This section of the report presents the results from the qualitative research conducted as part of our evaluation of the Elections Canada Voter Information Campaign for the 44th federal election.
The results of this 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.
This section reports on participants' experience during the federal election that was held on September 20, 2021.
Most research participants reported having voted in the most recent federal election. This includes most participants in each of the focus groups and all of the participants interviewed individually by telephone. Nearly all those who said they voted reported doing so in person (only seven voters reported doing so by mail), with most specifying that they did so on election day (September 20). All those who reported voting in advance specified doing so at an advance polling station.
Most participants said they were aware of the option to vote by mail. Non-voters were as likely to be aware of this option as voters. Despite widespread awareness of the option to vote by mail, few said they looked into the option (how to apply to vote by mail).
Participants who were aware of the option to vote by mail but who opted to vote in person were asked why they did not consider voting by mail. Two reasons were identified most often: habit and ease of voting in person. They often associated the ease of voting in person with the proximity of the polling place and/or the relatively short time it takes to cast one's vote in person. Other reasons given for voting in person included the following, all of which were identified by individuals or no more than a few participants:
A few voters who were aware of the option to vote by mail identified potential problems or inconveniences with voting by mail as their reasons for not choosing this option. These concerns included:
Those who considered voting by mail or who looked into the option said they did so out of curiosity or because of its potential convenience. An example of the latter was the concern that voting in person might take much longer than usual as a result of COVID-19. No one who voted by mail or considered doing so said they did so out of health concerns.
Most voters described the experience of voting in the most recent federal election as easy or relatively easy. This includes most participants in each of the focus groups and participants interviewed individually by telephone. Reasons given to explain the ease of the voting experience were varied, but typically involved the speed with which electors could cast their vote. Specific reasons offered routinely included:
A new Canadian participant identified assistance provided in their mother tongue as contributing to the ease of the voting experience.
The few participants who described the voting experience as difficult often pointed to long lines/waits, sometimes associating this with what they perceived as limited staff/personnel at the polling place. Other difficulties included:
A few youth participants who identified problems with their VIC associated this with the fact that they had recently moved or were in the process of moving in the period leading up to the election.
Only a small number of voters identified this election as their first time voting. Nearly all these first-time voters said their experience tended to match their expectations. To the extent that the experience varied from expectations, it was usually because it took either more or less time than expected. One first-time voter had expected to have the option to vote electronically in this election.
Most voters who had voted in previous federal elections described the process this time around as no more or less difficult than in previous elections. To the extent that the process was described either as more or less difficult compared to previous elections, this was usually because it took either more or less time than in previous elections.
A few Indigenous electors who voted by mail in this election described the process as easier this time because they did not have to go out to a polling place. On the other hand, one participant with a visual impairment described the voting experience in the previous federal election as easier because on that occasion, their assigned polling place was in their condominium building instead of at another location.
Participants who voted in person said they noticed the health and safety measures for COVID-19 that were in place at the polling place. While voters routinely said these made them feel safe when casting their ballot, it was also routinely mentioned that such measures have come to be expected in public spaces and that it is taken for granted that they will be in place for something like an election. That said, some participants specified that they appreciated such measures as voting booth wipe-downs between electors casting their ballot, the availability of hand sanitizer, use of disposable pencils, and clearly marked one-way traffic.
A few participants said they did not feel safer despite the measures in place. This was either because the number of people at the polling place made physical distancing difficult or because of a perceived lack of respect for and enforcement of physical-distancing protocols.
Among participants who did not vote in the federal election, some had voted before, while others had not. Reasons given for not voting included not feeling informed enough about the issues to cast a ballot responsibly, being too busy or unable to vote, complications arising from a recent move or change in life circumstances, and disillusionment with politics in general. Almost no one expressed concerns about voting during a pandemic, and no one indicated that they did not vote due to the perceived difficulty of the voting process.
Youth participants and new Canadians were the most likely to identify not feeling informed enough about the issues as their reason for not voting. One participant said they did not vote because they had COVID-19. A few non-voters who were not aware of the option to vote by mail said they would have considered using this option had they known about it.
