That's the Chicago Way...

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!" - The Untouchables "The Untouchables" was one of my favorite movies in High School.  I have no idea if it still holds up, but I sure did love it, and it had more than its share of memorable lines.

I quoted the line above as a lead into the battle for Illinois Senate. (I know Illinois is not only Chicago, but it's a great quote and relevant, so bear with me.)

A couple of months ago, it seemed that Alexis Ginnoulias' campaign was going down because of the failure of his family's bank, I wrote about his ad coming out of that scandal here. Well, now it appears that Mark Kirk's campaign has hit a seemingly insurmountable scandal.

After a month of dodging and hiding, Kirk has decided to try and put the heat back on his opponent with two ads:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ1qI14iHmU&feature=player_embedded]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-09xSDluts&feature=player_embedded]

I like how the BP add touts Kirk's environmental record, it's unexpected so it gets my attention.  I'm not so taken with the attack on Giannoulias.  It's a little all over the place, an aide worked for BP and he's for higher energy taxes?  The fact that the narrator is trying make some link for me doesn't really help, if you don't feel or see the link for yourself if you have to be told ("Big differences on the environment and taxes") it loses its power.

The second ad is more of the same, it's hiting Giannoulias for being only 34, then hitting him for loans to mobsters, then losing money in the College fund as treasurer, then he supports higher taxes for more spending. It's a lot to pack into one ad, and while they're supposed to be linked thematically (you can't trust him with your money), I'm still trying to take in the information as the next item comes up, and in the end, I don't really get any of it either emotionally or intellectually.

The last line bothers me too, "Alexi Giannoulias, trust him with your money..." It's supposed to be a question, but the read doesn't quite pull it off, and it feels awkward -- I think they ran out of time for the narrator to either ask the question or give the line the inflection it needed.

I had a friend who worked in commercial advertising who always wondered why political ads had so much crap pilled into them.  This is a perfect example of that approach, "Hey, let's pull all the lines that polled well against Giannoulias." I think this ad and the previous one would have been better off with a less is more approach.

The overall sense with two ads, is that the Kirk campaign is wildly throwing haymakers trying to counter punch it's way out of the corner, instead of using a timed timed Jab that catches the other campaign off balance.  If I was working on the Kirk campaign, I would worry this approach would come off as desperate, fighting from weakness and fear instead of confidence and strength.  I also wonder if Kirk wouldn't have been better off facing the elephant in the room, apologizing on the air, and turning that apology into his core message somehow.

The Giannoulias folks obviously were expecting an attack because 24 hours after Kirk's attack they released their own attack on Kirk:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D74omWYgv00&feature=player_embedded]

I think their approach is interesting: There's no narrator, just the disembodied voice of newscasters, reporting and discussing  Kirk's lies and misrepresentations (and Kirk himself uttering them).  It's entirely focused on that one issue, and obviously the creators thought enough of the attack to let the ad run one minute.  Compare this to the sixty seconds (over two ads) of the Kirk attacks.... I think the difference is clear. I'm not sure I could repeat any individual Kirk misrepresentation, but I think the overall impression, that Kirk has repeatedly said things he knows to be untrue, sticks with me.  While on the other side, I'm not sure if any of his attacks stays with me cleanly (frankly the thing I remember most is that Giannoulias is 34, which I think makes him accomplished in my eyes, not too young).

My one quibble is the final line, "Typical Washington Politician," feels like too much of a cliche to describe this situation, kind of a stretch as well. I might have ended with all the quotes on the screen, and let the viewer make their own conclusion.

Still I think the lesson for today is as hard as it is to cut good stuff from an ad, less is often more.

In my opinion, Kirk brought a knife to a gunfight, a definite no-no. This round goes to Giannoulias.

On a lighter note

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwr8KJO0Fc&feature=player_embedded] A while back I posted a video parody of a new cast.  I talked a little about cliche, genre, and the the uses and limits of shorthand.  This parody of a political ad obviously makes good use of that shorthand.

As you watch the political ads roll out of the meat grinders this political season, look for those cliches, and think how would you have done it differently?  How could you surprise your audience?  How could you use their expectaions to your advantage?

Still, this is pretty funny.

This is Different

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woFLvypnPZA] I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

Here's what I like about it: it's different, it's impressionistic rather than linear or literal, and it only tries to make one or two impressions despite all the images.  I also like that they don't spend time trying to explain what we're seeing though a couple of the shots at the end had me perplexed as to their meaning.

