the format. emergence of the politician-free ad are of a piece with the move toward nonpolitical styles Dominance of Issue Advertising of presentation. Blair’s Labour has pursued the nonpolitical style with particular vigour. Research over successive U.K. elections con- News and documentary have been the pre- tinues to find that PEBs are informative. They dominant formats of PEBs generally over provide a reasonable guide to the main parties’ many years, but Labour increasingly has been key proposals and to the difference between willing to experiment with genre, using soap the party platforms (Blumler & McQuail, opera, romantic drama, spoof horror, satire, 1968; Hodess et al., 2000; Scammell & and pop video over the last two campaigns. By Semetko, 1995). Content analysis shows that in range of genre, Labour’s broadcasts stand the 1997-2001 campaigns, 75% of the three 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 78

78 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

Table 4.5 Information Content in Party PEBs in the Elections of 1997 and 2001

PEB Content Labour % (n) Conservatives % (n) Lib-Dem % (n) Total % (n)

Emphasis Issue 70 (7) 80 (8) 75 (6) 75 (21) Image 30 (3) 20 (2) 25 (2) 25 (7) Policy proposals Vague 50 (5) 80 (8) 62.5 (5) 64.3 (18) Specific 30 (3) 40 (4) 62.5 (5) 42.9 (12)

Note: Lib-Dem indicates the Liberal Democratic Party; PEB, party election broadcast.

main parties’ PEBs emphasised issues; 43% con- (Table 4.6), and both Labour and the Liberal tained specific policy proposals (see Table 4.5). Democrats have become slightly more positive The influence of professional advertisers has over time. The Conservatives are the persistent not diluted the dominance of issues. This might exception. Their advertising has become more seem surprising, given the trends to nonpolitical negative, culminating in the 2001 campaign, styles and because commercial advertising itself which was overwhelmingly attack focussed has shifted from hard-sell, information-based and contained the most negative series of PEBs campaigns to soft-sell, entertainment-oriented yet. Party is the only clear correlation to the audience pleasers (Corner, 1995). One might propensity to use negative advertising: The expect that Labour’s PEBs, as the most overtly Conservatives favoured it whether they were nonpolitical stylistically, might be less issue entering the election as the incumbent govern- focussed than the others and, indeed, that is the ment (1992 and 1997) or the opposition case. However, it is clear that, for all parties, (2001). Their 2001 campaign, with its horror issues remain the prime tool of differentiation, themes and failure to make any dent in a finding that conforms to Kaid, Tedesco, Labour’s landslide majority, was heavily criti- Dimitrova, and Williams’ (2003) internationally cised after the event. Under the leadership of comparative study: Issue-based advertising is the William Hague, the party had failed to make norm in long-established democracies. headway in the polls since 1997 and trailed well behind Labour going into the official campaign, and their negativity was in part a Negative Advertising desperate device to try to drive down voter The dominance of negative advertising and turnout. Although the evidence is not com- its potential damage to voter engagement has pletely conclusive, some research finds that been a major thrust of research in the United negative content has no effect on U.K. voters States over the last decade (Ansolabehere & (Norris et al., 1999; Sanders & Norris, 2002), Iyengar, 1995; Jamieson, 2000). However, as and, worse from the Conservative point of Kaid et al. (2003) have shown, negative view, Pattie and Johnston (2002) suggest that dominance is a peculiarly American problem. negative ads may backfire on the perpetrator. Despite clear evidence of U.K. campaigners’ willingness to draw lessons from America PEBs: Do They Work? (Plasser, 2002; Scammell, 1995), they have for the most part declined to go heavily negative. PEBs do not enjoy an enviable reputa- For the three elections from 1992, the PEBs tion. An Independent Television Commission overall have been predominantly positive (2001) survey of the 2001 election reported 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 79

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 79

Table 4.6 Negative Appeals in Party PEBs in the General Elections of 1992 through 2001

Dominant Focus Labour % (n) Conservatives % (n) Lib-Dem % (n) Total % (n)

