[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKHu_gM893Q] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKkTjJ3lT4]
Not an entire review, but Just because I like them, here is Spitzer's newest entry. I like the fact they have two versions of the same ad, though I prefer the narrator version. The CG version I find hard to read and the CGs break up the visual flow.
Still good copy and nice visuals. I'm good with that.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTZpvmkVRYQ] My first thought: Wow, Senator Pryor really doesn't like Tom Cotton.
My Second Thoughts: This is part of a new trend of early ads (this ad is for an election over a year away) whether to buck up your support or keep your opponent from every gaining steam, these ads are becoming increasingly common.
My Third Thought: What a mess. They start by hitting Cotton for blind ambition, but then say, "...but let's talk about Cotton's record." I have a rule of life -- everything before the but is either a lie or doesn't matter. You're a great guy... but... You're doing great work... but.... That's a terrific point... but....
So we have blind ambition and then a litany of issues Cotton is on the wrong side of. So what's the walk away here? What's my new story about Cotton? There is none. This ad seems akin to pouring gas on a car, hoping some will get into the tank. Ads should make choices, they should weave a story, but there's no choice here except a chocie to throw the kitchen sink at the guy.
So instead of hammering a message, introducing a story about Cotton, there's no message and nothing to hang your hat on, except this is another political ad, isn't it early for that?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuaUz7QUXfc] There's something quirky about this spot that I like. I really like the line "Corey may be the frontrunner in this race, but he's no progressive." There's an honesty to it that I think voters will appreciate.
Still I just can't bring myself to love this spot. It's one of those that ads that I'm ambivalent about -- those are my favorite to write about. I write abou them because when I'm ambivalent, I usually can't put my finger on what's bothering me. Thats the case here.
Could it be the spot is a little too on the nose? Could it be the opening which is distinct (the scientist from Jeopary) but somehow akward (too self promoting maybe)? I don't mind the middle issue section because those are a MacGuffin, a way for Holt to signal his values without saying he's a progressive. But then they go ahead and say Booker's not progressive and use progressive in the tag.
I guess I can see the potential of this spot (I'm a scientist, Booker's the front runner but his story doesn't match his values -- do they match yours), but it doesn't really reach it, and leave no room for the audience to put themselves in the spot, instead telling us what to think.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7M9Y7Vcg4w&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffere9986&utm_medium=twitter] Not much to say about the video per se, but I thought this video was a good MacGuffin to talk about the comptroller race.
There's been a lot of talk about Spitzer coming back into politics. Most of it centered around the question of could Spitzer overcome his prostitution scandal. Missed in that conversation or maybe forgotten (mostly) is that Spitzer was a pretty awful governor before he resigned. I wonder if the prostitution scandal didn't actually save Spitzer's reputation. Is it easier to rebound from seeing a prostitute or being a horrible governor?
Well, since Scott Stringer thought it was his his civic duty to remind people that Spitzer's second act is really the same as his first -- claiming to be a reformer then letting everyone down).
Strategically this is probably the best way to go, smarter than pounding Spitzer on the prostitution scandal, which could seem less than honroable and everyone already knows about.
Now this is a video rather than an ad, but it makes the point, pretty straightforwardly. I found the quotes powerful and the press conference scene especially good.
This is Stringer's best shot to take down Spitzer, and to the extend that it starts a conversation that subverts Spitzer's appeal it will be successful. But, I wonder if people see two Spitzer's one the arrogant failed governor who failed and the other a gunslinging Attorney General who kept them safe from the predators of Wall Street and their kind.
Is making the race a referendum on Spitzer enough? I'm not sure. I think Spitzer's story is too strong in voters' minds. I think Stringer still needs to sell himself, this needs to be a choice for voters.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORFZqtGAzTA] Gosh I wish Elliot Spitzer could run ads from now till 2014.
I'm not sure this is a great ad, not even sure I like it, but at least the guy (well probably Jimmy Siegel) is trying.
What I like about this ad is it doesn't hit you over the head with it's message, doesn't feel the need to fill the quiet space nor pump you full of talking points. It keeps you waiting, and doesn't reveal itself till the end and even then, it doesn it with a crinkled newspaper headline. I really appreciate that they trusted their concept.