Most participants said they did not look for information about how, where or when to vote in the lead-up to the election. However, at least a few participants in most focus groups and a few participants interviewed by telephone said they did look for such information. Respondents most often sought information related to polling place location and schedules for both regular and advance polls. Other types of information they sought included:
Everyone who sought information said they found or obtained the information they wanted.
Sources of information included the Elections Canada website, Google searches, online searches (unspecified or specific site not recalled), word of mouth/acquaintances, and the VIC. Some participants were looking for information in the early weeks of the election period, but others expected that the correct information would arrive on their VIC and so waited to receive their VIC instead of actively seeking information. This included information about polling location, opening and closing times of polling places, and dates for voting in advance polls.
Among those who actively sought out the information they wanted, the point at which they started to look for it varied and tended to depend on the information they sought. For example, those looking for information on advance polls and mail-in ballot kits started looking early in the election period. Conversely, those who sought information about such things as voting hours, ID requirements and requirements/measures related to COVID-19 tended to do so no more than a few days before election day.
This section reports on participant feedback related to ads that were part of a multi-media information campaign conducted by Elections Canada during the recent federal election. The campaign was designed to help Canadians understand when, where and ways to register and vote, as well as to provide information on the measures in place to ensure electors could register and vote safely and to ensure poll workers could do their job safely. The ads appeared on television, on radio, in print, on social media and as banner ads on the internet.
Participants reviewed ads from each of four phases of the main advertising campaign, as well as from the two additional ad campaigns that ran during the entire election period. Each phase of the main campaign focused on a specific theme: registration, the voter information card (VIC), early voting options and election day. The additional components consisted of a recruitment campaign that focused on employment opportunities during the general election and the safety campaign, which focused on the safety measures in place to protect poll workers and voters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were presented ads from each campaign and phase in succession and asked a series of questions for each. Ads were presented to participants in the online focus groups via the moderator's monitor, while participants in the in-depth telephone interviews accessed the ads on their own computers via a link.
The following specifications applied to the presentation of ads:
Appendix 3.3 of the NES Methodology Report provides tables that identify the ads focus group and interview participants reviewed in each medium for each of the ad campaigns and phases.
What follows is a brief description of the ads by media channel:
A sample of the ad messages, media formats and creative designs can be found on Elections Canada's website (Advertising campaign – Spread the word – 44th General Election – September 20, 2021 – Elections Canada).
Some feedback from participants is best presented with a focus on the media channel because the feedback relates primarily to the vehicle, or format, for the ad (television, radio, social media video ad, animated web banner ad, print ad or static social media post). This applies to overall impressions/reactions, perceived strengths and weaknesses, and ease of understanding/clarity. In these areas, feedback on ads of a certain type was often similar or identical, regardless of the ad message or information.
On the other hand, some feedback is best presented by phase or campaign rather than by medium. This includes recall of ads, the perceived main message of the ads and perceptions of missing information. Consequently, feedback from participants is presented below under two main headings: assessment of ads by media channel, and assessment of ads by message.
Overall, TV and radio ads tended to elicit the most consistently positive reactions from participants. This was underscored by the fact that, although participants were asked not to compare ads, they sometimes identified television or radio ads as ones they liked the most in those phases of the information campaign in which they appeared (safety, registration/VIC, 9 early voting and election day). Ads produced in other media (print ads, static social media posts, social media video ads, animated web banner ads) were more likely to elicit mixed reactions, with participants routinely identifying aspects or features they liked, did not like (or liked less), or about which they tended to be indifferent or neutral.
Television ads tested with participants focused on messages about safety, voter registration/VIC, early voting and election day. 10
Participants in both the focus groups and the in-depth interviews who reviewed television ads routinely reacted positively to them. As noted above, positive impressions were underscored by the fact that the television ads were sometimes identified by participants as their favourite ad in a particular phase of the campaign, even though they were asked not to compare ads.
Participants identified a number of strengths or positive features of the television ads, including the following perceptions:
Criticism of the TV ads was limited. One general criticism of the TV ads made by some hearing-impaired participants was that they lack captioning. 11 Another criticism, offered by a few participants, was that the ads are not actor-based. It was suggested that depicting people would make the ads even easier to relate to. It was also observed that the colour scheme in the early voting TV ad is not very engaging, though it was also suggested that the voiceover compensates for this through its friendly, engaging tone.