Positive 67 (10) 20 (3) 75 (9) 52 (22) Negative 27 (4) 60 (9) 0 (0) 31 (13) Balanced 7 (1) 20 (3) 25 (3) 17 (7)

Note: Lib-Dem indicates the Liberal Democratic Party; PEB, party election broadcast.

that 57% of respondents turned off or higher. Thus, the decline thesis notwithstanding, switched channels when PEBs were announced; poll evidence suggests that PEBs remain the only 2% found them persuasive, and just 32% parties’ most important direct campaign tool. said they paid any attention. A survey for the By comparison with media-commissioned Electoral Commission (2001) presents more surveys, there has been relatively little aca- dismal findings: 53% of viewers said PEBs demic research into PEB effects since the were boring, 19% regarded them as dull, and 1960s. Blumler and McQuail’s seminal study just 13% thought them informative. These (1968) confirmed the reinforcement thesis of results are consistent over time. Audience media effects: PEBs appeared to have little research carried out for the broadcasting impact on the vote of the two major parties. authorities in the 1980s also reported that However, these authors also found that PEBs nearly half the viewer sample found PEBs were important learning resources for unde- “boring” (Wober & Svennevig, 1981; Wober, cided voters, that they did influence impres- Svennevig & Gunter, 1986). Market & sions of parties’ competence to govern, and Opinion Research International tracking sur- that the Liberals, in particular, benefited. The veys for the London Times over the three elec- more uncommitted voters were exposed to tions from 1992 to 2001 reported on each Liberal broadcasts, the better their opinion of occasion that only about one third of respon- the party. Pattie and Johnston (2002) revisited dents claimed some interest in party broad- PEB effects with an analysis of panel data for casts (cited in Electoral Commission, 2003, the 1997 campaign. Echoing Blumler and p. 12). For all the professional expertise, PEBs McQuail, they found no impact on voting have not improved their standing in public intentions for Labour and the Conservatives esteem. but a significant third-party effect: Viewing a However, these surveys also provide rea- Liberal Democrat broadcast increased support sons to suggest that PEBs are potentially for the party. They plausibly explain the third- valuable opportunities for the parties. The party effect by simple exposure: Elections pro- Electoral Commission (2003, pp. 12-13) vide the only occasions when the party receives reported that at least one PEB was seen by high levels of media attention, and the near- between 55% and 62% of the electorate, and equal ration of PEBs assists significantly in rais- although this figure is down from 73% in the ing a third party’s profile. Pattie and Johnston 1997 election, all the survey evidence indicates also found more general PEB effects: improved that PEBs still have considerable reach (also assessments of leaders’ qualities and, to a lesser see Table 4.3). Moreover, survey respondents extent, overall opinions of parties; also, Labour claimed that PEBs had been more influential PEBs (alone) reduced cynicism, encouraging on voting decisions (22%) than opinion polls viewers to agree that politicians were inter- (13%), posters (10%), and the Internet (4%). ested in more than just buying votes. These Only the news media rated significantly authors concluded: “The impact of PEBs is not 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 80

