Best of the Decade #3 - #1

And now we're at the end of the line. I want to say, these choices are highly subjective.  These are my favorite spots, in making the list I tried to balance out affect with effect -- essentially form  (how it was shot, written, put together) with function (how well it delivered a message, feeling, story).  I think that's one point I've made over and over again here, that it's not enough to have one over the other.  An ad has to to have a message it's delivering, but to just deliver message these days is not enough, you need something else, whether that's story, emotion, or personality (kind of a combination of those two elements), something that's authentic to your brand.

"Herding Cats" or the Cadbury "Gorilla" deliever personality in droves, but they ultimately don't connect to what they're trying to sell.

By the way, I tried to come up with a list of my favorite political ads of the decade, but there are so many ads, and not many places that compile such things, in addition to the fact that many of them are no longer on youtube.  Maybe I'll try to post a couple if I can find them.

Now, our #3:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5_zGyPV2I]

The one that started it all for iPod (less the original ad that I profiled in an earlier post).  I love the simple expression of information: "iPod," "Mac or PC," Apple logo.  Did you need more to want to go out and buy one?  Did you need someone to tell you, digital music player? How about holds over 1000 songs? (For a contrast check out this funny video by Microsoft Marketing folks, what if Microsoft made the ipod.)

You don't need more to know this is the hippest, stylish,  most fun device around.  A good reminder ads don't need to be jammed full of information to make their point.

#2 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5lwyC0p454&feature=related]

My dark horse choice, but this is the only ad on the list that made me want to go out and actually buy the product, that's pretty impressive these days.  Again, it's a genre buster, a video game ad that doesn't show the video game.  In a way, it gets to the point of why we play video games cause we want to believe they're real.  It's the reality of the fantasy.

This ad brings a fantasy world to life (reminds me of how I felt as an eight year old when I first saw the Star Wars trailer), in a very real way. In fact it's grounded in reality, the acting is very good, the style feels like the interviews from "Band of Brothers." It feels like a documentary, which makes the unbelievable aspects of it more acceptable, you suspend disbelief because it's so grounded in reality.

And, again, there's no talk of how much it costs or how many levels, no shots of the game or all the features.  I didn't know anything about "Halo," this commercial just throws you into the world no explanation necessary, and you're drawn into it.  It's compelling and real.

There's a whole series of these ads, I'd recommend you check them out on youtube.

#1 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox655_y_S8Y]

No surprise to anyone who knows me, I mentioned this one back in June as an ad that inspires me.  It has all the elements I've mentioned before, all in a package that is executed perfectly.  It's unexpected -- we don't know what it's selling until the very end, and then we barely see the car. It's experience, I know this guy, I have friends like him, I've been him.  It's compelling, it shows and doesn't tell.  It's stylish and visually interesting.  The music is great and informs without distracting.

This ad is a near perfect mix of form and function, each one working together to inform and support the other, and that's how it should be.

Happy new year to everyone.  2010 offers a year of political ads and a whole new slate of issue ads.

Best of the Decade # 6 - #4

After a brief Christmas break, it's back to my blogging. Now up Six through Four.  Nine through six were all amazing ads, but had some faults to them, as we get closer to the top of the list, these ads are not only brilliantly executed, but form and function combine to present the message in a compelling way.

#6

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U&feature=player_embedded]

You can be groundbreaking in form -- movies like Star Wars, the Matrix, fall into this category.  New technology, new ways of doing things.  You can also be groundbreaking within a genre.  I've talked about this before with car ads.  Think about the Saturn ad that sits at #7, a car ad that doesn't show the car, inconceivable. This ad a lot of these ads take the genre and turn them on their head, computer ads that don't tout specs, car ads that don't show the car, and then there is this ad:

A beauty ad that shows you the truth behind beauty ads.

What's wonderful about this ad isn't the execution, but the concept.  It subverts beauty all beauty ads while building up the Dove brand.  Every time you see one of it's competitors ads, you can't help but think of this one, at least I can't help it.  By being the first one into the space, Dove owns it in consumer's minds (read the classic book "Positioning" for more on this theory), everyone else is just fighting for second place.  Dove becomes the brand that cares about women, cares enough to be truthful, and honest, imagine pitching the concept to the Dove executives, I can imagine the looks that passed between the executives.

