Now, we're cooking with Gas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiodYD1His4&feature=player_embedded] In an earlier post, I wondered aloud why Melancon didn't come hard after Vitter on the prostitution scandal (was there a pun in there somewhere).

Well, this isn't a commercial for air, as it runs 2 minutes, but I think it's pretty darn good. I love the way they parody the reality crime show genre. Also notice here how they stay with the parody the entire way through.  There's little that feels like a political ad, they really stuck with the concept all the way through.  (I wonder if the people really wanted anonymity or if it was just part of the genre they're parodying, in either case I think it works.)

One question is will they have the guts to put this on the air?  I can easily see the promo version of this video, next on "Forgotten Crimes..."

The real question is this too little too late, or will this be the knock out punch to Vitter.

[Editor's Note: According to Talking Points Memo, the two minute piece is the ad, and it's going to run on cable.]

Don't see this everyday

Don't often see a spat between consultants over plagiarism or maybe immitation is the more favorable description: The ad in question is this Grayson ad.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL51grs5JDo&feature=player_embedded]

Compared with this Spitzer ad.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YtdxY_woS8&feature=player_embedded]

It's been a bad day for the Grayson consultant, what with lying in one ad, and being hit for plagiarism in this ad. I have to say, I have a lot of respect for the creator of the original, Jimmy Siegel and the Spitzer ads in general, and right now not much respect for the folks who are making the Grayson ads.

I don't agree with Siegel's assertion "you're not allowed to shamelessly copy things in other mediums, but for some reason some media consultants have no shame."

I think a good ad can and should be shamelessly copied if it's relevant to the race you're running,it's authentic to your candidate, and you can bring something new to it. My problem with the imitation in this case is that it just feels like Grayson didn't really add anything new, didn't "make it his own." It just copied the form of the Spitzer ad (down to the 8mm flash frames) and just threw Grayson in there with his kids instead of kids by themselves.  It misses the subtlety and freshness of the original, neither parodying it nor adding to it.

Siegel got this part right, "And to add insult to injury, they did a lousy job."

One small problem

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvB-mHXcWzg] Some good hits in this ad, and it's a nice twist  -- usually it's Republicans saying Democrats are in line with the Taliban or the terrorists or whatever.

Oh, what's the problem?  Just this little fact:

"Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He's using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said," the nonpartisan site, sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, wrote on its blog Monday."

The truth? Oh, that.... Here's the thing, you got your opponent with some pretty extreme votes. That's some pretty good evidence, why overplay your hand, by taking his comments out of context and deliberately misrepresenting them? It's just stupid.  Now instead of voters hearing how extreme what's his name is, they hear Grayson lied about what's his name. And the extreme part? That sort of gets lost, ignored or worse, becomes part of the lie.

On a personal level, an ad like this makes me angry.  It's one thing to spin, to try and create a narrative with your opponents record or even ascribe motives to their actions, it's another thing to knowingly lie and distort. Either the person who made this ad, doesn't have any morals, are so contemptuous of voters they think they can lie to them with impunity, are amateurs or all three.  This kind of ad is why folks hate political ads. There really should be some penalty for this kind of shamelessness.

Ad infinitum: Two Ads

Two quick notes on two ads that have been in the hopper for a couple of days: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCXu21N4afE]

Good ad. It doesn't always work, but I like that they stayed with the concept, the execution gets rough with the mirror images of Fisher, but I like the CG's on the road signs. Though, I kinda ignored the road signs, as if I was driving (if you've read Tom Vanderbilt's awesome book on traffic, called, "Traffic," you would know this is a common phenomena).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j4RF6cx0SY&feature=player_embedded]

Very similar to the last ad I looked at by Fred Davis. Fiorina looks great in the ad, but I have to say, I again question attacking Boxer for being arrogant, when Fiorina comes off as so arrogant. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  There's even an arrogant/snide tone as she's talking about Boxer's arrogance. I don't get it.

How to make the same old, different

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox141skWg4E&feature=player_embedded] I think this ad from the DCCC is pretty well executed. Outsourcing is an issue that seems to be popping up in a lot of races across the country.  So, it's harder and harder to make an ad about outsourcing that distinguishes itself from the rest.  I thought it was an interesting execution, that doesn't look like other ads, but I also appreciate the fact that it's tone is whimsical without being flip.

