Now what?

Today's New Jersey Star Ledger's endorsement of independent Chris Daggett for Governor reminds me a bit of the end of the movie "The Candidate" (confession: I've never seen the whole movie just the end).  After Robert Redford's challenger unexpectedly wins the election, he turns to his campaign manager and says, "Now what." (Or something like that, I couldn't find the clip on Youtube) With Corzine and Christie continually pounding each other, there is an opening for a candidate like Daggett who has taken serious positions on the issue -- especially as a good friend of mine says the issue people want addressed, property taxes.

I took a look at his first (and only ad) in this post, and I made the comment that the silly nature of the ad and the poor production values didn't present him as a legitimate serious candidate.  Now that he has the endorsement of a (the) major paper in the state, he's a serious candidate.  How does he present himself in his ads?

You can still do an interesting yet serious ad, it doesn't have to be the boring ads we've seen from Corzine or Christie, but it can't come off as silly or he risks framing himself as the only the gadfly in the race and not a serious contender.

This and that...

Been busy couple of weeks, work travel and my son's six year old birthday. I've kept an eye out for interesting stuff, but frankly, it feels like the dog days of ads -- both political and general. A lot more health care ads, nothing I or you haven't seen before. Don't know if I can catch another Corzine or Christie ad, can't imagine how the people of New Jersey feel. Saw a good Napa Auto Parts commercial with a guy tailgating, but I can't seem to find a copy online.

Saw "Inglorious Basterds" which is brilliant and might be my favorite Tarrantino film, yes better than "Pulp Fiction." The movie opens with 20 minutes of talking, just talking, and it's absolutely riveting.

I'll end this post with a link to the official White House Flickr feed.  Inspiration comes in all forms, and you don't have to be an Obama fan to appreciate the artistry in some of the photos.  In fact, I've used them as examples in a couple of storyboards already.  Some pretty amazing stuff there.

And just to prove my point, here's a commercial for Senator Inhofe.  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuCPWPRJ7XI]

Now I'd never vote for the guy, but that doesn't stop me from thinking this ad is brilliant.  Iconic images, but what really sets it apart is the fact that it's so authentic -- it doesn't try to run away from a "negative" image, but actually turns those qualities around as positives.

Inspiration is where you find it.

Sigh...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Eur8lAaBg&feature=player_embedded] Wow. They get points for trying, I guess. I mean I appreciate that they tried a conceptual script instead of the usual blah, blah, blah. But when you just take a narrator script and put it into an actor in a concept (in this case a "political consultant" talking to his candidate after losing), it just doesn't work. If you're going to go with the concept you got to go all the way, that's not close to how real people speak, even political consultants.

On top of that, either this poor actor got bad direction or he's not a good actor, but in any case, he seemed as phony as the dialogue.

On top of all that, it looks like a public access shoot, with all the good (and cheap) formats of video they have out there these days, why did they decide to shoot this one?

Do they really think this is going to win the day?

Bad acting, bad dialogue, and bad looking make for a bad execution, and I don't have to guess, I know that makes for bad politics.

There's such a fine line between stupid and clever Part II

Ok, I'm repeating myself, I know, but I can't decide which side of the line this goes on: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AlvW-T4ZS4]

On one hand, I appreciate trying a different ad, and I've talked about the power of metaphor before. This one is pretty good on those fronts.

On the other hand, it's kinda goofy, and the production values are not great. Why does that matter? Well, people react to all sorts of things, often without knowing what they're reacting too.

I think the production values of an ad matter in so far as they present the quality and character of a campaign. A cheap looking ad may work if it's part of the charm (like this classic ad from Paul Wellstone -- done by the same consultant as the Daggett ad) or message of the campaign.

A challenger's ads that look crisp and great say that candidate is ready for the big leagues. (On the other hand, I always felt the Gore for President ads looked too nice and polished -- for a guy with a truth problem, whether deserved or not, I thought the ads needed to look grittier and more real.) The form of the ad, has to follow the function.