I'm not sure the music is right, but again, think of how this ad vould have gone: Elliot Spizer has spend a career going after Wall Street... Blah... blah.. blah... Instead of the usual talking points, they engage you with a reveal, and let your imagination fill in the rest (gosh, he has been a thorn in Wall Street's side) to my mind that's worth a 1000 talking points.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYfjg0dILo] When I talk about confronting the elephant in the room, this is exactly what I mean. I when I said Weiner needed to own his mistakes, to incorporate his fall into the rationale for running again, this is what I mean. This ad grabs you right from the start, and it leads with the most important information in a direct way.
"When you dig yourself a whole you can either lie in the rest of your life or you can do something positive...." That's a great line. Spitzer appears to be talking to an interviewer, but regardless of whether it was written for him or he came up with it, it's good copy and it's well delievered. In fact, this ad reminded me of what I like about Spitzer. As I said to a friend, he may be a son of a bitch, but he's a son of a bitch who's on my side. That's really important in politics, but especially for a position like Comptroller, where,... well let's face it nobody really knows what they're supposed to do, but you know it's about making sure things run the way they're supposed to.
This ad also does a great job of telling a story. Who's side is Spitzer on? Yours. Who's he against? Wall Street, big banks, special interests. I think that works because it doesn't confuse listing issues or accomplishments with telling a story. The subtext could easily be... Once upon a time there was a guy who went after wall street and took on the powerful interests. They didn't like him very much. Then he made a mistake... Now, he's risen from the grave to right that wrong, they still don't like him very much. Good, fuck 'em.
I couldn't tell you exactly what he says in that section, but what he says is less important than the sense it conveys. (Frankly, I'm not sure what the lesson here is. Is it just a well delivered line? Is it his conviction or past story that we're familiar with?)
The spot loses me about 40 seconds in when he starts listing his accomplishments, "When I... blah... blah... blah..." Maybe it's because it seems more about him than us? Or maybe it's because it's a little on the nose, a little too much 4 instead of 2+2. I'd be alright with ending it with "Everyone deserves a fair shot." Think the "... even me" not only should have been left unsaid, I think it weakens everything that came before it. Is it about him or us? Is he the fallen hero seeking selfless redemtion slaying demons? (They do a great job of tapping that archetype, btw) Or is he a self-absorbed egomaniac who can't stand being our of the limelight?
I should also mention the visuals, the close up of the glasses, the empire state building shot, which are really good.
All in all, I think this is a really good spot, that has flaws, but also addresses the biggest hurdle Spitzer would face his own fall from grace.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MbYXOyIwaB4 Christine Quinn is the first candidate up in the NYC Mayor's race. I only have two short comments to make about this relatively generic ad:
1. Even though she appears in every scene in the ad, I never get a sense of who she is, what kind of person, do I like her or not? As I said above, it's all rather generic.
2. The final line: "While others talk about fighting for the middle class, I've been doing it..." Seems slightly ironic because we've just spent :30 seconds with you talking about fighting for the middle class. Yes, I understand she was "talking" about her accomplishments, but still I found it... odd. Maybe it's because the ad is so generic, and I wasn't emotionally invested so I'm nit-picking or maybe it's they're trying to hard to make their point, the ad yells "4" when it should be whispering "2+2."
3. (Ok, I know I said two short comments, so you don't have to read this one if you don't want.) There's just so many issues in the ad, I get it, you're trying to create a sense of what's she's done, the breadth of her accomplishments, but it feels like they're trying to say everything and instead they end up saying nothing.
It seems the middle class is the big issue of the NYC Mayor's race given this ad and the previous Weiner video I reviewed. Frankly I think Weiner video did a better job of being on-emotion, and showing true empathy. This ad is a list of issues, but ends up less than the sum of it's parts.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIaNh0NlGo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiiIaNh0NlGo You know this video (and let's be clear it's 45 seconds long so it's not running on TV) has the potential to be really good. But I think it misses the mark. Why? Because I think it's way off-emotion.
The ObamaCarenado is trendy for sure, but instead of campy parody they go way over the top with fear and anger. Now, I will say I really liked the end, but in general, this video just feels really angry to me, whatever humor it may have is lost in that anger. Now that may play well to the base, but I don't think it works so well with independent voters.
Good humor and good parody are hard. The video takes the easy way out, trying for neither and I think it accomplishes less because of it. Had they really bought into the Sharknado what could they have accomplished? Instead it just a macguffin to be angry. I guess that's one way to go, but the creators of Sharknado have nothing to worry about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTvmdBK-OlE
This ad just leaves me... I don't know, kinda flat. The message is right, and it seems like it's on-message, but I wonder if it's on-emotion?