Maybe more importantly the spot seems to capture the little I know about Alan Grayson -- he's bold and out spoken, and this spot is certainly bold.  It feels true to him.

Why am I conflicted? I don't know. I almost didn't write this post because I don't like writing I don't know, it's not satisfying for me, and I'm sure it's pretty boring to read. Just something rubs me the wrong way.

It's just a feeling, that the spot is trying to hard or something.  Maybe that's it, I can feel creators presence, but not in a guiding Errol Morris kind of way, but in an overdone Michael Bay way.    Maybe that's something voters won't notice, maybe it only bothers me.  Maybe it's what works for the spot because it fits Grayson, but it makes me not want to like the spot.

A tale of two ads

Been a long time between posts, sorry.  Thought I'd make up for it looking at two ads today.  The ads are pretty different but both are thematically the same (after watching them you may think I'm crazy for saying that).  Both ads play upon voter anger at "broken" government. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SDEY4J1Vlw&?wpisrc=nl_fix]

The more traditional of the two ads.  Wonder why the guy is wearing a t-shirt?  Shhhhh.... don't tell anyone but Charlie Baker was a CEO at a big time health insurance company.  This ad was kinda strange to me.  What's the deal with basketball?  I don't get it.  Again, I'm all for doing something different, but it just feels fake to me.

People hate CEO's and politicians so we'll put him in a t-shirt and show him playing basketball with his son.  People will love that!  He's just like you, get it? Awesome.

I think Robert McKay in his arrogant but seminal book, "Story" said something like a baseball hat is not character -- meaning just putting a character in a baseball cap does not tell you anything about the character's character.  What the character does tells you something about who he (or she) is.  It's about action, not what they're wearing.

It seems to me like Baker is trying to run away who he is from and his story.  The guy went to Harvard, he was a CEO of a health insurance company, that's the elephant in the room, better to embrace it and own your story, than let the other guys tell their story.

The ad is fine in terms of shots and the way what it is made, but it just feels phony.

This next ad goes in a different direction:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4&feature=player_embedded]

Well this is one way to go.  Not sure what's in the water down in Alabama, but they sure are going for it down there.  So where to start?  On the positive side, I think it's actually well filmed, I like the shaky cam, documentary feel.  I think the reveal is also nicely handled.

The ad is actually playing on the same anger at government as the Baker ad, though obviously going in a way different direction.  I think where the Bake ad feels phony this ad at least feels honest in its emotional center.  They're definitely going high concept for political ads.

I can almost see the consultants in the room coming up with concept:

"We revolted over a tea tax for christsakes."

"Hey, what if that was the ad..."

"No, no what if he was talking with Sam Adams, George Washington, telling them about what's going on..."

High fives all around....

Look, I find this ad scary, and not intellectually honest, but I think that misses the point of it.  I do wonder who they're aiming the ad at? If they get 100% of their base vote, do they get any of the independents you usually need to win a general election?  I mean come on, "Gather your armies?" Seems like a pretty radical message even for Alabama. [Ed Note: Seems Barber is in a Republican runoff, so this message is directed at his base.  I guess you have to win the election in front of you, but there is tacking to the right, and there is damn the torpedos full speed to the right. Reading his responses to questions about the ad, he's also trying to play it coy which undermines the authenticity of the feeling the ad is designed to manipulate.]

My partner Dan loved the ad and talked about how honest it was.  I think it's a little too honest.  There's the text of an ad or campaign and the subtext.  This ad seems to confuse to the two (or maybe it is not a confusion, maybe it is deliberate).  All that anger and fear of government could be the subtext, but to be so on the nose with it feels a little like drinking from a fire hose.

I think when I looked at the Tim James ad (also from Alabama) I said if Tea Party and the radical right learned how to package their anger into a cooler more thoughtful package, they would be a dangerous force.  This ad tells me they still haven't figured that out yet, which is good those of us who love this country.

It reminds me a little of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.

Another theme is that the Tea Party is trying to own the symbolism of the American Revolution. Again, I feel like this ad is so on the nose in that attempt.

Marc Ambinder recently wrote an article titled, "Has the Tea Party done anything good for the GOP?"