Here I'm not sure the form is helping Daggett. He needs to make people think he's a real candidate with a real chance, this feels a more like a college film school project than a real production. No matter what the message is, that can't help Daggett or his campaign.

The lesson of Vietnam and a health care ad

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czJ36okQTU] There's a story I've read in a couple of different places that goes something like this:

After the Vietnam War, an American Colonel sat down with his North Vietnamese counterpart. The American in a fit of pride said the United States had never been beaten on the battlefield. The Vietnamese General nodded and answered calmly, "That is true. It is also irrelevant." (Quoted from "The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century")

I can't help but think about that lesson when watching this ad: It's not winning battles that counts it's winning the war. Ads are like battles sometimes, you can win the battle of exchanges, but maybe it takes you off your central message or weakens you in some way or just takes time and energy away from winning the war.

I think this is a pretty good ad for it's type, and one I'm not usually inclined to like. The whole idea of corporate greed, just doesn't play well with me, it usually feels petty -- unless you can link it in a real way to an issue or make it mean something. I think they do that by personalizing it with Nataline's story -- "[she] only needed one."

That's a good line, and gosh it makes me mad at those insurance companies, and I don't like them..., wait, I didn't really trust or like them before this ad. That's kind of the point, the ad does make me dislike the insurance companies more, but I'm not sure it makes me more inclined to support health care reform.

If the health care reform side keeps winning battles like this, it won't be long before it loses the war completely.

Build & Reveal

It's something we don't do very often in political spots. There's a feeling you have to get right to the point, to cram everything in, after all you only have 30 or 60 seconds to make your point.

But I think that's missing the point a surprise, something that breaks our guessing machines, sticks with you, it makes a point better than 30 seconds of fact filled copy ever can.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2tHPAPr74]

Why does this ad work, well it gets you interested, how do all these random scenes connect, then as they start revealing more information, we're surprised. Those guys aren't sleeping together, they're defusing a bomb!

In the end the message, about a change in perspective aligns with what we know HBO, it reinforces and informs, it's authentic (there's that word again).

It's not about quantity of message, it's about quality.

Blast from the past

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D76ZKQs0QM&feature=player_embedded] Wow (that's not wow in a good way).

It's almost like they wanted to replicate a negative ad circa 1996 with this one. It's so heavy handed as to be laughable. That might have worked in the early days of negative ads, but today, it feels cliche and over the top. I find it hard to take seriously.

"But he prosecuted people, who did the same thing..." (My emphasis based on bad direction to the voice over talent.)

My wife said it seemed kinda sleazy.

I asked, "What Christie did?"

She answered, "No the ad."

I agree, it's just kinda sleazy and lame and there's no subtly at all. Is it effective? I don't know, Christie is increasingly being seen as a Republican crony, so the attack has some salience and drives home the message that is peculating out there. But, by going too far in it's presentation, it risks making that message political rather than authentic.

It almost tastes real...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ezBSvJFsE&feature=player_embedded] This ad is by the same folks who brought you this ad in Nebraska.

In my opinion it suffers from the same failings. It's so close to being really good. They have some beautiful shots, the guy with his uniform, walking the corn fields, leaning on the tractor, some nice transitions too (hell, I even like the cricket sound effects), but they have the guy talking to camera and it just doesn't work.

When regular people spout talking points it doesn't work, let's say it together now, it doesn't work. I actually like the end when he asks to camera, "Senator Grassley, who's side are you on?" That seems honest, if staged.

But for a saying his neighbors want a public option and Grassley has taken over $2 million from the big insurance industry, just doesn't feel authentic -- it makes the ad feel political. It's like he's stopped telling a story and started reading me a poll -- one works, one doesn't.

PERSONAL NOTE: My wife thought it wasn't so bad. She thought the guy is better than most, certainly better than the guy in the Nebraska version. I'll agree with her there, but it still feels like talking points, and not like he's talking from the heart.

Real people not necessary

I got the chance to watch the movie "Up" a few weeks ago. It's from Pixar animation --some of the best storytellers around. The first 20 minutes minutes were an amazing example of visual storytelling, only a few lines of dialogue, and the damned thing had me in tears (either that or the theater was a little dusty). It was beautiful and moving.

