Play the reality

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdw1o-u8ov0&feature=player_embedded] This is almost a good ad.  I like the concept at the open, but I don't like the woman playing the "voter." Maybe that's my problem with her, she's "playing" a voter, she's so over the top, that the reality of the spot is lost. If she played the reality of the absurd moment, choosing a politician on a game show like the dating game, rather than playing the absurdity of the moment, I would like the spot better.  If she anchored me in the real, then I could suspend my disbelief for the surreal.

Also because she's so over the top, when she reappears at the end with Lynch, I find the moment totally phoney.

I'm not sure about the cutting to Lynch either.  I guess I'm not sure if I believe he's really fed up etc or if he's just reading off a teleprompter.

Still, pretty good effort, and I think the ad might do a good job of framing the race, even if it's not as effective as it could be.

Too Bright

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHItyRdQyY&feature=player_embedded] Caught this ad in a post on the Plum Line talking about Dems running ads against Obama & Pelosi.

Message aside I'm torn about it. On one hand, I love the visuals and the music. I love the bright sepia tones and the silhouette. On the other hand, why do they insist on cluttering up the screen with those glowing CG's. Yes, I know his name is Bright, but it's bad enough the CG's are repeating what the voice over already told us, but then they're glowing.

Ten years ago, glows like that would be very timely and costly to put into an ad, today, it's literally 3 minutes and pressing a button on a computer.  It's so easy to create the effects, but the question here is why? What's the point?  They're "bright" like his name?  If that's it... sigh.

I do love the shots though.  I wish they trusted them enough to tell the story.

When a gimmick works

Mr. Fix Chris Cillizza asks rhetorically if this is the best positive ad of the cycle: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yv_g7ZyADM&feature=player_embedded]

Unlike the last video, this ad is a gimmick that works. What's the difference? At the most basic level this ad works because while it is a gimmick, there is something truthful about it. It's authentic to the candidate, so the form says something about him.  It reinforces his image as not an everyday politician and it goes to the public's desire to see government work instead of fight. The fact that it's an easy pledge for him to make given the nature of his race is immaterial to the ad.

Here's the Hickenlooper ad from his run for mayor:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEZrn1j-POc]

Now if John Kerry of John McCain tried or Andrew Cuomo tried to be this quirky so voters could "relate" to them, it would be an abject failure.  It works for Hickenlooper because the guy is goofy.

I agree with most of Chris' analysis of the ad, though I do take exception to his final point, "it provides a broad thematic blueprint of what to say and how to say it for candidates -- incumbents and challengers alike -- dealing with a very volatile electorate."

This ad works for Hickenlooper, the themes work for his race and candidacy, someone else running along similar themes may or may not work.

The broader point I would make is this: with a volatile electorate, it is especially important that you run ads that are honest and authentic, that can resonate and connect with the voting public. If you can do it with humor and entertainment all the better, but more importantly, as Shakespeare wrote, "To thine own self be true."

Maybe it's me

A friend sent me this one, with the note, "Best political ad of the year..." [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUKHWnpsOL8]

Watching a video like this, I got to wonder is it just me, maybe I'm lacking creativity and vision.  But I just don't get it.

On one hand, wow, they really went for it.  You got to appreciate the fact they aren't going with vanilla. They sure went through what seems like a lot of effort -- complete with dressing their candidate up like young Terri Garr. There's of art direction going on to parody a 35 year old movie. And, while I've talked about other ads/videos not trusting their concept, these guys trust theirs all the way.

The section with the violin, to quote Boris, "Guys, this is movie." That part works, it drives home the message (though it ends with "Ahmadinejad, he's my boyfriend," and while that's accurate to the parody, seems way over the top here).

Still, at the end of the day, this video feels like a mess to me.  Another film school quote, "If you notice the boom mic in the shot, then the scene isn't working." Well, I noticed the shoddy camera work.  The choice of "Young Frankenstein" is odd, and even odder is dressing your candidate up like a gothic heroine, but alright.  In the end, there's 10 seconds of good material, but the rest leaves me searching for the meaning. What's the deal with Frankenstein and Iran?  I'm not sure what the metaphor is supposed to be? What is Harman creating?

At the end of the day, this seems like an elaborate gimmick. In other words, it a concept driving message, not a message driving a concept.  It may get Mattie Fein attention, but I wonder what that attention is, will people see the production values and see her as serious?  Will the attacks stick?