The radio ads tested with participants focused on the following: safety, voter registration/VIC, early voting and election day. 12
Overall impressions of the radio ads were similar to those offered in relation to the TV ads, in the sense that participants in both the focus groups and in-depth interviews reacted positively to them, occasionally identifying them as their favourite in a particular phase or information component of the campaign.
Perceived strengths or positive features of the radio ads mirrored those of the TV ads and included the following perceptions:
Negative feedback on the radio ads was limited and tended to focus on the background music. Specifically, some participants described the music as a little too loud, making it difficult to hear or interfering with the voiceover. Beyond this, the only other negative feedback on the radio ads included the impression that they are a bit too long and the impression that there are too many dates to remember in the version on early voting. Concerns about the length or content of the radio ads were raised by only a few participants.
All participants were shown two social media video ads: one dealing with recruitment and the other dealing with voter registration. In addition, student participants were shown a social media video dealing with election day, designed for students living away from home.
Overall reactions to these ads tended to range from moderately positive to neutral or mixed. Participants routinely identified things in these ads that they both liked and disliked (or liked less). Moreover, some features of these ads elicited mixed reactions, with some participants liking them and others not liking them. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the perceived strengths and weaknesses identified below, as the same feature might appear as a strength to some and a weakness to others.
The most frequently identified strength of the social media videos was the content or information provided. This information was routinely described as simple and easy to understand, with some also describing it by using expressions such as "good," "informative," "important," or "new." Youth and new Canadians in particular emphasized the importance of information in the registration ad concerning people who have recently moved and/or became a citizen and people who are voting for the first time.
Other perceived strengths of the social media videos included the following:
The most frequently identified perceived weakness of the social media videos was their speed or fast pace. Although, as noted above, one of the perceived strengths of these ads was their succinct presentation of information, many felt that the pacing is too quick. Some felt that the pacing affected the clarity and ease of understanding of the ads because the speed at which the information was presented made them unsure that they had processed it/retained it. A few participants described these ads as "forgettable" or "not memorable" for the same reason (because of the speed of the presentation).
This impression was emphasized in particular by some new Canadian participants who said they had difficulty focusing on the text/information because it moved too quickly. A few other participants suggested that because of the quick pace of these ads, electors whose first language is neither English nor French might miss or have difficulty remembering the information provided. Others who commented negatively on the speed/pace of these ads included participants with a visual impairment and some youth participants (the latter focused specifically on the election day ad designed for students living away from home).
Other perceived weaknesses of the social media videos were identified by no more than a few participants and included the following:
As noted above, some participants with a visual impairment commented negatively on the speed of these ads. In addition to this, a few other features of these ads elicited negative comments from members of this audience, with a focus on how their combined effect made the ads difficult to follow. These other features were described as poor contrast in the colour schemes, small font size and the use of too many colours. It was suggested that the combination of these features makes it difficult for people with low vision to clearly see these ads and/or properly grasp the information. Some participants with a visual impairment also noted that the social media ads did not include a voiceover, which was something they felt would help viewers follow the ad and more easily grasp the information.
Animated web banner ads tested with participants dealt with the following topics: recruitment, safety, registration and the VIC. 13
Animated web banner ads typically elicited neutral or indifferent overall reactions. Feedback on both content and style/design tended to be mixed—both elicited positive and negative comments. Moreover, some participants observed that they liked the information in the ads but not the style/design. With a focus on the style/design, the most frequently offered criticism of these ads was that there is little or nothing attention grabbing about them, resulting in their possibly not being noticed or remembered.
Perceived strength of the banner ads included:
The most commonly identified perceived weaknesses of the web banner ads was that they are not very attention grabbing/captivating, with some describing them as bland and/or boring. Other perceived weaknesses were identified less often and included:
Perceived weaknesses of specific ads included:
With the exception of participants with a disability, all participants were shown a print ad dealing with early voting and a print ad dealing with election day. Participants with a disability were shown the same print ad dealing with early voting reviewed by others, but they were shown two election day ads with a focus on accessibility: a print ad and a static social media post.