Good work.

All Fred Davis for Today

I tweeted this earlier today, but it's worth repeating anyone interested in political advertising should read this article about GOP ad "guru" Fred Davis. In some ways Fred Davis embodies exactly the kind of creative, boundary pushing, emotional story telling ads that I advocate for on this blog. In other ways, I think his ads can fall into the gimmick category -- using outrageous for the sake of getting attention, even if that attention is for the outrageousness of the ad rather than the message it is disseminating. In other words, his ads get more attention than they are effective (I'm thinking specifically of his Paris Hilton ad against Obama). I also find him personally annoying, but that could be just the way he's presented in the press (or the persona/story he presents to the press as the "creative" genius, maybe in person he's very nice and interesting).  I do very much appreciate the way he's unapologetic about his ideas and unafraid to make bold choices creatively (even if he should follow Boris' advice to "check himself"). We need more people like that in political ad making.

My only other comment is how well he could perform on smaller budgets?  It's great to make a provocative $40k viral video, but a lot of campaigns don't have that kind of cash. Creativity isn't dependent on money, but money sure helps when it comes to execution.

In honor of Fred Davis, here's a couple of recent examples of his work:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YXqf_6ug54]

A while back I looked at parodies of the "Daisy Ad," and in general I found the parodies not compelling. This ad is a parody of the classic Reagan ad, "Morning in America":

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY]

This ad measure up very well with the original. Striking the same tone to opposite effect. It uses the original as an anchor to twist the message, are you better off now than four years ago. In the original the answer was yes, in this ad the answer is a resounding no.

This ad for Carly Fiorina I was less impressed with:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8XVMU5obkc&feature=player_profilepage]

Visually I found it uninspired, from a message point of view, I found it bewildering. You're going to come after Boxer for being a millionaire while Californians are suffering? Um, that's exactly what Boxer is attacking Fiorina for doing while she was at HP.  Now, I'm all for undercutting the opponent's argument, political aikido and all, but I just don't find Fiorina's claim credible.  Or put another way, I find the attack on her time as CEO of HP more credible, while this attack on Boxer leaves me with a shrug.  Though I should say, I really do like the music..., I wonder how much it cost?

Part of the art of political advertising is knowing when to go for a homerun and when a single is all you need.

Framing your argument

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2OgnNudwtE] I like the look of this new ad from the DSCC, I've wanted to use a filmstrip style look for a while now.  I think this is a pretty good ad, and does a lot to undercut Christine O'Donnell.  Instead of attacking her character or wacky ideas, they go straight for her competence. I think that's a good approach.

Frankly, most of the ad is filer (in the sense, I can't remember a thing is actually said) till you get to the last line from a "former employee." That's the killer, saying she was financially irresponsible, a former employee, bam! It goes back to validation. The last line nails it home, and gives everything that came before it a frame and context.

Do you need the other attacks, "didn't pay her taxes," etc, I don't know. I can't remember the specifics by the end, but I do remember that employee saying she was financially irresponsible. Certainly, you could lose the rhetoric, she would fit right in in Washington. If you didn't know she didn't pay her taxes or hired an employee she didn't pay, or whatever else she didn't do with her money, would it matter? Don't know.

Still this is a good hit, and a step above the usual party attack ad.

Validators

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2lDIHyqo7Q] Validators can be powerful elements to a negative message. In the Rand Paul ad using his own words, I didn't quite believe it, this one I do. The execution is alright, but I think the message is a killer.  Fiorina seems cold hearted and totally unconcerned with the plight of the folks she's laid off. The "I'm proud of what I did at HP," comes across as arrogant and out of touch.

Validators can appear more authentic, and they do something else as well: they often times, show instead of telling. Sure they punctuate the point here , "Outsourcing Jobs, out for herself," but I wonder if the ad wouldn't have been better off ending with her saying she was proud of what she did at HP, and some summary, 30,000 jobs outsourced etc.

