Julia Gillard is New Coke

Malcolm Gladwell, in his outstanding book Blink, discusses the colossal error of judgment made by Coca Cola during the 1980s, when it launched New Coke to tackle the incursion on their market share by Pepsi Cola. Coke’s executives were spooked by results of taste test market research into abandoning their time tested formula in favor of a new recipe. This decision proved disastrous for various reasons. I will call these factors the sip factor, the brand factor the context factor and the instinct factor. It is my assertion that the decision to knife Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard by factional powerbrokers has failed for the same reason that New Coke failed.

When dealing with cola, there is a major difference in consumer response depending upon the quantity consumed. Consumers liked Pepsi better when just taking a sip, because it was sweeter. When consuming an entire can, however, results are drastically different. Pepsi becomes too sweet. The same can be said with politicians. Kevin Rudd, as PM, was in the limelight every day, so naturally the public began to tire of some aspects of his personality. The opposition leader and front bench ministers, however, attracted much less attention. With Gillard, for example, her fake laugh and passion for the Bulldogs were a positive while she was spared from microscopic scrutiny. Now they are some of the many aspects of her personality that grate with the populace. While polling figures for Rudd were on a slide, a proper indicator of his popularity compared to Tony Abbott could only be reached following an election campaign, with both leaders exposed to the saturation coverage. Rudd, of course, had been to an election before, which brings us to the brand factor.

Pepsi Cola was gaining market share on Coke during the 80s, and many felt that the taste of Pepsi was superior. Coke, however had an ace up its sleeve; its’ branding. This included the famous logo, the colours, the jingle. Most importantly, generations of consumers had grown up with the brand, and felt comfortable with it. While the Kevin 07 brand was by no means as successful and developed as Coke, at least it was market tested in one of the most unforgiving markets ever; the political market. The rival product, Tony Abbott, had never been purchased nor had Julia Gillard. While the public was tiring of the taste of Kevin 07, they were yet to find a compatible alternative to quench their thirsts. Rudd deserved the opportunity to test his brand loyalty at an election.

Another error Coke made in the 80s was assuming that the lab environment translated accurately to the real world. This, however, was a false assumption. The only accurate way to test Coke vs Pepsi is to give the consumer a case of each, and then allow them to consume in their home over a period of time under ordinary circumstances. In the same way, asking someone how they will vote over the phone is grossly inadequate in simulating how someone will actually behave once they are in a polling booth. You cannot accurately test a product outside of the context in which it is used. Sadly, Kevin Rudd was never given the opportunity to prove this.

One of the overriding arguments of Gladwell’s book is that human beings are incapable of accurately enunciating the reasons behind their instincts. I believe this is as true of politics as it is of attraction in relationships or preference for Cola. There are so many factors involved, and the recent attempts by political parties to capture and distillate the instincts of voters are seriously misguided. Climate change is a perfect example. While people may intellectually approve of action, our instincts suspect that it will be a threat to us. The decision to assassinate Kevin Rudd by factional powerbrokers was based upon reams and reams of marketing research, not political instincts. This is why it failed. Until the ALP abandons market research as its primary political tool, they will continue to plummet to record depths of popularity.