But this strategy and its execution move Dove from just another beauty product, a commodity if you will, to something special, it now has personality for lack of a better word, and so it differentiates itself not by features but by emotion.

#5

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I07xDdFMdgw&feature=player_embedded]

This ad directed by Spike Jonze falls into the same genre busting template.  It's all about emotion, about a feeling of a brand.  I admit I'm probably ranking this one higher than it deserves, but it's just so damned well made.  The shots, the music, the POV (point of view shot) of the lamp looking into the house, watching the new lamp, while it sits hunch over in the rain.  As Boris would say, "Guys this is film."

I like the unnamed guy at the end making his appearance, breaking the forth wall, and calling the audience on it's connection to the inanimate lamp, but I have trouble with connection to Ikea..., unboring? Ok.  Don't know what happened to this campaign, and I don't remember much from Ikea after this ad, but this one is a mastercraft in film making and storytelling.  You're never told to feel sorry for the lamp, the lamp never voices it's sadness, but you're made to feel it nonetheless, that's brilliant storytelling.  Jonze leads us, but our minds fill in the gaps. adding story and emotion.

This ad is the ultimate form over function, but it's about as good as form can get.

#4

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtaXjzQQGE8&feature=player_embedded]

Another great ad from VW, and another genre buster.  You see the car at the end, but it's wrecked. That's a pretty bold choice in a car ad.

This commercial is about shock value.  You don't see the accident coming (isn't that why it's an accident), so it puts you in the mind of the characters, to quote Boris again, "Guys, this is experience." The banter at the beginning lulls you, you don't where this is going, a beer commercial maybe?  It breaks our guessing machine, gets our attention, and then bam, surprises us.  Remember negative emotions are easier to burn into our primate brains than positive ones (I still have this sinking feeling everytime I cross a railway track because of the Coyote and Road Runner).

I tend to discount shock value, comparing it often to spitting on the table, but in this case it works.  The shock is directly related to the message.  Quick who makes the safest cars...?

You probably said Volvo, know for their safety. How to break that link with consumers, to dislodge the first one into that space?  I don't know if VW replaces Volvo as the safest car in my mind, but it certainly enters the conversation after this ad.  Sure it's a stunt, it's shocking, but it works. To me that's effective.

Best of the Decade #9-#7

Here we go the nice best spots of the decade.  Why nine?  Because ten is so cliche, and I could only think of nine that I would put on my list.  Most of the spots are what's called (I think I read this somewhere) branded emotional storytelling.  They aren't selling features, so much as connecting with emotion.  Still they are all strong on message as well as execution.  I had a conversation with a friend of mine in the political consulting business whether this approach would work with political ads.  These are all established brands he argued, so you can sell on feeling more than the laundry list of features.  I argued I thought it could work in politics, the ipod wasn't established as a brand for example when those commercials came out. It's an interesting conversation, and one  I'd like to blog about some more.

Now on to the list:

#9

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY]

Pick one, anyone.  This had the most hits on youtube so I chose it.  This series of ads might just be the campaign of the decade.  The individual ads range from wonderful to pretty good, but the conceit works each and every time.  Want to know how to make great negative ads that stick, these are a master's course.  They have totally changed the Mac v. PC debate.  They're sharp, but not mean spirited, on message and factual, but not full of blah, blah, blah.  Most of all they entertain, they essentially pay you for your attention.

#8

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ0x77RAOLE&feature=player_embedded]

I've already mentioned this one.  But briefly, it's just really good story telling. It uses genre cues -- the music, the look of the child (is it Damion from Omen -- a movie I've never seen, but I still get the cultural reference, weird how that works), color scheme, to add to the tension, how is this going to pay off?  When it does it's brilliant. Again, a classic piece of storytelling in :60, that pays off at the end.  Think of it this way, they could have told you how delicious milk tastes.  How good it was for you, how great it washes down a piece of chocolate cake, instead they go straight for emotional connection. It's memorable and effective.