I admire their gusto and style, but question their judgement.  Maybe it's just me though.

Teach them to Long...

If you want to build a shipdon't herd people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

-Antoine de Saint-Exupery

I think this quote is good advice for leadership & ad making.  Too often ads, and political ads in general, focus on herding people together and assigning tasks, in other words they focus on issues, or some other laundry list, rather than inspiring or emotion.

BTW, I got that quote from this deck which lays out Netflix's most interesting values & managerial philosophy.  (Tip of the hat to Dan Pink.)

Not Typical, but on Target

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nAuJj7twMI&feature=player_embedded] Great MoveOn.org ad calling for Target boycott.

What do I like about it? It's everything that last ad I looked isn't:

It doesn't take the time to explain, "Target donated... Blah, blah, blah."

It aims straight to your emotions.

It certainly looks different (and sounds different, that jingle is very catchy).

It also starts with a mystery, what is this, what am I watch?  It brings the viewer into the experience, then rewards them with a catchy jingle.  Think of how different this could have gone. What if they used a standard script after that step up? Relied on information delivery instead of emotions?

Typical

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdagMZWCo6w] This is about as standard a political ad as you can get.  Filled with all the cliche's:

"The Facts..."

"[Insert candidate's name here] voted..." Votes that show the opposite quality of the attack.

"And... [insert opponent's name here] voted to do..." Issues of the year, today it's shipping jobs overseas & privatizing social security.

Nothing wrong with it, expect it's totally forgettable, and it's too logical, or rather it's relying on logic rather emotion.

Now this little piggie

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxn_3w1rYo&feature=player_embedded] This one is pretty good. It's 1:30 so it's not a TV which is too bad, hopefully they can cut it down to :30 because I think it's devastating. Especially given Quayle's overly ernest ad that I reviewed last week.

Here's a great example of trusting the concept. Think of all the ways they could have screwed this up, too many CG's, trying to put to much wonky stuff in there, instead the humor is organic to the situation.  Great job.

Turnabout

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPyDnEivY1E] Here's something you won't see a lot of this year: A Democrat attacking a Republican for supporting the bailout.

It's kinda interesting.  I really like the opening shot of Robin Carnahan against the flag. Maybe that's the best thing about the ad.

I guess it's not too big of a leap from bailout to getting Wall St money, but it feels a bit like a non sequitur in my opinion.

Well it'll be good to put the Republicans on the defensive about the bailout for a change.

Four Ads, six words each.

There's a slew of ads that I've been looking at for a few days now to post something about.  In the spirit of ad infinitum, rather than caught up saying the perfect thing about each of them, I wanted to pass them along.  Taking Six Word Memoirs as inspiration, I decided to try and limit my comments to six words each. I wish I had six ads, there's more symmetry there, but never let the perfect be the enemy of the good: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BfjpU_yHw0&feature=player_embedded]

"Wasn't as harsh as I thought." Or "Serious sin?  A prostitute? Say it."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eioIyFv9gHw&feature=player_embedded]

"Good quotes. But over the top."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP48TzxZuzQ]

"Interesting idea. Mediocre execution. Pretty good."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0mp99eEaic&feature=player_embedded]

"Clever. Cute? Good script. Ok execution."

"A friend did this, pretty clever."

A tale of two ads

Two ads from the conservative American Crossroads: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy3xKL4vlc8]

The positive ad in Ohio is pretty good stuff. Nicely designed, I especially like the talking politician graphics they use both at the front and the end.  Not as fond of the middle section with the moving images of Portman, I much prefer the stills in the plan section, that seem to be a better fit for the overall scheme. Still, this is surprisingly good.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f85DHhYcqU4&wpisrc=nl_fix]

This ad in Colorado on the other hand.... I've talked before about trusting your concept.  This ad has a pretty good concept Bennet has spent X billions every day.  Whether it's a compelling message or not, is another argument, but graphically, the idea of a calendar and $2.5 billion in spending could be really nicely pushed home.

But instead of trusting the concept they muck it up with too many CG's, pictures of Bennet (why do we have to see the guy, you say his name 5 times, will the picture of him really drive the point home).  Then they mix the monthly calendar with the daily calendar, which is not a grave offense, but just adds to the visual clutter.

It's ironic because in their attempt to make this ad more clear, they made it less so.

Just one problem

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QwbNordDwM] I like the fact that they're trying.  But I think there's a problem, when the worst element of your ad is your candidate. Sink comes off as robotic and lifeless.  When the two guys fighting in the background are more interesting than the person talking in the foreground, well, you may want to rethink the ad.

