Real honest to goodness authenticity (and we really mean it)

in

I talk a lot about authenticity here. That's because the best stories, the most compelling storytelling has truth and authenticity at its' core. It's not always enough for something to be true, it also has to ring true. That's a hard lesson to live by.. . I remember many years ago working on an ad, we put a number in there for some fact or another, the number was 100% abosultely true, but it was so large, it just felt... unbelievable. We ended up taking it out because it required too much of the viewer. I'm all for pushing viewers, not catering to the lowest common denominator as so many ads (political and otherwise) do these days, but you also have to know your audience, and understand their mindset. Like I've said before, it's a fine line between stupid and clever. 

(The Walmart video has several videos all about the same in message and emotion.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPdpszeV9PM&feature=share&list=PLDYLQOhwIvwWeXjXsiloLYkRrAunxtKrm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKQAivS0xsE

Walmart and JC Penny, both trying to convey a mea culpa of sorts. Walmart of course trying to make themselves something other than the huge behemoth crushing local business and wages, a comapny that treats it's employees as cheaply as its products. JC Penny fresh off trying to transform itself with Ron Johnson, who ran the Apple stores for so many years, facing falling stock prices and sales.

Both comapnies deserve credit for confronting the elephant in the room, and realizing that they have issues, that shouldn't be ignored. The question about both of these ads are they authentic in any way?

Is JC Penny really sorry? Are they sorry for not listening or because their changes failed to draw more customers?

Is Walmart really the great place to work and shop they say it is? Just because they say it with happy music and happy customers (and employees) does that make it true?

There's a story my mom tells... One day the phone rang, my dad answered. "Mr Strasberg," the voice on the other line asked,"We're calling for President Nixon...."

"Yes," my dad answered unphased.

"Yes, we were hoping you could help us with a problem... We'd like you to help us make the President look truthful."

"I see," said my dad, "Well, that's easy, if you want to make the President truthful, then have him tell the truth."

This is the essential problem with both these ads, and all ads like these ones. The truth speaks for itself. Trust is earned, truth can't just be created it has to be bought, not with money or air time, but with hard authentic work. There's no short cut to truth except truth itself. I think both JC Penny and Walmart are going to find this lesson out the hard way.

 

 

The story matters

in

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=26691167&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_26691167&v=3 Sometimes you luck into a the story. Think Subway and Jared.

I've seen some articles of late saying union membership is down, and unions are talking to their own members not to the public.

Then I watch a video like this one from MLB and Bryce Harper, and I think why aren't they telling this story, not this exact story, but stories like this. If unions have any symbolic power, its this story of the regular hard working man (or woman) trying to make a better life for his family. It's a story as old as America, why aren't unions tapping these stories at a time they need them the most?

What's the point?

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvypu0AHM8A I've seen this Kevin Durant ad about 20 times in the last month. I think it's really clever, it's well acted (I love the mom's response as she tugs at her wedding ring), it's unexpected. I've watched it 20 times, but last night was the first night I realized it was for Spring PCS. Huh.

I talk about gimmicks a lot here. Here is a great example of when gimmicks fail.This is a well execucted ad and its a failure.

If the gimmick isn't central to the product (whether its cell service or a candidate), then the gimmick gets remembered but the message gets lost.

 

Never let 'em off the hook

in

Not sure why I wanted to show it, but my sone just did a report for school on change agents, and he got Jackie Robinson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzf1xykHSUc

You know I wanted to like this ad a lot more than I did. I love the opening line, "Here's to first...," and I also love the New Era (they sell hats you know) tag, "Fly your own flag."

I wanted to like this ad, in many ways it reminded of this Apple ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFEarBzelBs

But where the Apple ad moved and inspired me, the New Era ad despite being well shot left me flat. Maybe it's because it's seems to be trying too hard, it had me on the hook at the beginning but then it loses. Somehow it feels like New Era doesn't really have a point to make, the ad's not really about being first nor about Flying your own flag. Where the Apple ad is dedicated to the "Think Different" proposition. What's my walk away from the New Era ad? What am I supposed to feel? The ad doesn't sufficiently guide me there and seeing the sign of Jackie Robinson park at the end feels less like a payoff and more like a cheat.

If you can't say something nice....

in

When things are going wrong on your campaign, you have two choices: (1) Try to defend or push back against the attacks, or (2) Change the subject and attack the shit out of our opponenents. Fresh on charges of tresspassing on his ex-wife's lawn (you know the one who he cheated on, telling aides he was going hiking on the Appalachian Trail, meanwhile flying to South America to be with his mistress) and this ad from the DCCC Mark Sanford has a choice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gyc0D4tXg5E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=549fQMhDg-4&feature=youtu.be

Guess he's going with door #2.

