The power of personality

A lot of catching up to do in the pre-Super Bowl quiet.... We'll start today with this ad from a friend of mine. I usually try not to comment on videos when I know the folks involved, but this video is worth taking a few minutes out to watch.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw4n74mgV2U]

What I appreciate about this video beside the clever presentations is that the personality of the candidate shines through. Now I've never met Daylin Leach, but I imagine he's exactly like what I see here. The gimmicks in the video add to the authenticity of the final product presenting an image of an unrepentant liberal with boundless energy, someone who is serious but doesn't take himself too seriously.

The other day, I was on a call and someone said, "Voters are looking for cues about a candidate." I thought that was really insightful. Watch the video again — what cues do you get about Leach?

After three minutes you feel like you know him. Now, if you met him in person or watched him give a speech or already had an opinion of Leach and what you observed or thought doesn't match with the video (in other words the video presents an inauthentic version of the candidate), that's when campaigns get into trouble.  The other question is does Leach's personality so evident here come across in the other aspects of his campaign?

In other words, can the campaign present a unified vision of itself to the public? Its a theme I've talked about before, ads are a great medium to communicate your message, emotion and personality, but its' not enough to communicate it, the campaign or brand has to embody it too.

Personality is great, too often campaigns run from their candidates personality, offering a watered down version of what they think voters want (consumer brands do this too). But what voters (and consumers) want is authenticity, Apple is as extreme a brand identity as any mainstream brand, it seems to do well with buyers. This video is powered by personality, and that's a good thing.

Sometimes we confuse the jelly with the donut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_S9iDzgPc4 I like this spot so much better when we're hearing from the candidate...

It's like passion, energy, connections, then Blah (message), Blah (poll issues), Blah (on the nose), energy again.

When it comes to emotion v. message which one will you remember from this spot?

Real is the new Real

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?

A good story should connect the dots

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.

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

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

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?

Is it what you say or how you say it?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_wj6NHdEQ] I watched this ad yesterday, the latest salvo in the Massachusetts senate race, and I knew I wanted to comment about it.  Watching it again today, it's amazing how much I forgot about it, ok I'll get to that later.

What I responded to in this ad was the message, Warren is unapologetically saying she's a crusader against Wall Street, and she's going to fight for the 99%.  What's interesting is that she does it (unlike me) deliberately without invoking the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Of course, you all remember Crossroads GPS just attacked her for her liberal extremism as the intellectual underpinnings of that protest movement.

What I think Warren does successfully here is embrace the message without embracing the messenger.  She doesn't run from who she is or her record, she doesn't defend herself "before you hear a bunch of ridiculous attack ads" (which of course have already started), but rather issues a forceful statement of principles and values.

Alright, that's 130 or so words in praise of this ad. When I first started this blog, I broke my reviews up into a form grade and a function grade, while I found that format too constraining and not ultimately helpful, I think it's instructive here.  The function of this ad would be an A-, the form, on the other hand, being generous would be a C.

What I remember from the ad was the message: Warren fights Wall Street, which is a pretty good summation, but loses all of the detail and texture of the message. I loved the archival pictures, so vivid, but the text is kind of flat and at times falls into political cliche. The taking on the powerful interests message was lost on me until I re-watched the ad, her story had drifted away.

For a candidate who has capture so much support and excitement of voters, her delivery is alright, but not especially compelling. Was a scripted ad read off a teleprompter the best way to go here? I've never heard her speak, but I can't help but think an interview ad going over the same message points, but spoken spontaneously would capture more of the real Warren. Here, I feel like I'm watching a candidate speak, the ad is well executed for what it is, but it's not compelling in the least.

Warren wants to tell us who she is, but I feel watching this ad that she's hiding behind a teleprompter and words written by a political consultant. I want more from her than this ad gives.

Again, maybe that's not fair, maybe she stinks in an interview, but what the ad gives in message is lost in authenticity. (Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't believe Warren, I just don't connect to her.)

If you averaged my earlier form grade C with the function grade A-, you end up about a B, and that's where I'd put the ad, B/B-. It's not a bad opening ad, certainly serviceable, but this blog isn't about serviceable ads.  I've only really read about Warren in the book "Confidence Men," by Ron Suskind, but she comes off as a compelling and intriguing figure there.  I can understand the excitement about her campaign, because I felt it too just from the little she's in the book, she seemed genuine and passionate.