#7

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yh3Gi8gcZw&feature=player_embedded]

Most of the other commercials on this list, I've thought about before in the intervening years, I had forgotten about this one.  Once upon a time kids, Saturn used to be a very interesting company with a great backstory and a compelling standout message.  They were the Southwest of car companies.  Once upon a time Saturn used to have fans and not customers.  Once upon a time, it was a company that offered buyers a unique experience, that helped it stand out, to be more than a commodity.

This commercial touches on those roots.  It doesn't show the car until the very end.  There's no voice over telling you about the value of the car, the features, a different kind of ad, for a different kind of car company.  The metaphor of people as their cars, gets your attention, what is going on? How will this pay off? In the words of one of the books on decision making I've read (Predictably Irrational, maybe) it confuses our guessing machines in our heads and that my friend gets our attention.

It's high concept but simple at the same time. It's well executed from the choice of car moments, to the music.

Now Saturn is just another car line, is it out of business, closed down by GM?  Who knows, and more to my point, who cares.  But once it was different.  A cautionary tale of a company that loses it's way, when it forgets it's own story.

Spots of the Decade: Honorable Mention

I wish I could list the best political spots of the decade, but I'm not sure I could come up with the list. So I I'm opting for best ads of the decade, starting with my honorable mention choice.[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwrYiNJc_E&feature=player_embedded#]

I love this spot, it's so well executed, and it sums up the genre of dot com spots that dominated advertising in the early part of the decade.  I still laugh out loud watching it, its very clever and memorable.  Well, kind of memorable, see I remember the ad, but I can never, for the life of me, remember who it's for. I remember what they do is like herding cats (great metaphor), but not sure what it is they actually do.

See that's the problem with this ad, and the other ads of this genre.  They're spitting on the table memorable, but there message is lost in the humor and cleverness.  I'm reading an interesting book (only about 25% through), "Personality Not Included," which argues for the importance of personality in marketing.  One of the key issues with personality is that it needs to be authentic.

This ad, and the genre is represents, are funny, clever, memorable, but they fail ultimately because they don't connect any of those qualities to the company they represent.  Is the company funny and clever?  What is the personality of the company?  The Apple ads work because they connect to the core of what Apple is -- hip, clever, outside the box, marching to the beat of their own drummer.

Its' not enough to be all those things if it doesn't connect to a message, a core value, a core principle something real and authentic that people can identify with your brand.

iPod v. iPod

In my last post I show the iconic iPod ad.  Well before that one there was this one: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE_bDNaYAr8]

Well it's not bad.  But it ain't iconic and doesn't inspire the same feelings as the what we've come to know as iPod ads.

Everyone can misfire once in a while, even Apple.  When you think about this ad versus the "Hey Mama" which one do you think better represents what you think of as Apple in your mind?

It's that time of the decade

Time for end of the year lists, and this year as an added bonus, we get end of the decade lists too.  As cliche and hackneyed as these lists have become I enjoy them, as much to catch up on things I might have missed. Here is the list of Ad Age's best ads of the decades.

I can't really remember any ads from the past ten years, so I don't know what I'd add, though I'm pretty sure I'd drop the Sony "Balls" ad.

It's an interesting list, more for the fact that all these ads are focused primarily on entertainment and brand rather than on pure message delivery.  You don't see Honda telling you how quiet their new engine is, or Nike saying you'll run faster, or the iPod telling you how much memory their portable music device has, each of these ads is more about the feeling they brand wants to convey.

I'm not saying these ads don't have a message at all, but most them are 90% build up, 10% message and payoff.

