A BRITISH marketing expert told the High Court yesterday he believed the highly focused Government advertising campaign on the divorce referendum brought a positive difference of 2 to 3 per cent to the Yes campaign.
Mr Phil Harris, senior lecturer in marketing at Manchester University, later acknowledged that he was not aware of every facet of the campaign, such as details of television coverage or of certain churchmen's statements.
He was giving evidence on the eighth day of the challenge by former senator Mr Des Hanafin against the result of the November 24th divorce referendum He is seeking to overturn the result on the grounds that the Government wrongly spent public money promoting the Yes campaign. He wants the court to order a new referendum.
Yesterday, Mr Harris, called by Mr Hanafin's side, said he had looked at a full sample of the Yes campaign advertisements, No and Yes campaign material, polling material, the QMP advertising agency presentation, statistics and press information on the campaign.
He believed the Government campaign was well managed. In his opinion, "the highly focused advertising campaign" would have brought a positive difference of 2 to 3 per cent to the Yes campaign.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Hanafin, asked what difference there was between the influence of the campaign mounted by the Government compared to interest or lobby groups. Mr Harris said the Government tended to have a certain authority and that lent weight.
Asked how he had reached the percentage swing, he said he tended to use qualitative methods. He referred back to previous documents, evidence, opinions and the effect of advertising in other campaigns. It was largely based on an experienced review of other campaigns.
Cross examining, Mr Peter Shanley SC, for the State, asked Mr Harris if he was aware of every facet of the Government's campaign. Mr Harris said he was aware of a large amount of it. He was particularly aware of the "bought" advertising campaign, and of the public information campaign giving both sides of the argument. He read a selection of political coverage which was provided by the solicitor for the petitioner. He thought he received a good balance.
Mr Shanley asked if he recalled the attitude of the political parties. Mr Harris said he was aware of some. Asked about the Green Party, he said he was not aware of its view. Counsel asked if the witness knew if Bishop Flynn had made an intervention. Mr Harris replied that he believed he did. He did not recall.
Mr Shanley asked if all these influences would affect voting. Witness said they certainly would.
Asked if it might have been relevant to look at other surveys apart from those by MRBI, Mr Harris said it was always useful to look at more information but he had looked at 2,000 pages of information.
On television coverage, he said he had not looked at precisely how many hours of television was given to the campaign.
Mr Shanley asked if Mr Harris knew of Desmond Connell. Witness said he was unaware of him. Mr Shanley said he was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. He asked if he had played a part. Mr Harris replied that he was aware, he thought, he had made a statement about the divorce referendum. He was unaware of what form it took.
Counsel asked if he knew of a Pastoral letter from the Archbishop of Dublin. Mr Harris said he was aware it had been in the campaign period. He was aware of its import.
The hearing continues today.