This section of the report presents the results from the qualitative research on the Voter Information Campaign.
The results of qualitative research are directional in nature: they provide an indication of participants' views about the issues explored, but they cannot be generalized to the full population of members of the targeted audience segments.
Type of poll
With the exception of individuals specifically recruited as 'non-voters' (i.e. one group in Montreal and one in Halifax), nearly all participants said they voted in the most recent federal election. This included all participants specifically recruited as 'voters' (one group in each of Montreal, Halifax, and Vancouver), most individuals in each of the other groups (including both online groups), and all participants in the in-depth interviews.
Most participants who said they voted specified that they did so on election day. The remainder voted at advance polls. Groups tended to include at least one advance voter, and there were several advance voters among the in-depth interview participants. In three groups, however, at least half of the participants said they voted on an advance polling day. These groups included voters in Montreal, youth with post-secondary education in Montreal, and new Canadians in Vancouver.
Perceptions of the voting process
Based on their experience in the most recent federal election, nearly all participants who voted described the process of voting as "easy" or "very easy" or used expressions to that effect (e.g. "simple", "no problems", "straightforward"). Routinely given reasons to explain what made the process easy included:
Relatively few participants who voted identified a difficulty with the process; those who did sometimes qualified the difficulty as minor or small. Participants who identified a difficulty or some degree of difficulty with the voting process most often pointed to the inconvenience of long lines at the polling place or having to wait a while to vote. Participants occasionally attributed this to lack of organization or limited staff at their polling place, but it was most often attributed to the number of people showing up to vote at approximately the same time.
Beyond this, the only difficulties identified with any frequency related to the VIC. Examples included:
Difficulties identified infrequently or by individual participants included:
Reasons for voting in advance polls
Participants who voted on an advance polling day most often said that they had done so for convenience, usually to avoid potential delays or waiting times on voting day–but sometimes, in their words, "just to get it done." Some explained that they had voted in advance because they would not be able to vote on the official election date. Specific reasons for not being able to vote on election day included working, being out of town, and having a surgery scheduled for election day. Finally, a few participants who voted on an advance polling day said that they had not planned to do so but noticed an advance polling place and decided to take the opportunity to cast their vote.
Reasons for not voting
Participants who did not vote in the federal election tended to regard the voting process as easy. No one identified the difficulty of the process as a reason for not voting, or as playing any role in their decision to not vote.
Reasons for not voting in the most recent federal election tended to fall into one of two categories: inability to vote due to everyday life reasons and decisions not to vote due to political reasons. Everyday life reasons included working or being at work, being in the process of moving, and being out of the country. Political reasons included cynicism about politics, inability to decide who to vote for, and lack of interest in politics. Other self-ascribed reasons for not voting included laziness, lack of motivation, and voting not being a priority.
Information sought about where, when, and the ways to vote
One or more participants in most groups, as well as a few participants in the in-depth interviews, said that they had looked for some information about where, when, and the ways to vote. Participants most likely to say that they had looked for information included: new Canadians in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver; youth with post-secondary education in Montreal; and participants with a mobility limitation (online group). Only in two groups did none of the participants say that they had looked for information: non-voters in Halifax; and youth not in education, employment, or training in Winnipeg.
Routinely sought types of information included: information about voting locations and voting hours, information about acceptable pieces of identification or ID requirements, and information about early voting options. Some participants with a mobility limitation (online group) were looking specifically for accessibility-related information (location of access doors in polling places, wheelchair accessibility, and parking).
Other types of information sought included how to register or verify whether one was registered to vote, how to update address information, whether one must have one's VIC to vote, about voting by mail, and the name of one's electoral district. Some participants in the online focus groups and in the in-depth interviews sought information about specific candidates, but not about how, where, or when to vote.
To the extent that there was any pattern or consistency as to when participants sought the information they wanted or needed, it tended to revolve around the VIC. More specifically, a number of participants said that they had looked for information in one of the following situations:
Beyond this, participants tended to specify timeframes in relation to election day to explain when they had looked for information (e.g. a few weeks before the election, a few days before the election, on election day). Some participants could not recall or specify when they had looked for the information they wanted.