I don't get that feeling here, or maybe I do, but it's diluted.  Am I less excited about Warren now, no, but I'm a believer after all, am I more excited, not really. At the end of the day, this isn't a bad ad, it's right where it needs to be message wise, but I just felt the pieces were there for a great ad.

What's wrong with this spot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xr4LPYQHfFM&wpisrc=nl_fix Dick Lugar is up with his new ad, trying to reach out to a party base that may have passed him by.

If they had come to me first and asked me what I thought, here's how the conversation might have played out:

Me: "I like the last line, 'a veteran fighting along side our new recruits, will help them....' Do we need the 'I'll hope you agree before it?"

Them: "Well, [insert person's name here, senator, staff, pollster, wife, donor] insisted that it be in there, makes him seem like a regular guy, you know?:

Me: "Ok, well it sounds kinda weak, when we want him to sound strong. Isn't that the point of the spot? That's he's taken on this problems before, that's he been toughened by age and experience? Now, why no music? It's an interesting choice."

Them: "Yeah, well we didn't want to make it seem like a political commercial."

Me: "Oh, you have a senator speaking directly to camera, but you didn't want it to feel like a political commercial? Right now it feels really flat, music could help give an emotional frame to the spot."

Them: "We didn't want to seem like were trying too hard or being manipulative?"

Me: "Ok, well, to be honest the spot feels a little desperate right now, like Lugar is begging for support, it feels a little pandery [is that a word, pandering?]. And, well, what the word, the Senator, well, he comes off as kinda old looking. That's what struck me the first time he's on screen."

Them: "Really? We had a special make-up artist who works with aging rock stars." [That's a true story, I used a make-up woman who's specialty was aging rock stars, she used a spray gun to paint on the make up of an aging man running for office.]

Me: "Well he looks and sounds old, and he's a little weirdly happy, when he should be more intense or something, again music would help...."

Them (looking increasingly like they want to leave): "Yeah. What else?"

Me: "What's up with the Reagan shots."

Them: "Conservatives love Reagan, Lugar worked with Reagan, therefore conservatives love Lugar. Get it?"

Me: "Yeah, well, the shots look dated, and make you realize that Lugar has been in office a long time. Who told him to smile the whole time? <Sigh>"

Them: "So basically, you think it's emotionally flat, he smiles too much, looks old, and seems like he's pandering?"

Me: "Exactly, and I just don't buy it, feels like he's trying to be something he's not comfortable with."

Them: "And that..."

Me: "Is that new, did I not say that before?"

Them: "No..."

Me: "Oh, ok, yeah it feels inauthentic too. Alright well, good first cut, let's get back into the edit room and fix it."

Well, it would have went something like that.

Playing with and against your story

A couple of ads from the Republican primaries. Ron Paul is up first, with a very stylistic ad heralding the coming of a new asteroid er, I mean a debt ceiling compromise.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI&feature=player_embedded]

To my mind, Paul's story is staunch conservative, who holds views outside the mainstream, but doesn't let that stop him. This ad plays along with that story, reinforcing what might be his strongest defining characteristic, that he's true blue (or red), so to speak. He has principles where others lack it, he has conviction when others want to compromise.

I think this is a strong ad towards those ends. First of all, I love fake movie previews -- even if this one is more of a MacGuffin, it works a the open.  It makes Paul appear strong and presidential without drifting into the crazy and dogmatic realm, that's a tough balancing act. The shots at the ends are stills, yet they're not static, they feel dynamic and powerful, he appears presidential, which is important to his candidacy -- he can't just be a wingnut, people have to see him as a potential president.

I think this ad also does a good job of raising the stakes on the debt limit, turning it into a battle between the forces of conviction and the forces of accommodation and appeasement -- he turns compromise into an abdication of values. I really like the paper look they created, and I find it effective though I'm not sure why. This ad is a great example of the form of the ad (the stylistic elements, the music, the graphics) helping to drive the function (the message). Compare this ad to those early Pawlenty ads, they have a similar style, but in the Pawlenty ads it was all about style, there was no substance underneath.

