Not an ad

I wanted to take a moment from ads to link to this memo from David Mamet to the writers of the show "The Unit." Even though he's talking about drama, I think there is a lesson for all ad makers and particularly political ad makers, namely: "THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNEIN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA." (his caps)

Now replace drama with emotion or connection, and I think you see where I'm heading.  The audience will not watch a commercial for information.  Look at that Reid ad from the last post compare it to the Lincoln ad, you think anyone was tune in for the information?

Another good lesson is this: "IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER."

This is a lesson I've learned the hard way (trust me).  If an idea doesn't work on the page, it won't work when you film it, and it won't suddenly work when edit it together.  I wish it would, but it doesn't.  I think that's actually the problem with the Halter ads, they don't quite work, and that starts with the script.

Mamet closes the memo with: "I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF “IS ITDRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?"

I might change that to, "Look at your :30 script and ask yourself, 'is it emotional?' Does it connect? Does it advance the message?"

That's as good advice as I could give about political ads.

More dueling ads in Arkansas

Long delay from blogging, sorry and thanks for sticking around.  Travel and real work keeping me from writing, but it's time to focus now.  Bunch of health care ads coming up trying to frame the post debate debate.  I'll try to look at those tomorrow.  In the meantime, back to Arkansas:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uUaGhgvG1A]

This is a beautiful ad.  I love the shots from the house to the silhouettes, to the details, to the shots of Lincoln in the committee room, really tight work.  The shots are so evocative, but I find them fighting with the script. The script is really a meat and potatoes script about being a committee chairperson and the power that brings to Arkansas.  I've never been sure if that line of reasoning (your incumbent has a lot of power) works.  It probably polls well, but I wonder if it's too rational an argument to make. It almost feels like a bribe to me.  

In any case, while I'm not sure the imagery works with the transactional message, it's a whole lot better than this Harry Reid ad which makes a similar argument to Nevada voters:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aShDYid172c]

Compared to this Reid ad, the Lincoln ad feels like a ball of emotion.  The Reid ad is your standard political "good enough" ad, but it does nothing to connect.  Lincoln at least tries to connect by using the surrogate of the farmer to talk about her power, she tried to make it personal.  If you're going to make an ad along the lines of the powerful incumbent, the Lincoln ad is about as good as you can get.

Two ads from primary challenger Bill Halter:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_budpts3wI4]

I just don't get the coach ad.  It feels hokey and not serious enough to make Halter serious, but not really funny enough to be amusing.  

Dueling ads in Arkansas

First the incumbent: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDopnb1H_Zg&feature=player_embedded]

Then the primary challenger:

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

What's interesting about these ads is how close they are in tone.  Both are quirky, off beat ways of giving voters some information about the candidates.  I don't review a lot of cookie cutter ads on this blog, not because there aren't a lot of them to review, but precisely because there are so many of them and frankly they bore me.

These ads don't bore me, but I'm torn about them.  I put off writing about them because I'm not sure exactly how I feel about them.  These ads are not cookie cutter, they are different.  I appreciate that, but I can't help feel that they're lacking something, but I'm not sure what it is....

Maybe it's this: I don't connect with either Bill Halter or Senator Lincoln.  The ads leave me cold. The tone is funny, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate, they dont' feel authentic.  What I mean in this case is neither ad feels true to Halter or Lincoln, somehow I don't get them in the ads.

It's like the candidates are props in their own ads, you could switch the candidates, and the ads would be pretty much the same.  I feel like both ads are out of sync with themselves, discussing serious/tough issues in a light way, they just aren't able to pull it together in the end.

Overall, I don't love either of these ads, though I feel like I should.  I do however appreciate the effort to try and be different because here's the thing, if you take a chance sometimes you're going to miss.  (These ads don't miss that badly, but I think they do miss the mark). That's one primary reason folks don't want to take a chance because people piss all over them if they miss the mark.  It's hard to criticize if you go by the book, if you make a boring ad that looks the same as everything else, but is good enough -- no one is going to attack you for that, even if it isn't effective.