Here are my top three from this list (in order):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ0x77RAOLE&feature=player_embedded]

I remember this one.  The visceral feeling of watching all those children eat cake, my mouth gets dry every time I watch it.  The unexpected ending, no milk.  Brilliant.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4uZT2JYGDI]

Total game changer.  This ad took the ipod and launched it into the minds of consumers.  It's so iconic, yet so simple.  Ipod..., Mac or PC..., Apple Logo. It's conveys hip and cool, cutting and and different, fun and exciting. For anyone who doesn't think it's about connecting to viewers feelings, well they should take a look at this ad, and let's talk.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy52yueBX_s&feature=player_embedded]

On the principle of unexpectedly awesome, this one is a winner.  I didn't see it coming at all, when it does come wow, great use of music.  My only knock on it is that I can't quite see the connection between a Gorilla playing drums and Cadbury, though there's something to be said for defying the conventions of the genre.  An ad like this about candy, is preciously memorable and effective because it's not about the product per se -- in the way a car ad that doesn't show the car would be memorable (think Bubble Boy from VW).

Confession time

I don't know if I've ever revealed that I'm a comic book fan.  Now, before you judge, these aren't your father's comic books -- comic books today are actually aimed at an adult audience.  I've used all sorts of professional rationalizations, reading them sharpens my visual eye, they're like storyboards, blah, blah, blah.  All that's true, but the bottom line is I enjoy the combination of story and pictures, I enjoy reading them. If you still doubt me or if you're curious and want to get a taste of some great comics here are some recommendations:

DMZ: New York is a DMZ in a civil war between the government & the conservative forces that are trying to take over the country.

Y: The Last Man: A plague kills everyman on earth except Yorrick, the last man in a civilization gone to the women.

Fables (my current favorite): What if Cinderella, the Big Bad Wolf, Little Red Ridding Hood were real, and alive and living in downtown New York?

Ex Machina: Super hero, turned New York City Mayor.

Walking Dead: Zombies, people on the edge of survial.  Great read, though bleak, I had to stop around book 5 because I was too depressed.

Astro City: (An all-time favorite) The only pure super hero comic on this list,  the art here is beautiful, really gorgeous stuff.  It's a new take on the classic hero, a blend of styles and tone that's unique.

There's also a great book called "Understanding Comics," that in some ways is a must read for any visual artist.  I bring this up because I've seen more and more animated ads recently, and while I have some predilection for the technique, I think it's an effective story telling tool.

Still not convinced? Take a look at this piece done by StoryCorps for Veterans Day.

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

That's pretty moving stuff, animated or not.  It's not perfect, I would have left out the end photo and text, but it's pretty damned good storytelling if you ask me.

Look there are always people who are going to dislike something because of their preconceived notions.  I hate comic books or cartoons are for kids, whatever.  To cater to that kind of thinking is to cater to the lowest common denominator.  If I have one point to make with this blog, it's that ads in general, and political ads in particular do not have to cater to that level.  You can make creatively interesting and challenging ads, that are still effective in conveying emotion and message.

A little hanukkah hunor

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4jbmAJ44Po&feature=player_embedded] Saw this PSA this morning.

I find it amusing and disturbing at the same time.  I guess there is no easy way to talk about getting a pap smear, so humor is the way to go, just not sure this humor works.  It certainly puts the issue out there, but without any kind of reinforcement, I wonder if it will actually have the desired effect.

Negative Ads...It's not just politics anymore

It seems negative ads are everywhere, and there's nary an election around (Massachusetts Senate excepted). Much to Ad age columnist Bob Garfield's dismay negative ads and negative attacks are making their way mainstream.

What's funny (or funny to me) is that they really aren't much better than their political counterparts.  Yes they're better produced, and they try or pretend to be more high-minded, but the reality is that's they're pretty ordinary.

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

I read somewhere that if you have to explain your analogy or metaphor then it's really not a good one.  This Caribu ad is obviously aimed at Starbucks.  Now I think there is a decent line of attack, Starbucks has become the McDonalds of Coffee places, it's not authentic or real.  But there are two questions, is Caribou any more "authentic" than Starbucks in the public's mind?  Plus this analogy doesn't quite work for me, I don't know.  Real chocolate in their drink, ok..., that's a lot of effort to frame yourself as authentic, real, and your opponent as not.