Great opening ad that sets the frame for the Paul campaign.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/X0J1EhOKvtI]

On the other side of the coin is this ad from Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann's story of course is similar to Paul's except maybe throw in crazy.  I'm not as wild about this ad as the Paul ad, but I still think it might be an effective ad. This ad is short on style, but it's function is clear, to counter the image of Bachmann as a raving lunatic unfit to be president. So, she talks very calmly if artificially about her record (a record that would appeal to Republican primary voters) and comes off as a little charming (hard to see the charm because her "performance" feels forced, but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt) and somewhat boring.

I also question the opening shot, the time-lapse of Waterloo -- not really compelling (maybe to folks in Waterloo), but later in the ad she has those nice archival pictures, why not throw some in of her own childhood?

I would also wonder if Bachmann can continue to run away from her narrative. While this ad does cast her as "serious" I wonder she can continue along this path, even as she bumps into her story -- it just doesn't feel authentic. Compare it to the Paul ad where he weaves what we know or might think about him into his message, and turns what might be a weakness into a strength. You can try to change your story, but it's not easy, and you have to maintain the consistency so people really believe what you're telling them.

Is it 2012 already?

I reviewed the Crossroads GPS ad earlier this week, as you may remember they're up with a $20 million buy.  Despite spending $20 million to run the ad, I found their ad cold, trying to make a rational case rather than wrapping an emotional case around some facts. I came across this online video made by the Romney folks that takes on the jobs/economy theme much more effectively than crossroads.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-44o5Dn6V98&feature=player_embedded]

Similar to the Crossroads ad, this one uses the President's words and turns them against him. But where the Crossroads' quotes felt out of context these feel devastatingly on point. While the CG's with the numbers feel a little complicated, and I found hard to read, I did like the driving drum music, and the final shot of the empty factory was pretty powerful. Glad this ad is on the internet only and doesn't have $20 million behind it.

Priorities USA responded to the Crossroads ad with this ad:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY1l9OOxtqo&feature=player_embedded]

This spot is better than the Crossroads' ad, while it didn't break any new ground, and the portraits were neither particularly interesting (except for the kid at the end with the flag sitting on the soccer ball -- I think it's the ball that makes it feel authentic) nor innovative, they were trying to make the ad emotional. Gosh I do hate the ad in the TV effect showing your opponent's attack ad, it so clunky, can't we come up with something new? I did like the end line, "We can't rebuild America if we tear down the middle class."

Did I love this ad, no. It felt hackneyed and I would have rather seen more unoriginal portraits over the "ads blaming President Obama" section along with Rove headline rather than the ugly TV, it seemed to break the flow of the faces for me, and made the ad more political, and less about these people. At least they tried to hit the right emotional tone and tie it to the message, something the Crossroad ad failed to do.

These three ads/videos represent the opening salvo of the 2012 General election. Republicans want to make the election about Obama versus some hypothetical candidate, if they succeed then they win. Democrats want the election to be about Obama versus Romney or Pawlenty or Bachman or whomever, he wins that battle because they can't compare (and their positions are ultimately unpopular). Of the three, the Romney video did the best job on striking that resonate chord. I still question if folks blame Obama for the economy or lack of jobs, they may be angry about it, but not sure they hold him accountable, voters have already made a decision about Obama, and worked the economy into that calculus.

If Republicans have any chance, they're going to need more videos like Romney's.

It's the story stupid...

Super bowl ads. Everyone's talking about 'em. On twitter, I linked to this article, "Super Bowl TV Spots (Versus All The Rest of the Year)." The gist was basically, yeah Super Bowl ads have a larger audience, but the quality of our work shouldn't depend on the audience that's going to see it. It's summed up with, "Just seems to me that a TV spot is a TV spot. TV, radio, any media buy is a public appearance for which we ought to put on our Sunday best, no matter how large our congregation is." Super Bowl ads are known for their spectacle, for their over the top quality, but the ads that I always seem to like are the same ones I like the rest of the year, it's the ones that tell a story and connect with me emotionally.  Seriously which ads to do you remember over the years?

Ad Age just did an all-time Super Bowl ad poll, it came down to Apple's 1984 spot and Coke's Mean Joe Greene ad, according the reader's poll Mean Joe Greene crushed Apple's ad.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffOCZYX6F8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4]

(Here's a link to all the ads polled: My favorites NFL "Crazy" & Reebok "Terry Tate, Office Linebacker," Monster, "When I grow up," and EDS "Herding Cats"-- though it's a little too much of a gimmick, I find it amusing).