Still, these ads aren't bad, and I think trying for something and failing gets you at least as far as not trying at all.

Amazing what you can do with a little creativity

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM] Sometimes I get down writing this blog.  I feel like all I'm doing is criticizing the crap that passes for commercials, political or otherwise. I really look forward to the days I get to praise a commercial because that's why I really write this blog to find ads that are praise worthy that can stand as examples of the best of commercials.

A friend sent me this PSA for Sussex safer roads, "Embrace Life."  I talk a lot about making an emotional argument, that facts aren't as important as connection, that your visuals should tell a story.  This spot has all those elements.  It's visually interesting, keeps you guessing at what's going on, well executed, and emotionally powerful.

The image of the wife and little girl clasping their hands around the dad is striking and moving -- it stays with you, and works as a powerful metaphor for what a seatbelt represents.

The real emotion you feel watching helps ground the spot and counters the surreal conceit of the spot.  You don't dwell on the strangeness of the situation (why is he driving in his living room, that's not real), you're able to suspend disbelief and go along with the premise because it's compelling emotionally and there's enough velocity to take you through to the end.

And another thing, the spot doesn't feel preachy.  Often times spots like this can feel holier than thou, trying to make you feel guilty or shamed for your bad behavior. That will almost never work, it'll just box folks into a corner.  This ad goes another way.  It doesn't argue facts with facts or stab with guilt, it tells a story with emotions to try and connect to the viewer.  People who don't wear seat belts will give you a a rational rationale for their behavior, and if you try to talk to them about the merits of their argument, they'll gladly argue, but you wont change their opinion with facts.

Feelings come first, facts, rationales, reasons come second to explain our feelings -- change the feeling, and you don't need facts, people will seek them out to rationalize their new feeling.

I'm sorry if what I did upset you...

One of my rules of parenting is that I don't my kids say they're sorry if they hurt something.  They have to take responsibility for their actions, check on that person, see if they can do something to help the person they've hurt, but they don't have to say sorry unless they're really sorry.  The point of saying you're sorry is to take responsibility for what you've done, but if you're not really sorry you shouldn't have to say it, and face it a lot of times kids mean to hurt each other, they're not sorry, but they are responsible. A lot of apologies these days take the form of "I'm sorry if my [insert action here] offended/upset/hurt anyone...." That's not a real apology, that's not taking responsibility for what happened, that's putting the blame on the hurt party.

Which brings me to Toyota.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD2dwz4GcfE]

Toyota never says they made a mistake, they never say sorry, they're spinning the issue.  Instead of taking responsibility, they're saying they're fixing things.  They say "Great companies learn [from their mistakes]" but for the life of me, I can't figure out what Toyota has learned? They don't tell you in this ad.  Compare this "apology" with the GM ad, which not an apology was an admission that the company had lost its way.

GM owns their mistakes, Toyota glosses over them, we're fixing it see?  They say they're rebuilding trust, but how can they without actually taking responsibility first?  In that major way, Toyota fails the first test of any ad and especially an apology ad, they're not being authentic -- heck they're not even saying the right things.

It seems the same strategy that got Toyota in trouble in the first place is behind this ad.  I tell a story to folks that my mom told me about my dad: On day lounging at home he got a call, "Mr Strasberg, we're calling for President Nixon's campaign."

"Yes," my Dad answered.

"We'd like you to help the President appear more truthful."

"That's easy," my dad answered, "Have him tell the truth." And he hung up the phone.

Toyota could learn something from that story.

Pet Peeve...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADs4VRxX4qI] Sigh.  Ok this kind of ad drives me nuts.  I think it's great to have "real" people talking or actors pretending to be real people talking, it can be effective in mirroring what people are thinking.  In effect, it allows the "real" people in the ads to become surrogates for the listener, they connect with them so they connect with the message.  Great idea.