Sources of information
Participants had routinely sought information they wanted or needed on their VIC, on Elections Canada's website, or through a Google search. As noted above, some participants had wanted information that they knew was available on their VIC. As a result, they waited until they received their VIC rather than actively seeking out the information in question.
Some used the Elections Canada website to find out whether they were registered to vote, how to register a change of address, and what pieces of ID were acceptable. Others used Google and Google Maps to find information about their polling place (e.g. distance, directions, parking, accessibility). Some said that they had found the information they wanted in the Elections Canada Guide to the federal election booklet, and a few said that they had sought information through social media (for example, by asking friends or acquaintances). Nearly all said that they were able to get the information they wanted.
Sources of information about politics and current events
Participants collectively identified various sources they typically use to get information about current events and politics. Routinely identified sources included:
Some said they prefer local sources for their news (e.g. CP24 in Toronto) because they are primarily interested in local news, while a few said that said that they follow 'alternative' news outlets explaining that they do not trust 'conventional' media sources because of the latter's biases.
Likelihood of noticing ads
Participants identified various places where they are most likely to notice ads, but the most frequently identified one was social media. Indeed, many participants in most groups identified social media as the place or one of the places where they are most likely to notice ads. At least a few participants in most groups identified other places that they are most likely to notice ads. These include television, radio, and outdoors (billboards, bus shelters, or public transit). Participants were least likely to identify newspapers and magazines as places where they are most likely to notice ads.
Awareness of Elections Canada on social media
Only a few participants said that they follow Elections Canada on social media. Indeed, most participants said that they were unaware that Elections Canada provides news and information on voting and employment opportunities through social media. Those who do follow Elections Canada on social media said that they do so for potential updates related to elections and also for potential employment opportunities. A few followed Elections Canada social media accounts only during the election period and unfollowed the accounts afterward.
There was limited interest among most participants in following Elections Canada on social media, mainly because they saw no need to do so. Participants routinely explained that elections usually take place every four years and that this would be the only time they might interact with Elections Canada (something they could do through the agency's website if they needed to). Those who did express some interest said that they would do so in the lead-up to an election, to receive any updates related to elections, and to see about any employment opportunities, including employment opportunities during elections.
This section reports on participant feedback related to ads that were part of a national multimedia information campaign conducted by Elections Canada during the recent federal election to provide Canadians information on when, where, and the ways to register and vote. The ads appeared on television, radio, in print, on social media, and as banner ads on the Internet.
Participants reviewed ads from each of the four phases of the campaign. Each phase focused on a specific theme: registration, the VIC, early voting options, and election day. Participants reviewed three ads from each phase of the campaign, for a total of 12 ads.footnote 1 After the presentation of each set of ads, participants were asked specific questions. The process was then repeated for each successive set of ads.
The ads that were presented to participants ran in various media, including television, radio, print, social media, and the web. The table below identifies the media of ads participants reviewed for each of the four phases of the campaign:
| Information Campaign Phase | TV | Radio | Social media (animated) | Social media (static) | Web (banner) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Registration | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| VIC | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Early voting | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Election day | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Feedback from participants is presented under two main headings below: assessment of ads by medium, where the feedback relates primarily to the vehicle for the ad (television, radio, print, social media, or web); and assessment of ads by phase, which includes the perceived main message of the ads, the perceived target audience, and action taken or that could be taken as a result of exposure to the ads.
Overall, participants were most likely to react positively to television and radio ads, which were routinely identifying them as the ads they liked most in the phases of the information campaign they appeared in (registration and early voting phases in the case of television ads; VIC and election day phases in the case of radio ads).
For the social media ads, the animated versions tended to elicit distinct and opposing (positive versus negative) reactions, while the static versions tended to elicit reactions ranging from neutral to mildly negative. Banner ads elicited mixed reactions (ranging from positive, to neutral, to negative). Print ads tended to elicit reactions ranging from neutral to negative, though reaction to the information content tended to be positive.
Participants were shown two television ads, one dealing with registration and the other dealing with early voting options. The ads were actor-based and accompanied by a voiceover and mainly acoustic background music. The target audience for these ads were the general population of electors, including Indigenous electors and members of ethnic communities.
At least a few participants in nearly every group and some in-depth interview participants said that they recalled seeing one of the TV ads during the election period. Nearly everyone who recalled seeing one of the ads also recalled watching it in its entirety at least the first time they saw it.
