How does David beat Goliath?

in

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.

In the Zone

in

I've been wanting to write about this ad from the Denver's mayor race for sometime, but wasn't sure exactly how to express my thoughts. Still, not sure, but I think this is important, so I'm going to try and spit it out. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs3cTpgfQLc&feature=player_embedded]

This ad is a great ad, no two ways about it in my opinion. It doesn't resort to gimmicks, it isn't funny or innovative, but it's a great ad. [Note, I know the someone who was involved with the making of the ad.]

My firm had pitched Michael Hancock a while back, so when I was describing the ad to my partner, he asked could we have made it: Meaning was the person who made it more talented or creative than us? It was an interesting question, and made me pause because I'll be honest: I don't think I could have made this ad, and it's not because I'm not talented or creative, no it's something all together and here is where I have a hard time putting my thought into words, so bear with me.

I just finished a great book called, "Certain to Win" which takes the strategic recommendations of Sun Tzu and John Boyd and tries to translate them into the business world (whether the world of politics is more akin to warfare or business is another issue all together). The author uses elements of the German blitzkrieg  attack on France to illustrate the larger philosphical points. One element he points to is "Fingerspitzengefuhl" which means literally a fingertip feel and points to intuitive skill or instinct.

This ad has that fingerspitzengefuhl, it seems to capture all that Michael Hancock is about and embodies. It does this by telling a simple yet powerful story.  It's tone is pitch perfect, and if I may evoke mise-en-scene that's spot on from the music (which I think is ideal, but I don't know if I would have come up with that choice) to the color palette -- the dark and bluish tone, to the intimate shots and soundscape of a father and son's idle talk in the car. There's an earnestness without being cloying or trying too hard, a seriousness without being too depressing or too somber.

I love ads like this one, that can tell a story, a story that can capture the essence of a person, the tone and nature of a candidate (or brand), and do it with a simple execution without tricks or effects or even what would be considered a message in the standard sense. This is a power ad, and it's no wonder Hancock is currently leading in the polls. I watched all the ads in the race, and they were all professionally executed, and while some were better than others, none of them stood up to this ad (or the other Hancock ads).

Back to the question: Could I have created this ad? I hate to say no, but that's the honest answer. Could I create an ad like  this one? Yes, sometime when my talent and creativity hit that sweet spot with the right story and everything comes together just perfectly. While I'm sure some of the elements of the ad were ad hoc rather than part of some larger concept, this ad just comes together in a way that is so intuitive and special, it's unique in that sense to this candidate and this race, and isn't that what we want for all our ads?

A tale of two negative ads

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxsY4_zIGQ] I love the design of this ad.  It's really well executed, down to the thought bubbles on Mark Schauer and China.  The issues in this ad are packaged well, so it's not the specifics that hit home, but rather the thought "What were you thinking...." That's a smart attack and the execution helps drive it home. Too often we get caught up in trying to hit each issue point rather than the message or conclusion the issues are supposed to be driving home. We forgot about winning the war, and focus on the battle.  This ad is one of my favorites this year.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wBPR9faloA&feature=player_embedded]

Compare it to this ad against Sharon Angle from Harry Reid. It feels like a bunch of individual items thrown together into an ad. There's no design, no frame except at the end of the ad.  Unlike the NRCC in the ad above Reid actually has issues to hit Angle on, but the result of the attack is less than the sum of their parts because it feels like their is no coordination -- between the issues themselves, nor between the voice and the visuals or the design.

Which of these ads is more effective? Well, you run enough money behind the Reid ad, and it'll get through, eventually. But the Reid ad is exactly why people hate political ads. It's hitting them over the head because it has to, it's attrition warfare defined.  The NRCC ad is clever, it engages, it frames, it breaks through much easier in my opinion, it sticks, it an example of maneuver warfare.

Given the choice, it's better to go around your enemy than through them.

Is affect effective?

in

It's been a couple weeks since I've posted.  Usually that's because I'm busy and there's nothing really inspiring me to post.  Well, I've been busy between travel for work & Thanksgiving, but I actually have seen a lot of really interesting stuff that I've wanted to post about. We'll try a post a day for the rest of the week to make up for two weeks of silence.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PRC2pkMmrU]

I thought this ad was very clever.  After watching it, I couldn't tell you how much Blount took from Big Oil, or exactly what the charges were, but in my mind I remember the oily footprints walking out the door or the oily hand print on the back of the constituent's shirt.  So this is not only a clever ad, but an effective one.

Look, people like to point to the facts inside the ads, and those can be important, but what's more important is the overall affect of the ad (btw, affect is one of my favorite words).  Here the facts are like a soundtrack in a movie, they're background for the clever (there's that word again) visuals that really drive the message.

Imagine this ad with more standard visuals:

A picture of Cong Bount, CG: XXXX from Big Oil.

A picture of a Oil well (or oil company logos), Blount, Voted against American Clean Energy & Security Act.

Look, I've made that ad, like 1000 times, it's easy, it's not going to offend a pollster or other sensibility, and it'll get it's point across with enough repetition or if it's a view already moving through the political discourse.  But this ad, with these visuals is something different. I saw this ad once, and not the connection is locked in my mind Rep. Blount = Big Oil.  (Now, there are other factors, like the fact that I'm more inclined towards a pro-environment message and against big oil, but leave that aside for the moment.)

It's maneuver theory at work (I'll put this on the list of things to talk more about in the future).  It doesn't go up against your opponent's strength, but uses the necessary force to achieve it's objective and no more.

Creating affect if done correctly is certainly effective.

