A couple of quickies

Content is slow these days, so maybe I shouldn't be breaking these reviews out, but I didn't have much to say about either of them, but I did want to say something about them. First from Nevada:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFsqkI5gg84&feature=player_embedded#at=17]

I find this ad incomprehensible. I get the connection they're trying to make, but it's either too subtle to too obtusely executed, that I'm confused. Then to top it off the candidate makes an appearance at the end, spouting political speak about raising "Obama's debt limit" and ending the nightmare. This concept was much better executed (on a bigger budget) in the "Chinese Professor spot," which I reviewed last year. That spot makes the threat seem real, this spot makes it seem, I don't know..., but there's no urgency, so it makes the candidate appear like a wingnut saying he's going to end a nightmare that seems comical rather than imminent.

http://vimeo.com/25410215

A friend sent me this video from Jon Huntsman the great sane hope or something like that. It was weird watching it, boring in parts, sublime in other sections, subtle in concept, but strangely heavy handed in execution -- I love the section that starts "dropped out of high school to travel with his band Wizard..." as Boris would say, "Guys, this is movie."

But for the most part, it felt both like it was trying too hard to make their points. Take the Wizard section. They could have given the viewed the information, "dropped out of high school...blah, blah, blah" and left the viewer to fill in the conclusion this guy is not your ordinary politician, instead they feel compelled to tell you that in the narration, in case you missed it. It's like they don't trust this unique concept which is something like a visual haiku nor do they trust the viewer.

And the whole America from 10,000 miles thing, I just didn't get it? What does it mean?  I did also like the backhanded  shots they took a their opponents.  Still, I found this video perplexing but a good lesson. And maybe thats's the lesson of the first video as well. You have to trust your concept, I know I make this point often, but it's clear in these videos they didn't. They liked the concepts, but didn't completely trust them to get the job done, so they embellished the message just so everyone got it, but in doing so they undermine the strength of the concept, it becomes neither fish nor fowl as my mom liked to say.

As I wrote to my friend somewhere in this Huntsman video there's a brilliant concept busting to get out.

Spitting on the table

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ3B8WvVjL4&feature=player_embedded] I wanted to write about this video not because it's any good, and certainly not because I agree with anything in it. I find it offensive and racist and sexist. I wanted to post about it only because it's a classic example of what I call spitting on the table. What's spitting on the table you may ask? It's an example I always use to show the difference between getting attention and getting the right kind of attention.

See it's easy to get attention. If we were meeting, and I stand up on and spit on the table, you'll remember me, I'll get your attention, and you may even talk to your spouse or friends about me after the meeting.  Of course, you'll probably tell them about the crazy guy who spit on the table.

It's one thing to get attention, it's another thing to get attention for what you want to be remembered for -- to be on-emotion and on-message. This video may be vaguely on message, but it's so misses the mark on-emotion (offensive and in your face) that I doubt it would be effective at all. In fact the campaign that it's supporting has come out against it as well.

I'm sure the group running this mess thought it was brilliant, that it everyone was going to be writing about it, that it was going to crush their opponent. They'll have to be satisfied with one of out three..., like I said it's easy to get attention, but what you do with it when folks are watching, well therein lies the rub.

In the Zone

I've been wanting to write about this ad from the Denver's mayor race for sometime, but wasn't sure exactly how to express my thoughts. Still, not sure, but I think this is important, so I'm going to try and spit it out. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs3cTpgfQLc&feature=player_embedded]

This ad is a great ad, no two ways about it in my opinion. It doesn't resort to gimmicks, it isn't funny or innovative, but it's a great ad. [Note, I know the someone who was involved with the making of the ad.]

My firm had pitched Michael Hancock a while back, so when I was describing the ad to my partner, he asked could we have made it: Meaning was the person who made it more talented or creative than us? It was an interesting question, and made me pause because I'll be honest: I don't think I could have made this ad, and it's not because I'm not talented or creative, no it's something all together and here is where I have a hard time putting my thought into words, so bear with me.