Key finding:
The stories of the TV ads made them relatable and easy to understand. The pre-registration TV ad was considered more effective than the early voting TV ad, in that the story and its message were more immediately clear.
Participants across all groups and all in-depth interview participants tended to react positively to the television ads, and participants frequently ranked them as their favourite ads in the registration and early voting phases of the campaign. As part of their overall impressions, participants routinely described the television ads as clear and easy to understand, though this was more likely to be the case for the registration version than for the early voting version.
Routinely identified strengths or positive features of the television ads included:
Some said that they liked the television ads because they found it easier to understand ads that combined visual depictions and audio commentary (a voiceover). Others said that they liked the television ads because they personally preferred explanations or messages accompanied by visual depictions.
Negative feedback on the television ads was relatively limited and tended to focus on the early voting version, which was sometimes described as confusing or unclear. Specifically, it was noted that understanding the ad required a moment's reflection: it was not immediately clear that the various scenarios (someone in an airport, a medical professional, someone renovating their home) depicted being away from home or being too busy to vote on election day, until that was expressed through the voiceover. There was a sense that someone who is not focused completely on the ad from beginning to end could be momentarily confused about its meaning (wondering, for example, whether it was a travel ad, a medical ad, or an ad about home renovation). For this reason, a few new Canadians in Montreal identified the early voting television ad as the one they liked least among the ads for this phase of the campaign.footnote 2 Some Indigenous participants in Winnipeg felt that the voiceover in the television ads was delivered too quickly.
Participants heard two radio ads, one dealing with the VIC and the other dealing with election day. The ads included female and male voiceovers accompanied by background music in the same style as the TV ads. The target audience for these radio ads were the general population of electors, including Indigenous electors and members of ethnic communities.
At least a few participants in most groups and some in-depth interview participants said that they recalled hearing one of the radio ads during the election period. Among new Canadians in Toronto, a few said that they recalled hearing a radio ad in Hindi or Punjabi.
Key finding:
The radio ads were clear and easy to understand, mainly as a result of captivating voiceovers that delivered short, to-the-point messages.
Participants across all groups reacted positively to the radio ads. As was the case with the TV ads, the radio versions were frequently ranked as participants' favourite ads in the VIC and election day phases of the campaign. As part of their overall impressions, participants were nearly unanimous in describing the radio ads as clear and easy to understand. Indeed, some of the strengths participants associated with these ads were features that helped facilitate understanding.
Routinely identified strengths or positive features of the radio ads included:
Other strengths included the impression that the pacing of the ads was not too slow or too fast, the impression that the background music and the announcer's voice complemented one another, and the fact that the election day version specified that voters could register at the polling place on the day of the election, seen by some as important information. Some participants said that they liked or preferred the radio ads because they were habitual radio listeners.
Negative feedback on the radio ads was limited and tended to focus on the announcers' voices. Specifically, some Indigenous participants in Winnipeg described the announcers' voices as too monotone, while a few youth participants in Vancouver described the announcers' voices as stereotypical (for example, similar to voiceovers in pharmaceutical ads), rendering the ads boring or not memorable. A few Indigenous participants in Winnipeg also described the pace of the radio ads as too quick. Beyond this, the only criticism was that the election day version of the ad did not mention the need to bring appropriate identification when voting.
Participants were shown four social media ads (two animated and two static). The animated ads included graphic icons on bright colour backgrounds with upbeat background music, and dealt with the registration and election day phases of the campaign. The static ads were of a design similar to the TV and print ads, using photos and information in text format. One static ad dealt with the registration phase and the other dealt with the early voting phase. The social media ads reviewed by participants targeted the following audiences: the general population, youth, Indigenous electors, new Canadians, and recent movers; the animated versions in particular targeted younger electors.
At least a few participants in most groups and in-depth interview participants recalled seeing one of the ads related to the registration and early voting phases, but few recalled seeing the election day social media ad.
Key finding:
The style of the animated social media ads made them attention-grabbing and appealing to younger voters. The static social media ads provided clear but limited information, and were not generally viewed as memorable.