But like in the case of this ad, often these attempts are clumsy and sound more like policy wonks talking than "real" people.  Come on, do real people talk like this?  Would a real person say Congresswoman Bachmann five times? Or would they say Bachmann?  Would they say :

"Congresswoman Bachmann actually said we should be “weaned” off of Social Security and Medicare. She wants to privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with some kind of voucher system that won’t even cover the full cost of medical care or prescriptions."

Listen to the ad again (if you can).  Does that sound like the way real people speak?  To me it sounds like two actors who are being told to "talk conversationally" while they're spouting talking points. When you write dialogue, you need to hear how real people speak, how the conversation ebbs and flows.  What you lose in precision and factual detail, you gain in authenticity and affect.

Nothing about this ad rings true: The sound mix sounds fake, and the actors aren't believable, even if they were given better lines, I doubt they'd be able to pull it off.  The key to any commercial is authenticity, but particularly in ad like this it has to sound real to connect.  They'd have been better off just using a narrator to read a straight attack rather than trying to fool people with something that wouldn't fool my six year old.

Sorry for the rant, you can return to your regular programming now.

A little digression

Not on my planned posts for the week, but I came across this parody of the Google Ad: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ_klXDGeQk&feature=player_embedded]

This ad might be the first political parody of the ad, but it won't be the last.  I've said before it's hard for me to seperate the message from the execution in ads like these.  I try my best, and I hope I'm able to point to good executions even if I disagree with the message (see my post on the Inhofe ad which I thought was brilliant, even though he seems like a real SOB).

So the Google ad is in the news, and it makes sense to parody it for politics, riding on the coattails of something that's already in the public consciousness.  I can't decide if the "Boondoggle" is cute or too cute, but alright let's agree that it works..., more or less.

My issue with the ad, and the reason I think it's not good parody, is they miss the essence of the Google ad -- they steal the form in terms of the "look" of the ad, but they forgot the story part of the form. The google ad tells a story, it engages the viewer in that story, it resonates emotionally,  and it accomplishes this simply and elegantly.  This commercial is just random attacks on Democrats and their policies, jumping around from health care to some vague charge of waste or influence.  There's nothing holding the ad together, it's like a flaky pastry that falls apart in your hands when you try to take a bite.

I frankly got bored half way through, and I would question if the ad would be effective on anyone but people who are already inclined to believe it.

What if they tried to tell a story?  Maybe it's a person looking for work, they could do some of they same things, show the unemployment rate, the "ineffectualness" of the stimulus, etc. They would have to leave out some of the more specific attacks, but maybe not, but if they do it's not a bad thing.  Emotional connection and resonance are far more important then any specific attack in my opinion. If they told that story, I think this ad would hit and not just with true believers, but with people who maybe are in the middle, people who would feel their anger and frustration, their fear and worry reflected back at them.  If they told that story with this parody, well then they'd be cooking with gas.

A day late and a dollar short

Super Bowl ads are usually high in entertainment and gimmicks, but low in effectiveness and message.  In other words they make me laugh, but they don't do much to help me remember the product they're selling.  Here check out this list of best Super Bowl ads from ad age.  There are a lot of laughs, but how many of those laughs are connected to the brand message?  How many make you want to use the product or even have some relevant link to the product they're selling? And there's this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU&feature=pyv&ad=3910815173&kw=google%20super%20bowl%20ad]

It tells a story, it sells a message.  It's elegant and not overblown -- it cuts across expectation for Super Bowl ads, it's quiet where most are loud, and simple where most are frenetic.

Compare it with this ad for Microsoft Bing (not a Super Bowl ad):

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

What is search overload?  What is a decision engine?  What does it have to do with folks riffing stream of consciousness? What does it have to do with Bing?

Now Google needs no introduction to most internet folks, but still this ad is about brand storytelling.  It cements the idea of Google as a part of our lives, even as our lives change, and we remember it because it tells the oldest story of all: Boy meets Girl.