I know it looks like an interview, but it sounds like talking points. Is it a case of too much message? Or just the wrong emotional delivery? The story doesn't feel personal.
BTW, the McAuliffe campaign is up with this minute long ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaZX_hLkmaY
It's better, though I'm a little confused by the details. Still I think it works better than the social security ad, especially at the end. I think it's a smart play to make Cuchinelli appear untrustworthy rather than going after him for being extreme or otherwise too partisan.
Watching TV this afternoon, I was caught by surprise by this commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFStdNtTkNI
Wow, it was so simple it worked. Dish detergent is pretty much a commodity. I buy the one that smells good (or I think will smell good) or is in a neat bottle. But otherwise I usually don't think much about it.
After watching this commercial I'm buying Dawn.
Commercials make all sorts of claims all the time, we're used to it. Unless the brand has some internal credibility, we usually slough it off or we need a third party validator. Well this ad uses a pretty powerful 3rd party validator -- I mean we've all seen those pictures of the cute animals covered in oil and wondered if they could get cleaned up... well they can with Dawn!
Maybe as much as the validation, this Dawn ad speaks to my story of the consumer I want to be. I can buy something as mundane as dish soap, and be helping the environment? That's me I love the environemnt.
Ok, so maybe the ad is trying a little too hard to tug at the heartstrings you know what? Next time I go to Target to buy my dish soap, I'm reaching for the Dawn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KjE7HXAjuk8 Money in politics. It's an important issue, but one that doesn't really get the attention it deserves. It's also one of those issues that if you ask most people they'd agree that money in politics has corrupted our political system. The problem is both the intentisty of their feeling, the vaguenes of what it actually means, and then ultimately, what do you do about the problem (I had a poli sci professor, Professor Cobb who always said politicians never idtentify a problem without telling you the solution).
This ad is funny, and the gimmick at it's core seems to be tightly connected to its central message, but I'd argue the ad is both off-message and off-emotion.
I've been thinking about it a lot today because it does seem to perfectly capture the zeigiest around this issue but it nagged at me. Here's the thing, the image of an elderly man is funny. But targetting politicians is too easy, so while the image of an old man on a pole is unexpected, the message that politicians are stippers or whores isn't so unexpected. Who doesn't think that already?
Emotionally, the ad uses surprise and anger. But again the surprise isn't on-message, and we're already angry at our politicians if Congress' approval rating means anything.
So really what is the ad asking the audience to do? It's not driving us to action nor creating a new link or adding a new thought to our understanding of the influence of money in politics.
Refering back to the Apple signature ad I looked at yesterday, this ad does the exact opposite. Apple focuses on the experience that the features create. This ad focuses on the features (politicians will do anything for money) rather than the experience (how congress sells out the middle class to big corporate interests or whatever they're trying to say).
Most of the time when I criticize gimmicks its because they're only about getting attention and don't connect to the core message. Here the issue is slightly different, the gimmick connects to the core, but I think Represent.us has chosen the wrong core. Maybe it gets Represent.us some attention, so in that sense it could be a useful proposition, but it feels like a wasted opportunity to frame an issue and offer a solution.
Well this just isn't working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=R_-cgPpULeQ&feature=youtu.be&nomobile=1
I know the intent, but it just isn't working.
It was done better here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWSN2zbydKw
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7wjJyMDUH0
With the Lamont & Steele ads the tone is fun and light, the Gomez ad almost feels angry to me. There's a tone deaf quality here, like they can't hear what they're how loud they're shouting.
On top of that, they cram too many details into the tail end of the ad. Isn't it enough to say, "Ed Markey is everything that's wrong with congress..." and leave that as the message?
When you're the king, you don't have to worry about the competition and go negative. When you're the king, you can talk about experience not features.
When you're the king, you can make ads like this one from Apple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1s_B0zqX0
I find the ad a little too on the nose for me (it's giving me a little too much 4 instead of 2+2, especially in the open). This is one of those odd ads that's both on-message and on-emotion, but still somehow misses the mark for me. I love that they don't talk about features or innovations, I love that they don't throw a bunch of numbers, I love the scene with the couple on the bridge laughing and taking a picture. A good brand is about the experience of the person using it, all those other things either add to the experience or don't, Apple totally gets that.
