I'll take a story with that burrito

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE This Chipotle video is the latest video to "go viral" -- as of this writing it has over four million hits.

It's worth watching too full of pathos and top notch storytelling (the animation is pretty clutch too, from the folks who create Morris Lessmore and his Flying Book & Numberlys). The video is three minutes long, and I've already watched it four or five times. Heck, the video isn't even for the Chipotle per se, but a trailer for their new game!

I'm not going to break down all the reasons why I think this is a great video, either you get it or you don't. But I do think there are some important lessons you can learn from this video when thinking about your videos or ads:

1. Story matters. They build a compelling story that's not about the brand, but is precisely about what the brand stands for. A story that shows you their values.

2. Emotions matter. Related to that first lesson, this story is right on-emotion. Imagine a video that had the same message, but maybe it was a narrator with beautiful shots of fresh produce or some other genre appropriate video. It might get the message across, but would anyone watch? And more to the point would anyone remember or believe it?

3. Production Values Matter. Maybe the most important point I could make here.  We all have had clients ask us to produce a viral video, and when we ask how much they want to spend, the amount is usually less than you'd spend on an I-Pad.

Chipotle did fall into that trap. They didn't say well, it's only for the web, they produced a top-notch, story with top-notch production values, and I'm guessing they spent more than some people spend on their tv ads.

4. Your story matters. Chipotle is telling your their story (anti-corporate, fresh food, maybe even anti-establishment), but what they're trying to do is resonate with your story? Are you anti-corporate, believe in fresh food, do you want to be a conformist your whole life? By reflecting your story in theirs, the create believers, they create fans. I'll take 1 over 10 customers any day of the week.

I love seeing videos like this one. These ads and videos are why I write this blog. Chipotle could have fallen into a trap -- hey, we're just selling burritos, so let's give 'em a video about how great our burritos are. Instead they told a compelling story that resonates and creates fans, not bad for the price of a burrito.

 

 

Always aim higher

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgC84kDhWl4] A header like, "If you have a heart, this Wrigley gum commercial will make you cry," set a pretty high bar, but also sets off my ok, I'm gonna call that bluff response. Well, the stupid fricking ad did indeed make me cry or the room got incredibly dusty as it climaxed.

Is the gum a bit of a macguffin here? Sure, it could have been anything, but staking out that space, telling an emotional story about a parent and a child, about sharing something in good times and bad, well that's powerful. It's too easy to say, well it's just gum, we should talk about it's flavor or it's ability to solve a problem. Like this crappy gum ad I saw last night:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_XpT8Haohc]

The Wrigley commercial for Extra gum goes to a higher place on the hierarchy -- other gums are minty or clean your mouth, this gum you share and experience, this gum is about love and connection.

The downside here is that I'm not sure this brand of gum has enough of a pre-exisitng space in my brain to make an impression (what's the brand name again). So an ad like this one for a brand that doesn't have a position needs repetition in other mediums, it has to tell this same story of sharing again and again in a myriad of different ways (what about directions for making those Origami birds on the inside of each package or a Web site about creating your Wrigley moment).

Still it's a great ad, and a good reminder that it's not about the function of the product, but something more.

Sigh. Damn the torpedos.

in

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/72139899] So technically I'm on vacation, but I had to mention this ad because it just seems so... oblivious.

Two things struck me about this ad:

1. How similar in tone and content it is to the Spitzer ad(s).  I don't think that's a coincidence.

2. Anthony Weiner just doesn't get it. An ad that ignores what's happened to him only reinforces the idea that he doesn't get it, that's he's arrrogrant. The subtext of this ad is everything he's trying to avoid. Instead of confronting his personal issues like Spitzer did in his first ad, Weiner uses the same tone and message, but without similar results.

You can say you get it all you want (which is essentially what Weiner is doing), but if telling people  you get it shows them that you don't get it, well which story do you think wins?

Take the bull by the horns. Spitzer's first ad

in

[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.

Being on-emotion

in

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.

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?

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.