The GOP hoped to channel all that anger into their party structure, but like the frog, they lost site of one key fact -- the they are scorpions after all.

Try a little Honesty

A good commentary by Bob Garfield on why doesn't KFC just embrace who they are, and try a little honesty in it's advertising. For those who haven't heard KFC is donating money for every pink bucket of chicken you buy.  Stunts like this don't work precisely because they are stunts that don't connect with any deeper meaning.  What does KFC stand for?  I don't know, do you?  Does KFC?  What do they have to do with breast cancer?  No idea.

This is akin to a campaign throwing an issue out there just because it scored well in a poll.  It all has to have some deeper meaning, some connection to make sense in the mind of voters or it's just another stunt.

Dueling Arkansas ads

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/user/Blancheforsenate#p/u/8/ELAz3FBv7vY] I had meant to write a dueling ads post when looking at the Halter ad, but I got distracted by other issues.

I find the Lincoln ad much weaker than the Halter ads.  The ad teeters on the brink of being interested and connecting, but swerves too much into rational argument and does not do enough to leverage the power of emotion.  Lincoln's actually really good to camera, the problem is, I just don't believe her.  I like the I know you're angry at Washington, but I feel it isn't followed up with anything, won't back down to the Unions and Banks? Huh?

I wish she had just stared with, "I'm Blanche Lincoln, and I approve this message because I'd rather lose this election fighting for what's right, than win by compromising on my values.  I know voters are angry...."  The other crap is really useless here, for Lincoln to win now, she has to show voters she gets it, she needs to connect with them, and show them she's seen the light.

Now that's pretty unlikely given that she hasn't "gotten it" yet, and there's little reason to believe she's making anything other than an election eve conversion.  And that's the problem, when you don't really believe in anything (or at least don't appear to believe in anything) other than getting re-elected, you don't engender any loyalty in voters.  The mistake the campaign has made from the first ad I reviewed was trying to tell voters what was in it for them, rather focusing on connecting with voters.  Given recent polls, Arkansas Democrats are obviously decided what's in it for them is sending a message.

The sincerest form of flattery

Can't avoid the Halter Lincoln race as much as I would like to. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZOX70oHTI]

Does this ad seem familiar to you?

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

I like these kind of slice of life ads.  The Halter ad is a little too heavy on issues for my taste, but I suppose they got to put it in there.  It feels like it's trying just a little too hard to be homey.  Compare it to the Brown ad which is more authentic and organic. Still, I think these ads are about likability, and they're about the kind of person who is supporting the candidate.  And I think the Halter ad succeeds on that front.

Rob Walker in his book, "Buying In," makes the case that we buy products that reinforce the image we have of ourselves.  So essentially, the places we shop, the foods we eat tell a story about us, a story we want to convey to the world.  I don't go to Starbucks, I go to Dunkin Donuts -- that says something about your identity to the world.  I think it's true for candidates as well. I remember during the primary a unnamed woman friend of mine agonized who to vote for, Obama or Clinton.  She tried to rationalize her choice of Clinton, but still felt unsatisfied.  After she voted we spoke, I asked who she voted for and she Clinton, but added, "I feel like a traitor to my generation."  Her identity as a woman was stronger in that moment, but she was conflicted because of what voting for Obama represented -- change, being hip, being a true progressive etc, hope.  Clinton was the status quo.  She was so worried about what her vote said about her she swore me to secrecy.  That's the power of identity, choice and stories.

That's a lot of weight to thirty seconds.

Here's what a billion dollars gets you these days

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCMhRshti8c&feature=player_embedded] Jeff Greene is a billionaire, he's running for US Senate in Florida, and this is his first Senate ads.

He's an outsider, he's not a politician.  Get it?

Yeah, right.  I've talked about the old rule of film making: Show don't tell.  It's a good thing to remember in ad making, anything you can show your audience is more powerful than telling them.

In the ad, Greene talks about politicians about being an outsider, what shows that?  The ad couldn't be a more generic political ad.  Is there anything about the ad that says Greene is different, other than the voice over?  What evidence do they give that he's different?  Why should anyone believe he's different? It can't be the background which looks like a Palm Beach mansion.

They have him reading from a teleprompter, and he's doing a bad job at that. When will people learn, don't make your candidate read from a prompter if they can't do.  And certainly don't put it on the air if your candidate stinks.