The print ads dealing with early voting and election day elicited reactions that ranged from positive to negative, including some neutral comments. Reactions tended to focus on the type of information provided and the amount of information included in the ads. Participants reacted positively to the type of information provided, routinely describing it as complete and clear and easy to understand. The information provided was also sometimes described as important and a good reminder/resource for anyone planning to vote in advance polls or on election day. Indeed, a few participants who had not seen any print ads dealing with early voting and election day during the campaign said they would have saved such ads had they seen them because it would have served as a good reminder as the election approached.
Reaction to the amount of information provided in the print ads was mixed, with some reacting positively, some neutrally and some negatively. Neutral or indifferent reaction to these ads was also sometimes linked to the medium, with some participants noting that they do not habitually engage with print media, and as a result such ads would be unlikely to resonate with them.
The most frequently identified strength or positive feature of the print ads was the details and clarity of the specific information provided. For example, the health and safety information (including the ability to bring one's own pencil or pen) was described as a strength in both the early voting and the election day print ads. Specific perceived strengths of the early voting print ad included identification of specific options and dates/timelines for voting before election day and the reminder to check one's VIC. In the case of the election day print ad, participants routinely described the information about the ability to register on site as important, with some noting that this was new information to them. Participants with a disability routinely commented positively on the emphasis placed on accommodations in the election day print ad they were shown, with some describing such information as reassuring.
Other perceived strengths or positive features included:
The most frequently identified weaknesses or criticism of the early voting and election day print ads was the perception that they are text heavy or that there is a lot of information to read. While this was noted by members of all audiences, with some participants suggesting that the amount of text/information be pared down, it tended to be emphasized by new Canadians. In terms of design, some participants felt that the colour scheme in the non-targeted election day print ad and the election day print ad focusing on accessibility is too busy.
Other perceived weaknesses related to specific print ads. They included the following, all of which were identified by small numbers of participants:
Members of the following audiences were shown static social media posts dealing with election day:
The static social media posts dealing with election day were less likely to elicit general or overall reactions than the print ads. Overall reactions tended to be neutral and included the impression that the information was short, straightforward, and clear and easy to understand.
The most frequently identified strength or positive feature of the static social media posts was the specific information provided. Some students reacted to the election day static social media post for students living away from home by noting that this information was not something they knew or had thought about. New Canadians routinely said that information in the election day static social media post reminding first-time voters to make sure they are registered is important and a good reminder. Participants with a disability described the reference to the availability of accessibility tools and services as reassuring. In addition to the content of the ad, some participants with a disability commented positively on the colour scheme in the static social media post.
Criticism of the static social media posts was voiced by new Canadians and persons with a disability. A number of new Canadians felt that the picture in the version of the ad they were shown is meaningless/unconnected to the message and too large in proportion to the text. Some participants with a disability felt that the ad they were shown is too succinct/lacks detail, and a few found the meaning of the symbol in the square with a blue background to be unclear.
This section reports feedback elicited from participants that concerned the messages or information associated with a particular ad campaign or phase more than the specific medium.
Recall of ads from the voter information campaign was relatively limited. Most participants could not recall having seen or heard any of the ads presented to them, and there was no noticeable difference by audience type or location in this regard. To the extent that ads were recalled, they were most likely to be radio or TV ads.
The ads presented to participants were routinely described as clear and easy to understand across all phases of the ad campaign. Participants had no difficulty identifying a main message or messages they felt the ads were trying to communicate. At times, there was overlap in terms of perceived messages across phases of the campaign. In some instances, ads were seen primarily or exclusively as providing information to electors, while in some instances they were seen (or also seen) as asking electors to take some type of action. Calls to action in the ads, however, were often seen as implicit as opposed to explicit.
Overall, participants identified relatively little in the way of additional types of information that would have been useful or helpful to include in specific ad campaigns or phases. Suggestions not necessarily associated with a specific phase included depicting people in the ads to humanize them and make them more relatable; and using more motivational messaging/calls to action (such as encouragement to vote).
Two messages were seen to be conveyed in the set of ads dealing with recruitment, with some participants seeing elements of both messages in the ads:
The first message was much more likely to be associated with the animated web banner version of the ad, while the second message was much more likely to be associated with the social media video ad.