A tale of Two ads (in one)

in

http://youtu.be/r5BU8FPmccU A couple of posts ago, I looked at the Tammy Baldwin ad where she talks about taking care of her grandmother. That ad failed because it forgot about telling a story in favor of relying talking points. The story was really just a MacGuffin, so it rang as inauthentic.

Now we have Mazie Hirono's ad "Determined."

So I really loved this ad or should I say the first :30 seconds of this ad. The graphics and pictures are wonderful, and I find her story totally compelling and interesting. Because this ad is a :60 second ad it let her really unwind the story without rushing.

Unfortunately it's :60 second ad, and they felt compelled to get back to the issues because campaigns are supposed to be about the issues. Look, I know what people tell you they way (to quote Henry Ford, "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted faster horses"), but values are issues, and frankly I learned more about Mazie Hirono from the "soft" first :30 seconds than I did from the "hard" blah blah blah issues back end.

The transition from story to issues was awkward too, she's telling a pretty personal story about her mother and growing up and suddenly the narrator interrupts (and it felt like interrupting) riffing off the word "determined."

Look the issues part of the ad isn't bad, it's really nicely laid out and designed.  The issues are interesting, and not the same old same old we normally hear, but it's an entirely different ad. It's not like a Resses peanut butter cup (hey you got your chocolate in my peanut butter, you got your peanut butter in my chocolate...). Instead of :60, they might have been better off running 2 x :30 a bio/story spot and an issues spot that built off it.

I don't know if the second part of the ad diffuses the power of the first, but it certainly gets lost in the emotional connection of the first part. Sometimes less is more.

Power of the personal

in

Two ads, well an ad and a video, that I thought were interesting though neither feels fully expressed somehow http://youtu.be/upbjHwo0ncg

This intro ad from Hector Balderas is pretty nice. I thought the first half was better than the second. The line "He understands the power of education in a way most senators never will" is particularly powerful. I kinda wanted the spot to end there. After that it turns to issues and policy and the spot loses me.

Also I would have liked a simple presentation of his village at the open, the execution isn't quite right, though the copy is good.

http://youtu.be/U7T5psHRFB0

I loved the copy of this ad. So powerful. The shots are awesome, and the sound effects are really well done (the child laughing at the beginning, you almost miss it, but it totally makes that opening sequence). And that beginning sequence, the personal connection, the connection to his values, his principles are what really makes this video work. Funny thing, about 50 seconds in, the video lost me. After his father, it seemed to get I don't know political. Watching it the first time, I was totally engrossed, then I remember looking up because I was bored.

That's the thing about both these videos. Once they turn from personal to political, from values to issues, they lost my attention, I want to stay connected, but they've stopped resonating, and I've started thinking (or worse, not paying attention).

One of my partners always says, voters don't care about issues per se, they care about values. To the extent that these videos show the values of the candidates they have power, once they veer into issue territory, they become "political."

The road ahead or dead end?

in

Protect NC Families is up with two ads trying to defeat the discriminatory Amendment 1: http://youtu.be/coAussnLrjY

http://youtu.be/OlKsycrW1rw

I'm split on these ads.  From a tactical point of view, I like them, they try to tackle an issue in an emotional way, telling a story and putting a face to the consequences of passing an amendment that might otherwise be anonymous. They're well filmed and well made, not earth shattering, but really solid and professional.

At the strategic level, I wonder if these spots are barking up the right tree. I totally get the thinking, we can't argue gay marriage in North Carolina, we'll never win, so let's make it about straight folks, real North Carolinians who will lose their rights. We'll get them on self interest. Shoot, even as I write the argument down it's compelling, and I could see myself falling down a similar rabbit hole.

But while it's compelling, I'm not sure it's right (funny thing about being wrong, it feels just like being right... until the moment you realize you're wrong). First off people vote on values, they vote on emotion, they don't vote on rational self interest. Secondly, there's been some pretty interesting research that you don't move people when you talk about gay marriage as a rights issue.  People don't get married for their partners benefits, they get married because they love each other, they get married to make a commitment to that love, they get married to spent their lives together -- not to spend their insurance coverage.

