Will March for Australia create an immigration political hurricane? + Media cedes to TikTok punks + Compounding magic 2

Hi

As media commentators would say, the environment out there is “febrile”.  In Australia, immigration has the potential to be our issue that creates serious divisions.

It’s a highly emotional topic, but given there are so many issues and lessons for communicators, I couldn’t ignore it.

In this edition, I use a non-political, non-cultural, non-economic framework to analyse the debate, a framework that hopefully removes some emotion and vested interests.

As usual, let me know if you have any comments.

Ben

Will March for Australia create a ‘political hurricane’ around immigration?

On August 31, the March for Australia exploded onto the national consciousness and instantly divided the country.

Some say it’s clear evidence of latent racism in the Anglo-Celtic psyche; others argue it was an airing of legitimate grievances about an issue ignored by the ruling elites and media class.

But for me, it’s a useful opportunity to explore a ‘psycho-demographic’ model – Values Modes – that can be helpful for communicators and campaigners.

It’s a model that can also help us assess the likelihood of the March for Australia movement gaining momentum and succeeding; but also how Big Australia advocates can communicate better.

3 social groups

A lot of traditional marketing and communications strategy development groups people together based on sex, wealth, age, etc.

But Values Modes – a framework developed in the UK by Cultural Dynamics and used by campaign expert Chris Rose – is an interesting model that divides society into three groups based on Maslow’s motivational values; ie, that as needs are met, humans move from security, to esteem of others, to self-acutalisation.

The three ‘Maslow Groups’ in society are:

· The Settlers (set aside any connotations with colonial settlers) who are primarily focused on safety. They value tradition and identity. This roughly aligns with the working and rural classes, plus social conservatives.

 · The second group, the Prospectors, having security, are more outer focused. They are primarily concerned with self-esteem and success, and particularly the symbols of success. I think this group would include the aspirational lower and middle classes and their leaders in the managerial/corporate class.

· The third group are the Pioneers. Having moved beyond security and esteem, they have become inner directed and are focused on self-actualisation, through things like ethics and justice, which ultimately leads them to a global, liberal perspective. Roughly, the Pioneers include elements of young people, knowledge workers, and the cultural elites.

These groupings somewhat reflect David Goodhart’s two political and social groups – the “somewheres” (rooted in place and community) and the “anywhere” (globalist, liberal and highly educated).

As Chris Rose notes, most social change and campaigns follow a familiar pattern:

1. Being unbound by tradition and open to new ideas and behaviours, Pioneers initiate change

2. They are then adopted by Prospectors, and finally

3. When they are perceived as normal, the change is accepted by the Settlers.

Most campaigns are driven by Pioneers, particularly around social justice and climate in recent decades.

But Rose makes a very important point: while a movement might be based in one Maslow Group, for a campaign to be seen as ‘politically credible’, it needs to work across all groups.

(A major trap for Pioneer activists is an inability to communicate outside their highly motivated Pioneer bubbles.)

How the 3 groups view immigration

When it comes to immigration, what is the state of play amongst the three groups in Australia?

1. Pioneers are pro-immigration and focused on racial justice and equality. They believe bringing in diverse cultures is progressive and positive. Any questioning of other cultures is racist. But amongst them, some have quibbles about the environmental impact of a fast-growing population. (An underreported aspect of March for Australia was David Pocock’s support for a population debate; but also that elements of the march attendees and organisers were environmentally driven.)

2. The Prospectors are pro-immigration because, in the absence of productivity growth, immigration has driven the economy upon which their careers and status depend, so they have been net winners. They fear that if we stop the flow of people, the economy will crash. But I suspect the prospectors are beginning to question this narrative, and to wonder whether, when it comes to housing, education, services, jobs, and status, they – and particularly their children – are in fact losers under mass immigration. (Ironically, a lot of new migrants are themselves Prospectors — India and China have huge Prospector populations — and they too have concerns about the impact of immigration levels on their jobs and lives.)

3. The Settlers are clearly hostile to large-scale immigration. They can’t understand how the Pioneers and Prospectors are so happy to bring in large numbers of people, dilute their culture and harm their economic prospects. Why, they wonder, don’t the Pioneers and Prospectors care about their ‘own’? Why are they shut down and labelled racist when they express a love for their own culture and traditions?