I just finished a great book called, "Certain to Win" which takes the strategic recommendations of Sun Tzu and John Boyd and tries to translate them into the business world (whether the world of politics is more akin to warfare or business is another issue all together). The author uses elements of the German blitzkrieg  attack on France to illustrate the larger philosphical points. One element he points to is "Fingerspitzengefuhl" which means literally a fingertip feel and points to intuitive skill or instinct.

This ad has that fingerspitzengefuhl, it seems to capture all that Michael Hancock is about and embodies. It does this by telling a simple yet powerful story.  It's tone is pitch perfect, and if I may evoke mise-en-scene that's spot on from the music (which I think is ideal, but I don't know if I would have come up with that choice) to the color palette -- the dark and bluish tone, to the intimate shots and soundscape of a father and son's idle talk in the car. There's an earnestness without being cloying or trying too hard, a seriousness without being too depressing or too somber.

I love ads like this one, that can tell a story, a story that can capture the essence of a person, the tone and nature of a candidate (or brand), and do it with a simple execution without tricks or effects or even what would be considered a message in the standard sense. This is a power ad, and it's no wonder Hancock is currently leading in the polls. I watched all the ads in the race, and they were all professionally executed, and while some were better than others, none of them stood up to this ad (or the other Hancock ads).

Back to the question: Could I have created this ad? I hate to say no, but that's the honest answer. Could I create an ad like  this one? Yes, sometime when my talent and creativity hit that sweet spot with the right story and everything comes together just perfectly. While I'm sure some of the elements of the ad were ad hoc rather than part of some larger concept, this ad just comes together in a way that is so intuitive and special, it's unique in that sense to this candidate and this race, and isn't that what we want for all our ads?

Get Ready for it...

You're gonna hear the word "Medicare" a lot in 2012. That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.  Here are two ads previewing that fight. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z7FiBsR8OQ&feature=player_embedded]

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

I think the DCCC ad is pretty funny, and doesn't push the message too hard that it loses it's appeal. I talk often about trusting your concept, and this ad does to it's benefit. It's created some controversy around itself. First papers saying the DCCC was running the ad on TV, which it was only nominally -- meaning they had bought enough airtime so the ad was on tv, but it wasn't really intended to be anything except a way to get news attention.  Secondly, Politifact dinged the ad saying that Republican's didn't really intend to "end" medicare, that they only intended to end medicare "as we know it." I have  a lot of respect for Politifact, but that seems like a distinction without a difference to me, and a tad nit-picky. It's a good fight for the DCCC to get attention with too, because the more folks talk about what the vote means, the worse it sounds for Republicans (if victory is only ending medicare "as we know it" it's pyrrhic  at best).

The second ad is the kind that annoys me. While the first ad has a concept and goes with it, this ad never really goes with it.  From the record scratch on "Really" to the fake (maybe it's real but it sounds fake) old lady's voice saying he's a "Nice Young Man..." then spouting the type of political wonkness that real people would never speak. The ad uses the gimmick, but the gimmick isn't an organic concept. Instead, it's something that's supposed to be interesting to cover the fact that we're listening to wonk talk for thirty seconds.

The real question is what other concepts will we see in the next 18 months?  And what will Republicans respond with because they know the attack is coming now, we've shown our cards, was it worth it?

Dueling ads, West Virginia Style

Guess we got a race for Governor going on in West Virginia. We have a singing candidate, a candidate comparing his dog to being governor, and a guy who goes by "Big," as in Big John Perdue. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsraPSU-zq8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3EkZmPKWXM]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YuVeg3gGQ]

When I write these dueling ad posts, I usually try to take them on one at a time and juxtapose the ads against each other. In this case, that approach didn't feel right, these ads were crying to be lumped together. For whatever reason, I feel like all three of these ads are just trying way to hard.  It's like they're all crying out to be noticed. Look, I get it there's tremendous pressure these days to stand out from the crowd, but standing out and standing out in the right way are two different things.