The animated social media ads usually elicited distinct and opposing (positive versus negative) reactions. A number of participants ranked the animated social media version as their favourite ad in the registration or election day phases of the campaign, while others ranked it as the ad they liked least in these phases of the campaign. Participants often suggested that the ads appeared to be designed for a younger audience /millennials. While many indicated that this was a positive feature, some described the approach as too faddish in its attempt to appeal to youth. That said, most youth participants said that the ads resonated with them. Otherwise, most participants described the animated social media ads as clear and easy to understand, although some felt that they included features that interfered with understanding.
The static social media ads elicited more lukewarm responses from participants, with impressions tending to range from neutral/indifferent to mildly negative. A number of participants suggested that they would be unlikely to notice these ads if they came across them, because there was nothing attention-grabbing or memorable in them. That said, the ads were routinely described as clear and easy to understand. Participants were more likely to identify one of the static social media ads as the one they liked least rather than the one they liked most.
Routinely identified strengths or positive features of the animated social media ads included:
A few participants with hearing problems said that they liked the animated ads because the information was provided through a script (visually as opposed to by audio).
Underlying most negative criticism of the animated ads was an impression that they were too animated. Apart from the youth category, participants across groups often described the animated ads in the following ways:
Some added that these stylistic features (vivid colours, fast pace, background music) distracted from the main point, which was to inform them about the election.
Beyond this, negative criticism of the animated social media ads was relatively limited. Some participants said that these ads did not resonate with them because they were impersonal (as there were no people in them), while others said that they lacked a narrative or story-like dimension. A few youth participants criticized the registration version of the ad as being too long.
As noted above, the static social media ads elicited more lukewarm reactions from participants, with feedback tending to be more negative than positive. Perceived strengths or things participants liked about them included the impression that they were simple, straightforward, and clear, and that the colour combination in the early voting version was attractive and attention-grabbing. Some also liked the inclusion of the 'learn more' button in the registration version.
Negative reactions to the static versions included the impression that the information provided was limited or insufficient, that they were not memorable or attention-grabbing, and that the pictures were not particularly relevant (especially in the early voting version).
Participants were shown two web banner ads, one dealing with the VIC and the other dealing with election day. The banner ad for the VIC phase of the campaign was a multi-frame ad (including eight successive frames), while the election day version was a static ad. The ads targeted the general population of electors, including youth, Indigenous electors, new Canadians, and recent movers.
Recall of either of these ads was limited, with some participants adding that they would be unlikely to notice or pay attention to them if they did appear on their computer screen.
Key finding:
The web banner ads were clear and easy to understand, and the animated VIC version was described as including detailed and important information, but neither this version nor the static election day version of the banner ads was considered attention-grabbing.
Neither the animated VIC version nor the static election day version of the banner ads tended to resonate strongly with participants. They typically elicited mixed reactions ranging from positive, to neutral, to negative. Participants were more likely to react positively to the animated VIC version than to the static election day version, but both versions were routinely described as clear and easy to understand. Some added that, while the information in the election day ad was clear and easy to understand, it was also quite limited. The multi-frame ad was as likely to be identified as the most-liked or least-liked ad in the VIC phase of the campaign. No one identified the single-frame banner ad as their favourite in the election day phase of the campaign, though some identified it as their least liked version.
Routinely identified strengths of the VIC banner ad included:
The most frequent negative criticisms of the VIC version were that it moved too slowly, was too long, or contained too many frames. As a result, it did not retain the viewer's attention. Some described the slow-moving frames as a distracting or annoying feature rather than an attention-grabbing or attention-retaining one. Some also criticized the overall look or design of the ad, describing it as having an "unprofessional" or "unofficial" look and feel. Finally, some participants provided mixed reactions, observing that they liked the information in the ad but were neutral or indifferent to the style or design.
Feedback on the election day version of the banner ad was relatively limited, with many reacting indifferently or neutrally to it. Positive feedback focused on its simplicity (for example, that it served as a good basic reminder) and a few said that they liked the colour combination. Many more, however, reacted negatively to the colour or colour combination, especially the black background, which was described by some as ugly ("moche" in French). Others said that, beyond serving as a reminder of the election date, the ad provided no real information or call to action.
Participants were shown two print ads, one dealing with the VIC and the other dealing with early voting. The ads included images of actors similar to the visuals found in the TV and static social media ads. The ads targeted an older demographic within the general population of electors and including Indigenous electors and members of ethnic communities.