So close...

So I had a post planned about my favorite Super Bowl ad, but then I saw this video, and I wanted to talk about it: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIfnVM4O3js&feature=player_embedded]

This video is close to being good, really good.  It's premise is brilliant, and you can see that the folks who created it really had a good time with it.

So close.... But in the end it falls short. Why?  Two reasons: 1) It's too darned long.  I get the joke, the joke is funny, I don't need three minutes of the same joke -- it's a like a Saturday Night Live skit that's overstayed it's welcome. I forced myself to get about a 1:30 into it, but after that, I realized they weren't taking it in new directions or really giving me new information, just rehashing jokes I had already laughed at.  It really needed an editor or someone to say, we should leave the audience wanting more.  It's just too thrilled with it's own cleverness.

And, 2) I've made this point before, but humor comes from playing the reality of an absurd situation, not from playing the absurdity of it.  The b-roll here tries too hard.  I'm with the video when the "lobbyist" is on camera, but every time we cut to b-roll of him with his "matched' politician, it loses me, it's just a little too goofy. To use a phrase I've used recently, the tone of the b-roll doesn't match the tone of the sit down section, and it throws me off.

One thing I had to learn as a writer was when to edit myself.  I wanted to get so much into a sentence, a paragraph, a document, so I added that extra line, one more phrase.  Experience has taught me that less is usually more, and sometimes that means sacrificing something you really like to make the whole better.

That's the problem with this video.  If it was a minute, it would have been hilarious even with the distracting b-roll.  If it had been a minute with better b-roll or no b-roll, it would have been brilliant in execution and concept.  (BTW, it's not lost on me that this is an attack on Senator Lisa Murkowski, and I like the fact that the attack is so subtle, it helps the attack to "stick" in my mind.)  But, as this video stands now it's clever, and so close, but ultimately falls short.

On Hooks and MacGuffins

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIOTItUwvk] Sometimes the commercial is the thing, and sometimes it's just a hook -- something to get your attention, get you interested.  It's different from just spitting on the table in that there's usually more behind it then attention, that is, the hook is just the beginning, you're trying to get attention to eventually drive that motivation to someplace.

There was a lot of controversy over this commercial and CBS's decision to run it, after rejecting other political messages. All that attention just played into Focus for the Family's hands, they used Tim Tebow and the Super Bowl as a hook.  Had this ad run almost any other time it would have gotten some notice, but would be deemed innocuous enough.

The ad is pretty simple, with Tebow's mother telling a story, how Tim was her "miracle baby" and she still worries about him.  The tackle part is down right stupid, it just doesn't work -- it's the wrong tone for this spot, and feels more like it belonged in a beer commercial or a snickers commercial (which I guess is genre appropriate for most Super Bowl ads).

There no mention of choice or abortion, though all the earned (free) media filled in the details of her story for Focus on the Family.  That's the genius of this Focus' plan, the attention they got drove the story, at the end of the day, the ad was just a MacGuffen.

This ad served its purpose, but ultimately the ad itself wasn't very important, but it worked anyway.

On Strategy

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCQQZPz71Rk] Found this interesting ad from Dish TV attacking Direct TV, another in the recent trend of consumer products going negative against their opponents.

For a high end ad, I think the design is poor.  Visually it's not much better than your usual political ad, higher end maybe, but this is the best they can do?

In the martial art Aikido, your taught to use your opponent's energy against them, their attack becomes your attack. It's really quick clever, and minimizes differences in size and power.  That's what this ad does.

It's strategically brilliant, Dish Network is turning a weakness (lack of celebrity endorsements) into a strength, lower cost, and at the same time undercutting Direct TV's endorsement strategy.  I think this message sticks because it makes sense, those celebrities must cost a lot, and they quote some stats saying how Direct TV costs more, there's a pretty logical if A = B, and B = C, then C = A logic at work.  If they tried to link celebrity endorsements to let's say the quality of the satellite signal, then it would be less authentic and less effective.