This state of play has implications for both the March for Australia movement and the Big Australia promoters (which includes both major parties, big business, higher education, etc)

MFA: Winning or venting?

The really interesting thing about the March for Australia – and similar movements in Anglosphere countries – is that, unlike most campaign movements, it is rooted in the Settler group.

Much of the energy and emotion of MFA is harnessing Settler anger at the Prospectors and Pioneers ignoring their concerns around the cultural (and economic) impact of mass immigration.

But assuming society is divided roughly 1/3 into each group, if Pioneers and Prospectors are pro-immigration, the Settlers are a clear minority.

Politicians can therefore ignore and dismiss them.

To win, as Rose notes, the MFA would need a communication strategy that mobilises, not just Settlers, but Prospectors … and even some Pioneers.

(The biggest hope for MFA is that polls show a majority of Australians are opposed to mass immigration, which likely reflects Settlers plus a growing cohort of concerned Prospectors.)

A successful MFA campaign would therefore likely have to be three-pronged:

· Cultural (Settlers)

· Economic/housing (Prospectors + Settlers), and

· Environmental (Pioneers)

(Economic is potent because it has the potential to unite two groups.)

Importantly, a three-pronged strategy would help avoid Settlers’ anger aligning them with cultural extremists, because to do so would alienate moderate Prospectors from the cause.

But such a strategy would require MFA to make a decision: is the movement about winning the debate, or will it simply be a vent for Settler cultural frustration?

If it’s the former, that would require research, strategy, resources and discipline.

No doubt the MFA organisers would fear going ‘mainstream’ and losing energy; but the real risk is not going mainstream and failing to gain ‘political credibility’.

Big Australia coalition is vulnerable

At the same time, Big Australia supporters can’t simply continue with their communications strategy either.

They can’t continue to simply dismiss Settler anger as “racist” and shut down debate – or the Settler anger and mobilisation will accelerate. They need to begin listening to Settlers’ cultural concerns.

They also can’t assume that the pro-immigration coalition between Pioneers and Prospectors will continue to hold.

Big Australia advocates will particularly need to address the Prospectors’ growing concerns about living standards through a rational debate on the impact of high immigration numbers on the economy and housing. (A national population summit, anyone?) If a Prospector’s safety is threatened, they move down the Maslow values hierarchy and become more aligned with Settlers.

And I suspect they will need to start addressing a section of the Pioneers’ fears around the environment.

Political hurricane

The Big Australia advocates have been lucky until now because no one has successfully mobilised enough groups – combined, the majority of Australians – concerned with high levels of immigration.

March for Australia has already rallied thousands into the streets, prompted a response from the world’s largest democracy, India, and triggered the resignation of a shadow minister.

It is a tremor that risks becoming an earthquake if MFA can continue its momentum.

Or as The Australian’s Paul Kelly says, immigration, if it continues to be poorly handled by the media and elites, could become a “political hurricane”.

(The solution to this, of course, is a rational, well-planned population policy for Australia as a nation.)

***

The media’s immigration cringe pushes Aussies online into the hands of TikTokers

The major problem with Australia’s – and I’d argue much of the media’s – inability to have a reasoned immigration debate is that it simply pushes people online, particularly young Australians, where we find a very mixed bag indeed.

Many of the key organisers of the march were young online influencers.

One organiser, Hugo Lennon, a social influencer who goes by the name ‘Auspill’, is a surprisingly articulate, privately educated grandson of a wealthy property developer.

I had never heard of him, but my very non-political teenage kids knew him well.

I suspect that one of the reasons for the March for Australia’s success is that Auspill Lennon brought somewhat of a Prospector sensibility and sophistication to the March for Australia team.

But there are other unsavoury characters lurking online, seeking to exploit fears and concerns around immigration.

***

‘Content compounding’ drives asset manager growth

In the last edition, I focused on the power of compounding in communications.

That is, the idea that one piece of communication might not have a big impact on its own. But if you keep producing, it all adds up to something big.

So I was interested to read finance blogger Ben Carlson reflect on his ten years at Ritholtz Asset Management.

Ritholtz was started by another influential blogger, Barry Ritholtz, and the firm has used content and thought leadership to grow rapidly from $US140 million to $US6.4 billion in a decade.

But Carlson says there was no instant, magic pill when it came to content.

“It’s not a single piece of content that matters,” he said. “It’s the consistent effort that compounds over time and keeps you top of mind when people need advice.”