Here's another case of a validator. The ad has been pulled from youtube because Fox News has sued the Carnahan campaign over the use of Chris Wallace.

News sources are particularly good validators because of their "impartiality" works for them. In this case, Fox's bias works for the Carnahan campaign, because the ad is 25 seconds of him skewering Roy Blunt. Now, the press hates getting thrown into the middle of political campaigns, but heck if you're gonna say it, then you need to own it.

Again I'm not sure they need the "Worst of Washington," end tag, I think they could have just have ended with, "are you the one..." But, I like that they just went for 25 seconds of Wallace instead of feeling the need to cut to some punctuation of the message (well, they held off on that till the end).

Both these ads are good examples of how to use validators effectively (even if the first isn't entirely interesting).  They key to both of them is that they show and don't tell, that they feel authentic. The difference between these and the Rand Paul ad, is that in the later it felt like they were trying to make him say something I'm not sure he was saying, it felt dishonest (is Rand Paul really against selling drugs for example), and that undercuts the power of the validator.

Negative Ad Trifecta

There's a chapter in the fabulous parenting book, "Nurture Shock," that talks about bullying. Contrary to the stereotype, most bullies are not the anti-social loners of Columbine myth (if you're interested, you should read the gripping and thoughtful account, "Columbine"), but rather they're usually at those at the top of the social food chain. Why? The reason is pretty simple actually, if you're socially intelligent enough to climb to the top of the social ladder, you're probably able to read people enough to know there weak points. In other words, bullies tend to be high in emotional intelligence, social intelligence, whatever you want to call it. Ok, now you're wondering what this has to do with political ad making?  I think good negative ads are a lot like those real bullies at the top of the social food chain. Anyone can make a negative ad.  Negative ads are both hard and easy: Easy because there's almost no bigger cliche in politics than the negative ad -- dark grainy picture, somber music, the picture of your opponent next to some CG like, "Stood with X [pick the symbol of the other side, over the years, it's been Gingrich, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, these days it's Obama & Pelosi] to do Y [pass health care, give a big tax break to the wealthy, run up deficits, cut social security...]."

Negative ads are hard though, hard to get right, hard to find the right balance, between information (which is really a MacGuffin) and emotion, between framing your opponent in the way that you want and letting the viewer get to that place on their own (so they feel like it was their own idea).  Between making the viewer not like your opponent, but not hate you too much. So many fine lines are there.  It's easy to make a hammer, though often what's needed is a scalpel.

A lot like the bullies of "Nurtureshock," its not about punches and physical attack, but more about emotional and intellectual manipulation. You need to have a feel for it, otherwise you're apt to make an ad like this one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPiS1Rue4Q]

This ad feels like amateur hour.  Buck feels stiff and is obviously reading (uncomfortably) off a prompter. Compare this ad with the one from the other day with the horse racing.  Which one would you rather watch? Which one makes it's point?  Heck, even the North Carolina rocking chair ad shows a certain negative IQ so to speak, here's another ad that just feels a negative tone deaf to me:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_1TDR_Cddc]

Or this one from Jack Conway against Rand Paul.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yM7dTNEdLY]

I like how he uses Paul's quote, that's a nice way to validate your statement with the view, but at the end of the day, I just don't believe it, in spite of the quote.

Knowing how far to push and when to draw the line in an attack is as important as knowing which attack to make.  This ad seems to go over both lines.

Hammering it home

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoHawVsJmEY&feature=player_embedded] This isn't a great ad, but it does something very unusual for political advertising, it takes it's time.

I really like the way the ad, has the clips in the beginning, Kerry then Spector. While I'm not sure if that's effective in this case, I appreciate the fact that they don't just jump into the attack. So often you see ads that rush to make their point because they know the clock is ticking.

The ad then spends spends the last twenty seconds going back and forth on the flip-flop.  This ad probably could have been done in thirty seconds, it could have made the same point, showing Crist's flip-flop on health care.   But this sixty second version is probably more effective, not just because it's longer, and not because they use the extra time to cram another point in there, but because they use the extra time to hammer home the one point they're trying to make.