Watching the ads the ads back to back like this, I was struck by the subtilty and directness of the ad attacking Sanford.

The Sanford attack feels slightly desperate. I understand they hate unions in South Carolina, but I watched it a couple of times and the Boeing line threw me off (and yes, I know the general situation with Boeing, probably as much as the average voter).

So Sanford is trying to muddy the waters, hey look, she's not your voice, I may be a lying cheater, but I'm going to be your voice. That's the subtext, and frankly the only thing keeping a Democrat in this race his the fact of his lying and cheating. Throwing the Pelosi peice in there also feels odd, again I understand the rationale, but without the context it's just can come across like mudslinging (which is what it actually is).

The message itself isn't bad, but the vehicle for that message feels a little sloppy.

 

It's a fine line between stupid and clever

in

Pretty funny ad from Kmart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I03UmJbK0lA

The ad is of course provacative, and at it's core basically a gimmick. I laughed at the execution, and I think it will be successful to the extent that Kmart's message is tied into the gimmick. Essentially could the ad be from another retailer in the same market space, let's say Target or JC Penny?

At the end of the day how much do people connect the "ship my pants" ad to Kmart or do they jsut remember some department store had the "ship my pants" ad? In other words does it succeed in pushing the message or does it simple amuse?

More railing against talking points

in

What sells a product? Is it how well it works? Or how well you think it works? Is it what it says about itself or what it stands for? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XpaOjMXyJGk

Much like the Ebay motorcycle ad, this ad isn't filled with talking points. It's not making any claims about its product, its just a brand saying this is what our values are, this is what we stand for, this is what we are about. To the extent that story is authentic and resonates to how the audience sees the product, it is effective.

This video from Dove is absolutely on-emotion and because of that it's on message for the brand. It's easy to be on-message, much harder to be on-emotion, but ultiamtely more important.

2+2=3?

in

Let's take a trip to LA, where they're having a big Mayor's race. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPXDGxQ1Zrk

This ad is really pretty, well executed ad, but it leaves me feeling flat. Maybe's it's Wendy Gruel's delivery, maybe it's just that it feels like it's trying too hard, but in any case it doesn't grab me they it should given the elements. Like somehow the ad doesn't add up to the sum of its parts.

You call this negative?

in

For followers of this blog, you know I love it when consumer brands go negative: 1. It tickles me because many traditional advertisers have a holier than thou attitude towards negative advertising,

2. and it's always interesting to see their takes on negative ads. Some like Apple do it very very well, others like Direct TV and Dish, eh not so much.

Mircosoft is the latest to join the negative ad bandwagon. They have a whole "don't get scroggled campaign" which generally goes after google for being less than their vaunted "do no evil" policy. The appoach is interesting because previously they tried to show how their search engine Bing was superior. I guess that campaign wasn't so successful so Microsfot decided they would (horrow) go negative.

So is their negative campaign any better than their positive one (which sucked)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yZ5O96TtM

Wow, you get two ads for the price of one.

Ad One is two real people conversing casually... expect their spouting Bing talking points. These ads work to the extent that the acting and diologue sound authentic and real. This ad fails in that respect... fails pretty miserably. The acting is stiff, but maybe that's cause the dialogue sounds more like they're reading from a memo. Seriously Microsoft this is the best you can do?

Ad two is a ponteially interesting concept, having these goofy Internet type people, intereacting with the two actors because they know so much about him. I think the ad would have been better served moving full force with this concept, rather than trying to balance the two concept. It has potential for humor and more critically potential to show the viewer what's wrong with Google, rather than telling them via awkward talking points.

This is almost a parody of a negative ad, and it's neither this nor that. Not funny enough to be interesting and not pointed enough to make it's point with force.  Without this sounding too snarky it feels like a pollster's ad, all message but poor execution.

How do you say... M-E-M-E?

in

What makes a good parody? It has to be true to the original.

It has to twist the original content in a way that's unexpected and/or taps into an exisitng meme about the origianl.

I keep trying to think of a third item (thanks Bob Shrum for teaching me the rule of threes), but I'm outta ideas.

BEFORE YOU CLICK THIS IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK... Put your headphones in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0ilMx7k7mso

However you break it down, this is brilliant parody. It caputres the tone and feel of cable ads perfectly before twisting it into a sharp satire of the cable companies' business model. Ultimately, I think it's successful because it links into the meme that the cables companies are a**holes who care more about making money than they do about providing a good product.