The big one fight is the AT&T v. Verizon dust up that was taken to court and recently settled.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3PbBmElObI]

Is Luke Wilson really the best messenger for the ad? I'm not sure how he ended up as the attack dog for AT&T.  In the Bob Garfield piece, I link to above, he says about the fight "The current tit-for-tat between Verizon Wireless and AT&T demonstrates that the ugly tactics of what politicos call "opposition research"—and what we call "lying"—can corrupt a major commercial brand."

I've taken issue with Mr Garfield before about political ads, and I'll take issue with him here.  Opposition research isn't lying  -- lying is lying, whether you do it in politics or consumer advertising.  The best negative ads have to be truthful, they have to connect to something authentic to connect with the audience or else they're seen as out of line or untruthful (even if technically true).  Opposition research is simply finding potential areas of contrast with your opponent.  In political ads that necessary when key voters (those 20% on the fence who haven't made up their mind) see little difference between one candidate or another.  As products become less differentiated in consumers minds, this kind of comparison and contrast becomes more important.

Is there a difference between AT&T and Verizon?  Yes, Verizon has the better network (not even close as a former Verizon customer), AT&T has the iPhone (not even close as a current iPhone user).  But mostly it's the same prices, same crappy customer service, same package.  The AT&T response is ineffective not just because they picked an odd choice as messenger (wouldn't some kind of "expert" or third party be a stronger choice), but because they're fighting against the public's perception -- that Verizon has the better network (is there any doubt).  To win that fight you're going to need to make a stronger or funnier case than Luke Wilson and his magnets.

I quoted this article before, and I'll quote it here again because it's so relevant: “People don’t hate negative ads, they hate bad ads.” I wonder if Bob Garfield has as much an issue with the Mac v PC ads, he didn't seem to object to this clever Verizon ad, placing the iPhone on he Island of Misfit toys:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O30bXECD36I]

It's an important point to remember as these types of contrast start moving into the mainstream.

Some Inspiration

I drove up to New York for Thanksgiving.  It was about a five hour drive on the way up and seven hours on the way back.  So I had some time to listen to one of my favorite podcasts: Radio Lab.  I mention it today because I've already told two or three folks about the show on Parasites which was the last one I listened to. The show is a cross between this American Life & Science Friday.  I happen to think it's one of the best produced shows on NPR (admittedly that's about five shows I listen to).  It use of sound and interview technique is really innovative and interesting, and has given me several ideas, I want to incorporate into my TV ads some time (remember if you see something you like, steal it -- thank you Carol Dysinger).

Anyway take a listen, good storytelling is good storytelling whether it's audio or video.  While the last couple of ads I've showed told a story with video, you can tell a story with audio that's not necessarily a voice telling you, you can show with audio too.

Is affect effective?

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.

Best Health Care Ad EVER!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py-mN85-2Bk] At film school they always tried to teach us "show, don't tell."

Case and point: This ad.  It does a lovely job of storytelling, using details, the procedure of moving, and mystery -- what's the punchline of the ad going to be, where's this going.

They don't try to cram a minute's worth of message at you, instead they give you 45 seconds of a story, a compelling one at that, then five seconds of message (of course, you could argue the story is part of the message, which is true, but misses the point somewhat).

If I had to quibble it would be with the fact that the message is so tepid after such a big build up.  Yes, "No one should lose everything because the are denied health coverage," is great, but the second card, "Tell your senators to support consensus health care reform," is so vague as to be meaningless.  I feel like they had me in the palm of their hand, but I'm not clear what they want from me.  Maybe that's more than a quibble.  I also might have put those cards up over a blurred scene of the couple interacting in the background.

Still, this ad is the best one I've seen on health care, and I think well after the debate is over and a bill is passed (or not), I'll probably remember it.  It's smart and emotional without being melodramatic, and it delivers it's message about losing everything very elegantly, without ever tipping it's hand too overtly (this is a health care ad, watch now, listen now).