Not sure why I don't like this ad more, maybe it's the snarky tone of the narrator, somehow it feels like the ad is trying just a little too hard. Like that obnoxious stranger you just met, they're a little too eager, so you (or maybe it's just me) become suspicious or just need to push back a little. In any case, I'm not sure it strikes the right emotional tone, but it still worth taking a look.

It's a Stretch

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND7H0fe2VvQ&wpisrc=nl_pmfix] This ad brought a smile to my face.  I love the style, it makes it's point with a cheery smile on it's face. It could have been the standard read, but they went for the newsreel look and sound, and while the gimmick doesn't necessarily enhance the message, it's like a spoon full of sugar in this case. It even makes me forgive the fact that analogy ("he's not riding Kentucky's horse") they're using doesn't really make much sense, even if they close that loop at the end of the spot.

You don't have to be rich to rule my world...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpBHwZZYkqs] "You don't have to be cool to be my girl,

ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with

I just want your extra time and your...Kiss."

- Prince "Kiss"

You know, sometimes we feel like we have to put issues into ads.  It appeals to the part of our brains that is rational and logical. I've watched this ad 5 times now, and I'm still not sure why they waste time with the "Adam Kinzinger says...."

I don't remember it, and it just gets in the way of those great iconic people (both sounding and looking):

"We built america..."

"Real hard to explain to my wife, why I was losing my job."

"Young man, you have no idea..."

The stories, the emotion, these people are worth 10 narrators talking about Adam Kinzinger's policies. Their fear, anger, sadness, that's real, that engages me as a viewer and tells me more in 20 seconds than a rational argument could in five minutes.

My point about the Tom Barrett ad, is echoed here, you can have fancy effects, you can have a tight message and lyrical language, you can have great beautiful shots, a great script, or an amazing concept or metaphor, but emotion and story trump it all.

Wow.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFQks2AEKNg] There are certain guildlines I try to think about in ad making:

Storytelling. Emotion over logic. Show don't tell.

Well, this ad has them all.  I showed it to my partner, afterwards his face was red and he was teary eyed, I had a similar reaction, that's from two jaded political ad professionals.

Great ad. I could talk about the execution or whatever, but in an ad like this, all that doesn't matter. All that matters, is that its an amazing story, that says something critical about the candidate's character, and it does so in an emotionally compelling way.

They say positive ads don't move numbers, well if any positive could move numbers it's this one.  Might be the best ad I've seen this year.

Using an Anchor

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCJdtgluBY&wpisrc=nl_fix] What's an anchor? As the fabulous Heath Brother describe it:

"Innovations require lots of explaining.... Explanations require lots of attention, but attention is scarce. So don't explain. Instead, anchor in what people already know."

This ad is "anchored" on  this DSCC ad from 2008:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs6xSmycny0]

Of course the original ad was used to attack a Republican, and that's the twist of this ad of course, it's being spun around to attack the Democrat. That's pretty ingenious, they deserve props for that.  I also think the ad does a good job of reflecting people's frustration with the state of our union.  The addition of the "grand-daughter" character is obviously a nod to demographic politics, she's actually appealing in the ad.

Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the original despite it's acclaim (I found it condescending and the characters insulting stereotypes of North Carolinians, but hey I'm from New York, so what do I know). Despite some of the political gobbledygook dialogue, I  think this ad does a good job, the anchor and twist, is both familiar and unexpected.

It's a little like M.A.S.H.

I re-tweeted a post from "Hey Whipple Squeeze This" author Luke Sullivan entitled, "Super Bowl Ads (versus all the rest of the year)." It's a good article, which basically argues that we should put the same effort into every ad that is put into a Super Bowl ad.  Why does a Super Bowl ad have to rock, but for the other 364 days of the year is it ok for an ad to be just ok.

I agree with that thought, there should be no throw away ads, though too often, especially in politics there are, we need a response ad: Cue standard response ad.  We need an attack: Cue standard attack ad.  You've seen them before.

All that being said, sometimes it's just not possible to make a great ad.  My partner and I say, a great ad a day late, is worth nothing.  Making political ads is far different from general advertising in this respect.  The timelines are shorter, turnarounds faster, and the pressure to get it right (because there is a campaign end and you don't get a second shot) higher.

