Leave it to Seaver » Political Advertising

Latest in Maine Advertising

nseaver — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:52:50 +0000

I thought I’d posted the ad released earlier this week by the Yes on 1 campaign.

The amazing thing about this ad is the number of misleading and varied statements that were fit into 30 seconds.

Churches will lose their tax status. Check

“Homosexual marriage” will be taught in schools. Check.

A headline attributed to the Associated Press that is not true (read: a lie). Check. (Thankfully, AmericaBlog and others are highlighting this)

Do those lies sound familiar? Why don’t we jump back to the prop 8 fight and an ad with higher, but no less cheesy, production value (at least this one doesn’t look like it was filmed in Joe Bornstein’s office).

While this one doesn’t claim freedom deprived and a lifestyle forced upon adults (the Maine version still implied it’s forced on children), it does play the education and church tax status cards.

Luckily, the No on 1 campaign has already released a response ad.

Daisy Redux

dcnick — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:24:27 +0000

The RNC has released a new ad about Guantanamo Bay that uses the most famous/infamous political ads (with the possible exception of Willie Horton or Swift Boat) to equate the closing of Guantanamo with a nuclear fallout.

This version doesn’t pack the punch that the original did. The original version (below) aired only once in 1964 and is arguably one of the first pieces of paid media that received massive earned media (created purely to start a conversation in the news that carries on for free). We live in a world now where far, far too many of the political ads that are put out are done purely to create buzz in the echo chamber of the cable news networks. For those under 50, not a political pundit or student of political advertising, the daisy ad itself is probably not well enough known now to immediately evoke a reaction. The effort with this ad is clearly to get people like Chris Matthews riled up and talking about it on air. The conversation inevitably involves talk of both Guantanamo and nuclear weapons (the original focus of the ad)–a strong and scary image when thinking about terrorism.

All of that said, I think the ad is too disjointed to be much more than laughable. The splicing of footage from today (color) with the nearly 50 year old footage of a girl picking a daisy is visually disjointed. Further, the new voiceover is clearly an adult woman’s voice and a phrase that has no context with the scene. Rather than being scary, which the original was, this ad is just confusing for someone who doesn’t get the reference, and overdone for anyone who does.

Sadly, however, artistic merit and how it will be received by the public probably won’t be factored into whether or not Chris Matthew or Bill O’Reilly’s decide to play it endlessly.

Apparently dishonorable is contagious

dcnick — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:33:57 +0000

Today Cindy McCain goes on the attack. Apparently she’s ignoring McCain’s votes against funding the troops on the battlefield and off.

“The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body let me tell you,” she said. “I would suggest Sen. Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying.”

UPDATE: An ad driving home McCain’s lack of support for veterans. Both candidates miss votes, but the hypocrisy brings to mind something about stones in glass houses.

Follow up to my bitter theory…

dcnick — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:58:21 +0000

First things first, Clinton’s attack ad from PA (which strikes me as oddly script testimonials–Andrew Sullivan wasn’t impressed either):

And now the ad that I think is the perfect response. It casts the constant reply of the attacks on this as superficial and “silly season” to steal a line from one of my favorite people. I had seen video of this crowd’s response to Clinton yesterday and wanted to post it, but never thought what an effective ad it would be. Lesson for Clinton–know your audience.

Beyond the ads back and forth some interesting polls (this one being the most interesting as it shows that more people thought MORE of Obama after the Wright incident than thought less of him) have come in showing that this attack isn’t really sticking (at least in the primary). Another good one is the Quinnipiac poll. One reader commented that this will be very damaging in the general, but I’m still not sure. I know it will be used against Obama, but at the same time if it shows to be ineffective now (and in fact makes the attacker look desperate) I have to wonder how hard it will be pushed in the general. Even Rendell agrees. John Baer, of the Philadelphia Daily News writes that,

“What’s offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician’s words.

Are you kidding me?

They’re injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than “just words.”

They’ve been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.”

It’s also interesting to note the Real Clear Politics average has held with Obama 6-7% over Clinton nationally for the last several days and he’s only been moving up. Also, Gallup has him with his strongest leads yet.

Hillary’s Ads

dcnick — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:48:50 +0000

I’ve always found political advertising pretty fascinating, and the a few have been quite interesting or effective this year. Of those, I think Clinton has generally had more memorable ads. The “3 a.m.” is certainly the most remembered ad of the year, both in the number of parodies it’s spawned, and the other campaigns responses to it. It’s easy to say it’s melodramatic and discount it, but I think that for every 2 people who scoff at it as an attempt to play the fear card, there was someone who may not have been frightened, but may have been primed on the issue of national security and who can face threats. It’s not to say that suddenly someone is convinced that Clinton is more qualified because of the ad, just that when the evaluate the candidate that is one of the frames they’ll do it in. Given Clinton’s ties to the Clinton administration and facing “sniper fire” which was, at the time, not refuted, people felt Hillary could face the threat. She played the card, and ultimately–I think–played it well for the contests she was in (OH and TX). Now, that ad would not carry the same weight as doubts have been raised as to her experience and the fact that it’s no longer a new concept.

However, I think this ad is also one of Clinton’s better and more effective. It is gimmicky when she says things like “Hi, if you’re looking for a typical political commercial, switch the channel…” and “thanks, it’s nice talking to you….” but the overall message of the ad is engaging the voter and bringing them into the process. This has been one of the things that Obama has been remarkable effective in–both online and though his speeches, and in a month of political message bombardment, this stops and catches the viewer. It’s like when a stranger unexpectedly asks you how you are–you don’t expect them to become your best friend, but the gesture is nice. Moments when she shows she cares and demonstrates her actual interest in people has been when she’s most successful in elections. It’ll be interesting to see the follow up to this ad.

Suppose Lary the Cable Guy Gets Royalties?

dcnick — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:16:30 +0000

Clinton’s newest ad, “Get ‘er Done”…err, “Get It Done”