My weekend viewing

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0HfwkArpvU] Getting off politics for a brief moment. I came across this pretty cool video this weekend.

I've mentioned Radio Lab before as something that inspires me (sort of a combination between "This American Life" and "Science Friday" on NPR).

There are some beautiful shots here, and I really appreciate that they don't slow down to explain the concept. Too often in ads, there's a feeling that the audience is too stupid to get the concept, so we over explain.  I think it's really the opposite that's true, the audience gets it, if it is gettable, when it's not understandable, it's usually the concept that's not working.

Quayle Parodies

An ad and a link: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRHa55CmGwk]

Here's the link.

Both are amusing, but not laugh out loud funny. I think they zero in on the arrogance and over the top quality of the original ad, you know the stuff that pissed me off about it. It had that Saturday Night Live quality to begin with, was a little too self serious, a little too dark, wonder how many more of these we'll see?

Even Meat & Potatoes can taste good

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-hJgUnqX3w] This is a pretty basic ad about Meg Whitman.  Standard script, blah, blah, blah, but I think they did a great job making it look beautiful.  I love how the words come on the screen, the choice of some of the "generic" backgrounds, the graph paper look, the moving lights behind the images, it's a beautiful spot. There's not a moving image in the spot, yet it conveys a sense of motion.

Maybe a regular voter wouldn't notice those things, maybe it would make them connect to Whitman more, I think it would. Hell, I'm a Democrat, and I know the tricks, and I'd be inclined emotionally to vote for Whitman.  It's subtle, but effective.  The spot is like going to a fancy restaurant and ordering the meatloaf and mash potatoes. It's still meatloaf and mashed potatoes, but it's a cut above.  Good work.

Ad infinitum: Only the Shadow knows

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4jiqYcUoOk] I can't decide if this ad is actually good or is actually a Saturday Night Live skit.  To quote Spinal Tap again, "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

I like the lighting and walking off screen at the end.  There's a sincerity about it, but it is almost comical and it pisses me off, which further makes it hard to decide if it's any good.

For comparison

I think this ad makes for a good comparison to the Melacon ad. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUSF_zEtW8w&feature=player_embedded]

Where that other ad was vanilla and left me cold, this ad is much warmer. Part of that is personality I bet, Blumenthal might just come off better on camera, but also look at the background, the way they're dressed.  I believe Blumenthal, even when he's spouting message.

I also like the end tag: "For You. First. Last. Always."

I think too often political ads are so focused on the issues, they're not focused on the emotion. I couldn't tell you what Blumenthal was talking about, but I do know I liked him better after watching the ad then before. Issues are usually a MacGuffin, they give the politician something to talk about, but really they should be a way to connect to voters.

Plain Vanilla

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVQDWyYpJE&feature=youtube_gdata] First ad up for Rep Charlie Melancon. The ad doesn't do much for me, pretty vanilla. I get the message of it, which I think is fine, but not really impressed with him. The delivery is fine, but the ad seems transactional. It's missing any emotional component that connects me to Melancon.

The ad leaves me cold or at the very least, leaves me feeling nothing, which is a problem in my book. The background and suit and tie aren't helping him either, feels very formal.

It seems they were aiming for voters heads not their hearts, and even if they hit their mark they missed the target.

What's wrong with this picture

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Saq619hGTvM] I'm a sucker for ads like this one, I love testimonials, especially unscripted ones like this.  But somehow this ad falls apart for me, right after they mention David Cicilline.  Can't put my finger on why, my best guess is that I feel like there is a story here, but we're not hearing it because it's the same political mumbo-jumbo.  It's a good setup with a weak payoff, like the underrated move "Signs."

I do love those opening lines of the ad though.

Here's the other ad they're releasing:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_p7Q0OGDc4]

Kinda the same issue, though this one I feel they're playing a little too precious.  I feel like I should like the ad, but I just don't, it seems like it's trying too hard, and maybe not subtle enough.

Aloha Hawaii

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHikZmkjQ5U&feature=player_embedded] A real nice ad.  I like what Duke has to say, though not sure who he's supposed to be looking at when he's talking.  I like how the GC "Rise" stays on the screen the entire time, adding an element of curiosity to the spot. I like that they use imagery from Hawaii instead of being literal.

Great intro ad, one that uses issues & visuals to drive emotions.