My wife asked me who was responsible for this video, why did they do it? It's not part of some anti-cable campagin as far as I can tell, but maybe it ought to be because it perfectly crystalizes everything that's wrong with them.

Beware your friends

in

If you longed for the good old day of negative advertising. If you've said gosh they don't make 'em like they used to....

Then this negative ad attacking Christine Quinn in the New York Mayor's race is for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VfMcURAvsmA

Gosh, from the music the effects to the overbearing narrator, this ad felt like it should be running in the 90's. Negative ads have come a long since then, using more pointed attacks, humor, and just generally not being so overwrought with the negativity. Does the ad have some good points to make, it sure seemed like it. The quotes were all good and tough, but instead of letting the evidence speak for itself, the creators of this ad tried really hard to let you know, these were bad things (as if we couldn't tell for ourselves).

The problem is that there's no room for the viewer in an ad like this. They're telling instead of showing, they're making statements instead of asking the question. It's a classic blunder, the first of which is never get in a land war in SE Asia, and the second is never go up against a Scillian with death on the line.

The ultimate question then is this: Does this ad help or hurt? How could it hurt? As an outside group, coming in attacking the only woman in the race, does it seem too mean spirited? Are they injecting important information into the race or are they beating up on Quinn? Again, I don't question the validaty of their attack, just the tone. The ad is tone deaf. Better to give the quotes straight then ask the question. (Shaking my head).It's clear the people making it hated Quinn, but it's too clear, it seems personal, like they want New Yorkers to hate Quinn as much as they do.

To the extent that this ad sticks and the information gets through it'll be effective. To the extend that it is seen as too negative or just plain mean spirited, it'll backfire.

 

Filming Talking Points

in

Two quick thoughts on this ad from Crossroads: http://youtu.be/5SgbQOqun-s

I think this ad is a complete fail for two reasons:

1. They introduce the King Angus theme at the beginning, but then don't go anywhere with it? Why waste seven seconds of the spot playing with Angus King's name, then just let the concept drop.  So instead of a clever concept you have a gimmick that doesn't push the ad forward at all.

2. My understanding is that King was a pretty popular governor in Maine. I'm not sure how attacking his record as Governor makes anyone change their mind.

If they could have connected the whole King Angus with this record as governor, in other words, connect their frame to the specifics of the ad, maybe they could sell their message. Instead they have a series of talking point masquerading as an ad.

Everything you wanted to know about Subtext (but were too afraid to ask)

in

When I was at film school, I had a teacher Bill Reilly who taught me to understand the importance of subtext as a director. I grew up in an acting family, so I knew about communicating subtext to actors, as Boris might say, "Love is not 'I love you,' love is chicken." But I had never thought about how the subtext of a scene might relate to how you filmed the scene. If two characters are talking, but the subtext is their separateness, that's a different shot then if the subtext is their desire to be together. Bill taught me that, and it's been among the most important lessons I took away from NYU. http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc

When I first saw this ad, I wondered if it was some Onion satire, it was so sharp and funny, a parody of a political ad. It's like a nested doll, a parody of an ad, that's an ad itself, there's a certain post revisionist meta brilliance to it (deconstruct that phrase for a moment, I have no idea what it means, but I like it). It's an actual ad, running on cable not in battlegrounds, but still airing on TV's across the nation.

I think at face value the ad is pretty funny and does a good job at subverting Romney. Not just the message of he's getting tough on Sesame street, but not wall street, though that's important. No, it somehow make Romney seem small and petty, Big Bird, really? Come on, don't we have bigger issues to take on?

That's the surface, but I think the true value of the ad is the subtext of its message. To me, this ad says Obama gets it. It's funny and a bit whimsical, likable and clever. An ad like this makes Obama seem more real to me, because he's tapping into the current meme of the election. It's politics and its serious, but he's not above being a little silly in the face of the ridiculous.

Maybe put another way, the ad is on-message, but it's also on-emotion, it reflects what some voters are already thinking and amplifies it. That's a powerful tool.

I don't know if they intended that to be the subtext of the ad, again as Boris used to say, "your work is on the screen," so whether they intended it or not, once it's in there, that's purposeful enough.

Subtext is a powerful tool, in my mind more powerful than the surface text, because it operates on the viewer, often unconsciously. This ad works on both levels, but the subtext "he gets it" can also translate to "he's one of us." To my mind that's really more useful in this election than a clever hit on Romney and Wall Street.