In my last post I reviewed an ad that stood out in the right way, in a way that drove a message, and was interesting to watch. Watching the Maloney spot, it starts with this line:

"Reliable... For 13 years...," yes I'm with you, this is interesting...,"Holly's trip with the morning newspaper has been as reliable as the morning dawn." Stunned silence...,cue foghorn,  am I supposed to vote for the dog?  The flat delivery doesn't help the flat gimmick gain any traction. I guess you may take away the guy is boring and reliable, but at least embrace the boring part, and the reliable part, well they deliver the message, but is it credible? After watching the spot, it's more credible to say Holly is reliable than her master.

Rick Thompson appears to be singing in his spot. I like the story telling, but not sure the staged scenes are helping.  Again, they feel a little too desperate, like the story wasn't enough so they had to tell you, instead of showing. The shots at the end transitioning from the actors of him and his grandfather to him and his son that works, but the other shots are a little too on the nose, a little too literal. It would have been better to use snippets of those shots, a closeup of the hand on an old phone, a kid stacking wood. The problem with the shots here is that they don't convey experience (the emotional experience of what Rick was feeling or the mood they want), they're like exposition -- which always sucks.

Then there's Big John Perdue.  It's like if they say the word "Big" enough, we'll like the spot (with the over done voice over). I assume he's been called "Big John Perdue" before this spot? (Gosh I certainly hope so.) Again they are trying really hard, but it just doesn't work. They should have gone all the way with the big John Perdue theme, imagine if they had done something similar to the Jake Zimmerman style here? Slightly tongue in cheek, yes (as it should if you're gonna call your candidate Big John Perdue in an ad), but I think the hyper reality would have brought out the truth they were trying to convey. Instead, I feel the effort, but I have the same issues as with the other ads, is this credible? Who is this guy? Why should I care.

Sigh.  Who else is running for West Virginia Governor? Because after watching these ads, my vote goes to the dog.

The first videos of 2012 Presidential election

So we have the first announced candidate of 2012. Want to guess who?  No not him, not him, not her, not him... It's the one and only President Barak Obama. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ]

This video feels a little like the Time Magazine person of the Year, when the cover was a mirror, the person of the year is... YOU! Yeah, how'd that go over for Time? Ok, that's a little rough. But this video is missing something (and I'm not talking about the President --  interesting, he doesn't make an appearance in the video kicking off his campaign)..., not sure what it is. But it's not exactly, what's the word, compelling.  It's too early for a sense of urgency, I get that, but this feels somewhat somnolent (SAT word of the day, had to look it up).  Maybe they don't want to invoke the passion of 2008 because they're scare it can't measure up, maybe they think it's too early, maybe there's some reason I'm not clever enough to guess, but in any case, there's nothing here that grabs me, I'd be interested to hear what true believers feel.

This video kinda leaves me missing the Tim Pawlenty Michael Bay themed videos which is something I never thought I'd say. Maybe we can split the difference going forward?

Here's an Obama parody video

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIA5aszzA18]

I liked the "Morning in America" feel to the open and how it seemed like an Obama ad at first, unfortunately, the rest of the video is less parody and more political rhetoric. There are probably a lot of things you can hit Obama for, playing golf, meeting with Paul McCartney and filling in an NCAA bracket seem petty and mean spirited, not funny. And I found it slightly disingenuous to use Tea Party protests as a sign that Obama is dividing us (as opposed to said Tea Partiers and radical governors taking away the rights of workers).  Now, maybe this video wasn't intended for me (it certainly wasn't), but I doubt it would work with someone in the middle, maybe an independent voter who voted for for Obama in 2008, but voter Republican in the last election.

Even the Unicorn (which I liked) at the end felt a little like sour grapes. Is there an argument to be made that Obama sold America a bill of goods and hasn't delivered, without a doubt (I think even some Democrats feel that way). Did this ad make that case? Not even close, it could have used the parody to make an unexpected case, to engage independents and even Democrats before springing it's trap. By going for the low hanging partisan fruit they missed the juicer bits.