Did it matter that it was a cartoon? That it wasn't "real" people? Not one bit because the story is in our minds, we create the associations, we decide on the meaning through story.

Does this story seem any less moving because it's animated?

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

Speaking of story & emotion, do you need the intro to this spot or is it just trying to do too much:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0IX15v4y_g]

Stay tuned...

Sorry it's been slow around here, between traveling for work, and being on the beach for two weeks, it's been tough to find the energy to write about ads. In addition, the ads I've seen haven't really been any different from the crop before. A lot of health care, some gov ads, but nothing that grabs my attention (for better or worse).

Just for summer fun, here's the second in the "United Breaks Guitars" series:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-UoERHaSQg]

Too little too late?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cqQl3lZzzE&feature=player_embedded] If it wasn't for Health Care, I wouldn't have much to write about these days.

Looks like the pro-health care side is finally fighting back, trying to define what reform means for folks. That's pretty important especially since the anti reform gang has the easier job of ginning up fear of change and the unknown.

The ad's pretty simple, and it goes to my point in the previous post, sometimes it's ok for the ad to get out of the way of the message.

That's very much the case here. Of course, this ad has a $12 million buy behind it, which takes a simple ad pretty far. That's a lot of repetition.

I have two questions: First, did this effort come too late. There's been a lot of talk and debate, an ad like this should have come at the opening of the effort, not in the middle/end. Is it too late? Are people too set in their views?

Secondly, you're spending $12 million on your buy, and you make a spot that looks like stock photos (which it probably is)? Look they chose good shots, but couldn't you kick in $50k for a shoot, get some cool footage?

How much more effective would that $12 million be if they really tried to make an emotional connection as well.

When enough is enough...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o7GlncFG9A] Sometimes it's enough to deliver a message.

You don't want the ad to get in the way of the message.

I think this ad does a good job with that. It's not innovative or particularly interesting, except in its simplicity. It doesn't try too hard or give the usual negative political ad tricks (harsh music, "loud" graphics, a hard voice attacking, I even expected the backwards footage given it's called "Backwards Bob," and was pleasantly surprised not to get it). I think it's better because it keeps it low key and matter of fact.

As an audience member I get the point, but I'm not hit over the head with it.

I also think it's interesting because it's a one minute ad on choice -- when was the last time you saw that? Of course Virginia has an interesting history of choice and governor's races.

In a political campaign, sometimes you need cavalry riding to the rescue, sometimes you need infantry in the form a solid message delivery.

I hate it when they're right

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-2PhChboU&feature=player_embedded] Sometimes it's hard for me to separate the message from the messenger. It may be hard to tell, but I actually care about the issues above and beyond the execution. I consider myself a progressive, I actually want Health Care to pass, for example.

So sometimes it's hard for me to see value in the ads the other side puts up. Often it's because they stink, are just too harsh or too mean. Sometimes it's because the message goes against my values and principles. I try to separate the form from the function, but I'm only human.

This ad from the National Republican Trust Pac is pretty good, I think. At least it's different from the usual fear-spreading, bomb-lobbing ads we see from the right.

It's a minute long, the beginning is something closer to a David Lynch movie than a political ad -- in other words, it's abstract and different. There's no v/o for those first thirty seconds, it gets my attention and stresses me out, which is what it's supposed to do.

The whistle sound effect half way through is a little off-putting or feels out of context somehow. But when the voice over starts, I think it's well written, "Stop, time-out, there is no more money.... Let's take a breath, fix our economy first." I think that sentiment is actually a pretty compelling message, and gets the right away from accusations that killing health care is politically motivated.

One advantage to a :60 spot is that you can divide things up like that. This is almost two spots in one, the abstract images creating anxiety and the calm voice telling us to slow down, reassuring us but cautioning us too.

If the right can successfully adopt this message around health care, then I worry about its chances of passing. I hate it when they get it right.