 

A contrast in styles

in

A couple more quick reviews today. A friend passed this West Wing reunion along: http://youtu.be/v52FLMOPSig

It's pretty clever, and actually does a good job of conveying some important information without sounding too political. Some of that is the format, a lot of that is good acting. It's really amazing what good actors can do, the "bio" section of the video is really well done without too much fanfare.  It's logs in at a little over four minutes, but doesn't feel overly long. Makes me miss the West Wing too.

http://youtu.be/4oIVinDXzOw

Next up another appearance for Elizabeth Warren. I think the script is pretty good hear, it's conversational and common sense. It's the kind of explanation you don't hear a lot of in politics, straight forward, no spin, and it makes sense. My real problem with this ad is how stark it looks. It looks like a response ad from the 90's shot on piss poor betacam. It's flat and ugly. I understand that it might have been thrown together quickly, but surprised at how bad it looks given the ubiquitousness of quality cameras -- especially in the Boston area.

I keep thinking the starkness was a deliberate choice, especially given the fact that there's no music, but whether is a choice or not (Boris would say, "Your work is on the screen") it's unfortunate. Does it matter, maybe maybe not, but I think if the ad looked a little bit better it would be a home run, even looking pretty flat and dark, it's a good spot because the message is right on.

Getting back into the game

in

Been a while since postings, part of that is I've been busy, but also I find it difficult to find something to post about that I'm really interested in.  Most of the ads I've seen are pretty standard fair. I like un-standard, that's what I want to write about... ah well. In the interests of posting, some quick thoughts today.

http://youtu.be/TRe28MtuXH4

I always find the word "liberal" as a throwback to the 90's when Republicans were using it like a four letter word. I like the graphics of this spot, they're neat in a Matrix kinda way, though not sure if they're adding to the message or just neat.  Also, not sure I've ever heard a more cranky/crotchety disclaimer.

http://youtu.be/zCugPvfgP70

Next up, a new Tester ad. I can't tell if I like this ad or not. On one hand it's a clever concept, and they stick with it.  On the other, the talking animals are a little... creepy. The first time I watched the spot, I was so caught up in animals talking, I didn't even listen to what they were saying. Also, what format are they shooting on? For a professional ad for a big senate race, the video looks really cheap and crappy I noticed this last time, I reviewed a Tester ad). Still I give them points for trying something different.

A Bridge too far....

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZMTTcvTm8 Wow that's a lot of production values for a political ad.  I love the pledge zombies concept, too bad the creators of the ad seem to not know what to do with it. There's this big build up, then you have what's a pretty standard political ad. Seems like there are two ads in here, a concept spot about "Pledge Zombies" and a standard to camera ad about the Pledge and why it's bad for business.

The concept ad could be hilarious, imagine a standard political ad with the pledge zombie, meeting voters, working at their desk, with their family.  (I can see it in my head, it's pretty funny there at least.) In this ad, it feels like it's wasted, there's no payoff to the concept, so why go through all that work?

The failure of this ad isn't from a lack of creativity or execution, both are very good, but a lack of courage on the part of the consultants (or the candidate) to follow through with a brilliant concept. They came up with something interesting, and instead of playing it, trusting the concept to deliver the message, they go half way, so the ad is neither a good concept ad or a good political ad. (Ok, it's actually a pretty good political ad, that was a little harsh, it's just aspires to be something more, and it fails in that aspect.)

I remember reading a book when I was younger, "A Bridge too Far," by Cornelius Ryan. It a historical account of the the audacious allied plan to end the war, by capturing a series of five bridges behind enemy lines and  opening up a northern route into Germany.  Despite all sorts of problems, the Allies captured four of the five bridges, prompting General Montgomery to proclaim it a success, and others to say, they went "a bridge too far."

This ad is like Operation Market Garden (the name of the plan in the book), four of five bridges isn't actually a success, judged by the standards it has set up, it's a failure, which is too bad because it's so close to being awesome.

The no rap, rap.

in

Back in college, there was a lot of talk about your "rap." Which meant, the lines you used to pick up women, or at the very least, what you said to a woman when you started talking to her. There was always discussion and envy of the guy with the smooth rap, who always seemed so confident and sure of what to say, and who always seemed to get the girl in the end. Then there's this... the rap with no rap:

http://youtu.be/9uMT9YrEZiI

The phrase came up one night as my friends and I discussed our "raps." I think I said something to the extent that I had no rap and therefore was at a disadvantage, another friend who knew me too well, countered that my rap was the no rap, rap.

