It's hammer time

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ibawfcsMg&feature=player_embedded] This is a hammer spot, cause it's about as subtle as a hammer.

Straightforward, not overdone, but it'll take some repetition for it to sink in, and eventually it make with enough money behind it. It's what I've called before attrition warfare, just line the armies up and go at it. Pretty typical for political attack ads. Also pretty cheap to produce.

Still I don't think it has the impact per airing that this ad (which I reviewed previously) has:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWrgmT_Vl7Q&feature=player_embedded]

What if they had just listed the amounts without voice over, then cut the quote of him saying he couldn't recall, then the votes. I think they were trying to tease out the beginning of the spot, to get the viewer curious, but I just don't think it works.

A hammer's not subtle, but often times in politics it's not death by 1000 cuts, it's death by 1000 hammer blows. I just wonder if there's not a better way.

Part of a team. Teamwork.

in

Can't have too many quotes from the "Untouchables." I don't talk much about my work here, that's not really the point of this blog.  But one element I'm a big believer in is collaboration and teamwork. In politics too often being part of a team is seen as less important than leading the team or getting the credit.  I believe that good collaboration and teamwork always produce a better product and make for a better work environment.   Being a good teammate, a good collaborator is as important a skill as being a good leader.

I wanted to link to this video by Randy Nelson, Dean of Pixar University talking about the importance of collaboration and Pixar.  I've always admired Pixar, not just for the quality of their work, but for the values and process they represent in creating that work.  They seem to really embody the "No Asshole Rule," that I've tried to follow in my business, but too often is forgotten in politics (and entertainment).

Sometimes the best ads

in

Come while you're watching TV. The summer months are where I watch the least TV, and I realized today that I was missing seeing the ads I usually catch on prime time.  Tonight watching a re-run of one of my favorite Next Generation episodes, I caught this ad: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qf8OGLqE1s]

Maybe it's because I'm a dad, but I loved the simplicity of this ad. I'm not sure it'll make me buy a subaru, but I enjoyed the story telling, the way is sucks you in with the unexpected, even the punchline isn't overdone. In fact one of the things I really appreciate about the ad is the acting is well done both by the dad and the young girl, it's not overplayed.

It's also the kind of ad that plays well on paper. One thing I've learned with concept ads is this: If it doesn't work on paper, it won't work on the screen.

BTW, the ad also follows Dan Heath's three rules that I listed in this post.

Live by the sword

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/user/BennetForColorado#p/u/1/wOkB9gnACks] I showed the Romanoff ad the other day, here comes the Bennett response. I think it's pretty effective. Using the newspaper as a third party validator is particularly effective here, since the language is so harsh.

This ad isn't pretty and it's a pretty standard setup (the rebuttal, the truth, the choice), but I hate it when the quotes become closed captioning as CG, what's the point?  Even in an ad like this, when you have great quotes, I think it would be better to have the CG's and the voice over in sync but not repeating.

I have to say Romanoff had it coming. When you start playing with the truth to such a degree that the leading paper in the state says it is "cynical politics," then you've gone way too far.

What works for presentations

in

Good tips from the Dan Health, co-author of the brilliant "Made to Stick," a must read for communications of all kinds.  The tips are about powerpoint presentations, but are just as relevant to political ads, especially the ads I've seen this year.

The rules in brief:

1. Be Simple

2. Show something

3. Tease before you tell

Here's a link to the article.

In the End a beginning

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68CstowT7c&feature=player_embedded] Pretty good intro ad from Meek.  The order is a little strange with two negatives then the intro, but alright.  I really liked how the intercut Meeks with the validators (Mom, police captain, and skycaps).  Don't know if it's enough with three weeks till the primary, but it gives me a better feeling about Meek.

Thought it was a little odd at the end to say, "but it's not about me...," when he just spent the last 25 seconds talking about himself and what he has done, the line seemed to set up what he will do, but didn't really go anywhere.

Hopefully for Meek, the same won't be true for this ad.

