On being perfectly adequate

in

It's been a busy week, so there's been little time for blogging. What's more, I haven't really seen anything that interesting to blog about.

That's a point I wanted to make: I blog about spots and videos that are interesting to me, that inspire me one way (with glee) or another (with disgust).

While I knew I wanted to write a blog about raising the art of political advertising, I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to write about day to day, week to week. Mostly, I've been posting about things that come my way. Last week, whether because I was too busy or because it's the dog days of summer, nothing really inspired me.

That's not to say I didn't watch any videos -- to the contrary, I probably watched 4 or 5, on health care, on alternative energy, a couple of candidate ads... And,...? Well, they were boring.  Perfectly adequate. Not one of them was memorable or really got my blood boiling to write about.

That's the thing about adequate, it doesn't offend, it's safe -- it probably tests pretty well in a focus group, but it doesn't move you one way or another. (As a relevant aside, did you know that "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "Hill Street Blues," and "Seinfeld," all tested poorly with focus groups? That's the thing about greatness:  it's new and different, and I've already written about different.) I don't want to be giving out B- and C+'s; I want to give out A's and D's -- that's where the fun is.

If all we strive for is perfectly adequate, all you'll get is good enough. Good enough not to offend, good enough not to be embarrassing, good enough not to be remembered. Where's the fun in that?

Such a fine line between stupid and clever

in

Ok, I feel like I know you all well enough to admit something: one of my big pet peeves is the notion of the "viral" video. What's my issue? Well, two specifically:

1. The idea that viral videos are cheap, that you can produce them for $2500 and get 1,000,000 hits. There's this notion that some college kid in his (or her) basement is pumping out viral videos for the price of a case of beer. Great, I'd like to meet them. The most successful "viral" videos are usually fully produced pieces that cost $20,000 or more to make (or get donated).

Occasionally, you catch lightening in a bottle (if you're Will Farrell, for example), but as a general rule, the best viral videos aren't necessarily cheaper than a televised video. The internet has lowered the cost to entry -- you don't have to pay to air your video anymore -- but your audience isn't captive either, so you better give them a sugar coating.  Which leads to....

2. You can't make a "viral" video. You can make a good video, promote it, push it out into the world, and hope it goes viral.  But if you try too hard (or are caught trying too hard), then forget it. Someone asked me about a guarantee that their video would go viral -- I said there is no such thing. Another time a client wanted to promote their pet issue, they wanted a viral video, something that would get attention, how about an interview with a sitting US Senator on the subject...?  I guessed they'd get about 500 hits, if they were lucky.

This video does as good a job of breaking down the elements that make a video go viral. It's longish (close to 10 minutes) but worth watching when you get some time. The two elements the interviewee highlights are 1) leave room for a conversation -- is it real, what's going, did it happen, how'd they do that, and 2) a sense of whimsy or fun. Essentially, you have to engage your audience, but have fun doing it.

There are some other usual tidbits in there, so if you're interested in viral video (and if you're a political or any other type of campaign, you should be interested) then go watch.

And here's a link to Visible Measures' top 10 viral videos of the week, which is useful for inspiration as well as seeing what you're up against out there.

As you watch the videos on the list, just remember what the immortal David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap said: "There's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

"We hold these truths..."

in

In honor of the Fourth of  July, I thought I'd post two videos of the Declaration of Independence.  Both have some interesting things going on visually. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLpBQjTbv8o]

The first, produced by the NFL before one Super Bowl or another.   Let's face it, the Declaration once you get past that awesome beginning, is kinda a boring laundry list of complaints against the crown, this is kinda like the highlights (coincidence the NFL would produce a highlight show of one of the great historical documents).

I love the use of the fisheye lens for some of the closeups (like the Alan Page shot at 2:25) and the camera movement.

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

Here's a Hollywood version, complete with, yes women reading (a limitation of the NFL's version), it's a little longer, but I do appreciate the intro that puts the declaration into its historical context, while also telling the story of how it has inspired our country to overcome its own limitations.  I think the staging is neat, and I like how the camera tracks through the readers at the beginning.  Beware, it's 14 minutes long, we were really pissed at the British back then.

Happy Fourth of July.

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.