So I wonder if the Protect NC Families is miscalculating. I'm sure on a poll this message drives voters, but in the real world, I wonder if it's a dead end -- especially to the extent that the Amendment is associated with gay marriage in the mind of voters. It's sort of pulling a bait and switch, don't think of an elephant kind of trick.

Compare those ads with this one from New York:

http://vimeo.com/26626292

This ad takes the point of view of straight people, but does it in the context of a mother's love for her child, and her approval of her son's love for another man. That's a pretty powerful message, and it doesn't risk alienating voters. I wonder if these ads are just being too cute with this issue instead of trying to deal with it head on.

Four for Friday: The Subtle and the petty

in

Been traveling this week for work, so it's been tough to post. Today is a hodgepodge of ads, I came across this week. First up Chrysler's followup to "Halftime in America":

http://youtu.be/kjv8u_1uLzk

I thought the ad did a great job of re-framing the halftime in America message that started with Clint Eastwood at the Super Bowl. If that ad was a 50,000 ft view, this one is closer to ground level. It tells the story, without telling the story, if you know what I mean. I just read this list of writing tips from the great screenwriter Billy Wilder. The two rules that seem to apply here are:

5. The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.

And,

7. A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They’ll love you forever.

This ad is very subtle, it never reveals the subtext, and I think it's better for it.

The next ad up was sent to me by a friend:

http://youtu.be/_hQyHHWLsOs

I like the tone of the ad, and I think it does a nifty job of making it's political points without sounding (or looking) too political. The ad is well shot too, with lots of pretty pictures. It makes something that could have been dry interesting, so it scores points there too.

My only objection to the ad, is the whole "Your friend Ben" theme.  Maybe it's how folks already see Cardin, but it feels a little forced. I guess it's better than a more traditional, "that's because Ben Cardin cares..." or "Ben Cardin is on our side..." line, but not sure I buy it, in an ad that I generally buy.

Alright, ad number three comes from the Republicans:

http://youtu.be/MXhLtb-NKY0

Don't love this ad/video for a number of reasons:

1. Not sure how folks will feel about using audio from the Supreme Court. Usually the Supreme court is above politics, pulling in Lawyer's arguments seems debasing somehow, but maybe that's just me.

2. The quote feels lacking context. So, the lawyer had a brain fart, but does that make healthcare a tough sell? Not sure I get the connection? Maybe if we heard a question asking him to describe what the health care law does or some other reference, but right now it just seems like a guy who lost his train of thought.

3. Who cares? I mean, yes we ought to care about health care, but what I mean is, hitting Obama for health care now seems like hitting Clinton for having affairs, haven't we played this out already?

Maybe as an ad that gets the base angry this works.  The fact that it only had 400 hits on youtube (and I've watched it twice), makes me think it's pretty ineffective.

Finally, an ad that's about as simple a repines as they come. In one of those petty (and dumb) political moves, opponents of Jose Hernandez are asking a judge to stop him from describing himself as an Astronaut. 

Hernandez answers quite eloquently in this one minute long video:

http://youtu.be/LQSD9UTgwcA

Is there a more clear example of show don't tell? This response is a also a great example of political aikido. Whatever a judge decides, the fact that opponents are arguing he's not an astronaut, this video response will cement the fact that he did indeed fly in space. At once a response like this makes the opponents seem small minded and Jose Hernandez never has to break message to do it, that sounds like a win in my book.

You can't handle the truth.

in

This is a bit of an unusual post.  Usually I reference an ad, but today, I'm going off book.  Don't know if you have been following what happened with "This American Life" and Mike Daisey.  Essentially "This American Life" ran an episode on working conditions in Apple's Chinese factories based on Mike Daisey's monologue.  Mike Daisey's monologue is a first hand account of his experiences meeting and talking with workers at Foxcomm. I didn't hear the original story, but it was the most downloaded episode of "This American Life" and sounded like a powerful piece of storytelling. Only problem, turns out after some digging by other NPR reporters, many of the stories Mike Daisey tells didn't happen.