No I think this works and will stick, and it forces Direct TV to respond in some otherwise they risk people thinking about how expensive they are every time they roll out another celebrity endorsement.

On form this ad would score about a C-, but for function, I think it's an A.

I had an Italian friend, and driving the streets of Rome, she would say, red lights are only suggestions.  There's a general rule that you don't repeat your opponent's charges in your ad, Dish TV reminds us that rules like that are only suggestions, good as a general guide, but should be broken when breaking it give your side the advantage.

The messenger or the message?

I'd talked before about getting out of the way of a message.  Take a look at this ad: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zns-K8XrOAk&feature=player_embedded]

Visually it's not just boring it's ugly, but it's message comes through loud and clear.

Now I don't know what the relationship is between Pat Quinn & Harold Washington or what folks in Illinois think of Harold Washington, but that's as devastating a critique as you can get.  The only touch I would have liked to see is the context of the interview with Washington -- was that a campaign sponsored tirade or a news interview?

Why does it make a difference?  Because it goes to motivation, if he was interviewed by the campaign it makes me more suspect about what he's saying.  If it was "news" then it makes it more honest.

This ad is pretty harsh, but I think the extent to which is effective is the extent to which the messenger is believed and seen as objective.  Looking at it from afar is seems to work, but up close there may be more than meets the eye, if there is, then it's the type of attack that can come back and bite a campaign.

With you never a quickie, always a longie...

A classic line from the classic movie "Love at First Bite." No idea if it still holds up, but when I was 10 it was really funny.  That was a long way to introduce a quick post.  I can across this video the other day: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4&feature=player_embedded]

It's a brillant parody of genre, in this case the news genre.  I started thinking about the gimmicks, tricks, & shortcuts we use in political ads -- especially the negative ads: Grainy B&W footage of your opponent, the music, the headlines in negative (white text on black copy -- scary).

Genre is a funny thing because those conventions are helpful, they're a shorthand, they let people know what to expect, what's coming, they save time (and words) by communicating a lot in a simple image or sound.  But genre is also a trap, it's so easy, and readily recognizable that it can quickly become cliche.

Again cliche can be helpful sign to folks, and as Magnum P.I. once said, "Cliches are cliches because they're true." When I write, I try to be careful about not using cliche's, or at least if I use them I hope they're just a place holder for a more original construction.

It's the same thing with ads, but still cliche's are so damned easy and so damned safe, pre-approved if you will.

But the problem is exactly that, cliche is familiar your audience doesn't have to pay attention or the cliche has lost its meaning after having been used, and used, and over used again and again and again.  You can use cliche to surprise your viewer, to break their guessing machine, as the Heath brothers say in their wonderful book, "Made to stick," and get their attention.

Like Ned Lamont and the messy desk or this ad from Michael Steele:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7wjJyMDUH0]

The next time you find yourself falling into cliche think is there a non-cliche way to write this line, film this shot, bring up this graphic.  Sometimes the cliche is the easiest, most efficient way, but we should all try harder.

It's a cliche to end a piece on cliche with a cliche, so I'll spare you that cliche at least.

Ok not so fast

In my research for my last post, I came across a Scott Brown ad and a Martha Coakley ad, and I just fel the contrast was too great for me to ignore. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uku_zI03bMs&feature=related]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFybPkU-7Fs&feature=sub]

It's not a matter of the issues they discussed, though I the Brown ad I remember (despite my bias against the Republican) and the Coakley ad, well I have no idea what she said, I had to watch it again to get the point.  A big part of that is connection and emotion. Watch those two ads who do you connect with?  Who is more authentic?

I'm not saying Coakley has to be charismatic or exciting, but she needs to come off as real, like she's not just reading a script, like she cares at least. But that's how I feel watching the ad, like she's just reading a script, like she's going through the motions.  She may be  great at her job but not so great at reading to camera, then why is she reading to camera?