Very few participants recalled seeing either of the print ads.
Key finding:
The print ads tested well in terms of content: they were clear and easy to understand and, especially in the case of the early voting version, provided important details. On the other hand, the ads were viewed as boring or unattractive in terms of presentation.
Overall, print ads tended to elicit reactions ranging from neutral to negative, though reaction to the information they provided tended to be positive, with participants routinely describing it as clear and easy to understand. Despite positive reactions to the content, participants across most groups identified one of the print ads as the one they liked least in the early voting and/or VIC phases of the campaign, while only a few identified either as their favourite. Neutral or indifferent reaction was sometimes linked to participants saying that they do not habitually engage with print media; so, such ads would be unlikely to resonate with them. In particular, some young people who participated in the focus groups mentioned that they rarely or never engage with print media.
The most frequently identified strength or positive features of the print ads were the details provided and the information's clarity. For example, perceived strengths of the early voting print ad included identification of specific options for voting before election day and specific dates for advance polls. Some participants who described themselves as newspaper readers also said that they liked the ads because they could re-read the information and save it for future reference if necessary.
Other perceived strengths or positive features included:
Routinely identified weaknesses or criticisms of the print ads included:
As noted above, some feedback elicited from participants can be more appropriately linked to the ad phase than the specific medium.
Overall, participants had no difficulty identifying a main message or perceived target audience for the ads in the various phases of the ad campaign, suggesting that both were relatively straightforward or even self-evident. Perhaps not surprisingly, there was often overlap of perceived messages and target audiences across phases of the campaign. While few participants took any action in response to the ads they had seen or heard, they had no difficulty identifying types of action that someone could take as a result of seeing or hearing an ad from a particular phase of the campaign.
Participants routinely suggested that the main message in the set of ads from the registration period focused on the importance of being registered to vote, including variations on the following:
According to some participants, the main message in this set of ads was a reminder to vote or exercise their right to vote, while a few others suggested that the main message was that voting is easy.
Participants across all audiences regularly identified the target audience for this set of ads as one or more of the following: first-time voters, young voters, new Canadians, and Canadians who had recently turned 18. One additional group identified less often but still relatively frequently was people who had recently moved. The only other perceived target audience identified with any frequency was everyone or voters in general. Some suggested that the target audience was people uncertain about whether they would vote.
Only a few participants said that they had personally taken any action as a result of seeing an ad during this phase of the campaign. This included checking the information on one's VIC, checking to see whether one was registered to vote, checking to see how to register, and looking for general information on voting. When it came to action that could be taken as a result of these ads, the following were identified:
Most participants did not take any action as a result of seeing an ad, because they did not need to or already had the information.
Participants consistently suggested that the main message in the set of ads related to the VIC focused on the significance of the card, with specific messages routinely including:
While participants most often suggested that the ads in this phase of the campaign targeted everyone or all voters, it was also routinely suggested across all groups and by in-depth interview participants that the ads targeted or were particularly important to first-time voters, young voters, new Canadians, and people who had recently moved.
Only a few participants said that they had personally taken any action as a result of seeing or hearing an ad during this phase of the campaign. This included being on the lookout for their VIC and checking the information on their VIC. A number of participants with voting experience indicated that they were attentive to the receipt of their VIC or that they checked the information on it when they received it. This is something they did habitually during elections and not as a result of seeing or hearing an ad.
When it came to actions that could be taken as a result of these ads, the most frequently identified was to check the personal information on one's VIC to make sure that it was correct and to have it corrected if necessary.footnote 3 Other types of action frequently identified included being on the lookout for one's VIC, verifying the polling place location, and contacting Elections Canada if one did not receive a VIC.
Participants routinely suggested that the main message in this set of ads was the availability of early voting options (that is, before election day). Variations on this theme included:
A few participants suggested that the main message was a reminder to make a plan to vote early if one could not vote on election day.