The Message and the messenger

I try to keep my politics out of how I view an ad, and while I know that's not really possible (our unconscious brains are constantly providing commentary on the world in the form of "feelings" that bubble up into consciousness), I at least try not to judge an ad on where its message falls on the political spectrum. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZraskhJVKeA&feature=player_embedded]

With this ad though it's really tough.  Not sure why, but I hate this ad.  It's an obvious parody of the Apple Mac/PC ads, but it's a really bad parody.  It has none of the wit or whimsy that makes those ads so clever and cutting. In the original ads, the PC guy is likable, here m the Government run health care plan guy is especially annoying, and even the girl is annoying.  I don't really find either of them likable at all. The acting is pretty weak too.

(Here's a tip about actors, always find people who can act first, then worry about if they "look" the part.  I've seem more bad casting because someone who can't act is given a part because they look like

But I worry, is it the message of the ad that rubs me the wrong way, or the messenger, the ad itself?  Am I just coming up with a rationale to make sense of my feeling of hate?

I don't know (and probably can't know without years of therapy), but bad execution really rubs me the wrong way, and this ad feels like they ripped off the form without really having an understanding of how it worked.  It has the rhythm of the original, the look (though it's a pretty weak green screen floor), but it's a little like listening to a schizophrenic talk, he uses real words, but put together they're gibberish.

And on top of that it ends so abruptly.

The King is dead..., Long Live the King.

Well the 2009 elections are over, and while I only focused a little of my attention on those ads, the passing of election day marks a low tide mark in the off-year.  I'll continue to post at least once a week, more if I see things of interest that I want to pass along. Still, with 2009 in the rear view mirror, the 2010 elections are now in our sights along with the health care fight, and the probably climate bill coming up at the end of the year, so there will be political ads out there to discuss.

Take for example this ad from embattled Governor of New York, David Patterson:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztjDoaJ9Qy0&feature=related]

Patterson also has another ad running. What I like about both ads is that they don't pussyfoot around with Patterson's situation. He's made mistakes, he's been heavily criticized, he's unpopular right now -- you can ignore those problems, try to dance around them with your advertising or face them, head on.  I prefer the later approach, which is why I like these ads.

First of all in this ad, "Some Say," I find Patterson appealing, surprisingly quietly confident and well spoken.  Maybe he conveys these qualities all the time, but in my limited expose to him, I've never thought of him as such, more of a walking train wreck.  I appreciate how he tries to turn his negative (people say he shouldn't run for governor) into a strength -- strength of character, strength of leadership.

In that way, it reminds of me of the Inhofe spot I posted about, "One man in America."

Secondly, it seems honest.  He's not defensive or aggressively pushing back, just talking to voters calmly, humbly, but also with a strength that's appealing.

The visual style reinforces this message, not too flashy, simple clean, not too flashy.  There's a subtle push in to him at the end, it brings the viewer closer to the subject.  Underscoring the tone of the spot, it doesn't draw attention to itself, but it's effective in reinforcing the emotional subtext of the spot: Patterson's not flashy, he's about the people, he's appealing, he's not trying to fool you but speaking plainly and honestly.

I wonder if Patterson' blindness is a benefit in this situation.  He can't read the spot off a prompter like most politicians would be forced to do.  He's had to memorize it (so it seems), and I think because of that fact, he delivers the lines instead of repeats or reads them.  I'll be interested to see if he can continue to deliver lines like this in future ads, but it's obvious I was impressed with his performance (and make no mistake, any time a politician is talking into the camera it's a performance, to quote Shakespeare, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts...")

The second spot is a narrator driven bio, but echoes the same themes, he's made mistakes, he's put the people first, strength of character, leadership.

With the echoes of Corzine's loss in the Jersey governor's race, I can't help but wonder if he could have turned things around if he had taken a similar approach.  It's bold to put a candidate with a negative approval rating in the front of your spot.  Think about those Dodd spots from this summer. The Senator barely appears in them.

I think the Dodd/Corzine approach adds to the siege mentality, it's a losing frame of mind, a defensive approach, that tries to ignore the elephant in the room rather than make the elephant a positive (who wouldn't want an elephant to clean up all the peanuts) or at least admit what everyone else knows (there's an elephant here, I know I brought it into this room, and I'm going to do everything I can to get it out -- anyone have a mouse).