The more I think about this ad, the more it makes me angry.  Yesterday, I talked about the book, "Starting from Why."  The Greene campaign could take a tip from that book, the ad spends a lot of time telling us WHAT Greene is and WHAT he'll do.  They spend zero time telling us WHY -- what does he stand for?  Why is he running?  The ad sounds like someone went through a poll and just plucked out the top scoring items, I don't believe for a second Greene believes in any of these things.  I don't find the ad or him credible at all.

What's wrong with politics...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak_KhhHqTP0&feature=player_embedded] The best negative ads need to connect viscerally with viewers.  They need to engage with them, this ad just doesn't feel credible.  It seems political and somehow unfair, and I ultimately think it fails.  It's ads like these that give political ads a bad name.  Potentially, an ad like this one could backfire on Poizner if voters feel like he's just slinging mud.

Book Club "Starting with Why"

My real work kept me from blogging last week.  But I wanted to write  a quick post about a new book I'm reading, "Staring with Why." If you've read "Good to Great" or even "Its not what you sell, it's what you stand for..." then you probably don't need this book.  Having looked at those books, I find "Starting with Why" much more approachable, at least for me.

The book basically posits that while most companies focus on the "What" they do (air travel, build computers, make cars) or occasionally the "How," what really motivates and inspires people to buy your product or service or even vote for your candidate is the "Why."   "Why" talks about the purpose in what you do, "Why" is your values or principles.  "Why" is about authenticity and connection not manipulation.

The idea of "why" is something I think about both in my own company, but also on the campaigns I work for. "Why" is what makes companies like Apple or Southwest successful, "Why" is what underlies the appeal of the Obama campaign and the failure of John Kerry.

The book isn't very research heavy, but is very readable, and without a doubt work a look.

I support all that and a kitchen sink

Here's a type of ad I haven't talked about before: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0-PdtKG4io&feature=player_embedded]

Its not a bad ad, I particularly like the "effective" & "independent" quotes, that kind of third party validation is what sticks with me.  No, it's not bad, it's just jammed packed, jumping from issue, to issue, to issue.  I counted at least seven separate issues:

1. There's the response and attack to the Giannoulias ad

2. Naval intelligence office... who served in Afganistan

3. Record on Stem Cells

4. and stopping BP from polluting Lake Michigan

5. Independent and effective quotes

6. Help stop wasteful spending in Washington,

7. and corruption in Illinois.

Phew.  That's a lot of bullet points to hit in one ad.  What are people going to remember? Maybe Naval Intelligence officer? Maybe the quotes?  Maybe one of the issues, pick one: Corruption, wasteful spending, stem cells, polluting. The point is that it's trying to get everything in there and the kitchen sink.  Now sometimes that's necessary if you're a candidate who has only enough money for one ad.  But I would still question the approach: Giving people too much information risks them remembering nothing.  It's like a sound that's too loud, we just block it out, ignore it, it engages our mental filters.

Don't you think Kirk would have been better off with the beginning: responding to Giannoulias then focusing on something like: He's a naval intelligence officer who's been called effective and independent.... That would let the spot breath and let your audience absorb what they need to get out of it, instead of just throwing a bunch of crap out there and seeing what you get get to stick with enough repetition.

We interrupt our regularly schedule programing...

I was going to post about this ad from Pete Domenici, Jr. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmuXej8R6w&feature=player_embedded#!]

This ad is a prime example of teleprompter gone bad, I swear you can see him squinting to read from the prompter.  The long and the short of it is, if you're running for governor your ads have to have enough gravitas for the office (especially if you have a famous last name).  Now there are exceptions to that rule, but those exceptions must portray the candidate as viable and be authentic.  This is almost a bad parody of a political ad.

This is the ad that bumped the teleprompter gone bad series:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY]

As tough as it is, I'm going to leave the controversial issue of English only aside.  This is going to sound scary, but I think this is a pretty effective ad.  There's one too many close up shots of Tim James walking towards the camera, but other than that, I can see this ad connecting with a lot of people.  My old film school teacher Boris used to say, "Guys, close up is mystery."  Here the close up creates a connection, and I think the mystery is that you can read into Tim James the qualities you want.

I appreciate the close-up only because it indicates that the director made a choice.  It would have been easy (and safer) to shoot this wide, then go close, then wide, standard stuff.  The fact that they stayed close and had James walking tells me that they were thinking about it, as opposed to doing the same old.  I appreciate that kind of thoughtfulness.