To Juxtapose...

Today's commercial was made by a friend of mine who I have both praised and savaged on this blog. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pkz1b5EFZQ]

I really like this ad, sure it's a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that works. The guy is running for county assessor, it's hard to think of a more boring, less dramatic elected office.

In college, my favorite word was "juxtapose" (we should all have a favorite word). I made a conscious effort to put it into every paper I wrote -- it was in part because it was my favorite word, in part it was my rather vague and subtle attempt to be subversive.  Anyway, I enjoy the juxtaposition of the western themed elements (music, color, sound f/x) and the rather hum-drum nature of the candidate and the office.

This ads makes drive by assessments dramatic for F-sake.

The funny thing is, for all the drama, music, and stylized shots, this spot works -- Jake Zimmerman feels real to me. I have no idea what he's like in person, but he appears to be a no-nonsense, straight forward guy, it seems authentic.  You could have created a standard spot, imagine the same spot without the music and f/x, it would be fine, but it wouldn't be memorable. I remember this spot, I remember the message, Jake is fair, no drive by assessments.

(To be honest, my friend showed me a cut where the drive by assessments line was executed in a more standard way, and it flopped, it wasn't bad per se, it just didn't really resonate the way it does in this version).

To give this spot even more credit, I'm not sure why my friend thought this combination would work, it shouldn't, I wouldn't have believed it would work until I saw it.  I'm not a big fan of gimmicks, usually they're just, well a gimmick, something to get attention (the spitting on the table), but they don't usually drive message.  The gimmick here does, and frankly, I'm not sure why, except to come back to my favorite word: Juxtaposition.

A tale of two videos.

Wow, has it really been a month since I blogged? Well that's just too damned long.  While there has been a dearth of interesting ads and videos (by interesting I mean something that I offers the potential for enlightenment -- good or bad), I miss writing.  Also if you enjoy the blog posts you ought to be following me on twitter as I do tweet several times a week with interesting ads, design and the like. Today, if you didn't hear, is International Women's Day. Over on twitter I was directed to two videos which basically give a snap shot on the status of women in the world. I will state before hand, I know that the two videos are different in scope and perspective on the issue (while espousing the same basic message), and in some ways it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I work in politics, you should never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

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

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM&feature=player_embedded]

Ok, off the bat, I think the first video from the Harvard Kennedy School is pretty good. It's professional and gets a lot of information in, isn't completely technical and boring (which is easily could have been).

The second video obviously has a huge advantage, with Daniel Craig and Judi Dench (how awesome would it be to have Judi Dench narrate a political ad), that's an advantage, but it's not what makes it better in my opinion.  Judi Dench and Daniel Craig -- the whole James Bond thing, is really just a MacGuffin. It's a hook to get you to watch the video, and an anchor or shorthand to explain some of what they're discussing (like the double standard on sexual promiscuity).

I also love the simplicity of the second video, the black with the light behind.  With so much information in the narration, it helps to focus our attention on the message. In fact the information in this video really is a Macguffin as well, you aren't meant to absorb any one fact but rather the total sum of all the facts is what matter -- it's the impression that sum makes that is the impact of the video, but if you were asked in a survey to recall them, my guess is you wouldn't be able to, yet the video is impactful nonetheless.

The strength of the second video is that it does in 2:00 minutes or so what the Kennedy School video takes 7:00 to do (and this is just the short version). Being to the point is important. I'm interested in the message of these videos, but the Kennedy School video loses my attention right around the 2:00-3:00 minute mark, after that point, I'm frankly bored. As good as the video is, it needs to make the point and move on, making the same point again and again becomes self defeating and self indulgent. I walk away unsure how I'm supposed to feel because, well because I didn't make it through to the end (well only because I was watching for this blog).

I think the video feels in some ways like the inverse of the Bond video -- each fact is as important as the other, but at the end of the day, by losing the emotional punch and my attention, it adds up less than the sum of it's parts.

You'll pry that soda out of my dead sausage fingers...