So why don't I particularly like this ad or rather, why do I think this ad isn't working as well as the sum of its parts?
Back to my first point they're giving us 4, when they should be giving us 2+2. as my friend said, the ad is trying a little too hard. I love the concept and feel of the ad, but I think the copy isn't as good as they think it is. Because the copy is framing all those other elements, the ad can't quite rise above it. I find the ad interesting, but not sure it's good, somehow it doesn't add up to the sum of it's parts.
Doug Bailey, founder of the Hotline, died today. Reading a little about him, I discovered he was a political consultant, who worked for President Ford when he ran for re-election against Jimmy Carter. Which led me to this, never aired ad/video (alert: it's four minutes long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8mILEkcrHvQ
It's interesting, with some modern touches, like the person on the street interviews, and some anachronisms, like wide collars and a catchy song that's kinda awful at the same time. Beyond that, the controversy is at about 2:47 where they show Ford thrown off by a cherry bomb explosion (there were two assisnation attempts on him) and then pointedly say things have changed when a President can go to Texas in the open air -- an obvious reference to Kennedy. (There's also the mention of a university again a symbol of the discord of the 60's.)
What struck me was how the symbols we use change so rapidly. A president in Texas or a president being embraced at a University would have less meaning or certainly different meaning today then it did. It makes me wonder if part of Clinton's appeal to youth some how harkened us back to the discord of the 60's as well, did it effect voters on an unconsious level?
Symbols are powerful tools. This video didn't air because it was too controversial, even 12 years after Kennedy was killed. Symbols are powerful tools, but only in the right context.
If you read this blog, you know how it tickles me when consumer brands go negative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=86JMcy5OqZA
Microsoft if you recall is also up with an ad against Google, seems like they've decided the best strategy is if you can't say something nice about your product, just go negative against the other guy. I was less than enthused about their attack on Google. This one play better. It's what I would call a cute ad, generally enjoyable, but not breathtaking. It's the kind of ad that's amusing, but does it actually sell products?
In addition, Apple bashing has become so de rigueur, that the ad feels a little too trite or hackneyed.
Along the same lines is this ad for a Windows 8 phone:
http://youtu.be/Z19vR1GldRI
Funny? Yes.
Memorable? Yes.
Effective? Huh.
I think they do a good job trying to tap into the meme that Apple and Samung are slugging it out, but I'm not sure their conclusion is effective. Thought in this ad, like the previous one I don't know if I can put my finger on exactly why not.
At the end of the day, I guess neither ad creates a hole in my knowledge to fill. They're amusing, but don't necessarily get me interested in the product they're trying to sell. Maybe it's they lack credibility -- Windows and Mircosoft is just a known entity that it's hard to re-create your image, when it's crafted in cement. In other words, it's not just my opinion of Apple (or Samsung or google) you have to change, but it's my opinion of Microsoft you have to change as well. And maybe not as well, maybe you have to change what I think of Microsoft (and windows) before they can go negative and change my opinion of other brands in the market place.
One of the greatest threats in a multi-party campaign is that the two front runners beat each other up so much, it leaves an opening for the underdog to sneak through. It seems that Microsoft (playing the part of the 800 lb underdog) is trying to do just that, I'm just not sure these ads are the best way to accomplish that goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ts_4vOUDImE# A friend sent this to me, with the following comment:
"Too long, but pretty awesome."
I have to say, even though I could roughly guess what was coming from the intro (and what I know about Coke's brand), I was still pretty moved in spite of myself.
Here's yet another example of a video that tells the story of a brand. It doesn't use facts and figures, doesn't just tell us we're all the same whether you're Indian or Pakistani, it shows it. The joy of the people engaged in the video is both obvious and contagious.
Does Coke taste better than pepsi? Is it cheaper? Is it healthier than other drinks? Probably not (well except on the taste issue), but next time I'm in the super market I'm going to smile when I see that coke display. Maybe that means next time a Coke executive is testifying on the HIll about sugar in soft drinks or selling to kids, I might be more inclined to believe him because I like the brand.
That's the power of an emotion, and it's a power that "facts" can't hope to challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=elgRJ0UBGoc Barbara Buono has an uphill battle, convincing New Jersey voters that popular Governor Chris Christie hasn't done as good a job as people think. While Christie's been up for a while Buono is spening $1m in the New York market (which isn't that much in that market) with this ad.