Off-Target, Style over Substance

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xS9kPs5Txs&feature=player_embedded] Target has gotten themselves in the crosshairs (you like that bit of word play) by donating $150,000 to the group that sponsored this ad in favor or Republican Governor candidate Tom Emmer.  It's a can of worms that all corporations are going to have to face as/if they enter into the political fray.

Is the ad any good? Yeah, it uses kinetic typography, which is a style I really like and I've talked about a lot. I also really like the silhouette effect at the end, that's way cool. Still, I think it's a lot of effects, but I'm not sure what the point is?  The best I can figure they're copying the Ford ad like old Rory Reid did (which I looked at here), even the voice is similar.

Otherwise, the effects are supporting what's happening around it, they're flashy, but not particularly helpful. I hate it when style trumps substance and form is given the upper hand to function.

Sometimes we all get too greedy

in

Looks like the primary race for Colorado Senate is now in play.  I looked at a Michael Bennett ad a while back commenting that how dishonest it seemed for him to be playing the Washington isn't working card, since he is in fact a sitting Senator. Here's the latest attack from his opponent:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8z1IEUV7S4&wpisrc=nl_fix]

A bit generic for my taste, more like a haymaker than a knife to the back, but alright.  Unless of course, it's all a lie.  The Denver Post headline of the ad review says, "Romanoff's ad is over the top," then goes on to detail how the facts of the story are basically a lie.

There's a real problem with negative attacks besides being boring and forgettable, they gotta be true behind a shadow of a doubt.  The campaign has to be able to stand behind the attack 100%.  Now that's not to say there's not a short term benefit for Romanoff, and recent polls show him close or slightly ahead, so maybe it's worth the risk to his credibility in the long term to make the play in the short term (after all, he did sell his house to afford the air time).

It's this sort of thing that makes people had political ads and politicians.  When ads get greedy with the truth everyone loses.

Blah, blah, blah

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx_rXdzI4Qg&feature=youtube_gdata Brad Ellsworth up with his first ad.  Ok, here's my issues:

1. The guy is a Congressman, and he talks about Washington like he's never seen the Capitol.  He works there.  It just seems disingenuous.  

2. I like that he says "bull," and it's a nice segue to the fact he was a sheriff for 25 years (doesn't say he is a Congressman), but if I have to hear the same tired lines about Washington, again and again this cycle it's gonna make me vomit. 

Look cliche is fine, you have 30 seconds to get across a lot -- heck that's why they filmed in a broken down factory (interesting location by the way), and cliche is a great shortcut, but as Boris would say, "Guys check yourself." When you find yourself slipping into cliche whether visually or in your script, you have to pause and ask yourself, is there another way to show or say this? Can I do something surprising or new here? Sometimes the answer is yes, that's when something cool usually happens. 

Sometimes the answer is no. That's when you get an ad like this one with the same old blah, blah, blah.

What is it about history?

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqCpWuanle4] Tim Pawlenty is out with a video for his Freedom First PAC, "History is on Our Side," which is really a way of introducing him to Republican voters.

There are things that I like about this video, there's a stylized use of color that's interesting especially for politics.  I like the use of old photos, they add to a sense of Americana, there's a nice overall iconic feel to the video.

My problem is Pawlenty, I guess I can't tell if he's being authentic or if he's full of it.  I kind of like him, but something about his delivery, I don't know I'm just not buying it.  Could it be the video is just trying a little too hard?

Get what you pay for

in

Bear with me, this is my first post on my iPad, and I can't figure out how to paste the video into the post other than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4IQ_kj9eDM&feature=youtube_gdata

[Editor's note: What do you know it worked. Go iPad.]

DCCC announced it's target states and this :30 ditty. I like the idea of the contract on America, and they deliver an incredible amount of information in thirty seconds. But I find the execution incredibly pedestriation and overdone. [Editor's note 2: The site that pointed me to said said it was a thirty when in fact it is :50, still a lot of information, but not nearly as impressive as I thought.]