Imagination, Obama, and Hope

in

Did Obama win because of his ads? His campaign just won a Titanium & Integrated award at the prestigious Cannes International Advertising Festival. The Obama campaign did almost everything right. It was maybe the best one I'll ever witness. But, the ads? Eh...

Ad Age's ad review columnist Bob Garfield writes in his Cannes round-up about the Obama award, "...the messaging was as creatively barren as it was tactically brilliant. There was no "Morning in America" in this campaign. No "Daisy." No any single thing that stood out. Cannes has just awarded two Grand Prix to a back office. It's like giving the best-picture Oscar to the turn-off-your-cellphones announcement."

Garfield asks, "Shouldn't recognition go to those who exhibit startling ingenuity in messaging -- not technological ingenuity in dispersing the message, but imagination in the message and medium themselves?"

Look, the ads were adequate, but there was nothing about them that stood out. There was nothing imaginative or creative about them. Obama won despite his mediocre ads, not because of it. Most campaigns can't do that.

Ads are less important for a presidential campaign -- no other race gets even close to the same level of exposure. Most campaigns need creative, message-driven ads to break through and create that same inspiration. Political ads that offer "imagination in the message and the medium" can act as creative leverage -- gaining attention that far outweighs the amount of time they air. (Think of the Daisy ad; for all its fame, it only aired once.) When they win voters' hearts, campaigns win voters' minds, and candidates win elections.

Maybe this is a bigger issue than I have time for, but I would even argue that part of the reason people are fed up with politics is the lack of imagination in political messaging. Obama captured something, a feeling -- of hope, of change. It was a different campaign, even if the ads didn't necessarily express that difference; people responded anyway.

In an election, you can always overwhelm your opponent with more money, a solid message and numbing repetition, but wouldn't it be better -- better for politicians, better for campaigns, better for voters, to have a great message and outsmart your opponent with imaginatively delivered content? Not only is that more cost-effective, but it might even change how people feel about their elected leaders.

[My Note: Just saw this intro video for David Plouffe at Cannes, now this is interesting, wish the actual ads had looked like this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEBwfI2Y52w]

Is Cool Enough?

in

These aren't political ads, but I think there's a lesson to be learned here. Take a look at this Cannes award-winning ad (for fairness' sake, I linked to the actual website where it ran rather than youtube). Now look at this ad, which was considered, but didn't ultimately win (it's about condoms, but don't worry it's work safe).

Which one better communicates the story of the product? The first one "Carousel" sure is neat and compelling (what's going on?), and I wonder how they made it, but I don't know if it makes me want to buy that TV. The story is interesting, but it's random and doesn't really connect to any core message. In my mind this video is cool, but ultimately ineffective. It offers a sugar-coating with no nutrition.

[Ok, I showed this video to my partner, Dan, and he made the point that he might not buy that tv, but it made him think that Phillips was cool, hip & cutting-edge, so there's something more than sugar-coating. Still, putting nuts in your candy doesn't make it nutritious.]

The second ad, the condom one, is clever, it tells a story and it intrigues me.  But more importantly, a condom ad told through a love story makes sense; I'll actually remember it next time I'm shopping in Japan for condoms. It's compelling (what is that counter?), but it connects to the product, too. In the world of advertising, that counts for more than simply "cool".

(Digressing for a moment, both videos do a great job of showing a story with visuals only, no words.)

What's my point? Not sure, maybe it's this: creativity imaginatively delivered with no message is just as much of a problem as a message delivered with numbing repetition, but no imagination or creativity . Either may end up with a "win" (a campaign, an award) but don't be fooled; neither should be considered effective advertising.

Library Day

in

Maybe Library Day will become a weekly feature. Oh, what is Library Day?  Well, it's the day when I recommend a book I think is interesting or helpful in creating great political advertising.

The first book I'm going to recommend is, "Hey Whipple Squeeze This."

There are a lot of books that litter the bookshelf closest to where I work.  Those are the special books, the books that regardless of topics, I go back to again and again. Sometimes a books come and go off the shelf depending on what I'm interested in at the time, but there are a core that stay right there: "Hey Whipple" is one of those books. (For those of you paying attention, I've already quoted from it at least twice on this blog.)

Its subtitled "A Guide to Creating Great Ads," and that's exactly what it is.  Filled with observations, tips, stories and examples, it really is the one book on advertising that anyone interested in the craft should read.    What I really like is that Sullivan writes in an engaging tone, and he offers advice that gives you a good theoretical grounding ("Rule #1 in producing a great TV commercial. First you must write one") while also being eminently practical ("Write sparely," which is particularly good advice to political ad makers who tend to cram as much copy into "30" second spots as they can; you've never seen a grown man cry till you try to get a voice talent read 36 seconds of copy in 30).

The book breaks down advertising into print, TV and radio, then ends with some trouble shooting stories and advice ("Peck to death by ducks").

And the title? It refers to the Charmin ads which dominated the 70's.  For those of you too young to remember, Mr Whipple was the cranky grocery store clerk who admonished buyers, "Please don't squeeze the Charmin," while himself fighting his own squeezing demons.  Mr. Whipple had the distinction of being both the most remembered character on tv and the most reviled.  Sullivan points to the campaign as a cautionary tale of overwhelming the airwaves with ads that aren't very good can produce results, but, well I'll let him speak for himself, "What troubles me about Whipple is that he isn't good. As an idea, Whipple isn't good....To those who defend the campaign based on sales, I ask would you also spit on the table to get my attention? "

Ultimately the book is a call to smart,  elegant, and creative advertising because spitting on the table demeans not only those doing the spitting (the consultants or ad execs) but those who they're spitting for (the business or candidates).  Even if you win, you don't win.

For that message alone, the book is a perfect choice for my first library day.