Politics like sports can't be played not to lose, you always have to play to win.  You never worry about how many outs you need, only how many you have.  Don't worry about your negatives, worry how to turn those negatives into positives.

Patterson is obviously playing to win here. And while he has hurdles to overcome -- bad economy, a potential popular primary opponent (Cuomo), a tough economy and dysfunctional legislature, he's off to a good start with these ads.

If I was giving this ad a grade it would probably be a B+/A-.  A solid A for messaging (form) and a B for function, it's not innovative, but its professional and effective.

Politico piece on Health Care Ads

Interesting article today in Politico talking about health care ads. I'll try to write more when I get more time, but it's interesting, and echoes some of the things I've talked about here.

It is a scorpion after all.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIQmFtCv9SI] Have you ever heard the story of the scorpion and the frog? The scorpion wants to cross a creek so asks a frog for help.  The frog protests, "You're a scorpion, you're going to sting me." The scorpion replies, "Why would I do that, if I sting you we both die?  If you take me I'll owe you a favor."  The frog thinks it over and decides it's not the worst thing to have scorpion owe him a favor so he tell the scorpion to hop on, and they start making their way across the creek.

About half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.  The frog is clearly shocked and angry at the betrayal can only ask, "Why? Now we'll both die...." The scorpion says, "What can I say, I am a scorpion after all...."

I couldn't help thinking of that story watching this ad and feeling vaguely disappointed, then wondering why?  This is the same type of ad that Daggett ran the first time why should I expect something different from his team just because the nature of the race has changed -- he received the Star-Ledger endorsement, Christie has fallen like a rock, Daggett has risen in some polls, and the two main party candidates have generally thrown enough mud at each other that voters aren't particularly excited about the election. Oh, that's why..., huh.

What's wrong with the ad in my opinion?  (I may be repeating myself from post about Daggett's first ad, but what the hell.) Well, again the production values stink.  If you're going to do something like this do it right, this looks cheap and to voters will feel like a third party candidate ad, not the ad of a real player prepared to pull the upset.

The guy playing Christie is pretty good, but the Corzine look alike is pretty bad.  Every time he says his lines you can see the gears moving in his head, not a good way to describe an actor working.  It would have been better to find someone who looks less like Corzine and is a better actor. And frankly, Daggett isn't compelling enough either in his interactions with the look-alikes or to camera to make this work.

It's not all bad, the ad is cute, the "You don't spend it," line has some legs to it I think, and could get remembered.  The end message is right where it needs to be, "It's never wrong to stand up for the right person," as fears grow that voters will abandon Daggett to vote for a "real" candidate, not some long shot with no chance of winning.

And maybe that's the thing, this ad does nothing else to make me think Daggett has a chance to win.  It's not professional enough to give him credibility, it's not serious enough to make him appear serious, it's not funny or clever enough to really be memorable, and it just doesn't feel authentic to who Chris Daggett is, this feels like a costume he put on for Halloween (there's my requisite Halloween reference)

On top of it all, the spot doesn't tout his endorsement, which in my mind is a great validator for him, gives him real credibility, the biggest paper in the state thought enough of him to endorse him, why shouldn't you? Do they think people know about it? That it doesn't matter or they didn't want to cut the cutesy intro to the ad to insert a message point of real substance?

Harsh I know.  I was tell a friend that if I lived in Jersey, I don't know who I would vote for, I want to be compelled by Daggett, but this doesn't do it.  I guess that's why I can't help felling like that damned frog, "Why?..."

Well, we all know the answer.

Heather Graham & Health Care.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvaJYYeXf70] I was on a plane today, and I watched the movie "The Hangover." It was pretty good, amusing enough to keep me distracted (and who doesn't like a good tiger in a car routine).  It's a good cast, and I was impressed with Heather Graham in a bit part.  It reminded me what I liked about her so many years ago in the brilliant "Boogie Nights." (Thinking of that movie, PT Anderson must be a great director, Graham, Burt Reynolds, Mark Wallberg & Julianne Moore all gave the best performances of their careers.)

