In order for Fusion to gain more prominence, we need to reflect on how we're being perceived and how we can pitch ourselves around this. A new name forms a big part of this.

Let's just first make clear that our abbreviated name is still going to be Fusion.

When we moved from "FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency" to "FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblowing | Innovation" we were embracing the idea that we can tell people more about us in our name; and what we're about is more relevant than our provenance. In human terms, it's like introducing yourself as Chlöe, a vegan cyclist tailor, rather than as Sebastian Chamberlain-Windsor Jr.

We could add any sort of policy priorities or tag lines in the name, and any adjectives we add could be as hyperbolic as we wish, but there's a problem with saying something like "Fusion: the best party in Australia". In The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries and Jack Trout, it's discussed how businesses using taglines like "quality you can trust" are tuned out by listeners, since it's something that everyone is going to say. What brand wouldn't claim to be selling quality products, or trustworthy products? Even if the listener doesn't consciously recognise what's going on, the claim just isn't resonating with them.

While any brand would want to get away with saying this, Rolls Royce's tagline would have been immensely difficult to establish

This gets worse when brands say things like "we're the best" or "we're number one". If the listener has only just heard of you and suspects that you have low market share, a bold and subjective claim like "we're the best" will be met with skepticism − I already know Coca Cola for cola. Isn't that the best? It's what everyone else is choosing. This new brand is nothing, it's not what people want, and I don't want to choose some sort of leftover junk.

I recall experiencing this reaction in the Aston by-election − an older man was walking past me to the booth and I offered him a flyer while saying something along the lines of "Hello, I'm the candidate for Fusion". He didn't really look at me or the flyer, and replied "Fusion? Haven't heard of them" and kept walking.

It is not enough to say "we are a political party". There are already political parties, and people have got into the habit of voting for some particular party, whether we like it or not. We've already seen how hard it is to convince people to switch their choice in voting for a party.

This is where we can lean into Ries & Trout's idea of defining new market segments. People remember Charles Lindbergh as the first person to traverse the Atlantic Ocean in an aeroplane. They don't remember who was second, but they do remember who was third: Amelia Earhart. This is because she lives in people's minds as "the first woman to traverse the Atlantic Ocean in an aeroplane".

We saw this same outcome with the Teal candidates − how did they manage to go from nothing to something in as little as 2 or even 1 election cycle? In voters' minds, there were parties, then there were the Teal independents. You could see that their marketing leant into the fact that they weren't parties, and they went entirely against the conventional wisdom when it came to policies. Where Fusion leans into experts and scientific insight; where Fusion thinks deeply to formulate policies over years, Teals like Tina Brown announce their climate policy only 1 month before election day.

Tina Brown getting volunteers before policies

If Fusion is going to continue running on the premise that we formulate good ideas then humbly offer those ideas to voters (a habit that I do indeed feel we should continue), then we need to distinguish ourselves from the other parties, who superficially seem to do the same thing.

On the ground, the feedback I got from the name "FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblower Protection | Innovation" was typically about "Whistleblower Protection" − it's something that stood out about us. Voters already feel that The Greens are the environmental party; and every party is going to say they care about innovation.

The Democrats managed to do this successfully when they launched − Don Chipp defected from the Liberal Party and declared that he would "keep the bastards honest". Implicitly, he is not one of those bastards himself; he is not like them. But then the Democrats did become a political party, and so it eventually stopped resonating with people, the idea that this party was any more honest or even any different to the others.

A party that's like the Liberals, but more honest? Well, perhaps that could again be something novel.

So, we need to pitch ourselves as another political party, but we can't say we're the best, because that won't be believed. We could say how we're different, but the big topics for us are climate action, technological innovation and civil liberties − topics which all parties say they're interested in. I created the tagline "A grassroots movement with big ideas 🌱🔮", and although I still like it, saying that we have big ideas is again something that every party is going to say.

Our pitch therefore needs to position ourselves on the same ladder as other parties, where we're not currently popular. We have to offer an explanation why we're not number 1, but which leaves room for us to maintain this identity as we grow. Sure we're still somewhat "new", but that can't last forever.

This is my proposed name for Fusion:

votefusion.org | An unintuitive choice

Firstly, the "unintuitive choice" − it's going to resonate with voters. "Yeah, it sure is unintuitive, because they weren't my choice!" But also, it leans into the idea that we've put a lot of thought into our policies and we're pitching them even if they mightn't be immediately obvious or popular. We're offering those policies because we fundamentally believe that they're best for Australia. We are not sycophants who are prepared to say any old bullshit just because it's what we think the public wants to hear.

When listeners hear "an unintuitive choice", they're obviously going to ask themselves, what's the implication, "unintuitive"? I believe they're going to think "thinking"; "ideas"; "academic"; "scientific rigour". "A party for thinkers".

The next part is the URL, signifying that we're embracing new technologies and paradigms. We're digital-first, and in turn, we're inclined to lead Australia into being digital-first.

The new name is only the start of our new brand. We will need website styles to complement this rebranding. Imagine a collage of various human faces looking this way and that, then turning in synchronisation with a puzzled, inquisitive look, "huh. I get it". That's what "unintuitive" is meant to mean − an idea that turns out to actually be brilliant, on second thought. People who have finally stepped out of Plato's Cave.

Friends, I'm excited to pursue this vision and obviously I first need to double-check with you all that this is indeed an idea which is sound. If you share the vision, then please reach out to me if you feel there's some particular task where you could offer your skills. Are you a designer? Please actually start on these designs. Are you a software engineer? Please visit https://github.com/Fusion-Party-Aus/ and create an actual draft of a page we could use 😀 With a volunteer organisation, it's difficult to find who can do a particular task − we really need the volunteers themselves to have a specific task in mind 🙂

So, let's see how the upcoming vote pans out. I'm happy to hear your feedback by email too 😀

−Owen