I've never understood the appeal of the 1984 ad, though of the spectacle ads it does have a compelling narrative and emotional element (the drive to break free from Big Brother). But the Mean Joe ad, come on? Just watching it now, I was almost in tears. "Hey kid, catch..."

That brings us to this year's ads which has the usual blend of stupid beer ads that aren't funny the other 364 days of the year, the offensive -- Groupon, the unremarkable..., can't remember any of those, and the spectacle -- Coke & Audi, which were all right, but will probably fall into the unremarkable category before too long.

So which ads did I think were the best. To me one stood out:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0]

I don't know if this ad was targeted to parent's but it sure felt real to me. Another company might have gone for over the top, might have tried to make it funnier by making it more absurd, and they would have lost the reality of the moment. Absurd is fine if it's real, but when it becomes surreal, it needs some element to ground it back to reality.  This ad feels so true to life to me, and it's so well executed, down to the music, the way the child rushes past his dad at the end, and the surprised reaction at the end.

Does an ad like this sell cars? I would say yes. It's clever and honest, and somehow sympathetic, and I believe it makes VW seem clever, honest and sympathetic. They could have shown the car racing around corners, but that wouldn't hook me the way this ad does. That's the power of emotion.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKL254Y_jtc]

Along those lines the other ad that caught my attention was the Eminem Chrysler ad. A paean to Detroit (and America frankly), I think it's a powerful ad, that appeals to that underdog spirit in all of us. I love the script, again eschewing talking about the car, the car is a symbol for something more powerful, and if you want to connect with that story, if you want that story to become your story, buying the car is a way of broadcasting that to the world.  I love the end tag, "Imported from Detroit," simply brilliant.

Here's my problem with it, do you need Eminem in it? Why not have him narrate the entire spot? The spot is great for 3/4 then it falls apart at the end. Why does he get out of the car? What's the deal with choir?  It's one of those commercials that had me, then loses me at the end. Don't get me wrong it's better than 90% of the car commercials out there because of the script and the music, but it ends up falling flat at the end.  Too bad.

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the negative ads of the night.... What, wait you missed them?

How about this one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpqmVnUkgY]

The ad is obvious swipe at Apple from the 1984 reference to the white ear buds. I find the interesting, but not credible. The ad is trying to turn Apple from the rebel fighting Big Brother into Big Brother. But ultimately I'm not sure that I believe the argument coming from Motorola. I'm not sure what people think of Motorola, but rebel isn't really one of the first ten themes that come to my mind.  So ultimately while I like the message aikido going on here, I'm not sure it can be successful without some other validation.

The other spot that I recall going negative was this one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3snyXTNmFm8]

A lot of spectacle, pretty funny and well executed, but ultimately it felt like they were too clever. Audi is trying to be luxury for those who don't want luxury or something like that. That might be the right position for them, and this ad communicates it well, but there's not emotional component to it other than the basic message. Compare this ad to the Chrysler ad or the VW ad, which one moves you more?

Still, it's good to see brands going after each other at the Super Bowl, gets me excited for 2012.

Super Bowl ads remind me of big Hollywood blockbusters, full of sound and fury but ultimately as forgettable as Transformers or X-Men. The best blockbusters, like the best ads are the ones that focus the sound and fury in service of an emotion and a message. The best way to do that is to tell a story. The best ad this year was probably the least expensive to shoot, the same thing was true of my favorite ad from last year.  You can be simple and powerful if you focus on story and emotion instead of spectacle and being clever.

Paint by Numbers

I remember an interview way back before Beverly Hills Cop 2 came out. Eddie Murphy was promoting his new movie, and he said something like, "People loved the first movie, so we took everything they liked in the first movie, and made it bigger in the second one." Now, I was pretty young, but I remember thinking at the time that seems to miss the point. You can't just paint by numbers, we need a bigger explosion here, we need this & that, and expect a movie to be better. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPJCt-am6I&feature=player_embedded]

I feel the same way about this ad. In theory it has the right approach, it's trying to appeal to emotion with shots of kids and families, trying to engage our outrage, but the whole spot is just... I don't know, flat. It's soulless.

It's not that script is so bad or the images stink, it's just doesn't add up to a good spot or even mediocre spot. Now, the voice over doesn't help at all, the narrator sounds like she's on ambient. The spot has no energy or hook, there's nothing memorable about it.