The music is way over the top, and for a spot without VoiceOver, music is especially important.

The spot was obviously done on the cheap no v/o, simple pictures and graphics, probably cost no more than $3-$4K.

Sometimes you get what you pay for I guess.

And we're off

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tZ5Fk4793I&feature=player_embedded] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhYVnMqg-A&feature=player_embedded]

That was fast, they probably had these ads ready and waiting. Instead of responding to the Meek attacks with a defense (and really what would the defense be, I didn't make that much money when I ruined the economy), Greene goes on the attack.

While neither ad really grabs me, I think they do enough to muddy the waters.  Meek comes off as a corrupt politician.  Now, I think if Meek's original attack had landed, he wins this round. It's a good lesson, just because you throw a punch doesn't mean you're going to hit someone.   The problem for Meeks is that Greene's checkbook is unlimited, if he goes toe to toe with him, he's going to lose.

The Greene ads are good enough, well produced, but not really standout.

Because this round is a draw, it's really a win for Greene.

Betting on Suffering

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dT0QthPKdY&feature=player_embedded] You knew it was coming, when a guy makes his fortune because he invented trading derivatives, he's gonna get attacked.  I think this ad suffers from the same issue as the Kirk ads, they're throwing way too much stuff in there, and it is all coming too fast.

Compare this with the jobs ad against Foley.  This ad feels like an attack ad, and while it throws a lot of punches, I'm not sure they land because there's no focus on anyone of them.

I do like the end line though. If they had built the case more carefully to lead up to that line, then this would be a much better ad.

Ad Infinitum: Hard to believe

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIAGXvAjQiE] I think these quick ad checks are going to become more common as there are more ads out there, and my time to post becomes less and less.

Great ad in my opinion.  Hard to believe it's only 30 seconds, it tells such a powerful story.  Nice visuals, good juxtaposition of the CG's on the screen adding depth and the voices of the people. It's a small thing, but a big pet peeve, but I hate it when the words on the screen match the voice over.  Here they complement each other, and the one time they match (over Foley's line) works well -- the exception that proves the rule.

This ad reminds me of the famous Ted Kennedy ad attacking Milt Romney in 1994.  It always great when you can turn your opponents strength into a weakness.

Ad Infinitum: Or stuff I want to post, but don't have the time to talk about

in

You may find it hard to believe, but I really think about what I want to write about each week. It takes time and energy, both to find an ad that interests me, but then to actually figure out why it interests me and put those thoughts down on paper. In any given week, there might be 2, 3, 4, 5 other videos or ads I see that I think are worth showing, but I don't have the time, energy, or clarity of thought to actually write something insightful about.  But, yesterday a friend suggested I start a micro-blog, call Ad Infinitum.  As he called it, “Immediate Ads Catching My Eye Right Now." (For reference, this is the same friend who's Daisy ad I dissed on in my previous post).

So as a new feature, welcome to Ad Infinitum.  With thanks to my friend, here's an interesting piece he sent me:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pqwidkN9_I&feature=player_embedded]

As a Ward One resident, I like this guy, the video feels real and authentic, even if they lose the gimmick half way through.

Here's the original:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qLSITd6_Ug]

The sincerest form of flattery

in

Spring is gone, but Daisies seem to be springing up everywhere.  First we have this offering from Bill Cooper: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaV1l4Ni59A]

Then we have this one against Aaron Schock

[Editor Note: This ad was actually done in 2008, and a very talented friend of mine made it. Didn't know either of those things when I posted this. Adam]

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

It's a good year to be a young blond girl actor.

It's nice that both these ads try to play off the original "Daisy ad" -- a classic of political advertising. That ad (which only ran once by the way) was both visceral and evocative.  These ads hope to tap into that fear and emotion to drive their message.

Do they work?  Not so much in my opinion.

The Cooper ad even tries to mimic the LBJ's voice over, but as bad as you think the deficit is, isn't not like nuclear war, and it doesn't summon up the same fear or gut level emotion as the original.

