GM Re:Invent

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Dpxls8138] While I'm not sure if this ad falls within the mission statement of the blog, with all the issues around government ownership of GM, I imagine the audience for this ad is as much policy makers as consumers.

That's a rationalization.  The reality is that I really wanted to review this ad for two simple reasons: 1) it's not often that I see an ad that surprises me and makes me say wow; and 2) this ad surprised me and made me say, wow.

Reading some of the comments on Advertising Age, I thought I was crazy -- most of the  comments were along the lines of this blog post: the ad misses the mark, its not going to change anything,  there's nothing new here, how does this help GM?

When I showed it to Nora my wife, she had the same reaction as me, "wow."

So maybe I'm not crazy or maybe we're just a perfect match.

Form (on a scale A-F): A-

Ads, like movies fall, into genres -- a series of conventions: stylistic, subject, sometimes legal requirements.  Think of beer ads or prescription drug ads or hell, while we're on the subject, political ads or car ads.  Each one might be unique, but they also tend to be similar in many ways not related to product.

Breaking convention can be genius, like this Volkswagen ad (one of my all time favorite ads) or disaster (no examples of those off the top of my head).  I think this ad pushes the bounds of the car ad genre, plays with your expectations, and surprises the viewer with images and voiceover that are at times literal and at times unexpected and lyrical.

I find the images compelling: the runner with the prosthetic leg, the bridge with the sun glaring through, the house being built.  There's something iconic about the images, though they're not the usual iconic images.  They speak to resolve (the tattered flag in the hurricane), to toughness.  It's America, but not the America we're used to in car commercials.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the copy.  I think this is an incredibly smart and well written ad, conversational in tone, yet conveying important information. "There was a time eight brands made sense, not anymore." It's simple and direct; you don't need to understand branding and marketing to understand what they're saying.

I also love the quality of the narrator's voice, not the usual voice of God in car commercials, but strong and matter of fact.

Function (on a scale A-F): A-

Here's where I think the naysayers are missing the point of this ad.  It's not trying to sell cars per se, it's trying sell GM.  Why is that important? Because I think consumer faith in GM is low.  Who would want to buy a car from a dying company that makes crappy cars to begin with?

Watching this ad, I want it to be true.  Odd, right?  I'm not a car guy, I didn't grow up worshiping at the alter of the American car, yet this commercial taps into something.  Maybe it's the Hero's Journey quality: the hero (GM), beaten and humiliated by hubris, must start again, from nothing.  He must rebuild himself, but in this new birth he finds humility and strength he didn't know he had to create something greater and more meaningful than he had before. Think of the end of "An Officer and A Gentleman":  Mayo, broken by the death of his best friend, must face his demons one more time before becoming the officer and gentleman that the title promises (thanks to ""The Writer's Journey," for the example -- a great guide into the hero's journey for those who dare not brave Joseph Campbell).

Is that too much from one car commercial?  I'm not sure it is.

This ad sets the stage for that re-birth, the RETURN from the dead into the world of the living.

While I did ask myself, is any of this true?  I quickly decided I'm not sure if that matters yet.  I want it to be true, which is enough for now.  It's up to GM to make good on the promise it's made here.  A key element to any commercial is honesty and truth. This commercial starts with "Let's be honest." And there is an honesty here.  Admitting mistakes of the past is a big deal for any company and it makes me more likely to believe what they have to say after that.

Final Grade (on a scale A-F): A

Why an A?  Well, I added a little extra for effort.  The ad, while not groundbreaking in execution, is honest and very well crafted.  It delievers information in an emotional way.

The ad helps GM to frame their own :60 story outside of the media.  They're not a company in Chapter 11 ("The only chapter we're focused on is chapter 1");  Its a mythic story about a company that was too out of step, too big, and too proud, a company that failed and now sees its sins, a company that is striving to reinvent itself.  That's a powerful story to my mind.

It's a story that touches on patriotism and the strength of the American character, it touches on the epic, the Hero's Journey, and it touches on the angst we all feel in these changing times -- facebook, twitter, terrorism, a changing economy, jobs being outsourced, etc.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding: is this a hoax or real?  I don't know, but I do know it got me curious to see what GM does next, which is something I would not have said before watching this commercial.

Review: Chris Dodd Fighting Back for Us

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2uPH211r_E&feature=player_embedded] This may be the first ad in the 2010 election season.  If you're an incumbent US Senator running an election ad in May, a year and a half before the election, well, it doesn't take a pollster to know you're in trouble.  According to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com, this is number 3 on the list of seats most likely to change parties and number one among incumbents.  That's quite a feat.  Nate finishes his analyisis with, "the important thing about Rob Simmons is not that he's Rob Simmons, but that he's not Chris Dodd."