That leads me to another point, to call the bill Affordable Health Care Act instead of health care reform is an interesting choice. On one hand I applaud the effort to embrace a new frame, Health Care Reform has been branded Obama Care with all it's death panels and job killing effects. On the other hand, even though I know they're talking about Health Care Reform, I find the ad confusing, I don't really know what they're talking about. Maybe I don't connect it in my mind to my support of Health Care Reform, it almost feels like a whole new issue.

This ad is one of those rare birds that's actually worse than the sum of it's parts. Like Eddie Murphy learned, it's not enough to have bigger explosions and expect your movie to be better, you actually need something authentic and fresh to engage an audience.

Now what?

Things will be slowing down on the blog, I'll still be posting as much as I can as I see things that are relevant. This weekend, I did come across this article in Fast Company about Neuromarketing political ads. Neuromarketing is, well as the article points out there is some debate about what it actually entails.  To my mind, it basically means looking at physical reactions (brain scans or non-voluntary physical responses like public dilation) to determine underlying emotional states.

There's obviously something very intriguing about this research.  Scientific studies have often shown, most people are not very good about describing why they're feeling what they're feeling. They often give rationale's cloaked as rational reasons.  I also think the focus on emotion over logic is a step in the right direction for political advertising.

On the other hand it all feels like snake oil to me -- psuedo-science at his best.  A physiological response is just that, you still have to interpret it.  Maybe more importantly, the person having the response also has to interpret the response based on the filters they've collected in the course of their life.  Neuromarketing seems like a silver bullet, trying to quantify what is not quantifiable (like this scene from "Dead Poet's Society").

Who remembers New Coke? It was one of the most tested product roll outs of all time, it surpassed classic Coke in taste tests, and when it was introduced to the public...? Well, it failed the only test that really matters.  A friend of mine said of focus grouping spots, who are you going to trust, the consultant who you're paying a lot of cash for their expertise or the person you're paying with $20, a diet coke and a ham sandwich.

I think there is a role for testing ideas, concepts, messages, but not executions. The familiar, the tried the true, the boring and same old will always win over the cutting edge, the interesting, and the novel.  People will tell you they want logic, when they're longing to be touched emotionally.

Back to Neuromarketing, here are the spots they looked at in the article with my brief thoughts (I've already written about most of them):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekUpo5Niljo]

This spot was the highest testing in the sample.  The tester points to the constitution and the pledge of allegiance as "making it pop."  I would say it's an interesting idea, that's not executed very well, and comes off as rather flat.  The fact that it tested well, makes me doubt the effectiveness of the test.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbaP0Jzd6QA]

I've already described this two minute spot as one of the best of the year. The test and I agree it feels authentic and real.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OmlkvPJZrk]

I thought this commercial was a little creepy, but to the extent that Ted Stevens' endorsement carried weight after his death, I thought it would be effective (as long as you could put the fact he was dead behind you).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yv_g7ZyADM]

I've reviewed this spot as well.  Good commercial that feels authentic to Hickenlooper (but wouldn't necessarily work with someone else). I agree with the analysis that viewers connect with Hickenlooper's disgust for negative ads, though not sure you need a brain scan to tell you that. Also which ad is stronger this ad or the West ad that started off the analysis?

Now the ads viewers did not like so much:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCa8xw9yGY]

This ad has been talked to death.  Good ad? Bad ad? Effective? Is it just a coincidence that the worst testing ads were negative/attack ads?  Or do negative ads routinely test worse?

The final ad also negative used the fake Morgan Freeman voice over:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGN3L7DOA4]

Again do negative ads get a bigger neurological response? Is that what makes them more effective? Did folks hate this ad because they believed the Morgan Freeman voice over was fake? Or did they hate it because other than the Morgan Freeman voice over and the restrained patriotic music, the script is so hack and generic that it's almost cliche?

Neuromarkerting -- new tool on the cutting edge of political advertising? Or pseduo-science?

Definitely something I plan to learn more about this off-season.

Final Push Connecticut

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_-KjkdFaY] This ad came out about a week ago, and it got lost in the shuffle of my day job.

I think this is a very powerful, very moving ad.  McMahon feels authentic and honest in it. It's not complicated design wise, it doesn't have to be does it?