Many participants said that if they had seen one of the recruitment ads at the start of the campaign, they would have considered working at a polling place. Some others said that the likelihood of their doing so would be based on the following types of considerations: if they had been looking for work, if the work hours were flexible, and if pay rates and hours of work were sufficiently attractive. Participants who said they would not have considered working at the polls usually pointed to lack of time and/or other responsibilities, such as work or school. Other considerations were identified by single individuals or no more than a few participants. These included being retired, a physical disability or emotional condition, a preference for full-time permanent work, life circumstances at the start of the campaign, already having done this kind of work previously and health considerations as a result of the pandemic.
Participants identified various pieces of information that they thought could have been helpful to receive at this point of the campaign. That said, some added that they would not expect the ad to include every piece of information, especially since contact information is provided for anyone interested in following up. The specific pieces of information seen to be "missing" include:
Although not seen to be a matter of missing information as such, it was suggested that the banner ad could be made more inviting or personable to motivate more people to respond to this possibility.
There was widespread agreement among participants that the main message in the set of ads from the safety campaign was the importance of safety when voting, with a focus on reassuring voters. A few suggested that this focus on reassuring voters was also, in a sense, an attempt to encourage them to vote. Variations on this theme included the following:
Apart from the specific instruction to bring a mask, most participants did not detect a call to action in this ad. A few detected an implicit or indirect call to action by suggesting that reassuring electors about the safety of voting could be interpreted as an encouragement to show up to vote.
Information perceived to be missing in these ads was limited to the following: repeating the phone number in the radio ad to facilitate recollection and reminding electors of the mail-in voting option in case they have safety concerns.
Participants routinely suggested that the main message in the set of ads dealing with registration focused on the need/importance of being registered in order to vote. Variations of this theme included:
According to some participants, this set of ads included a call to action, in the sense that it was a reminder to verify that they are registered to vote and to register if they are not.
Information identified as missing from this phase of the campaign included 14:
Specific messages identified in the set of ads related to the VIC included variations on the following, each of which was seen to involve some kind of call to action:
Information identified as missing from this phase of the campaign included the following:7
Participants routinely suggested that the main message in this set of ads is the possibility of voting early (before election day) and the various options for voting early (how to do it). Some suggested that the message in these ads is the general one that electors have options when it comes to voting or that everyone has the opportunity to vote if they want. It was also suggested that there is a call to action through an implicit encouragement to vote in these ads. Specifically, it was suggested that emphasizing both early-voting options and safety measures in the print ad sends the message that there is no reason not to vote; that is, anyone who wants to vote can do so, and voting is safe.
Information identified as missing from this phase of the campaign included the following:
Participants suggested that the main message in this set of ads was to remind people of the date of the election.
Information identified as missing from this phase of the campaign included:
This section reports on participants' impressions of Elections Canada's Guide to the Federal Election booklet. Participants were asked to review the guide, then they were asked for their impressions of it.
Relatively few participants recalled receiving the Guide to the Federal Election, which was mailed to every household in Canada during the election period. Indeed, no more than a few participants in any of the focus groups or interviews remembered receiving the guide. In the Winnipeg focus groups—one conducted with Indigenous electors and the other with NEET (Not Employed, in Education or in Training) youth—no one recalled receiving it. In addition, none of the participants with a visual impairment were aware that the guide is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, DAISY and large print.
Overall impressions of the guide were positive and sometimes very positive. Positive feedback focused on content, layout and style and routinely included the following type of feedback:
Negative comments were limited and specific. These included:
This section reports on participants' overall impressions of the information campaign.
There was near unanimity among participants that the campaign materials work well together and complement each other. Reasons routinely provided to explain why included the following:
Negative feedback on how well the campaign materials work together or complement each other was limited. This included the impression that the print ads and static social media posts were put together by a different team than the video ads because the basic approach seems inconsistent. It also included the impression that there is too much repetition between ads from different parts of the campaign, particularly the emphasis on safety measures.
There was widespread agreement that the materials provide an understanding of when and where to vote and the ways to register and vote. Information perceived to be missing in this regard was relatively limited, as highlighted above in sections 2.3 and 3.