80 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

large . . . but they do have some bearing on national campaign expenditure limits. For all election outcomes in Britain” (p. 355). that, they have proved remarkably resilient. They are still the parties’ and broadcasters’ over- CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE whelmingly preferred alternative to paid political OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING advertising on television, and the latter prospect is nowhere on the horizon. Public opinion, judg- Political advertising in the future can be ing by poll evidence, is in favour of retaining expected to stay on current trend paths: PEBs. Even as most claim to be bored with them, increasingly personalized around leaders on a large majority says it is important that they the one hand, politician-free on the other, pre- be shown (Electoral Commission, 2003, p. 11). dominantly issue based, and predominantly Moreover, and despite broadcast channel prolif- positive. Perhaps, if Labour is the trend setter, eration, PEBs are still the most important direct there will be a further move to more commer- party communication with voters. cial, “nonpolitical” styles and uses of genre. They will survive for the foreseeable future, Negative advertising failed for the Conserva- and it is quite likely that they will be protected. tives in 2001, and there is little evidence in the In 2003, the Electoral Commission recom- United Kingdom to support the thesis that mended to the government that the obligation negative campaigns are more effective than to transmit party broadcasts be extended positive. As the parties start to gear up for beyond the present narrow group of terrestrial the next election, we can be certain of plenty channels and that any TV channel reaching a of attack advertising, especially in print. prescribed threshold of audience share be However, it would be equally surprising if the required to broadcast PEBs. The commission Conservatives did not wage a more positive recommended further that parties be given 7 PEB campaign. Given declining audiences for more flexibility and allowed to choose between the PEB-obliged channels, one would also packages of fewer, longer broadcasts or more, expect the parties to continue to use a variety shorter ones. Government responded positively of tactics to draw news attention to their in principle to the recommendations, although advertising. Shock and celebrity are the stan- by press time it had not produced formal pro- dards, but Labour in February 2005 gave us a posals for reform. However, the commission’s taste of the future with its use of Internet inter- recommendations seem to be proposals that activity. A selection of eight posters, all attack- the parties will find hard to resist. The future ing Tory leader Michael Howard, were thus may well be more and shorter PPBs or e-mailed to supporters, who were invited to PEBs, increasingly in the form of commercial vote for their favourite. The initiative back- advertising but without the payment. It would fired somewhat after claims that one of the be a typically British compromise. posters was a suspiciously anti-Semitic portrait of Howard. Nonetheless, the use of e-mail and Web sites for the dissemination of advertising NOTES looks set to be a new trend. 1. The BBC operates under Royal Charter, cur- Will PEBs survive? They seem increasingly rently renegotiated every 10 years. The charter is anachronistic in a multichannel world, and their due for renewal in 2006. In March 2005, the gov- chances of being seen at all will diminish as ernment made clear that it intended to extend licence fee funding for the BBC, payable by all broadcast audiences fragment. They are homes with televisions. not well regarded, and one of their major 2. Provisions in the Representation of the People justifications—that they control campaign Acts ensured that no parliamentary candidate costs—has been removed by the imposition of feature in television news without similar opportunity 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 81