This probably breaks some blog protocol, but take a listen to "This American Life" show "Retraction." It's a powerful episode and instructive lesson in truth telling, accountability and transparency.

Ok, you back (hopefully)?  Truth is such a funny thing.  Are the ads we produce truthful?  Are the facts true? These are questions political advertisers face every day. What the best attack? How far can we push it? Is it true? Personally, I take the truthfulness of the ads I create very seriously.

This story is a great example of why we owe it not just to the public, but to our clients to be careful with the truth.  Mike Daisey wanted to tell a story that resonated with his audience.  But if he claims the story is true and it's not, then the audience feels betrayed. My biggest worry about stretching the truth, especially when it comes to ads about our opponents, is that the pubic throws the baby out with the bath water. Meaning, they dismiss the entire story for one or two small lies that might make for a cleaner narrative or make something a little worse than it was or more meaningful.

That's what Mike Daisey did here, and now he's done a disservice to his cause.  Where is the truth in his story? Is any of it true?  I sat here trying to figure out what was true and what wasn't, and even I wasn't sure at the end of it all.  It makes you doubt the entire narrative he paints.  And what about the next story on China factory workers, will people take that with a grain of salt because of this one?  Probably.

What Mike Daisey did was confuse truth with verisimilitude.  Truth is pretty hard and fast, but verisimilitude is not quite in that realm, its something softer,is the essence of truth, it feels real.  Something can feel real without being true and conversely something can cling to true facts and be a lie.

There's probably a lot of verisimilitude in Mike Daisey's worthy story, but by not being honest about the truth, he has compromised trust with his audience.  So, they believe nothing he has to say.  It's a cautionary tale for all of us.

P.S. "This American Life" is to be commended on how they handled the situation. If you're gonna make a mistake, this is the way to clean it up. Basically, come clean, be transparent, accept responsibility. A good example to remember when things go bad.

Real Magic

in

When I was in college, I quickly realized something about the class I took.  My best classes, the ones I was most interested in, the ones that I worked the hardest in, the ones, I remember today, weren't always the most interesting topics. Sure some of them were right in my interest wheel house, but many of them were subjects I never really cared much about then or since.  Conversely, the worst classes were often in topics I was sure I'd love.  What separated the bad from the good, the boring from the interesting was the quality of the teacher. The best teachers made subjects (like English History 1600-1658) fascinating and relevant.

I bring that up in the context of this new ad from Jessie Jackson Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0XwaNaxC2o

On the face of it, it should be compelling, it should be heartbreaking, it should move me to outrage..., but it doesn't. The spot is flat emotionally. Now, I know a mom telling the story of her son gunned down on the way to choir practice is inherently powerful, but it's not. That first line "I'm Pam Bosley, my son is dead..." should grab you and make you sick, but it doesn't.

I'm not blaming the mom, who has obviously gone through a tragedy no parent should ever have to face.  It takes courage to get on camera and speak about it.  I blame the consultant.  It appears that she's reading a teleprompter, repeating words from rote rather than telling her own tragic tale.  Then to make matters worse, they have her spouting political blah, blah, blah about there opponent (the highlight of the ad is actually the phone of Debbie Haverston behind Jesse Jackson with that awful expression on her face).

I saw a quote from a screenwriter that said if the answer is 4, write 2+2.  Unfortunately the script here gives us 4.  There's no room for the audience in this ad either emotionally or intellectually. Instead of bringing us into the story they hold us at arm's length.

"A million deaths is a statistic. One death is a tragedy."

By the time she says, don't let my son die in vain, we should be heartbroken.... I read a great line about Jeremy Lin, the Knicks point guard, who came from no where to dazzle the NBA -- a reporter said the true story of Jeremy Lin was "about how in a society full of nonsense and noise, of fizz and vapour, of pretty colours and manufactured products, we ache for real magic."