Participants across all audiences regularly identified the target audience for this set of ads as one or more of the following:
Some felt that the ads during this phase targeted all potential voters, and some also identified people who travel a lot and people who work in the medical profession as targeted by these ads.footnote 4
Only a few participants said that they had personally taken any action as a result of seeing or hearing an ad during this phase of the campaign. These individuals confirmed the dates and locations for early voting. When it came to action that could be taken as a result of these ads, participants identified: planning ahead to make sure one can vote if one cannot do so on election day; checking one's schedule or making a plan to make sure one can vote on election day or before; and checking the dates, times, and locations of advance polls.
Participants suggested that the main messages in this set of ads were to remind people of the date of the election and/or to remind them to vote. A few suggested that the main message was a call to be organized so as to be able to vote on election day.
There was virtual unanimity that the target audience for this set of ads was everyone (all eligible voters). A few suggested that the ads targeted young voters because voter turnout among younger people tends to be lower.
No one took any action as a result of seeing or hearing any of these ads. Actions that could be taken included noting the election date, reminding others (e.g. friends) of the date, making a plan to vote, and actually voting.
This section reports on participants' impressions of Election Canada's Guide to the federal election booklet. Participants were asked to read the guide, and then asked for their impressions of it.
Recall of having received the guide by mail during the election period
Recall of having received the guide in the mail was uneven, though in most focus groups fewer than half recalled receiving it. Groups in which half or more of the participants recalled receiving it included non-voters in Halifax, participants with a visual impairment in Toronto, and voters in Montreal. On the other hand, groups in which none of the participants recalled receiving it included voters in Halifax; youth with post-secondary education in Montreal; and Indigenous participants and youth not in education, employment, or training in Winnipeg. Most voters in Vancouver, as well as several of the in-depth interview participants, were unsure whether they had received it.
Participants who recalled receiving the guide said that they either read it, scanned it, or ignored it or put it in recycling. Some who did the latter explained that they are habitual or experienced voters and did not need any information on voting. When probed, a number of participants who said they did not recall receiving the guide admitted the possibility that they did receive it but may have consigned it immediately to recycling.
Impressions of the guide
While recollection of having received the guide was uneven, overall impressions of the guide tended to be positive or very positive, and those who were not positive were neutral rather than negative. Participants across all groups described the guide using terms such as "comprehensive," "informative," "detailed," "attention-grabbing," and "useful." Asked what they liked most about the guide, participants tended to identify the following characteristics:
They also said that they liked the following features:
The font size and use of bolded text were identified by many as positive features but mainly by participants with a visual impairment, who emphasized that this made the guide easier to read. Some new Canadians said that they liked the cover of the booklet because it showed the diversity of the Canadian population.
Negative feedback on the guide was relatively limited; it came primarily from youth participants and tended to focus on the cover page and the amount of text or the length of the booklet. Youth participants, particularly in Montreal and Winnipeg, tended to perceive the cover page as "dated" and "drab" in terms of style, with a few also observing that there was too much white space on the cover page. Some youth participants also differed from most other participants in viewing the booklet as text-heavy or too long.
Perceived target audience
When asked who they thought the guide was designed for (the target audience), participants most often identified everyone or all Canadian voters, followed by new or first-time voters, youth and young voters, and new Canadians. Other perceived target audiences were identified infrequently: seniors, people who do not watch television, persons with a disability or accessibility issues, people with attention deficit disorder, people who do not vote, and people who think voting is difficult.
Missing information
There was near-unanimity that the guide included all the information someone would need in order to vote. Only a small number of participants suggested gaps in the information, such as:
Indigenous participants in Winnipeg perceived a lack of availability of the guide in other languages. When asked specifically whether they knew that the guide was in fact available in other languages, none of the new Canadians or Indigenous participants said that they were aware of this. Only a couple of participants from the Toronto focus group of people with a visual impairment were aware that the guide was available in alternative formats such as braille, daisy, and large print.
This section reports on participants' overall impressions of the information campaign.
Reactions to the information campaign by research audience
Overall impressions of the information campaign tended to be similar across audiences. To the extent that there were differences by audience, these tended to relate to how relevant participants thought the campaign was to themselves. Specifically:
Overall impressions of the information campaign
Overall impressions of the information campaign were positive and sometimes very positive across all groups, with participants routinely describing it as a good effort, comprehensive, inclusive, well thought out, and informative. Asked more specifically what they liked about the campaign, participants identified the following:
A few in-depth interview participants liked the overall campaign on the grounds that the variation and frequency of ads made it impossible for Canadians to not know about the voting process.