That's interesting in light of the ad, an ad for Chris Dodd, about Chris Dodd, in which Chris Dodd hardly appears.  Even when he does appear, it's in a group shot alongside President Obama.

Form (on a scale A-F): B-

Nothing really compelling about the form, it's a pretty standard-issue political ad.  They did a nice job of making the stills interesting; adding the black and white to the end gives those images a sense of weight and importance -- not inventing the wheel, but nicely done, nonetheless.  Pretty moves on the pictures.  I like that they didn't try to cram too many shots into the spot and kept the pacing nice and easy.

Still, it's striking that Dodd hardly appears in the ad, and when he does, he's not front and center.  Between Obama and the woman in pink (Rep. Carolyn Maloney), it's hard to find Dodd in that group shot.  I think that was deliberate.

Function (on a scale A-F): Incomplete

Is it a cop-out to say time will tell?  The ad is an obvious attempt to re-position Dodd: look he's with Obama! You like Obama, Obama said his name, he helps people and fights big mean credit card companies, you don't like them.  Get it?

The only 2 pictures of Dodd show him in a group with Obama in the center.  Dodd's part of the Obama team.  You might be angry with him, but Obama needs him -- Obama says that in his Dodd shout out, and it's reinforced in the visual.

Final Grade (on a scale A-F): B-

Can one ad undo the damage that has been done to Dodd's reputation?  Probably not.  Fortunately for Senator Dodd, it's early enough in the election cycle that it doesn't have to carry all the water in one audio-visual package.  This ad is the first of many to come.

A new study published in Advertising Age says "Though most campaigns cluster ads in a short period of time, consumers retain information better if it's spaced out over longer intervals." (Their emphasis.)  If this is the first of a long series of ads reframing Dodd, it's probably a modest success.  If Dodd can continue to avoid the kind of special treatment stories that got hin into trouble, then this story can help smooth over the damage done and remind people why they voted for Senator Dodd over and over again.

This ad is also a good reminder that its hard to judge an ad out of the context of the campaign. If Dodd wins next November (assuming he makes it out of a primary), nobody will remember this ad, but ti probably played some small role in changing the Dodd story from a Seantor who's out for himself to a Senator who is fighting for folks.  In that way, its kinda like the grunts on the ground in a war, doing its duty to the best of its ability, but part of a larger effort.

Review: Community Change Healthcare

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vjRDWX74AE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1] We're going to be seeing a lot of health care ads as the battle to finally pass comprehensive health care for all Americans heats up.   I usually like to find something good to say about a video.

The Good

So here goes:  This video is provocative, and I'll give it points for at least trying to do something to get attention.  The shot of the stethoscope on the wallet is memorable, and in the right context could become a symbolic foundation for the push to pass universal coverage.

Unfortunately, that's all the positive I can find.  Health care is an important issue in the lives of many Americans -- especially those without coverage.  This video seems to trivialize it, confusing shock value for emotional resonance.  As a concept it fails the critical test in that it is disconnected from the core message they're trying to convey.

The Bad

In addition, it's poorly executed.  I understand stretched budgets, and the fact is that a good compelling story should overcome any technical or execution deficiencies.  These days there are plenty of good-looking cheap formats that could have been used; I think my ZI-6 shoots better video than we see here.  A short video doesn't excuse poor acting. This is seduction, really? Seriously?  Maybe it's a moot point, but again if you're going to go in this direction, you better do a damn better job.

The message is clear: insurance companies getting in between you and your doctor. Pretty simple. But there's no connection, no emotion by the point you get to that point.  Again, if you had created some emotion, gotten the audience to invest in the story you were telling at the start, when you get to the stethoscope on wallet shot, that could have been a powerful kick in the teeth, with almost no additional commentary needed... Instead the shot goes wasted.

Final Grade:

Form (on a scale A-F): F

From concept to execution, this is a mess.  It's a gimmick that doesn't help drive its message, so it becomes a bad gimmick, badly done.

Function: (on a scale A-F): D

Its message is clear at least, and the shot of the wallet does make a statement. But I'm not sure if anyone would stick around for it or even care about it when we got there.

Final Grade: (on a scale A-F): D-

I would have given this video an F because it really does fail to achieve anything of substance, but the wallet shot redeems somewhat. But a bad execution of a bad concept is especially harmful on an issue as important as this one.  All it does it set the cause back.