Truth, Justice, and Viral Videos

I haven't posted in the past week. I know. It's because I'm on vacation (which I will be)... or too busy (which I'm not)... it's really something much more simple: there's really a dearth of interesting videos this past week. The August slump. Yeah, you got your Corizne Attack ad. I have to ask, is George Bush still a relevant attack? My eyes kinda glazed over, but I did like the clapping sound.

In a rarity, you even have a Corzine positive delivered by President Obama.

I thought I'd get outside the political realm today to show this video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo]

4,698,344. That's how many views the video has (maybe 20 from me).

20,465. That's how many comments have been generate.

30. That's the number of says this video has been posted.

4 million hits in 30 days -- are you kidding me?!

It got me thinking, why? Sure the song is catchy, but 4 million hits catchy? The #1 song on itunes (Black Eyed Peas, "I gotta feeling" has 6 million + hits in two months).

Here's my best guess.  I think it comes down to a good story, well told. The song tells a great simple story: "United Breaks Guitars." It tells that story in a funny way that dramatizes it without taking itself too seriously. It's not visually compelling, but it is emotionally compelling.

A favorite phrase of mine these days is "the process is the message." That's true here, the story that the song tells is one piece of the story, but the story of the guy who wrote the song and why he wrote it becomes an additional piece of the story. It's powerful, it's authentic.

It taps into folks angst about airlines, indifferent employees, bad service, indifferent employees (oh, did I say that already? I really hate indifferent employees).

It's bigger than one broken guitar, it's Don Quixote tilting at corporate windmills, David versus Goliath. There's a mythic element that should not be ignored.

The story is also very well executed. Imagine the same story, except this time, the singer is on camera, telling his story to camera without the song and funny video. How would that work? Can't imagine it would get near the same response.

The video, while low-budget by ad standards, doesn't try to do too much, is funny and clever (love the CSI scene). It was a simple concept; my guess is it still cost $5k - $12k to produce (that's not including the cost of original music production), maybe less. It matches the sharp lyrics in tone and its tongue-in-cheek quality.

The real question: Could you replicate this? Maybe, but not by trying to replicate it. The next song "American breaks laptops" or some such will feel cheap and like a knock off.

But I think the lesson is an authentic story that's told in an interesting way can break through to folks, especially if they're ready to believe the message. And you don't need a million dollar ad buy to do it.

Take that, Jon Corzine.

Health Care ads everywhere and no reform this month

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mayQs-ipS7g] I'm jet lagged and tired, so maybe I'm not watching this ad with all pistons firing.

In general, I think there are some interesting elements to the ad (mostly the visuals), and some frankly kinda weak elements, that in the end undermine its message.

Much like the "Fighter" ad I reviewed, this ad tells a story that resonates with the larger debate. Go back and watch that one. Which one do you connect to more?

I think it's the earlier "Fighter" ad.

I really like the shots in this ad, the portrait of the owner, the portrait of him holding the picture with his family. (I did something similar in an ad once and the ad got skewered on Jon Stewart for it.) The line, "I pray my kids don't get sick" is a powerful reminder of the dilemma facing too many families, and one that brings us into this man's shoes, if only for a second.

I say only a second because then the ad launches into a policy litany. Again, maybe I'm too tired to really focus, but I can't remember any of the details of it. I do remember suddenly not caring as much as I did just a moment before.

It's a common mistake political ads make, the appeal to reason. Giving the facts, instead of telling the story.

The other element that didn't work in this spot is also something I discussed in the "Fighter" review. Unlike the "Fighter" ad, where they keep the subject reading to camera off camera, she just does the voice over, in this ad they have the subject reading off of a teleprompter to camera. While he's able to deliver most of the lines alright (some are a little stiff), his eyes never move. (Do they blink at all?) It just doesn't feel relaxed or honest.

In addition, I always find it odd when regular people start talking about policy or how much Senator Ben Nelson has gotten from the insurance industry in an ad; it almost never rings true.

Why didn't they just interview the guy? Get real answers, in his real voice? If Errol Morris can get Robert McNamara to say the Vietnam War was a mistake, then I'm not sure why they couldn't interview Mike Snider, get him to talk honestly and openly about health care, and put the facts on the screen as CG?