The great manager of the Baltimore Orioles, Earl Weaver said something like, "Good managers put players in roles they can succeed in."  Well, a consultant should put their politicians in roles they can look good in, roles in which they can connect with voters.  Brown does that in spades.  I disagree with him, and still find his ad compelling.

I'm not saying national trends don't matter, or if health care was more popular the result would have been different (for a great analysis read Nate Silver's breakdown), but what I am saying is that the ads matter.  Watching only two ads it's clear that Scott Brown connected with voters, that he came across as authentic and real, and Martha Coakley lack those qualities, and that as much as anything is why she lost.

Moving on...

I suppose there are a lot of things I could be talking about today.  I was going to look at all the Scott Brown ads and all the Martha Coakley ads and do my campaign post-mortem that way, but I'm jet lagged and cold, so that plan went out the window.  There are a lot of things I could say about  the MA Senate race, it's result, and the aftermath, but none of them are particularly germane to this point of this blog, so it's time to move on. Two ads from Kay Bailey Hutchinson who's running for Governor of Texas:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6CgFJlR5Xc&feature=sub]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4lATf5OcYc&feature=sub]

Maybe this is a Texas issue -- meaning maybe it resonates with Texans, it kinda falls flat on my Yankee ears.  But the first ad is actually a clever way of presenting the message, flat or not.  The sound design is nicely done too, as some of those images are actually stills, but the sounds make you feel the motion of the cars.  I like this style of presentation, I'm not really sure what it's called, but it's interesting and gets your attention.  You get the point even if you think it's ridiculous.

The second ad is the same message, but it's just more blah, blah, blah. And while I try not to be too partisan on the site, the image at the end with Hutchinson & Cheney, the guy really looks all hunched over and troll like than ever.

Massachusetts Senate

I've avoided talking about the Massachusetts senate race mostly because the ads have been pretty boring or at least not very interesting.  This week has been slow, and I've been desperately trying to find something to write about, so I resolved to look over the ads in what seems to be a tightening race. I was surprised to find this one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56V07mPwwCI]

It's short on issues ("someone who's going to lower your taxes") and long on character and personality.  Interesting choice given how late in the campaign it is.  Usually you're hammering your opponent or giving voters a laundry list of reasons to vote for you, of both.

I like this spot, and I think it's effective, though I'm not working on this race, and I can't prove it.  If my only exposure to Scott Brown was from this ad, I'd like him, think he's a local, he seems to get it, he seems like a real person.

When I watch the Martha Coakley ads I don't get that sense -- she feels so polished, like a typical politician.

Watch her most recent positive ad which features Senator Kenndy's widow:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5dUjHLgJM]

Other than the emotional value of Vicki Kennedy, the ad is about as flat and dull as can be.

With all the media rushing to make national trends, it's easy to forget that campaigns matter and the ads you put on the air matter.

If I were looking just at these ads, I'd vote for Scott Brown too.

Hotdogs, Apple Pie & Farouk?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcQM2bQ5V2k] A friend of mine created this ad.  I really love the opening, I'm a sucker for iconic images and Americana.  I think it's also an interesting approach to the essential problem of this campaign: How do you run a man named Farouk Shami for governor in Texas?

I wonder if they could go the entire ad without mentioning his name? Maybe only mention it at the end? I wanted to post this ad in the wake of the Domino's ad because I think (and I've told my friend as much) that while this is a great opening ad, at some point you're going to have to address the big issue, no not that he's a Democrat running in Texas, but his name, Farouk Shami.  If his name was Luis Gonzalez, he'd have an uphill fight even in Texas, but at least he's be playing in the right sand box, but Farouk Shami in Texas of all places? That a pretty big hurdle to overcome.  If there's an elephant in the room, my opinion is that you have to address it head on at some point.