The Callahan ad against Schock at least has to do with the threat of nuclear attack.  The issue here is that I don't think voters really know what the ad means.  It seems so outside where we are these days to worry about nuclear weapons in Taiwan.  Maybe Callahan is ahead of the game, but the issue isn't on my top 10.  I know it shows bad judgement, but it's hard to get worked up over it.  If you only have so many chances to go negative, would you want to use one of those opportunities on nuclear weapons to Taiwan?

The problem with both these ads is that the daisy setup is a double edged sword: On one hand, you're tapping into the myth of the original. On the other hand, you're setting up an obvious comparison to the original.

I think both ads lose on that comparison. It sort of like they used the framework of the original, but missed the point of it.

And yes, if I'm going to talk about the "Daisy ad" I have to show it:

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

Trusting your concept

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37K5Q3yTlH0] So I never talked about the demon sheep video that made waves at the begining of the year (though if I had, I would have talked about gimmicks and the need to be authentic).  This commercial is by the mastermind of Demon Sheep, Fred Davis.  It's an attack on Senator Patty Murray, who in 1992 ran as a mom in tennis shoes.

I showed this ad to a couple of folks, and they thought it was awesome.  Funny thing was, I thought it was less than awesome, and the why goes back to the title of this post. I think this is an awesome concept and a great attack.  It turns Murray's image around in an interesting way.

So what's the problem? I think the execution is less interesting and effective than the concept.

This isn't a concept problem, but a script problem.  The script is heavy handed, it sort of takes the wind out from the visuals. I think this ad would be more effective with a short script that packed more punch.  Imagine the same visuals, you see the white sneaks, then they're stepping on the backs of the people.  All this time there's no voice over.  I think that's interesting and it gets you curious.  After 10 or 15 seconds hit your talking points, "Patty Murray told us she was different, but she did X, Y, Z, tell Patty to get off our backs..."  Less details, sure, less message, maybe, more effective without a doubt.

This is a good concept, but I wish it had a good script to drive the point home, as it is, I think it misses the mark.

This caught my attention

in

Despite the slew of political ads, every week, I'm looking for something interesting and unique to write about, an ad where the blog post starts getting written inside my head. This ad caught my attention, and I didn't even know what I was going to say, but here goes.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3kQzEufXI8&feature=player_embedded]

First things first, I liked the when I first watched it.  I've talked about Kinetic Typology before, and often I think it's not used well.  Well in this ad, I think the form and the function match up pretty well.  Though the ad is derivative of this Ford ad with Denis Leary:

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

I don't see that as a negative.  It's using the cache of that ad, it's macho and hip and slightly irreverent, by mimicking the original (done to the attitude and sound of the voice over) this ad becomes those things as well.  It uses the typology very well, representing overcrowded class, cutting education, and cuts to teachers.  I also really like the line, "If you're thinking, aw man, just another political ad,..." It's surprising and grabs my attention, and it shows a certain understanding of the process (though I'm not sure if downloading Rory Reid's plan is the solution to that thought).  While you may never consciously say, this guy gets it, I think that thought passes through the audience's mind. It's a nice way of connecting with them -- whether it actually shows up in a poll or not, I think it makes Reid more likable.

This ad works because it's having a conversation with the audience.  It's a nice swipe at Sandoval because it doesn't appear mean spirited, it's almost playful in tone.

My biggest worry about an ad like this is does it fit Rory Reid.  While they mention the candidate, he's not really in the ad, and I'm left wondering if he's as hip, stylish and in your face as this ad is.

Is it enough?

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWrgmT_Vl7Q&feature=player_embedded] I know I just posted, but this ad is worth watching.  I think it is well, done, it's tie in to images that are in the public consciousness is very effective, it doesn't take time to over explain its premise, it has some nice detail (the scrubbing of the hands and watch), and it has an element of the unexpected.

The spot does a good job of brining attention to the issue of Climate Legislation, though I'm not sure if actually makes a good case for why we need that legislation.  Is invoking images of oil covered animals enough?