This ad has the potential for real magic but instead they gave us more nonsense and noise.

 

 

What more do you want?

in

If you follow my twitter feed, I mentioned how much I loved this ad. I was going to leave it at that, but a friend of mine has been encouraging me to blog more (guess they don't follow Twitter), so here goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDGrfhJH1P4

I loved this ad.  First of all it's a great execution of a good concept. The production values are top notch, but more than that, they really trust the concept, going all the way, and allowing the concept to speak for the brand.  They show the values of the Guardian rather than have a narrator who tells you, "The Guardian, the whole picture -- our voice and yours..." or some other bullet point.

The details are nicely done as well from the copy (the police raid yelling "little pig, little pig let us in") to the way they inter-weave the story between web, headlines, user commentary, to the graphics -- seriously this is top notch stuff.

Also, its both telling a compelling story, but maybe more importantly a familiar story with a twist. Using the three little pigs is a clever way to spiral out a story we've all seen before -- the crime, the commentary, the reaction and counter-reaction, the eventual fallout to larger issues.

Storytelling.

Show don't tell.

Great execution.

What more do you want from an ad?

Best of the Night

in

I've been writing this post in my head since last night, but I'm still not sure I got it, but sometimes it's more important to dive in than to dither in your thoughts. I started with the positive, here's what I liked last night: OVERALL

Dot.coms are dead, long live the car ads. Car companies dominated the buys last night.

I thought the ads were pretty "eh", there were some good ones, but nothing that stood head and shoulders above the rest.

Consumer brands not afraid to go negative... Chevy, Samsung, Pepsi all had negative ads up.

THE BEST 

Probably the ad that people either loved or hated was "Halftime in America," the Chrysler ad narrated by Clint Eastwood. I loved it. Yes, it was derivative of last year's ad with Eminen. Yes, it was too long and sometimes too overwrought.  Of all the ads tonight, this was the one that I had a visceral reaction to.  I watched the game with my wife (who is a blast to watch football with, each play elicited a shriek or gasp of concern), despite backtracking this morning, immediately after the ad she turned to me and said, "That makes me want to buy an American car" -- isn't that the point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PE5V4Uzobc

Look, you can break this ad down in a lot of ways, but at the end of the day, I loved it because it was on-emotion and it connected with me at that level -- and hell, I'm probably not even the target audience. Some called it the best political ad of 2012, as it harkens back to "Morning in America," it acknowledges the best in us and speaks to American pride and spirit.  Chrysler = Detroit = America. And really is there any voice more soulful than Clint Eastwood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38jELwi0lE

An interesting entry from Hyundai. I really liked this ad as well (this was my wife's favorite). Not as great as the Chrysler ad, but I thought it was an interesting framing for a company that people don't really have a story for. I've never thought much about Hyundai as car company, but the idea that "they try harder," that they're in it together, that they keep working through problems is a great identity for any company.

My problem with an ad like this is, will people accept it? I have no reason not to accept it, but just because they say it doesn't make it true. What's the proof? I wish Hyundai would follow up with more ads along these lines, show me ways that the company has overcome problems, instead they followed up with this ad:

http://youtu.be/KEq74TCDGtc

Funny and clever yes. On message and on-emotion..., not so much. How does this ad fit in with Hyundai's message in the Rocky ad? It doesn't seem to. Maybe it works as a way to get people to remember to Hyundai, but I didn't even remember who this ad was for until I went back and looked.  I laughed at this ad, it was good entertainment, but not a great ad. In a way, this ad is a good representation of the ads last night, some nice entertainment, but nothing that was a great ad.

The Best ad that didn't run in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qZYqdsYAg&feature=player_embedded

I already talked about this ad. But thinking more about it, it reminded me of the old Bud slogan, "This Bud's for you." Bud was the drink for the everyman, for the unrecognized heroes out there, who do their jobs in quiet dignity. This ad harkens back to that tradition, and I think it would translate to America, it's a shame Bud wasted their time with ads about Prohibition and partying through the ads, rather than this ad which is far more effective.