New Dodd Ads

in

Chris Dodd has three new ads up. I'm not going to review them; they're not particularly interesting, except in the fact that like the ad I reviewed earlier, Chris Dodd is nowhere to be found in the ads. One has Senator Kennedy talking about Chris Dodd's role in fighting for health care; the others are real people testimonials about their issues with credit cards and how Dodd's fighting for them by taking on credit card companies.

This approach is probably the right one, especially this early. Stay out of your own way, rebuild your reputation with credible validators, basically re-write your story in people's minds. It might be risky, but I think at some point, Dodd's going to have to appear in the ads in more than name. I think he has to talk about the issues that troubled him and talk honestly about them. Whether the message is he's learned a lesson or it hurts because one mistake has tarnished a lifetime of work, I don't really care. The real issue is when he talks about it, it had better sound truthful and authentic or it's over. Now, this theoretical ad can happen in a year from now, but I think it has to happen.

I do wonder, how many more ads can he run? He can't actually stay up between now and election day, right? If this approach (of starting an ad campaign a year and a half before the election) can help turn around Dodd's fortunes by next year, then maybe we'll be seeing more of it in the years to come.

Something different...

in

You never hear a client say they want "the same" or "the familiar". It's always, "I want something different," "Can we get something more... creative," "I don't want the usual political spots." If everyone one is pushing for "different," "creative," "not the usual spot," then why do we get so many spots that look alike? Because different is hard. It's so damned different. We like the familiar, it's hard-wired into our brains. Before people were people, different was bad, different got you killed. That's why today, different gets our attention.

Back in 2000, I saw these videos by Spike Jonze. He was supposed to make a campaign video for Al Gore for the convention.  In the end, the powers that be ended up making the same old video we've seen 1000 times before, and the Spike Jonze one was never seen (or at least not promoted). Take a look, tell me in the comments what you think. Personally, I think it's brilliant -- I see Gore as a person -- goofy, yes, but with a family that loves him and that he loves intensely. It's real and honest, too; funny, people thought he was the liar... if we could only show him as authentic... oh.

Look, the video quality sucks, the shots aren't perfect, but it doesn't matter -- the story, the honesty, the emotion is there so we (or I) go with it and don't care about those other things. Is it different?  Hell yes.

The video is in two parts. Take a look, would you have shown it at your convention? I would have.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO-SxPnzspQ]

Look, you can go too far with different, sure -- mostly it's because you're trying so hard to be different, you're not trying hard enough to be good. But there is a happy middle ground where different gets our attention and shows us something new, we just have to get used it. I guess the moral of the story is you have to be ready for different if you want it.

RNC Health Care Ad: Five Comments

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzyGFKA_PSw&feature=player_embedded] New ad from the RNC complaining that Obama isn't being bipartisan on health care and claiming his plan is another "government takeover."

It's not a bad ad, and the message is pretty close -- talking about a "government take over" (get it, like GM, or AIG, huh? Scary, right?); and you can't go wrong with the phrase, "government bureaucrats", to create fear and loathing in an audience. Still, it feels a little sad sack to me.

As promised in the title, five comments:

1. Why is the text on the screen repeating the voice over almost word for word? What's the point of that?

2. When the ad says, "Republicans want health care reform," it shows a picture of an African American woman and an Asian American man. 'Nuff said.

3. The ad keeps saying, "Republicans want", which is annoying (shouldn't it be "Americans want"?), but more importantly, I'm not sure Americans trust Republicans on health care or really care about a bipartisan bill.

4. Along those lines, do people think Obama is "rushing" into health care (or "another government takeover")?

5. "Tell President Obama to work with Republicans" sounds just plain whiny to me.

Also, the ad is 1 minute -- which makes me think it's just a show buy; place a small buy on cable or network to get into the news cycle and get some free air time.

Iran Opposition Commercial ("If you see something you like, steal it.")

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-PKIvKltDU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F06%2F13%2Firan-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html&feature=player_embedded] A friend sent me this (thanks, Nick). Having worked on foreign elections, I found it interesting for its sophistication -- both in message and style. For a place that stands with the "axis of evil", those are some progressive issues being tossed about. There's something that feels very western about the ad. The music, for instance, sounds like something from an Obama video.