My only issue with this ad is how it fits in with the rest of her campaign? I haven't seen all the McMahon ads, but this one feels like a new piece of information for voters, it shows her as passionate and caring in a way I don't think they have before.  With two weeks left in the campaign (when the ad started to air), that's a huge piece of information for voters to work into their story of who Linda McMahon is -- business woman, WWE CEO, rich,...caring and passionate?  The problem is it's not the last piece of information that sticks with folks, its the pieces of information that fill in their stories, the stories we all create for our candidates (and for us and the "why" we chose the candidates we do).

It's a good ad, but I think this story has already been written.

True to yourself

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS_RudqV1Gk&feature=player_embedded] With politicians (Democrats) running away from Health Care Reform like it was the plague, Russ Feingold embraces the best (most popular) elements of the health care plan, and attacks his opponent admonishing him "hands off my health care."

While I think the ad is not a particularly good execution -- I never like scripting real people, it can be hard for them to pull off the lines, and I'm not sure they do here.  I think it's the right play.  Getting back to my last post, you have to be true to your values and who you are.  Feingold is doing that, and pushing back on his opponent at the same time, if he's got any shot of winning this race, that's the best strategy.

Using real people is smart because it's not just politicians who appreciate health care reform.  Scripting the people takes some of that power away from the message, they're a little stiff and they're  indicating (as my mom used to say), but it works well enough I suppose, and it's a bold play.

I said what!?

Another good ad from yesterday. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN7ZQDqzaOg&feature=player_embedded]

Sometimes when my seven year old is blaming me or my wife or his brother for whatever mistake he just made, I remind him of something Shakespeare said, "The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves." (It came back to haunt me when he quoted it to a friend, and said, see it's all your fault.)

I like the visual look of the ad, the multiple filmstrip style. I think it's both interesting and effective at presenting the clips, which are at the heart of this spot. I think this is spot is pretty devastating to Crist, capturing his own words, turning them against him now that he's an "independent."

Look, I think Crist gets what he deserves in this case. He's been waffling and trying to play both sides, as he ran in the Republican primary, then switch to independent as it became clear that he couldn't win.

Crist's positioning was completely political and never felt authentic to me.  Now he's paying the price for his political maneuvering. I believe you're better off doing what you think is right then doing what a poll tells you people think is right. It can come back to bite you when the winds of change shift.

To quote Shakespeare again, "To thine own self be true."

When a gimmick works

Mr. Fix Chris Cillizza asks rhetorically if this is the best positive ad of the cycle: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yv_g7ZyADM&feature=player_embedded]

Unlike the last video, this ad is a gimmick that works. What's the difference? At the most basic level this ad works because while it is a gimmick, there is something truthful about it. It's authentic to the candidate, so the form says something about him.  It reinforces his image as not an everyday politician and it goes to the public's desire to see government work instead of fight. The fact that it's an easy pledge for him to make given the nature of his race is immaterial to the ad.

Here's the Hickenlooper ad from his run for mayor:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEZrn1j-POc]

Now if John Kerry of John McCain tried or Andrew Cuomo tried to be this quirky so voters could "relate" to them, it would be an abject failure.  It works for Hickenlooper because the guy is goofy.

I agree with most of Chris' analysis of the ad, though I do take exception to his final point, "it provides a broad thematic blueprint of what to say and how to say it for candidates -- incumbents and challengers alike -- dealing with a very volatile electorate."

This ad works for Hickenlooper, the themes work for his race and candidacy, someone else running along similar themes may or may not work.

The broader point I would make is this: with a volatile electorate, it is especially important that you run ads that are honest and authentic, that can resonate and connect with the voting public. If you can do it with humor and entertainment all the better, but more importantly, as Shakespeare wrote, "To thine own self be true."

This is Different

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woFLvypnPZA] I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

Here's what I like about it: it's different, it's impressionistic rather than linear or literal, and it only tries to make one or two impressions despite all the images.  I also like that they don't spend time trying to explain what we're seeing though a couple of the shots at the end had me perplexed as to their meaning.

Maybe more importantly the spot seems to capture the little I know about Alan Grayson -- he's bold and out spoken, and this spot is certainly bold.  It feels true to him.

Why am I conflicted? I don't know. I almost didn't write this post because I don't like writing I don't know, it's not satisfying for me, and I'm sure it's pretty boring to read. Just something rubs me the wrong way.