While there was a widespread impression that the target audience for the information campaign was electors in general, participants also routinely suggested that the focus might be more on new electors voting for the first time. This was seen to include young voters and new Canadians in particular, but also individuals described as unfamiliar with the electoral process. This impression tended to be based on the idea that people who have voted before are familiar with the process and therefore do not need this information as much as those who are unfamiliar with the process. With this in mind, it was suggested that the information provided is a good reminder for experienced voters but not as crucial to them as it is to first-time voters.
Some also suggested that the ads, while directed to all electors, might also be targeting electors who are unsure/undecided about voting. Reasons for this impression were based on two aspects of the ads. One was the emphasis on safety measures, seen as a way of informing all electors about such measures, but also as a way of reassuring those who might have concerns about voting during the pandemic. The other was the impression that there is an implicit call to action in some of the ads, specifically an encouragement to vote. This was associated with reminders about registration and information about different options for voting (advance polls, election day and voting by mail).
The impression that the target audience includes all electors, but with specific subgroups in mind, was also based on the use of various media. It was suggested that the use of TV, radio and print ads was to ensure that older electors would be reached, while the use of social media and banner ads was to ensure that younger electors would be reached. Regarding the targeting of younger electors, it was suggested that this impression would be strengthened if the ads also appeared on Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram. One new Canadian participant emphasized that their impression that the target audience for these ads includes new Canadians is based on an assumption that the ads appeared in languages other than French and English. In other words, they would not necessarily believe that these ads target new Canadians if they appear only in English and French.
Focus group participants with a visual impairment were asked if there is any information that they needed but did not receive and/or any preferred format in which they want to receive this information but that was not available to them. In response, two suggestions were made regarding what Elections Canada might do to better meet their voting needs:
Participants were virtually unanimous that if they saw one of these ads during the election campaign, they would have no doubt that it was sponsored by Elections Canada. A very small number of respondents said they might doubt that the ads were sponsored by Elections Canada. The few who said they might doubt the source of an ad provided one of three reasons to explain why:
Participants collectively identified a variety of additional ways that Elections Canada should or could be communicating information to Canadians. That said, none of these suggestions was offered by more than one or two individuals. These included:
It was also suggested that Elections Canada focus more on social media ads (such as on Instagram and TikTok) and steer away from print media, as it requires too much paper and so is less environmentally friendly. With a focus on content, not medium, it was also suggested that if there is information that is more relevant or specific to a particular region of the country, Elections Canada communicate this information to that region.
This section reports on the types of media used by participants.
When asked what kinds of electronic devices they use on a daily basis, participants were most likely to identify smartphones and laptops/PCs, followed by TVs/smart TVs. Tablets were identified less often, while e-readers were mentioned infrequently. When it came to social media platforms used by participants, the following were routinely identified, in no particular order: YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Platforms identified less often included Reddit, TikTok and LinkedIn, while WeChat and Rumble were identified by no more than a few participants.
Most participants said they keep themselves informed about current events and politics. They collectively identified various sources they typically use to get information about current events and politics. Routinely identified sources included: 17
A few participants said they consult sources outside the mainstream media, including Rebel News and True North. Reasons include a distrust of "conventional media," a sense that these providers cover issues and ask questions of interest to the participants in an unbiased way, and the fact that they are not government-funded media sources.
8 The number of ads reviewed by participants was adjusted following the sixth focus group because the sessions were running long. The changes applied to subsequent focus groups and all in-depth telephone interviews and involved no longer presenting TV and radio ads dealing with the VIC or web banner ads dealing with recruitment and registration.
9 TV and radio ads were blended—that is, these ads incorporated information on registration and voter information cards.
10 See the specifications identified earlier regarding the presentation of TV ads to participants.
11 The TV ads that aired as part of the campaign did have captions for those with impaired hearing.
12 See the specifications identified earlier regarding the presentation of radio ads to participants.
13 See the specifications identified earlier regarding the presentation of web banner ads to participants.
14 Some of this information appeared in these ads but in a format not reviewed as part of the research.
15 It should be noted that the call to action in the radio ad identifies Elections Canada.
16 In response to this, other participants suggested that communication via email could raise privacy issues.
17 Participants did not necessarily identify specific sources as belonging to these general categories.