I don't know if Graham is a good actress, but she has a strong quality: She's innocent and sexy, charming and quirky.

When I landed I saw this new Move on.org ad staring... Heather Graham.  Ha sweet coincidence.

Unlike the American's United for Healthcare which compared the health care industry with baseball, and ultimately didn't make any sense, this ad actually makes the point quite well.  It doesn't need to mention the legal restrictions to competition either.

Using Heather Graham is a bit of a MacGuffin in that it ultimately isn't important who represents the public option, but it sure ads attention.

My only gripe with the ad would be the bibs on the front of each of the actors to represent who they're supposed to be.  It works, but it's not the most elegant solution, also it's not shot as well as it could have been.  The closeup of the dropped burger is nice, but I wanted more.

Still, that's an artistic quibble. As a message delivery device, this ad is very effective.

A little more clear

So it turns out that insurance companies like Major League Baseball are exempt from anti-trust laws.  Huh. That wasn't clear at all from the recent health care ad hitting insurance companies for fearing competition.

Read this article at Slate.com for more background.

So not only do health insurance companies fear competition, they're exempt from it by law.  That's a pretty compelling argument for a public option if you ask me, too bad the ad trying to explain it was so muddled.

Here's an example...

I was trying to think of a funny ad, that exemplified my point about tone.  While making lunch I remembered this ad from Ned Lamont, who ran against Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWSN2zbydKw]

Ned Lamont has a messy desk...  What makes this ad work is that it takes itself seriously, overly so, but seriously nonetheless. It sounds and looks like a classic attack ad, but the contrast of the absurdity of the claims with the seriousness of tone make it funny.

Take a look at this scene from a classic "I Love Lucy."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx1rx_dDVF4&feature=related]

Lucille Ball doesn't play the humor of the moment, she plays the reality of it.  What do you do when the conveyor belt goes too fast?  It's funny because it's played straight, when you play for laughs, you often don't get them.

Tone.

I just finished writing about Daggett and his need to change the tone of his ads, and I saw a new health care ad this morning, and thought it was a good opportunity to write more generally about tone. Maybe I should start with I read about this ad this morning first.  From the National Journal's Morning Wake-up e-mail: "Americans United for Change is up with a TV ad on DC cable, arguing insurance execs. "are scared of competition..."  Wow, I thought that sounds like a good message, scared of competition, that could work.

Then I watched the ad:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVHW5JOzv6A]

Um, uh.  That's disappointing, right?  I tried to think about why it was so disappointing and it comes down to tone.

Baseball and insurance companies? Huh?  Maybe the makers of the ad thought they'd hook me with a curious question, instead, it only seemed to minimize their story. Baseball, why are we dragging baseball into this?  It's confusing and dumb.  It's too cute and not funny enough to be funny.    The Blacksox scandal? What are they talking about.  And the images?  Sigh....

They have a real message to drive home here, insurance companies are scared of competition from the government. Why are they so scared?  If they're doing such a great job (and the government is going to do such a crappy job so goes their allies comments), why should they care about a public option?  They should mop the floor with those guys.

Tone is such a subtle thing it helps us to frame the story the ad is trying to tell.  It's something viewers pick up on from the sound of the narrator, the music, the images, it's implied rather then spoken.  The baseball music, the flat images don't imply the seriousness of the message.  Now you can contrast the tone with the message (also called being ironic), a serious message can be delivered in a comedic tone and when done well, it can be very effective.  But being funny is hard, just ask Steve Martin, it takes work.

Someone thought this was a good idea, but to me it looks like an ad that never worked on the script, and if it doesn't work on the page, it's unlikely it'll work on the screen.

Like Chris Daggett, who I talked about earlier, it's a good message ruined by the poor choice of tone.

P.S. I apologize for any grammatical errors, my copy editor (my wife) is away for a couple weeks.  Have I ever mentioned that I had to take remedial English in both High School and College?