It's a good ad, and a compelling message, but I wonder in the end if it's all just window dressing?  It's also a good reminder that while I'm showing ads usually one at a time, especially in politics they're often part of a campaign, and each ad should build on the last, to create a larger story or reinforce elements of the story the campaign is trying to tell.  We'll see where this one goes.

It's cute

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D_zHkNBNc] I remember in college, women hated to be called cute.  Cute is alright, cute  is non-threatening, cute is mildly interesting, but it's not as good as hot or beautiful or gorgeous.

Here's a pretty cute ad summarizing the benefits of the recent health care bill. It's  better than a straight forward list, but not really as compelling as it could be.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_BUjcobv1w&feature=player_embedded]

The message is the same in this ad, but it can't quite even meet the cute bar.  It's kinda confusing, the entire time I kept wondering why we were watching a marathon.  I like when images counterpoint the words or graphics, but this was just distracting.  It's a really long thirty seconds to get to the payoff of the finish-line message. Never a good sign when you have to explain the metaphor to folks.

When there's an elephant in the room...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPSGffJ7TmE] Wow.  When was the last time you saw a company rag on their own product or at the very least pass along consumer's negative comments about their own products.  Now you've got my attention.

Sometimes you have to admit the problem.  There's no running from it.  A few months ago, I saw a Wall Street Journal article about Wal-Mart.  For years, Wal-Mart tried to defend it's image from attacks, they tried to gloss it over, they pretended they were different.  Then the CEO did the unthinkable, he "stopped defending the company's practices and started changing them." (WSJ July 16, 2009)  It seems obvious, but so often it's not.  It's hard to hear criticism, especially when that criticism is public.  Authenticity is hard.

This is the trailer for a 4 minute video, that I would encourage you to watch (there's a :30 commercial out there, but I couldn't find it on youtube).  It's stilted in places, but overall it's well done, and get's me interested in a brand I had little or no interest in before.   Dominos goes from a faceless company in the business of delivery, to a company with personality and people who care in the business of making good pizza.  That's a pretty good shift even from a four minute video.

I grew up in New York City, and I'm a pizza snob, and I'm interested in trying the new Domino's pizza because of this commercial.

Spin can only get you so far, excuses usually sound like excuses.  At a certain point you have to come clean and state what everyone knows, it shows you're human, maybe more important it's authentic and real, and it captures people's attention because it's so damned rare and unexpected.

What's the point?

With the New Year upon us, I wanted to step back for a moment to talk about what the point of this blog is, it's mission for lack of a better word.  I was trying to describe to a friend what the blog was about in the context of my best spots of the decade posts, and he got confused, "Wait, isn't your blog about political ads?" I started to protest, to explain, and then I thought, it is isn't it. I was having a conversation with a very talented young person, who has chosen to listen to my career advice, talking about political ads, and she wondered why can't political ads be the same quality as Madison avenue produced ads. That's kinda my point, why should political ads be treated like the poor relations to Madison Avenue's Wicked Step Sisters?  There's not reason except desire and effort that we can't raise the bar on political advertising, yes the budgets are lower,  the deadlines are tighter, and the campaigns more intense than general advertising, but those are mitigating factors not barriers to entry.

I selected a list of the best general ads of the decade for a couple of reasons, one practical, the other more big picture: Practically, it was hard to find and compile a list of my favorite political ads of the decade.  The ones I can remember weren't always available on youtube or in another place I could point you to.  Big picture, the ads I selected represent the kind of work I admire, the kind of work that inspires me, the kind of work that we should be creating in political media.  I point to general advertising for themes, techniques, styles that we can incorporate into political ad making.

The fact is most of political media these days is pretty bland.  I try to point to examples of work I admire in this realm as well as work I think represents the worst of it, the fact is there's just a lot less political media, and a lot less exemplary work to point to.

So to answer the question in the title of this post, what's the point: my mission here is to raise the art of political media and ad making.