I think Tim James himself does a great job of delivering the message. Again, politics aside, he's believable and tough, but he also he comes across as strong and not an asshole or some hair on fire radical (again, politics aside).  That's a tough act to accomplish when you're talking about English only.

I find the ending particularly compelling. While the pause (or "beat") may be slightly longer than I would have liked, I think it's effective, "Maybe it's the businessman in me, but we'll save money and it makes sense...*beat*... Does it to you?" I think that pause, the line helps to draw the audience in, gives them time to engage with the argument, and makes James seem even more reasonable, he's asking what I think --  wow he must really care.  The soft ending helps defuse the hard message. If tea party politicians start figuring out how to put a candy coating on their message it could be a real big problem for progressives.

My partner (the Rabin part of Rabin Strasberg) reminded me of the similarly themed Buchanan for President ad "Meatball":

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUgTDmD4vW4]

The ad is similar in that it takes the same inflammatory issue and deal with it in a soft way -- in this case humor.  This ad is also a good example of a gimmick that actually works. It's memorable  and on message. Of course, the argument didn't take Buchanan very far in 2000, I'm curious how it'll work for Tim James.

Political Aikido

The wikipedia says this about Aikido: "Aikido is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on." [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0pXS-6ee0k]

This new ad from Alexi Giannoulias is a pretty good example of political Aikido -- framing the failure of the "family business" (the federal takeover of the family bank he used to run) as another business lost to this bad economy is pretty smart in my opinion.  For whatever reason, I was thinking about this campaign over the weekend and the need to talk about the elephant in the room.  I think this spot does a pretty good job of just that.  I like that he's being interviewed (or appears to be talking to an interviewer) and not reading of a teleprompter.  He seems sincere and believable.

It comes a little short of where I would go and really confronting the issue, but I think it's about as good as you could do given the circumstances.  As Ben Smith of Politico says, "If Alexi Giannoulias pulls this one off, it'll be one for the annals of political history..."

The negative attack in the middle of the ad is interesting, pretty standard stuff, but in essence he's tying Kirk to the failure of his "family business" and businesses like it around the state.  Of course, if you read the cite from the unemployment quote it's from 2008. I think it's pretty misleading because they're obviously trying to make it sound like Kirk made that statement recently when in fact he made the statement (whatever he actually said) about three months before the financial meltdown.  That kind of inaccuracy always worries me because if it becomes the story around the ad, then it's much easier for the other side to throw out the entire attack, and it casts doubts about your campaign's credibility.

I'm interested to see if they can shift the story in the coming days or not, but you got to give it a try, and at the very least they've put the ball in Kirk's court to react to.

The Limits of Advertising

With all the political ads out there these days, I'm trying to avoid talking about commercial advertising.  But this ad from AT&T caught my attention: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOl4OzcyKK4]

It's a great execution, from the animated kids drawing to the iconic Gene Wilder song from "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."

It hooked me emotionally and engaged my curiosity -- what is this ad for?

Needless to say, I was disappointed when it was revealed that it was part of AT&T's "rethink possible" campaign.  Sigh.  Advertising can and does change opinions, but it can only do that if people have a sense that what you're saying in the ad is true.  If it connects to what they believe is authentic.

There was a great article about Wal-Mart from the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that talked about Walmart's efforts to reform its image.  At first Walmart tried tricks and gimmicks, in essence defending itself, positive blog buzz and PR efforts.  But those efforts fell flat or blew up in their face.  Then the CEO had an epiphany: "If we want to reform our image, we need to change the way we do things."  That's when Walmart started forming alliances with labor to support health care reform, started pushing more environmentally friendly standards in its supply chain and stores, started cleaning up their act with regards to their labor practices.  They changed the story by changing their actions.

Advertising can help people realize your story has changed (or is changing), think of the Dominos Pizza ad or the GM ad that I reviewed a while back.  THey were announcements that those companies were changing direction.  This ad by AT&T is more akin to the Toyota apology ad.  As moving as it is, as well executed as it is, it doesn't change my opinion of AT&T.  If AT&T wants me to re-think the possible, tell me your rethinking your network, rethinking your customer service, rethinking whatever you're changing, tell me how you're rethinking the possible.  Then an ad like this might be effective down the road after the story has started to change to reinforce that new perspective.