With all the hoopla and spectacle of the Super Bowl ads, I almost forgot there was actually one political ad that aired during the big game. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWi7JI55G-c]

Let me get this off my chest right away: This is exactly the type of ad I hate. A supposed real person, railing against the latest government injustice.  The "real person" in question is unusually well informed and amazing speaks like a policy wonk.

Sigh..., do these spots ever work? (Ok, this one did, but then again this one didn't have actors channeling a poll.) This ad is obviously aimed at a certain segment of the population -- folks who are angry and think government is too involved in our lives, so it may have some effect in getting them fired up against the Soda tax.

But really, "Government needs to trim it's budget fat and leave our grocery budgets alone...," I mean come on who wrote that line? Where does that come from?

What makes me so angry about this ad is that it's essentially a cynical attempt to tie itself into some existing discontent. Oh, people are angry, tea party, government bad, socialism, blah, blah, blah, let's make the ad about that.  There are no principles there except trying to scare folks into thinking that government is coming for your soda.  Look, I'm sure some people will see this ad, and they'll get angry, but a lot of people remembered Mr Whipple too.

(As an aside, interesting to note that the most memorable super bowl ads were not the same as the most liked -- which is more important...?)

Is this an effective, I don't know, but let's say that it is, does that mean it's ok to create a badly executed, badly written cynical ad? Shouldn't we be trying to do better?

I really hate ads like this one, have I said that already?

It's the story stupid...

Super bowl ads. Everyone's talking about 'em. On twitter, I linked to this article, "Super Bowl TV Spots (Versus All The Rest of the Year)." The gist was basically, yeah Super Bowl ads have a larger audience, but the quality of our work shouldn't depend on the audience that's going to see it. It's summed up with, "Just seems to me that a TV spot is a TV spot. TV, radio, any media buy is a public appearance for which we ought to put on our Sunday best, no matter how large our congregation is." Super Bowl ads are known for their spectacle, for their over the top quality, but the ads that I always seem to like are the same ones I like the rest of the year, it's the ones that tell a story and connect with me emotionally.  Seriously which ads to do you remember over the years?

Ad Age just did an all-time Super Bowl ad poll, it came down to Apple's 1984 spot and Coke's Mean Joe Greene ad, according the reader's poll Mean Joe Greene crushed Apple's ad.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffOCZYX6F8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4]

(Here's a link to all the ads polled: My favorites NFL "Crazy" & Reebok "Terry Tate, Office Linebacker," Monster, "When I grow up," and EDS "Herding Cats"-- though it's a little too much of a gimmick, I find it amusing).

I've never understood the appeal of the 1984 ad, though of the spectacle ads it does have a compelling narrative and emotional element (the drive to break free from Big Brother). But the Mean Joe ad, come on? Just watching it now, I was almost in tears. "Hey kid, catch..."

That brings us to this year's ads which has the usual blend of stupid beer ads that aren't funny the other 364 days of the year, the offensive -- Groupon, the unremarkable..., can't remember any of those, and the spectacle -- Coke & Audi, which were all right, but will probably fall into the unremarkable category before too long.

So which ads did I think were the best. To me one stood out:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0]

I don't know if this ad was targeted to parent's but it sure felt real to me. Another company might have gone for over the top, might have tried to make it funnier by making it more absurd, and they would have lost the reality of the moment. Absurd is fine if it's real, but when it becomes surreal, it needs some element to ground it back to reality.  This ad feels so true to life to me, and it's so well executed, down to the music, the way the child rushes past his dad at the end, and the surprised reaction at the end.

Does an ad like this sell cars? I would say yes. It's clever and honest, and somehow sympathetic, and I believe it makes VW seem clever, honest and sympathetic. They could have shown the car racing around corners, but that wouldn't hook me the way this ad does. That's the power of emotion.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKL254Y_jtc]

Along those lines the other ad that caught my attention was the Eminem Chrysler ad. A paean to Detroit (and America frankly), I think it's a powerful ad, that appeals to that underdog spirit in all of us. I love the script, again eschewing talking about the car, the car is a symbol for something more powerful, and if you want to connect with that story, if you want that story to become your story, buying the car is a way of broadcasting that to the world.  I love the end tag, "Imported from Detroit," simply brilliant.