While participants reacted positively to the campaign in general, there were aspects or elements they criticized or felt were less well done, including the following:
Reaction to tagline and logo
Few participants commented on the campaign tagline or logo before being asked about them explicitly. Overall reactions to both tended to range from neutral or indifferent to positive. Most participants said they liked the tagline, describing it as inclusive ("rassembleur" in French), motivating or mobilizing, catchy, true ("it is our vote"), and conveying a sense of ownership of the vote. The exception was in Winnipeg, where most participants said that they did not like it. Negative feedback on the tagline (in Winnipeg and elsewhere) was based on the following objections: there was no encouragement to vote, there was nothing catchy or memorable in it, it did not make sense (it should be "It's your vote"), it sounded antagonistic ("It's our vote" sounds like "us vs. them"), and it did not place responsibility on Canadians to vote (saying "It's your vote" would place more responsibility on Canadians).
While many participants said that they liked the logo, positive reactions tended to be moderate or lukewarm rather than strong, and most were neutral rather than positive or negative. The most frequently given reason explaining positive reactions was that the X mark is commonly associated with voting. Participants who disliked it said the X symbol has negative connotations, many adding that perhaps it should be a checkmark instead. Others said that they did not like it because of the style or font, describing it as "dated," "nineties style," and "childlike."
Reaction to colours
Most participants reacted positively to the use of colours in the campaign, noting that the colours attracted or drew their attention. Specific colour combinations identified as standing out included red and white, yellow and blue, purple and yellow, and black and purple. Some who said they liked the colours described them as "Easter-like shades." On the other hand, some who said that the black and purple combination stood out also characterized the colour combination as depressing. Negative reaction to the colours came primarily from participants in Montreal. While such reaction was limited, it was based on the impression that too many colours were used, with no consistency or logic to the combinations, and that the colours were too conventional. Some participants focused specifically on the animated social media ads, noting that the combination of colours and music distracted them instead of attracting their attention.
Perceived relevance of campaign
Most participants felt that the information campaign was at least somewhat relevant to them. Reasons included the diversity of media used in the campaign (that is, an attempt to reach people who use different types of media), the diversity among Canadians displayed in the ads (emphasized especially by new Canadians), the sense of being specifically targeted (because, for example, they had recently moved, they were voting for the first time, or they were uncertain about being registered), and the impression that, even if they were familiar with the information provided, the ads were a good reminder to everyone about important things to know and were therefore relevant to all citizens.
On the other hand, some participants said that they did not see themselves in the ads or did not see the campaign as relevant to them. This was especially the case among Indigenous Canadian participants in Winnipeg, where it was suggested that the ads targeted middle-class Canadians. Others suggested that the ads were not relevant to them because they were not first-time voters, they had not moved recently, the ads did not speak to their lifestyle (because, for example, they were not busy professionals), or because they already knew this information.
Missing information
There was near-unanimity among participants that the materials presented through the information campaign gave them an understanding of when and where to vote and the ways to register and vote. Asked specifically whether the information met their needs, participants with a visual impairment in Toronto said yes; the only suggestion to better meet voter needs was to implement online voting.
Few participants identified a need for more information. Those who did focused on the following things, none of which was identified by more than a few participants:
Additional ways Elections Canada should be communicating with Canadians
Asked if there are other ways that Elections Canada should be communicating such information to Canadians, the only way identified with any frequency was through an app. Other suggestions, identified by individuals or no more than a few participants, included:
1 Ads were presented to participants in the in-person focus groups on a monitor. Participants in the online focus groups and in-depth telephone interviews accessed the ads on their computers through a link.
2 This was the only group in which any participants identified a television ad as the one they liked least.
3 It was noted that it is not clear what course of action to pursue if the VIC includes incorrect information because one does not need one's VIC in order to vote.
4 The TV version of the ad specifically depicted people from both these groups.
5 As noted earlier, while ads did appear in different languages, nearly all new Canadian and Indigenous participants were unaware of this.
6 In response to this, another participant observed that the radio ad for election day stated that registration could take place on election day at the polling place.
7 Whenever the suggestion to communicate by email was made, it elicited more opposition than support from other participants.