Labor isn't selling this time

How do you win an election when whatever you say seems to turn voters off? That's a question Anna Bligh has seven days to answer, or be evicted from the executive suite.

We've market-tested the positive and negative ads of the ALP and the Liberal National Party with 665 voters. The results were devastating for the ALP.

It didn't matter which ALP ad voters were shown, twice as many were less likely to vote Labor after viewing compared to more likely: a net movement away in the vicinity of 20 per cent.

By contrast LNP negative ad enhanced the party's vote, with a net positive movement towards it of 17 per cent.

This is good, but as it is less than the movement caused by the ALP ad, this means it is less effective for the LNP than Labor's ad.

Worse for the ALP, among those voters who have already swung from it to the LNP, 70 per cent said the negative ad made them less likely to vote Labor.

So, the more Labor runs it, the more it is likely to confirm the trend of the polls, which show the LNP with 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

Generally, negative ads are much more effective than positive ones at shifting the vote, so let's look at the negative ones first.

Why does the Labor negative bomb and the LNP one fly? The main differences are content and tone.

The Labor ad is yet another rehash of the Whingeing Wendy ad, first seen in 1987. Twenty-two years later Labor is still using the same format, and even if voters weren't born when Wendy made her debut, the genre is as recognisable, and tired, as carpet-warehouse type ads. Subliminally this confirms what voters already think: that Labor has been in power too long.

Added to that, voters have a problem with Bligh's presentation. They see it as too harsh, too shallow and too reactive. What better way to remind them than to feature an ad with a harsh, judgmental protagonist?

The advertisement attacks Lawrence Springborg by portraying him as a hick with no clue about the economy. Voters see this as unfair and exaggerated. They believe Springborg's words are old and taken out of context. It brings out the sympathy vote and underlines other concerns about Labor: that it is a bully, and all spin and no substance.

Its final appeal is: "I don't think you understand, Mr Springborg, I just can't risk you." But voters have already made up their minds that it would be hard to do worse than under Labor. The risk at this stage is looking minimal.

In contrast, the LNP ad stars a folder that opens to reveal various claims about Labor's record on waste and mismanagement, all of which have newspaper clippings, numbers and footnotes attached. Voters give this ad marks for being factual. The format isn't new, but it doesn't draw attention to itself in the way that the Labor ad does.

It also works to reinforce the LNP's criticism that Labor can't govern well, while providing support for its contention that the LNP can fund its promises out of government efficiencies.

There's less to analyse in the positive ads.

The main problem for Labor is that even its supporters will frequently admit that its performance hasn't matched its rhetoric. They just think that the LNP would be worse.

Other voters think that no one could do any worse. No positive ad about Labor's record is going to work.

The LNP positive ad is a bit of nothing, making assurances about the future, but with no hard facts.

It's inoffensive, and that is the best thing that it has going for it: which pretty much sums up why Springborg and the LNP are ahead at this stage.

The audience ratings of these ads explains some puzzling things about the election. One is that while Labor normally significantly outspends its opponents, it appears to be underspending in this election. There's no point running ads if nothing you can say works.

Can Labor save this election? Probably not, but whether it runs to win or to come a good second, there is only one viable strategy open to it.

Labor needs to run 89 separate campaigns in 89 seats, hiding the Premier, and exposing the local members as much as possible.

On the other side, Springborg needs to associate local Labor candidates as strongly as possible with their leader and their party. Many of them have strong personal votes and may be hard to shift, particularly given voters' lack of enthusiasm for the LNP.

He may even consider making voters an offer: "I know you're not sure about me but how about giving me just one term? If you don't like me, vote me out again." This proposition was one that Wayne Goss used to win the 1989 election and, unlike Wendy, it might just work again this time.

As the ads show, Labor's marriage to the electorate has gone really bad. It's got to the stage of the "Nice day", "What's nice about it?" variety of "doesn't matter what you say you're always wrong" marital exchange.

Springborg is standing there as the rebound date. He might not be all that slick, but at least he's not Labor, is the way that voters are thinking of him.

At this stage, he looks like he just might get lucky.