I've often compared political ad making to general ad making like this:

General ad making is like operating at a hospital, there are emergencies and such, but time is scheduled the pace is predictable, there is an order to it.

Political ad making is surgery in a M.A.S.H. unit (for those of you old enough to remember the movie and TV show). Often it's meatball surgery.  That doesn't mean there isn't the chance for brilliance and creative genius to shine through (as it often did in the hands of Hawkeye Pierce). But sometimes it's just enough to get an ad to air in time to respond or attack or whatever. My purpose here is to say it doesn't always have to be just getting it out, that there is room for more.

My partner and I once turned an ad around in 2 hours from writing to shipping to stations to meet an airing deadline.  How good an ad can you create in two hours?  Someone said, "It looks good for an ad made in two hours," and I replied, "Unless you're going to be there telling the viewers we only had two hours to create this ad, it better look good for an ad, period."

As Boris used to say when someone tried to defend their work, "Guys, it is on the screen."

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I get it, political ads can be tough to make well given the money and timelines.  Sometimes good enough is good enough because it makes it to air in time. But that doesn't mean we still shouldn't treat each ad like it was airing on the Super Bowl, at least we can try.

Too Literal?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkt1ElyN4bg&feature=player_embedded] New ad from Charlie Crist.

He gets points for trying something different, just not sure spelling is really the way to go.  Is spelling Americans from Democrats & Republicans really a powerful message?

This ad feels a little gimmicky, not so bad that the gimmick is unrelated to this message, but not really powerful either.

A jaded perspective

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZH6pHj1_Bk] I can't tell with an ad like this one, if I'm just too jaded and cynical or if the ad is really as lame as I think.

I watch an ad like this one, and I ask myself this question:

"What's the context for their claims?" Or put another way, "Just what the hell are they talking about?" Whose jobs got eliminated? Is $8 million a lot for a bank president? A little?

It feels like I'm only getting part of the story.  Now I know this ad is only 15 seconds, but I don't believe it. Maybe an independent voter in Florida sees it and thinks, "Wow, that Sink is awful."  But to me it feels like an empty charge, and what's worse, it feels like their trying to hide something from me.

Here's the problem with an ad like this one, beyond the obvious waste of resources (money, time, etc): Every attack you made that doesn't land erodes your credibility. It makes the next one less likely to be believed because this one seems fishy.

Trusting your concept... too much

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3k6PM9AEos&feature=player_embedded] Very clever opening to the ad.  Great execution down to the voice.  Best Pelosi/Reid link ad, with Pelosi swooping in as a pterodactyl, awesome.

My issue with the ad, is that it makes the candidate seem like a goofball.  Now maybe he is, but my only sense of the candidate is walking around in that odd outfit, the guy's a doctor, and you dress him up?  He's running for senate.  Sometimes the goofy candidate thing works (think of the Hickenlooper ad), but it only works if it's honest, and this seems contrived.

Actors, acting & bad scripts

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFBaWbhYrdU] Is this ad an acting problem? A script problem? Or both?

I think I've said it here before, but if you're going to use actors, you need a script that sounds real (in addition to actors who can act).

"Strickland must have thought we'd forget he voted for favored trade status for China..." Yeah, that's how real people talk.

Later, "Strickland, same guy who's Ohio state problem..."

It's like they took a narrator's lines and through them into the mouths of "real people."

The problem with an ad like this one is if you don't believe or relate to the people (the actors), then I think you'll miss the point of the ad. I know I did, didn't believe it for one second.

Metaphors gone bad

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Tqlqq_L-c] Wow. Boxing gloves really?

If you're gonna use a gimmack, don't make your candidate looks stupid doing it.

Then there's this (from @pwire):

"Scott Walker (R) has begun running ads in which he dons boxing gloves and vows to "go the distance" against Tom Barrett (D) in the Wisconsin race for governor, the APreports.

The problem with the fighting metaphor? Barrett "was viciously beaten outside a fairground last year and left with serious injuries" when he "tried to help a screaming woman struggling to protect her 1-year-old granddaughter from being taken by her drunk, belligerent father.""