The video style, as far as I know, was first used in this Bob Dylan video. I think I first saw it when I was kid in this Inxs video -- which I thought was wicked cool (and didn't realize it was a homage). You can see a list of other imitations here.

Has it been done before? I guess, but its done well here, and I think it works. This spot is emotional. The shots are really vivid, and it's hard to shoot wide like that. Great choice of backgrounds.

A teacher of mine at film school (not Boris this time) told us, "If you see something you like in a movie or commercial, steal it." The point wasn't to just copy something, but by taking an element from something else, you can make it your own.

I heard an interesting interview with Steven Soderbergh on one of my favorite podcasts, Filmspotting. Soderbergh was saying there are two kinds of creativity -- there's making things up from scratch, being original, and then there's taking something you've seen or heard, and putting a new spin on it. Both are equally valid. (He put himself in that second group.)

This is a look I'm putting into my itunes library to remember to use someday. If it's ok for Steven Soderbergh to do it, I can, too.

Review: Health Care for America Now "What if"

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMCKq6X-Wws&feature=player_embedded] I didn't plan a review today. I was thinking of some more esoteric posts about ad-making, but then I saw these ads. Health care has been in the news a lot lately, and I've been thinking, what's been so hard about getting this passed? I think that when it's polled, 60% of Americans are in favor of health care reform. So what's the problem?

As I thought about it, I realized the problem is one of definitions. What does health care reform mean? Insuring the uninsured? Lowering what we pay? Streamlining the system? Giving patients better access and better care? Taking on insurance companies? I think the answer is yes. And that's the problem. It's an issue that means different things to different people, so talking about "health care reform" in general doesn't translate into support in the specific. With so many big money interests at stake, it's no wonder that it's been so hard to move this issue forward.

Form (on a scale A-F): C

Standard political ad stuff. Looking at the ad a second time, is that the best they could for a doctor's office? Should I even worry about that?

There was a saying around film school, "If they're noticing the boom in the shot, it doesn't matter that it's there. It means you've lost the audience." Translated, that means: If the spot was working, I wouldn't have time to wonder about the doctor's office, I'd be too engrossed with the story, the message, my own emotions to care or notice.

Is this the best they could do? Its just kinda generic. The music, the visuals -- nothing really stands out. Nothing get my attention; there's no sugar coating to get me to care, to get me to listen. The copy technique of "what if," is widely used, but feels like a gimmick here; it doesn't really connect with the rest of the ad.

Function (on a scale A-F): C

Going to my earlier point, this ad does an adequate job of breaking down the issues around health care reform -- keep your coverage, change plans, public option, lower costs, keep insurance companies honest. Got it. Those elements are really important to transforming that general support for reform into concrete support for this reform.

But will I remember it? Ben Smith of Politico says in his post that the ad is "pressing the public option by casting it as a way to stick it to greedy insurance executives." Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm too cynical and jaded, but does this feel like sticking to greedy insurance executives? I've been angry. I've felt outrage (watch the classic documentaries "Roger & Me" or "Harlan County, USA" to get a taste of outrage), and frankly, this ad doesn't make me feel angry or outraged. Do you? Let me know. Post a comment.

Now, some of that is due to a "heard it all before effect". We've heard all about how evil insurance companies are, we've already incorporated it into our data banks, this isn't anything new. It just doesn't get us aroused in the same way it would hearing it for the first time.

But of a lot of the empty feeling comes from the ad itself. Will a viewer's attention even make it to that end part, the important part, to soak in that message?

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

Standard stuff, makes some important points, but it really doesn't do anything to help it stick. With enough numbing repetition the message gets through. Maybe. But this is going to be a crowded battlefield, the other side is likely to throw some smoke bombs of their own to confuse the issue (big government health care, less choice and so on), so the fight for the hearts and minds of voters is on. It's attrition warfare, army on army, head to head, and that's not the kind of fight you want.

Where's the emotion? There's enough around this issue to be outraged over. Is this outrage? If so, it's so generic, so general, there's no connection. Is it trying to make a rational argument (which would be really nice if people were actually rational)? This ad just kinda sits there, there's no soul, no feeling behind it, its paint by numbers and ultimately empty. Whether that's by design or poor execution I'm not sure, but the result is the same.