Or do what they did the "Fighter" ad: just use b-roll of the guy, and not show him talking.

I guess it comes down to this: When the ad is personal, it works, when it's not, it's just noise. Unfortunately, it ends up being about 40 seconds of noise.

Can't get enough of those health care ads

Please excuse the typos and grammar -- my copy editor (my wife Nora) is on vacation. Here's another health care ad by Move On:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJHanHSW9g]

You know, I like the fact that they're trying -- a good metaphor is a great way to connect to a complex issue. That said, trying is about all I like about the ad. Maybe I'm over thinking this thing, but it's really piss poor execution. The football through the air looks kind of silly, the music is overdone, and while I like the fact that they tried a metaphor, I'm not sure what the metaphor means or why I should care. Is it really a powerful metaphor? A political football? What's at stake with a football in the air? Besides the metaphor, it's kind of your standard political presentation.

Compare that metaphor with this one on health care:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7684tTVUeI&feature=player_embedded]

The ad, produced by Americans United for Change, uses the symbol of a snail. What's more the tone, the voice over and the music match with the concept.

Look, the ad's not perfect, but it really sells almost the same argument in a much more effective way. You get the stakes, it mocks Republican's delay tactics without being mean or too insider. We've been talking about health care for years, go slower? We've been moving at a snail's pace. The only reason to go slower is to kill it. Makes sense, connects. Got it.

Metaphors are good, but you got to pick the right one to make them work.

Even more health care ads

Yet another health care ad (think things are heating up). [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc9dRP2iKuM]

I only bring it up as a comparison to the the "Fighter" ad from yesterday.

My first reaction was, wow, they squeezed a lot of words in there. My second reaction was, I like the close up of the IV drip (not so much the money at the open). My third reaction was empty.

It ends up being just a bunch of words thrown at me. By trying to get everything into the ad, they achieved nothing. I don't connect with the spot, it doesn't move me, so ultimately it misses the mark.

They'd have been better off saying less to say more.

Another Health Care Ad

Just yesterday I reviewed a health care ad, and it seems like they're popping up all over the place now. I dubbed the ad yesterday, "Illness," the best one I had seen to date (even though I graded it an F). This one from Health Care for America Now, "Fighter," is pretty good and a lot more authentic.

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

It's simple and clean, and it tells a story. I like that they don't feel the need to make the woman read to camera. Her voice over might be a little flat but because you can't see her, I think it works.

It's still her voice, telling her story, but it's more compelling using b-roll of her and the neighborhood, instead of her looking straight into camera. Reading into camera is tough for professionals to do and look good, if you're not experienced with it, it looks awkward and less authentic.

Instead we feel like you know her better, we see her in her environment, and her read works. The ad feels honest and truthful.

I love the line at the end, "fine, I'll take you both on." It's compelling and determined -- it's inspiring. They've created a vicarious connection between the woman in the ad and the audience -- I feel like a fighter after watching it.

I wish they could have figured out a better end than the typical tell Congressman Cantor, blah, blah. Maybe just come up with the end card sans the "Tell Congressman Cantor" audio.

The goal of the ad is small, to put some pressure on Cantor and whoever else is targeted. But I think it's pretty darn effective. Good job.

Ad Review: AHIP "Illness"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R36YJl8SagU&feature=player_embedded] This ad is the best ad I've seen to date in the health care battle. Now admittedly, that's not saying much. Most of the stuff out there is just, well... most of it is pretty forgettable.

Actually, when I say it's the best I've seen, I should say, it's the best I've heard. I was sitting across from my business partner today, and he was playing the ad. The sound, the copy, the woman vocalizing, that got my attention, and what happened from there...

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

Like I said, the spot gets your attention, at least my ear's attention. "Illness doesn't care where you live...," with that gravelly voice and the woman vocalizing behind it, I was hooked from the first second.

I really like the simple portraits of people that populate the spot. In the beginning they layer them like a picture book, with the background images in black and white and the main image in color to focus your attention.