The ad is professional, but it's really not compelling. It picks up a little steam when :20 in when they show the picture of her dad with the sausage, but they don't have the time or inclination to dwell there, rather they throw out hackneyed platitudes about pulling yourself up.
Here's the thing ... you're trying to convince people of something they don't believe, fine that's the purpose of advertising --if people agreed with you, would you need to advertise? But when you're facing Goliath, David is foolish to fight toe to toe. I sometimes talk about attrition warfare here, and that's the strategy Buono is taking.
I'm getting a litte far afield from the ad istelf, but if the goal if this ad is to convince people that Christie has done a bad job, why would it? It's a political he said/she said, Christie starts with the high ground, he has more resources, and Buono is charging her army in a frontal assualt.
What should she do? Maneuver, don't fight him straight on, fight asymmetrically, hit Christie on an issue they don't see coming or one that goes to the heart of his credibility. Throwing three charges against him is akin to saying nothing, it becomes political blah, blah, blah. Maybe that issue doesn't exist, then find something that people can hook into, something that resonates, something that's emotional not rational (and especially not rational when people already disagree with you).
An ad like this works only if you have favorable terrain and equal or better resources.
It's a safe ad, but when you're fighting Goliath, playing it safe only plays to his game not yours.
Anthony Weiner is running for Mayor of New York City. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x92OWufIWcU
So there are a lot of things to like about the video. First of all, I love the message, I love how he ties his story of growing up to the story of a City. As a naitive New Yorker, his theme, that New York is moving awy from average middle class folks feels like it could powerfully resonate with a lot of people.
Emotionally I think the tone is right.
But... I question the decision to put the 'appology' so far into the video almost 2/3rds at 1:44). That's the elephant in the room for Weiner. Right now that mea culpa is almost brushed off, then he's sitting wife by his side (which was the most awkward part of the video).
But what if he made the appology and the sin a part of his story? What if he started with that, owned his mistke, but then turned it into part of his rationale for running... (It was embarrassing, I messed up, I was dumb, I hurt a lot of people, and let more people down. It would be easy to listen to the pundits and the tabloids, to not run, to save myself the embarrassment, but you know PUT MESSAGE & STORY HERE.)
You have to own your story, all the parts of it because if you don't others will.
I have a saying, everything before the "but" is a lie or doesn't matter: I really like you but..., You're a great assest to this company, but..., you did a great job on that project, but.....
I think Weiner wants to shrug off the appology, wants to deflect the elephant in the room instead of embracing it (that's a mixed metaphor or a poor one for sure). Ultimately I think that will do him in rather than help him.
This is a pretty good opening video, but....
http://youtu.be/UVAuMzg0VZk Real emotions win. People can tell the difference between real and fake. That's why actors get paid so much becayuse the best of them can convince us what they're feeling is real.
This Target spot is interesting, highlighting Target's investment in education in a very raw real way. They could have told you how much money they invest (in fact they do, though I can't the life of me remember that number, can you), they could have told you how many students they help or why a college education is so important. In other words they could have stuck to the facts. Instead they focused on the emotion.
I've been re-reading the classic "Made to Stick," there's a point they make in the book: "Statisitcs are rarely meaningful in and of themselves. Statistics will, and should almost always be used to illustrate a relationship. It's more important for people to remember the relationship than the number."
What are you going to remember from this commercial?
Last time Terry McAufliffe ran for governor he lost the primary. I think I looked at his ads back then and thought they looked inauthentic. He's running again, no primary this time, are his ads any better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EmM_Y6uUCPg
This is one of those ads that tries to connect the dots, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to walk away thinking. I thought the first part about where he talks about starting a business was interesting, but then it veers into family and creating jobs. I've been slowly re-reading the classic book "Made to Stick." In the chapter on Simple (one of the rules of SUCCESS), the say (wisely) that if you say three things you aren't saying anything.
That's kinda how I feel about this ad. It's sort of a broad brush paint by numbers approach, that pretends to tell you something but really doesn't say anything particularly interesting. They hit all the highlights for me, but don't really tell me a story that puts all the pieces together. Is he a hard worker? Self starter? Family guy? How exactly does he know (other than a poll) that Viriginia wants good jobs? A good story can create a framework, something to unify those elements. A good story can be told either in the text or subtext, but this ad does neither, so I'm left just watching a bunch of blah, blah, blah.