This Week's Inspiration

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox655_y_S8Y] I mentioned this ad in the GM post as one of my all time favorites. It was made several years ago, and I still marvel at it every time I watch it.

What do I like? Why does this ad excite me?

First, there's the music, ELO's "Mr Blue Sky," so evocatively used here. The repetition of images -- as Boris would say, "Guys, this is experience." I know this guy, my friends are him -- even if I didn't know this guy before, I know him now.

The spot is exquisitely filmed and edited. The shots, which are the foundation, tell the story without the need for words or dialog; they are an almost perfect example of the mantra, show don't tell. The editing doesn't draw attention to itself, but it can't be ignored; it's perfectly timed to the music, the way the shots are layered. It's neither frenetic nor slow.

This ad tells a story. A story of boredom, of longing.  And it tells that story with music and visuals, that's it, thank you for playing.

Compare this ad with the Alzheimer ad. They both use visuals to tell a story, both are emotional (in different ways). But the pace and editing are almost in total contrast. The Alzheimer ad uses long, lingering shots, where this ad has quick repeating images layered across the screen. It shows there's more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to visual story telling.

Also consider this idea. It's a car ad.  You never see the car (genre convention, show the car), yet you know exactly what the car is about, right? Do you need to know how fast it goes or what kind of fuel mileage it gets? Do you have to see it to want it? The form of the ad buttresses its function without hitting the viewer over the head with meaning, or CG's or information. Next time you feel like adding that line of text to tell your viewer some piece of information, think of this ad. Ask yourself, can I convey that same idea by showing it?

Now excuse me, I'm going to watch this ad about 10 more times.  It's so damned elegant and wonderful.

Quick Review: ALZHEIMER "FORTUNATELY"

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXKElkZCEnU&feature=player_embedded%27] A friend sent me this ad late Friday. In between work and the weekend, I've been thinking about it since.  Andrew Sullivan called attention to it on the Daily Dish. He called it, "Heartbreaking. But effective." My friend agreed.

I've watched the piece 5 or 6 times, trying to decide what I think about it. Here's a quick review.

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

I think Boris would call this ad, "Lyrical." It was produced by Saatchi & Saatchiin France, so maybe it's that European feel.  It's very sparse -- only 12 shots total.  Next time you think you need all those shots or fancy graphics to tell a story, watch this ad.  35 seconds of images (there's about 10 seconds for the end cards) and 12 shots.  This spot tells a story very cleanly and without any spoken words.  It clearly shows instead of telling, a cardinal rule of script writing.

It's also well-edited; not fancy, not calling attention to itself, but there's usually a shot that sets up the scene, then a shot that explains what we're seeing.  Its form adds to the emotional connection.  It gives you time to take in the scenes.

Then there's the CG (words on the screen or computer graphics) that comes up at the end.  Smart writing and nice use of the end effect to make a point; the CGs blow off like so much dust in the wind, like memory itself fading away.

Function (on a scale A-F): B

Here's my problem with the ad -- is it really effective?  The ad is heartbreaking to be sure, and emotion gets you to care.  Is that all it's asking?  Yes, I care, now what?  Is it too sparse?  I really wrestled with this grade because I like so many of the elements that went into this ad, and the clean, not didactic message is really appealing.  At the end of the day, I don't know, so I punted and gave it a B.

That grade would become a C if the ad was intended to drive some further action.  It would become an A if it was only intended to drive awareness.

Editor's Note: I had some more insight on this ad walking home after posting this review.  I was listening to Robert McKee's "Story," which, while annoyingly pompous in tone (both on the page and in audio format),  is also considered a master class in structure and story elements.  It's primarily for screenwriters, but also really interesting for anyone who wants to understand story structure better.  McKee was talking about different kinds of structures.  Of one, which he call Nonplot, he says, "Although nothing changes within the universe of a Nonplot, we gain a sobering insight and hopefully something changes within us."  With that in mind, watching the spot again, it seems the very definition of Nonplot.  It's certainly a more European aesthetic and watching this ad feels more like watching a foreign film than an American one.  Leave it to Robert McKee to explain a French Alzheimer's ad to me.

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

Yeah, the grade should average out to a B+, but given my ambivalence on the function grade, I decided that the form should rule the day.  Do I feel dirty, promoting form over function?  A little, actually.  But while not innovative, it was exquisitely and elegantly put together.

