Here's a type of ad I haven't talked about before: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0-PdtKG4io&feature=player_embedded]
Its not a bad ad, I particularly like the "effective" & "independent" quotes, that kind of third party validation is what sticks with me. No, it's not bad, it's just jammed packed, jumping from issue, to issue, to issue. I counted at least seven separate issues:
1. There's the response and attack to the Giannoulias ad
2. Naval intelligence office... who served in Afganistan
3. Record on Stem Cells
4. and stopping BP from polluting Lake Michigan
5. Independent and effective quotes
6. Help stop wasteful spending in Washington,
7. and corruption in Illinois.
Phew. That's a lot of bullet points to hit in one ad. What are people going to remember? Maybe Naval Intelligence officer? Maybe the quotes? Maybe one of the issues, pick one: Corruption, wasteful spending, stem cells, polluting. The point is that it's trying to get everything in there and the kitchen sink. Now sometimes that's necessary if you're a candidate who has only enough money for one ad. But I would still question the approach: Giving people too much information risks them remembering nothing. It's like a sound that's too loud, we just block it out, ignore it, it engages our mental filters.
Don't you think Kirk would have been better off with the beginning: responding to Giannoulias then focusing on something like: He's a naval intelligence officer who's been called effective and independent.... That would let the spot breath and let your audience absorb what they need to get out of it, instead of just throwing a bunch of crap out there and seeing what you get get to stick with enough repetition.