Does interesting = Good?
I was just lamenting to a friend that it's sometimes hard for me to blog because I feel like I'm saying the same things again, and again, and again. That's because for the most part you see the same ads, again and again, and again. In my more down moments, I wonder if I have anything to add to what I've already said, and worry that it's not enough to beat the drum, if you're beating out the same rhythm (rhythm is a ridiculously hard word to spell by the way, I never get it right). http://youtu.be/u8jt5DYnovo
I cam across this ad in the Daily Kos' election roundup, a pretty useful daily guide to election goings on, and a great way to see new ads. They have a pretty good sense of the subtext of ads, and said about this one:
"This ad from 25-year-old Republican Weston Wamp (notable only because his father, Zach Wamp, held this seat until a cycle ago) is just deeply... weird. I can't summarize it at all—it's a series of different images (John Wayne! moonshot! Bill Gates!) accompanied by a strange meditation on the meaning of freedom. I will say, though, that I was sure Wamp had hired some ridiculously deep-voiced announcer to narrate the ad. Instead, it turns out that the ridiculous deep voice is Wamp's own. (He doesn't sound that way when he's not trying.) Overcompensating much?...:
It's a little weird, and not really your standard political ad, and yet, there's something about it I like. It puts a premium on emotion and theme over pure message and facts. I just finished reading Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failures, by Tim Harford. Harford talks about the need to experiment away from the harsh glare of success and failure, in fact he says explicitly that being able to experience in places where you can fail is critical to future successes. He calls these outposts Galapagos Islands -- places outside the scrutiny of everyday business or the mainstream focus of action.
I thought a lot about the idea of Galapagos Islands in politics -- the stakes are so high (win or go home) and so much money is spent, there's not much room to experiment because the costs of failure are higher than almost any other industry save ones where life and death are actually on the line (Nuclear plants, airline pilots and the like). Shit, Coke can role out a whole new formula, turn on it's heels and call it a mistake with little or no fallout, other than a cautionary tale. A politician can't even change their opinion on an issue opening themselves up to a negative attack.
I'm getting a little off topic here, but the point is it's hard to try out new things especially in political campaigns. Every candidate wants different, or so they say. The various occasions they're presented with different, the reaction is almost always the same, wow, that's so different, can't we do something you know more... (I wrote a post about this very fact some time back).
Back to this spot, it's different, and sometimes that seems weird. What I don't know is if it's authentic? Is the spot just spitting on the table (if I stood up and spit on the table in a meeting, you'd certainly remember it, but would it be the message I want to convey)? Look at those Pawlenty for President spots if you want to see spitting on the table in action. I don't know if this spot fits people's image of Wamp, is he seen as a daddy's boy, and this spot seems strangely like he's overcompensating (as Nir implies)? Why did they make his voice sound... so oddly deep? My guess after listening to him speak normally is that they put some kind of effect on it in post. What will people think of that? Is he trying too hard (like Pawlenty) to be something he's not?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But here's the thing I do know, I actually find the spot kind of interesting, and think in this case the usually astute David Nir misses the mark. There is something bigger going on here. "We went to the moon and played Sinatra 'cause no one told us not to..." that line is odd, but also strangely compelling and memorable. Which is what I'd say about the spot. I'm not willing to say it's good, but it is interesting, and in a world filled with safe and normal, that's a step in the right direction. Is it a failure? Well, if it is, then it's a failure that moves us closer to a success, and in my book that's something to be admired.