Is it manipulative? Yes, but isn't that what ads are? I guess you could call this spitting on the table -- it's shocking, and in some ways an easy target.  Seniors with Alzheimer's, how could that not pull at the heartstrings.  Too easy? I don't know.  Much like this Volkswagen ad, when shock value is used effectively, I think it's fair game. What I don't like is shock value for shock value's sake.  I think this ad is thoughtful in its approach like that Volkswagen ad; it isn't just a gimmick, but rather deliberate and focused.  So, if someone spits on the table knowing the effect it will have, deliberately calculating their spitting (just how far can I go with this metaphor?) then I think that's different.

In any case, this ad stands as a good counterpoint to all the yelling, fast-cutting, and graphics-heavy ads that are on the air today.

Washington Post on GM & Chrysler Ads

in

The Washington Post Style section leads with an interesting article comparing the advertising of the two companies comeback ads.  I think the article is particularly enlightening,  especially given my glowing review of the GM ad.  Chrysler's ad campaign, "We Build," takes a business as usual approach. One element that stood out  is that both ads according to the article were researched, which I think says something about the nature of research.  In "Hey Whipple Squeeze This," (library day pick) Sullivan says something like good research should inspire (sorry don't have the book in front of me).  Taking a look at the ads, which one seems more inspired to you?

I actually like the Chrysler ads, I like the "we build" concept, and while its a pretty tradition ad within the car ad genre its really clever and well executed, its not a Volkswagen ad, but its really good for what it is.  Here the rub, I can't help but wonder if it misses the mark?  Does saying its business as usual make it so?  Does ignoring the problem help make it go away with time?

But another way, they're telling a story about their cars (and company), but is it the right story?

I'm just as guilty of ignoring a problem as anyone (just ask my wife), but it usually doesn't work (just ask my wife), and eventually you usually have to face it one way or anther.

Will this approach work for Chrysler?  Is Chrysler's position different than GM?  Yes GM is in Chapter 11, but Chrysler isn't exactly on the solid financial footing.  Re-invention versus business as usual, it'll be interesting to see where these campaigns lead for both companies.

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.

VA Governor Race & Authenticity

in

This is a quick post, not a full review. Two ads:

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

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwQywu1Ezr8&feature=player_embedded]

I admit it, I haven't been following the Virginia governor's race very closely, even though it's in my backyard. It seemed like a slam dunk for Terry MccAuliffe, and if I'm not working on a race, I just don't have the time to give.

I'm sure there are a lot of "issues" (why is that in quotes? Well, issues tend to be rationales for voting for a particular candidate, not a reason in and of themselves in my opinion) that the election turned on. I haven't looked at the polling or read any analysis so I'm going out on a limb here, but I can't help but feel this race turned on authenticity.

Ads tell stories (or they should). Those stories have to be truthful and honest, both in content but also to the personality of the candidate -- that's one of the critical criteria that viewers judge them on. When I saw that MccAuliffe ad, well, he just feels phony to me. I've never met the guy, he might be a great guy and maybe he would have made a great governor, but as my Soviet film school teacher Boris said to me (with a thick Russian accent), "Adam, your work is on the screen." That means you won't be there to explain to the audience that you were running late so you couldn't get that perfect end shot or you only had 3 hours to make the spot. Your work is on the screen, it has to speak for itself. And, watching that ad, he feels phony, slick, fake.

Compare that with Deeds' ad; he feels real, authentic, honest. I like him better, frankly, and I know nothing about him except that I connect to him more. Just watching those two ads, I would vote for Deeds in a second.

Is that a fair analysis? I'd be interested to hear what you think out there on the interwebs, especially if you voted in Virginia.

Today's Inspiration

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BQfCoqbubE] While reviews will make up the bulk of this blog, I'm not really a critic -- or if I am a critic, it's because I want to be inspired by great ads, great stories. Too often you see the same old stuff. This isn't just true of commercials or political ads and videos; it's true of any medium. Everything can't be great, right?

I'm always looking for stuff that I think is neat. I keep a slew of videos in my iTunes library to remind of techniques and styles I can use in my work (read "steal," but that's another conversation about different types of creativity, isn't it).