There's a maxim in marketing that a logo is not a brand.  Well just saying the words doesn't change reality, coming up with a nifty new slogan and ad campaign doesn't make me think AT&T's network is any better when my iPhone is still dropping calls left and right.  Change has to start from a place of truth and authenticity, there are limits to what ads can do.

I have no response to that.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YvuyE6gjKQ&feature=player_embedded] Wow, that sucks.  Want more?  Ok, it's confusing. I know I'm not the target audience, but I think the ad doesn't make the case either rationally or emotionally.  I can see the idea of using Paul Revere -- patriotism, Tea Party, roots of liberty, I get it, it just doesn't work at all.

Favorite Senate Candidate of 2010 (April Edition)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncJfk7lYR2E&playnext_from=TL&videos=OmBXZLpOamY&feature=sub] Cal Cunningham might be my new favorite candidate for congress.

So far he's 2 for 2 in my book, with another strong ad.  I like the beginning with all the CG's incorporated into the buildings.  I like how he becomes a part of his website, and I especially like the end tag: "I approve this message because North Carolina is where we fight back."

It's interesting (and effective) because he's taking the other side's rhetoric and making it his own.  I think it's also effective because it's vague enough that it let's people read their own subtext into that.  It could be "fight back" against the government, "fight back" against Wall Street, "fight back" against Republicans.  I think Cunningham also sells this spot, he's pretty good reading to camera.

My one criticism of the spot is that it's very issues heavy,  I lose some of Cunningham in that section -- I lose my connection to him.

Still, this is a very nicely done spot.

There's over the top and then there's over the top

Tax day is here.  A day when conservatives can rail against paying their hard earned money to the government for wasteful programs like public schools, roads, a military, police and fire departments. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b5bSxL6DR4]

In honor of April 15th, a conservative group railing against taxes.  Now Ken Buck is in a Republican primary against conservative Jane Norton. So maybe this spot is aimed for a very angry conservative base, still I can't help but feel they could have appealed to that base, and to more independent/less angry Republican primary voters. From the graphics to the music to the voice talent to the writing ("Washington loves Tax Day, but despise conservative leaders....).  It's just too much, and it risks getting

Compare that spot with this web video, which also over the top:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xULUb98TNwk]

Copyright violations aside, this is pretty funny and great parody.  Often when I watch these longer videos (over a minute) I get bored pretty fast, this one I watched through to the end. Now that says something about my attention span and the quality of most web videos.

Look it even made "Mars Attacks!" look funny, that's an accomplishment in itself.

The difference between this video and the first spot is that the first one is deadly serious, this one has its tongue firmly planted in cheek.  Its tone is over the top, but its message is not.  Even though its message is loud and clear, its not being shouted at you.

In that way it's able to deliver it's message without a viewer turning it out.

Sometimes it's the simple things.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Duc2UINAw0] Really nice opening ad from Cal Cunningham.  I think the open is stronger than the end, with the bleached out shots of the flag and out the bus window, it's more evocative and emotionally powerful.

The line "Now I want to fight a different kind of war..." feels like an awkward transition to  the issues section of the spot, which I'm not sure they really needed.  They could referenced service again, and kept it more general, like "Now I'm running for the US Senate, to service again by breaking through the partisanship in Washington, and help the people of North Carolina..."  This middle section is the weakest part of the ad.

The ad comes back strong with it's disclaimer, "I approve this message, for them." It's unusual and somewhat mysterious so it gets my attention on a part of the spot that's usually a throw away.

Like I said, overall this is a strong opening spot.  While I don't feel all warm and fuzzy for Cal Cunningham, I like him and what to know more about it.  Like a look bio movie, the ad doesn't try to tell you everything about Cal Cunningham's life, but it takes some episode that says something larger about the person.

I'll be looking out for the follow up to this ad to see what they have in store next.

Sometimes it's not black or white

I was trying to find something to write about this week, there are ads out there now, but for the most part, I was looking for something interesting to say or at least something interesting to show.  I was going to write about Ned Lamont's new ad, but now I can save that till next week. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJDGLh7hAQ&feature=player_embedded]

My friend Emily sent me this ad, and asked me what I thought.  She said "Would love to know what you think. I don't really know how I feel about it..."