4. Political Advertising in the United Kingdom 81

for his or her competitors. Although this rule has Communication Web site: http://www.ofcom not applied to national leaders talking about .org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/ppbrules/?a=87101 national issues, it has been applied strictly to local Butler, D. & Kavanagh, D. (2002). The British general constituency reports and, indeed, any themes or election of 2001. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave. issues that featured candidates in a nonleadership Cockerell, M. (1988). Live from number 10. capacity. London: Faber & Faber. 3. There was some minority dissent from some Corner, J. (1995). Television form and public commercial radio organisations and from a profes- address. London: Edward Arnold. sional association, the Institute of Practitioners in Culf, A. (1997, January 10). Demon eyes wins top Advertising (Electoral Commission, 2003, p. 42). award. The Guardian. 4. Ofcom was established by the Communi- Electoral Commission. (2001). Election 2001: The cations Act of 2003, and it replaced separate official results. London: Politicos. regulators for each of the television, radio, and Electoral Commission. (2003, January 13). Party telecoms sectors. The BBC continues to be regu- political broadcasting: Report and recommen- lated separately, by a board of governors whose dations. Retrieved November 30, 2005, from remit is established by Royal Charter, following http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/ parliamentary debate. templates/search/document.cfm/6718 5. The Advertising Standards Authority opted Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing out of any regulatory control of political advertis- media systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge ing following the 1997 election. It argued that University Press it might damage the advertising industry’s self- Harrison, M. (1974). Television and radio. In regulatory system if it were seen to have been D.Butler & D.Kavanagh (Eds.), The British deployed against one political party but not another. general election of 1974 (pp. 146–169). It also felt unable to rule sufficiently quickly to affect Basingstoke, England: Macmillan. an election campaign. Thus its Codes of Practice Harrison, M. (2002). Politics on the air. In D.Butler completely exempt political advertising. & D. Kavanagh (Eds.), The British general 6. The commercial TV regulator is required by election of 2001 (pp. 132–155). Basingstoke, law to survey public attitudes about television England: Macmillan. content, including perceptions of news, its impar- Hodess, R., Tedesco, J., & Kaid, L. L. (2002). tiality, and TV’s importance as a provider of British party election broadcasts: A compari- national and world information relative to news- son of 1992 and 1997. Harvard Journal of papers and other sources. These surveys have con- Press/Politics, 5(4), 55–70. sistently shown TV to be the most important and Independent Television Commission (2001). trusted source of national and world news. Election 2001: Viewers’ responses to the tele- 7. Preliminary analysis of the 2005 election vision coverage. London: Author. suggests that the Conservatives were less negative Jamieson, K. H. (2000). Everything you think you than previously, although both Labour and the know about politics . . . and why you are Liberal Democrats were more negative. wrong. New York: Basic Books. Kaid, L. L., Tedesco, J. C., Dimitrova, D. V., & REFERENCES Williams, A. P. (2003, September). Compar- ing political advertising around the world. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going neg- Paper presented at the Political Marketing ative. New York: Free Press. Conference, University of Middlesex, London. Blumler, J. G., & McQuail, D. (1968). Television in Norris, P., Curtice, J., Sanders, D., Scammell, M., politics. London: Faber & Faber. & Semetko, H. (1999). On message: Blumler, J. G., & Nossiter, T. (1989). The earnest Communicating the campaign. London: Sage. versus the determined. In I. Crewe & Pattie, C. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2002). Assessing the M. Harrop (Eds.), Political communications: TV campaign: The impact of party election The general election campaign of 1987 broadcasting on voters’ opinions in the 1997 (pp. 157–174). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge British general election. Political Communica- University Press. tion, 19, 333–358. Broadcast guidance: Ofcom rules on party political Pinto-Duschinsky, M. (1992, November 30). and referendum broadcasts. (2004, October). Labour £10 million campaign closes the gap Retrieved January 25, 2006, from the Office of with the Tories. London Times, p. 2. 04-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 4:13 PM Page 82

82 SCAMMELL AND LANGER

Plasser, F. (2002). Global political campaigning. Semetko, H., & Scammell, M. (2005, September London: Praeger. 1–4). Television news and elections: Lessons Sanders, D., & Norris, P. (2002, March). Advocacy from Britain and the U.S. Paper presented at and attack. Paper presented at the Conference the annual meeting of the American Political of the Euro Consortium for Political Research, Science Association, Washington, D.C. Turin, Italy. Seymour-Ure, C. (1991). The British press and Scammell, M. (1995). Designer politics. broadcasting since 1945. Oxford, England: Basingstoke, England: Macmillan. Blackwell. Scammell, M. (2001). The media and media Tunstall, J. (1997). The United Kingdom. In management. In A. Seldon (Ed.), The Blair Euromedia Research Group (Eds.), The media in effect: The Blair government 1997-2001 Western Europe (pp. 244–259). London: Sage. (pp. 509–534). London: Little, Brown. TV facts. (2006). Retrieved January 25, 2006, from Scammell, M., & Harrop, M. (2002). The press the Broadcasters Audience Research Board disarmed. In D. Butler & D. Kavanagh Web site: http://www.barb.co.uk/tvfacts.cfm? (Eds.), The British general election of flag=tvfacts 2001 (pp. 156–182). Basingstoke, England: Wober, J., & Svennevig, M. (1981). Party political Macmillan. broadcasts and their use for the viewing public. Scammell, M., & Langer, A. I. (in press). Political London: Independent Broadcasting Authority, advertising: Why is it so boring? Media, Audience Research Department. Culture & Society. Wober, J., Svennevig, M., & Gunter, B. (1986). The Scammell, M., & Semetko, H. (1995). Political television audience in the 1983 general elec- advertising on television: The British experi- tion. In I. Crewe & M. Harrop (Eds.), Political ence. In L. L. Kaid & C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds), communications: The general election cam- Political advertising in Western democracies paign of 1983 (pp. 95–103). Cambridge, (pp. 19–43). London: Sage. England: Cambridge University Press.