This is an old version of an ad I saw there the other day; I can't remember if it was on tv or the internet. I think it's pretty cool. It's not political and I'm not going to break it down and review it. I find the visual technique interesting.

Today, it's enough to say it's neat, it inspires me. I hope it can help inspire you, too.

Kinetic Typography

in

So, my last post, I mentioned the "Girl Effect" & kinetic typography. While the technique is becoming more common, it's still very interesting and potentially useful, though not as easy as people think. Kinetic typography needs planning and thought; it's hard to just leap into the ad since each sequence has movement and follows into the next.

You can get a good primer with lots of examples here, at Presentation Zen, one of my favorite design blogs.

Enjoy.

Review: Corzine for Gov

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHmIull-tY8] Two new ads are up from the incumbent governor most likely to lose this fall (are there actually any others?), "Stand," and the one I chose to review, "Congratulations." Both ads have some interesting stylistic features; maybe I'll review "Stand" later this week, if I get a some time.

I chose "Congratulations" because it offers a chance to talk about something I wrote about in an old failed blog -- kinetic typography. What's that? Well, here's the best example of kinetic typography I've seen. Seriously, take two minutes and watch it, it's totally worth it.

Back? Good, now take another look at this ad.

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

All right, let's get down to it.  If I'm a big fan of kinetic typography, why doesn't this spot grade out higher? Because I think it uses the kinetic type mostly as a show piece. Is the moving text really conveying any new information, or just a snazzy transition between one CG card and the next?

So sure, this is kinetic typography, but a pretty basic and pretty uninteresting example of it. Now, this type of ad is very hard to produce, every word and movement has to be planned out in advance, it's time consuming, and it's the type of ad that you need to give yourself a little extra time to create.  So there's a reason to keep it simple when you're cranking out campaign ads. But this isn't the middle of a campaign, it's first ad salvo; they should be able to give you more than just spinning letters.

Here, take a look at an ad we did from last year called, "Silent Bob." (Yes, for all you Kevin Smith fans, the name was a joke that only I got.) Look, our ad is no "Girl Effect," but the movement of the text was designed to accentuate Schaffer's statement, make it all the more absurd, and drive the point home that's he's not on the side of Colorado. I point this out not to extol my work, but rather to say, you can do kinetic type on the cheap and still serve a message.

What is the text movement here doing? What is its function? I'm not sure; frankly, it feels lazy and derivative (and derivative can be good if you add you own twist).

What saves it from being a C+ form grade is the word cloud forming Christie's image at the end; while I would quibble that the words should be easier to read (not sure if that possible), it was neat and innovative and does serve a message function. It's not perfect, but I appreciate the effort there, and frankly, I'm going to steal it someday for an ad (unless everyone else is using it, in which case never mind).

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

It's June, you're an incumbent up for re-election, and you're way down in the polls. It's New Jersey. What do you do? Re-position your opponent, or in common parlance, go negative (the idea of negative ads is something I'll take on another day). Opening with a negative is always a risky proposition, but less so in this case. Corzine is already unpopular, Jersey is used to slash and burn campaigns, and the only way to get his numbers up is to remind people that Corzine may be unpopular, but at least he's on the right side of issues. Basically, he has to steal his vote from Democrats & Independents who are now siding with Christie.

Now, quick, name two things the ad mentions that Christie is against. Kinda hard, right? The point isn't any one issue, but the idea that Christie is on the wrong side of ALL the issues, he's not on your side.

They don't overplay the negative with horrible music or an over-the-top voice over, which helps make the ad more believable.

The real risk now is that it's June, will these or any Corzine attacks be as strong in October? The more you attack an opponent, the more the public starts to take everything you say with a grain of salt.

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

It's a solid ad, not too negative and fairly slick. It serves a purpose to get people to reconsider their support for Christie, hold their nose and vote for Corzine as the lesser of two evils.

The form isn't helping it to deliver its message; it's just slick and lazy until the end -- which is interesting and effective, bordering on really good.

My main beef is that it's mimicking a style with no understanding of what that style should be accomplishing. It's like speaking a language without knowing the vocabulary; the words are familiar, but the meaning is gibberish.

Still, the effect doesn't take from the message, it's just a missed opportunity. To quote Shakespeare, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."