I tweeted this earlier today, but it's worth repeating anyone interested in political advertising should read this article about GOP ad "guru" Fred Davis. In some ways Fred Davis embodies exactly the kind of creative, boundary pushing, emotional story telling ads that I advocate for on this blog. In other ways, I think his ads can fall into the gimmick category -- using outrageous for the sake of getting attention, even if that attention is for the outrageousness of the ad rather than the message it is disseminating. In other words, his ads get more attention than they are effective (I'm thinking specifically of his Paris Hilton ad against Obama). I also find him personally annoying, but that could be just the way he's presented in the press (or the persona/story he presents to the press as the "creative" genius, maybe in person he's very nice and interesting). I do very much appreciate the way he's unapologetic about his ideas and unafraid to make bold choices creatively (even if he should follow Boris' advice to "check himself"). We need more people like that in political ad making.
My only other comment is how well he could perform on smaller budgets? It's great to make a provocative $40k viral video, but a lot of campaigns don't have that kind of cash. Creativity isn't dependent on money, but money sure helps when it comes to execution.
In honor of Fred Davis, here's a couple of recent examples of his work:
A while back I looked at parodies of the "Daisy Ad," and in general I found the parodies not compelling. This ad is a parody of the classic Reagan ad, "Morning in America":
This ad measure up very well with the original. Striking the same tone to opposite effect. It uses the original as an anchor to twist the message, are you better off now than four years ago. In the original the answer was yes, in this ad the answer is a resounding no.
This ad for Carly Fiorina I was less impressed with:
Visually I found it uninspired, from a message point of view, I found it bewildering. You're going to come after Boxer for being a millionaire while Californians are suffering? Um, that's exactly what Boxer is attacking Fiorina for doing while she was at HP. Now, I'm all for undercutting the opponent's argument, political aikido and all, but I just don't find Fiorina's claim credible. Or put another way, I find the attack on her time as CEO of HP more credible, while this attack on Boxer leaves me with a shrug. Though I should say, I really do like the music..., I wonder how much it cost?
Part of the art of political advertising is knowing when to go for a homerun and when a single is all you need.