Other than the "guy with two first name" I thought this ad was interesting (interesting as opposed to effective, which I'm not sure about). It's not a bio or any other specifically message driven on it's surface. But it's subtext (like many ads) is really where the meat is.

This ad is the political equivalent of the no-rap rap. I hate political ads, so I'm going to talk about my seemingly random friends. But what Gregg is talking about is a way of life, a way of thinking, and his connection to it. I would guess he's betting a lot of Indianians know guys like Hobo and his friends, and somehow, being a kind of regular guy is an advantage against his opponent former Washington, DC Congressman Mike Pence.

Political ads today are almost always about the smooth rap -- the focus on message over everything else. Sometimes that smooth rap is effective, usually when it's authentic, something it's just aired with such repetition that it becomes true, and often it's just a bloodbath with two candidates fighting it out with their smooth raps to see which one voters like the best.

An ad like this stands out, whether it stands out for the right reasons or not, I'm not sure, but it's interesting... or maybe it's just my appreciation for the rap with no rap.

A different kind of gimmick

in

Wasn't planning on writing about this ad, but I'm the middle of a great book, "Winning the Story Wars," and it helped me focus my thoughts about the ad in a way that I thought was helpful: http://youtu.be/qPUxHeIsYLc

I write a lot about gimmicks -- ads that use a trick or device to get attention. When these ads work, the gimmick is on-emotion and in tune with the authentic story of the brand (or candidate).  When they don't work, it's often because the gimmick is just spitting on the table -- it's only about getting attention, and the emotional connection to the brand or message is non-existant.

This Cicilline ad uses a different kind of gimmick. It wasn't clear to me until I read this from "Winning the Story Wars":

The Trial of Gimmickry

SIN: Are you trying to make a quick emotional connection by putting all your eggs in the basket of nonsensical humor or high-intensity emotion?

SUCCESS: Or are you building emotional affinity around shared values – layering humor and emotional intensity on top of this solid foundation?

My first thought about the Cicilline ad (really, my second thought, my first thought was that the footage looks kinda bad) was that it didn't earn the emotion it was seeking -- telling stories about Cicilline coming to the aid of Rhode Islanders.  There were too many stories, and somehow they don't resonate.  Reading the quote from Story Wars, it's obvious to me now, this is another type of gimmick ad, though less obvious the the ones that rely on humor or some conceit. And to put it in the Story Wars framework, this ad is trying for high intensity emotion, but it's not built on any foundation.

Look, I'm sure he helped all those people, and that's great, but that's his job isn't it?  What makes these cases special or unique? Is Cicilline the kind of guy who goes out of his way to help people? Or is he an unpopular congressman, trying to bolster his image?

In some ways these ads show disrespect for the viewers. Look, all advertising is manipulative, but hopefully, it offers something more than the manipulation. The two olympic ads I showed yesterday earned their moment, when it gets dusty at the end of the Proctor and Gamble ad, it had worked to get me the viewer there, to get me invested in the story.

This ad, just those an old woman, a vet, a cancer survivor out there, trying to manipulate me without really having to try, it's just going through the motions. They don't invest in their story or characters, so I don't invest my emotions in the spot. I've never thought of this emotional manipulation as a gimmick, but it is, and it fails big time here.

And now a word from our sponsor...

in

Taking a quick break from politics (because there are three or four ads I'd like to write about), I thought in the spirit of the day, I'd write about my favorite Olympic ads.  Fast Company posted this list here. It's an interesting list. Here's their top choice:

http://youtu.be/0eisbkQgY2Q

Funny, this ad didn't do much for me. I mean it was alright, but I don't even think it was the best shoe ad on the list.

I thought the Nike ad "Find your Greatness" was much more inspiring and also much more on brand message:

http://youtu.be/_hEzW1WRFTg

My two favorite ads on the list are #2 and #3:

http://youtu.be/NScs_qX2Okk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKTamH__xuQ

Both ads are well shot, but what really sets them apart is the emotional appeal.  How you can you not get a little teary at the end of the Mom's ad?  And the meet the superhumans is so kick ass and proud, that it would be an insult to call it merely inspirational.

Another element that sets these two ads apart is the outstanding music.  Which both sets and frames a mood, but also drives the spots. Another element that both spots share is reflecting small familiar moments that the viewer can relate to.

The spots just suck you in from the beginning -- they open with a quiet stillness that is both intriguing and engaging.

In the Olympic spirt both spots deserve a gold medal.