It's just a feeling, that the spot is trying to hard or something.  Maybe that's it, I can feel creators presence, but not in a guiding Errol Morris kind of way, but in an overdone Michael Bay way.    Maybe that's something voters won't notice, maybe it only bothers me.  Maybe it's what works for the spot because it fits Grayson, but it makes me not want to like the spot.

A tale of two ads

Been a long time between posts, sorry.  Thought I'd make up for it looking at two ads today.  The ads are pretty different but both are thematically the same (after watching them you may think I'm crazy for saying that).  Both ads play upon voter anger at "broken" government. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SDEY4J1Vlw&?wpisrc=nl_fix]

The more traditional of the two ads.  Wonder why the guy is wearing a t-shirt?  Shhhhh.... don't tell anyone but Charlie Baker was a CEO at a big time health insurance company.  This ad was kinda strange to me.  What's the deal with basketball?  I don't get it.  Again, I'm all for doing something different, but it just feels fake to me.

People hate CEO's and politicians so we'll put him in a t-shirt and show him playing basketball with his son.  People will love that!  He's just like you, get it? Awesome.

I think Robert McKay in his arrogant but seminal book, "Story" said something like a baseball hat is not character -- meaning just putting a character in a baseball cap does not tell you anything about the character's character.  What the character does tells you something about who he (or she) is.  It's about action, not what they're wearing.

It seems to me like Baker is trying to run away who he is from and his story.  The guy went to Harvard, he was a CEO of a health insurance company, that's the elephant in the room, better to embrace it and own your story, than let the other guys tell their story.

The ad is fine in terms of shots and the way what it is made, but it just feels phony.

This next ad goes in a different direction:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4&feature=player_embedded]

Well this is one way to go.  Not sure what's in the water down in Alabama, but they sure are going for it down there.  So where to start?  On the positive side, I think it's actually well filmed, I like the shaky cam, documentary feel.  I think the reveal is also nicely handled.

The ad is actually playing on the same anger at government as the Baker ad, though obviously going in a way different direction.  I think where the Bake ad feels phony this ad at least feels honest in its emotional center.  They're definitely going high concept for political ads.

I can almost see the consultants in the room coming up with concept:

"We revolted over a tea tax for christsakes."

"Hey, what if that was the ad..."

"No, no what if he was talking with Sam Adams, George Washington, telling them about what's going on..."

High fives all around....

Look, I find this ad scary, and not intellectually honest, but I think that misses the point of it.  I do wonder who they're aiming the ad at? If they get 100% of their base vote, do they get any of the independents you usually need to win a general election?  I mean come on, "Gather your armies?" Seems like a pretty radical message even for Alabama. [Ed Note: Seems Barber is in a Republican runoff, so this message is directed at his base.  I guess you have to win the election in front of you, but there is tacking to the right, and there is damn the torpedos full speed to the right. Reading his responses to questions about the ad, he's also trying to play it coy which undermines the authenticity of the feeling the ad is designed to manipulate.]

My partner Dan loved the ad and talked about how honest it was.  I think it's a little too honest.  There's the text of an ad or campaign and the subtext.  This ad seems to confuse to the two (or maybe it is not a confusion, maybe it is deliberate).  All that anger and fear of government could be the subtext, but to be so on the nose with it feels a little like drinking from a fire hose.

I think when I looked at the Tim James ad (also from Alabama) I said if Tea Party and the radical right learned how to package their anger into a cooler more thoughtful package, they would be a dangerous force.  This ad tells me they still haven't figured that out yet, which is good those of us who love this country.

It reminds me a little of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.

Another theme is that the Tea Party is trying to own the symbolism of the American Revolution. Again, I feel like this ad is so on the nose in that attempt.

Marc Ambinder recently wrote an article titled, "Has the Tea Party done anything good for the GOP?"

The GOP hoped to channel all that anger into their party structure, but like the frog, they lost site of one key fact -- the they are scorpions after all.

Try a little Honesty

A good commentary by Bob Garfield on why doesn't KFC just embrace who they are, and try a little honesty in it's advertising. For those who haven't heard KFC is donating money for every pink bucket of chicken you buy.  Stunts like this don't work precisely because they are stunts that don't connect with any deeper meaning.  What does KFC stand for?  I don't know, do you?  Does KFC?  What do they have to do with breast cancer?  No idea.

This is akin to a campaign throwing an issue out there just because it scored well in a poll.  It all has to have some deeper meaning, some connection to make sense in the mind of voters or it's just another stunt.