Ads my Kids like

Asher really liked this Coke ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2nBBMbjS8w

It was funny, the polar bears are iconic coke messengers, but like a lot of ads tonight I think the humor gets in the way of emotion.  It's funny, but not sure it's really about Coke.

Owen's favorite ad was the much anticipated Volkswagen "Dog" ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-9EYFJ4Clo

It was a funny ad, and while the epilogue was random, it made for a nice connection with last year's ad.  I liked the genre busting that I saw in car ads last night, this ad led the way putting a story of desire for the car ahead of the attributes of the car.  It was funny and clever, but at the end of the day, it didn't make me like volkswagen any more than I had before watching the ad.  I guess I agree with the guy in the bar, I liked the authenticity of the Vadar kid better.

Ads that people I respect liked

Really it was just this ad from Fiat. A couple of people who I really respect told me this was the best ad of the night, while I respect them..., they're wrong...

http://youtu.be/cpi2IAec9Ho

I think this is a good ad -- provocative and interesting. It tells a little story and is surprising, all good things. But I feel like the scope of the ad, the emotion it's trying connect with (desire) is just not that big, it's low hanging fruit. Compare the emotion of the Chrysler ad to this one, and this one feels small in comparison. Still it's well executed and crisp, and does a great job of being on-emotion.

Playing with and against your story

in

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.

Dueling ads, West Virginia Style

in

Guess we got a race for Governor going on in West Virginia. We have a singing candidate, a candidate comparing his dog to being governor, and a guy who goes by "Big," as in Big John Perdue. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsraPSU-zq8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3EkZmPKWXM]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YuVeg3gGQ]

When I write these dueling ad posts, I usually try to take them on one at a time and juxtapose the ads against each other. In this case, that approach didn't feel right, these ads were crying to be lumped together. For whatever reason, I feel like all three of these ads are just trying way to hard.  It's like they're all crying out to be noticed. Look, I get it there's tremendous pressure these days to stand out from the crowd, but standing out and standing out in the right way are two different things.

In my last post I reviewed an ad that stood out in the right way, in a way that drove a message, and was interesting to watch. Watching the Maloney spot, it starts with this line:

"Reliable... For 13 years...," yes I'm with you, this is interesting...,"Holly's trip with the morning newspaper has been as reliable as the morning dawn." Stunned silence...,cue foghorn,  am I supposed to vote for the dog?  The flat delivery doesn't help the flat gimmick gain any traction. I guess you may take away the guy is boring and reliable, but at least embrace the boring part, and the reliable part, well they deliver the message, but is it credible? After watching the spot, it's more credible to say Holly is reliable than her master.

Rick Thompson appears to be singing in his spot. I like the story telling, but not sure the staged scenes are helping.  Again, they feel a little too desperate, like the story wasn't enough so they had to tell you, instead of showing. The shots at the end transitioning from the actors of him and his grandfather to him and his son that works, but the other shots are a little too on the nose, a little too literal. It would have been better to use snippets of those shots, a closeup of the hand on an old phone, a kid stacking wood. The problem with the shots here is that they don't convey experience (the emotional experience of what Rick was feeling or the mood they want), they're like exposition -- which always sucks.

Then there's Big John Perdue.  It's like if they say the word "Big" enough, we'll like the spot (with the over done voice over). I assume he's been called "Big John Perdue" before this spot? (Gosh I certainly hope so.) Again they are trying really hard, but it just doesn't work. They should have gone all the way with the big John Perdue theme, imagine if they had done something similar to the Jake Zimmerman style here? Slightly tongue in cheek, yes (as it should if you're gonna call your candidate Big John Perdue in an ad), but I think the hyper reality would have brought out the truth they were trying to convey. Instead, I feel the effort, but I have the same issues as with the other ads, is this credible? Who is this guy? Why should I care.

Sigh.  Who else is running for West Virginia Governor? Because after watching these ads, my vote goes to the dog.