Later, after revealing their message ("let's fix health care") they bring them up full screen, but they don't rush them.

"...and the words pre-existing condition become a thing of the past." Wow. Bold statements. I'm interested now, where is this spot going.

You know, I'm not a big fan of the stand by your ad disclaimers. You know, the "I'm so and so, and I approve this message." But in this case, what a let down. "We're America's Health Insurance companies...." If this were an ad, I'd cue the record scratch sound effect here. (Why do we use the record scratch anyways? When was the last time you heard that sound except to express surprise?)

Function (on a scale A-F): C

Huh? America's Health Care Companies? What? Didn't they say make pre-existing condition a thing of the past?

I really wasn't sure how to grade out this ad for function. It's great, it gets my attention, moves me emotionally, gets me to say, "hell yea," then it leaves me speechless and confused.

I just don't find it believable that America's Health Insurance Plans (that's how the disclaimer reads) are really interested in passing health care reform. Do you? Seriously?

While the ad is great, in the end, I don't believe it. It's a wasted message because it seems inauthentic. I just can't get over that hump, and this ad doesn't help me do it.

Either the people who created it felt like they could blow one by people, or that it didn't matter, or they could get over the obstacle with the lyrical beginning. They couldn't, it did, and the spot seems like a contradiction in the end -- a great big lie with a candy coating and a cherry on top.

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

I wasn't angry before this review, but I am now. I feel like I was tricked. They got me to care, then they pulled the rug out from under me.

This ad does a great job of presenting itself -- auditorily it's really great, visually it's interesting if not innovative. But the message doesn't connect with the messenger. That's a big problem in my book, and my reason for an F.

What could they have done different? Maybe take a moment to explain themselves, even a simple line like, "You may be surprised that America's Health Care Companies support health care reform, but we do...," something to acknowledge the incongruity.

They don't, and I feel dirty about actually caring about their message for the 24 seconds previous.

Beware the power of the negative

When I reviewed the Corzine negative, I didn't actually talk at all about negative ads. There's the conventional wisdom about them that goes something like this: Everybody hates negative ads, but negative ads are the only things that can really move people and change numbers in a campaign.

So, you're an incumbent down in the polls, let's say you're the Governor of New Jersey for the sake of argument. Go negative, move numbers -- heck, your approval's at 41%, can't get any worse can it? You drive voters away from your opponent, and they end up either staying home or voting for you as the best of bad options.

Besides the obvious issue that this approach probably is a big part of the reason people hate politicians so much (not their politician, mind, you, just the general class of public servants). There's also another price to be paid: Going negative tends to drive up your negative as well as your opponent's.

It's a dangerous decision in any campaign when to go negative. Of course, that's assuming your general good enough/adequate negative ad -- the garden variety negative you see most days in political campaigns. The big two no-no's of negative ads are: 1) Over reaching: Saying more than you can legitimately prove; and  2) Attacking on something that's not relevant to people's lives or not making it relevant to their lives.

Like this new ad against Judge Sotomayer.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3o8hHTAcPI]

Look, I'm obviously not the audience for this ad, but seriously, do people really think Ayers is a "terrorist"? Are people ready to believe that Sotomayer supports terrorists? It's a claim that's so outrageous you'd better be able to prove it, and they can't (and don't).

There's a new line of thought on negatives, which I think is true, that goes something like this: "People don't hate negative ads, they hate bad ads." (BTW, the author of the article is also the person responsible for the "Call me Harold" ad in Tennessee. While I actually think the ad was not something I would ever run, I agree with his take on negative ads.) Take this ad for example:

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

Oh, you were expecting a political ad, oops, my bad. A negative well done, that resonates, is like a ripple in pond. These Mac v. PC ads are perfect examples of that effect. Becoming a social phenomena that people actually seek out.

It's always easier to activate fear and hate in viewers -- that's the way our brains are hardwired. But, if you can activate other emotions, humor for example, then you have a chance of avoiding some of the fallout from your attacks.

Something to remember next time you get that negative script and start thinking dark backgrounds, bad music, and fuzzy pictures.