After watching the ad (well, actually it's a web video since it's almost a minute and a half long), I can understand what she means.  On one hand I think it's a pretty good negative attack on Specter in a Democratic primary.  The people are believable, the music is great, the shooting style is simple but effective. I like the B&W effect, it's interesting.  I also appreciate their restraint in the use of CG, which can be so overused (it can be like a bad powerpoint presentation, where the speaker is constantly reading from the slide, that you're reading as well).  It's paced really well (which you can do a little easier when you're not locked into :30 or :60 increments), and I especially like the silent opening just being introduced to the people without any signal of what it is about.  It gets me curious about what's to come, it engages my attention.

So it's an honest effective swipe at Specter, that goes after the Democratic base.  It doesn't feel mean spirited at all, which is in part what makes it so effective.

I think the part that is confusing, and maybe what my friend is reacting to, is the "Dear President Obama...."  It feels like a Red Herring.  It feels to me, in part, that the President Obama stuff is more a MacGuffin than an actual appeal. It gets you some good earned media (Sestak appeals to Obama, "We want Change" kind of headline), it offers a nice frame to the video, and gives some signal to the kind of folks Sestak is trying to appeal to.

Still the "Dear Mr President" frame also feels out of place, it just doesn't quite work on that front, and I think that's the confusing part.  It seems like an unnecessary attack on the President, while trying to embrace what he stands (stood?) for.

I could have titled this post "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever #4 or 5, or whatever number we're at for the title.  This spot has so many things I like about it, but I can see how you can be on the fence about it because it is confusing or disorienting in a way.

To answer my friend's question, I really like this video.  Despite the odd frame, I think it works, it's very understated, but makes it's point in an authentic way.

Dueling ads in... Nevada

I like these dueling ad posts.  As campaign season gets into full gear, there might be more of these to come. Moving from Arkansas to Nevada, where there's a Republican primary to see who will replace, err,... I mean who will go up against Harry Reid in the fall.  We'll go bio a bio:

First up is Sue Lowden who's way up in the polls:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfO1E6kfAko]

I find her likable enough, though a little phony -- it is just me?  Not sure what the swishes are doing in there, it's one of those elements you put into an ad because you can, but I'm not sure it's helping with the message, also I think they're distracting me.

There's a film school adage, if you see the boom mic in the shot, it doesn't matter.  What that means, is if people are noticing things like the boom mic coming ever so slightly into the shot, it means they're bored and they're not connected with what's happening on screen.  That's what's happening here, the spot is alright, I like the opening archival shots, it's evocative -- the immigrant story of coming to America to follow your dreams, that's good stuff (ironic isn't it how the story of immigrant is so powerful in retrospect, given the current state of immigration reform).

I just can't quite connect with her, the smile feels forced or something.  Also, I'm not from Nevada, but the backdrop of that room looks pretty plush. A good backdrop for a political spot is something that's both unique and generic at the same time.  Something that isn't too nice, this feels a little too nice to me.

Here's is her opponent's spot:

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

I really like the effect they use pulling out the photos from background.  It ads something interesting for my eye.  Also I like the archival stuff of him, for whatever reason, images like that are always powerful to me, maybe because they feel so real.

I torn about the understated CG's for the bio section.  I like them, they're simple and clean, but are they adding anything by simply repeating what we're hearing?  Why couldn't they add some piece of new information?  It's a constant struggle with CG's in a political ad, what is they're purpose?  On one hand people think they should reinforce the voice over, like a powerpoint slide or something.  I think they should reinforce the feeling you're going for, what if they used words or ideas that weren't already in the voice track, what if those powerful words like values or family where replaced in the track, but left that for the CG's to describe, that could be a power reinforcing of the theme and feeling of the ad.

I leave this ad feeling like I don't really know this guy.  Here's what I remember, he grew up in rural Nevada and was a businessman, he has a family... There's nothing that grabs me or my emotions, and it doesn't make me necessarily curious to find out more.

Sue's ad, I remember she was a business person, her job is your job or something like that, she had some event with a mayor where she stood up to the guy or something, I'd like to know more about that.

In general both these spots are good enough, have some interesting elements, but are a little generic and don't grab me.  That's especially important for Chachas 'cause he's at like 1% in the polls.  It'll be tough at this point no matter how much he spends to get traction unless his ads stick out a little more.