Here's my problem with it, do you need Eminem in it? Why not have him narrate the entire spot? The spot is great for 3/4 then it falls apart at the end. Why does he get out of the car? What's the deal with choir?  It's one of those commercials that had me, then loses me at the end. Don't get me wrong it's better than 90% of the car commercials out there because of the script and the music, but it ends up falling flat at the end.  Too bad.

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the negative ads of the night.... What, wait you missed them?

How about this one:

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

The ad is obvious swipe at Apple from the 1984 reference to the white ear buds. I find the interesting, but not credible. The ad is trying to turn Apple from the rebel fighting Big Brother into Big Brother. But ultimately I'm not sure that I believe the argument coming from Motorola. I'm not sure what people think of Motorola, but rebel isn't really one of the first ten themes that come to my mind.  So ultimately while I like the message aikido going on here, I'm not sure it can be successful without some other validation.

The other spot that I recall going negative was this one:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3snyXTNmFm8]

A lot of spectacle, pretty funny and well executed, but ultimately it felt like they were too clever. Audi is trying to be luxury for those who don't want luxury or something like that. That might be the right position for them, and this ad communicates it well, but there's not emotional component to it other than the basic message. Compare this ad to the Chrysler ad or the VW ad, which one moves you more?

Still, it's good to see brands going after each other at the Super Bowl, gets me excited for 2012.

Super Bowl ads remind me of big Hollywood blockbusters, full of sound and fury but ultimately as forgettable as Transformers or X-Men. The best blockbusters, like the best ads are the ones that focus the sound and fury in service of an emotion and a message. The best way to do that is to tell a story. The best ad this year was probably the least expensive to shoot, the same thing was true of my favorite ad from last year.  You can be simple and powerful if you focus on story and emotion instead of spectacle and being clever.

Guilty pleasures

We all have them, those movies or TV shows that we enjoy even though they're maybe a little goofy or silly.  We know we shouldn't enjoy them as much as we do, but we enjoy them anyway. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNEvpRGwMT0&feature=player_embedded]

I enjoyed this ad immensely, though it's effectiveness comes down to the the simple fact: How much viewers believe it and how much they care?

They really went for it, the concept is clever though not a new one, but the execution is pretty tight, and they really stick with it through the entire video.  That's what separates a video like to to one that starts with a good concept but quickly veers off into political speak or message. This video never breaks the concept to make the point, it stays on-message but also in character.

Now my quibble is the message, "Joe & O" is catchy, but is attacking Machin for being Obama really going to work in two years from now?  There's something that feels petty to me about the message, I can't quite put my finger on it.

Still, the video made me smile. They carried the concept all the way even into the usual disclaimer language at the end. Nice job, pisses me off, but nice work.

The best bad movie ever made

I have a confession to make... I love the movie "Armageddon" In my humble opinion, I believe it is the best bad movie ever made period. It is great and horrible in it's over the topness. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjNxUguxwjU&feature=related]

Some reviews of the film:

"A real movie about courage in space is Apollo 13, in which fear and sacrifice have meaning. This jingoistic, overblown spectacle is about whistling in the dark."

"...full of sound and fury but without a single new idea to add to the conversation."

"...why couldn't the film have tapped into a more noble and stylish tradition? Why couldn't these men have been interesting instead of cartoons?"

Somebody also called it an "ugly mess" but I think it's a beautiful mess of excess that takes itself so seriously even as it becomes more and more over the top.

Now we have this video from Tim Pawlenty to promote his new book.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE]

Wow, now that's a video. I love the production values, wow, how much did they spent on this thing? So much for fiscal restraint. And I'll say this for the video, it makes Pawlenty, a guy who has never really impressed me much seem Presidential, so it deserves some credit for that.

But here's the rub, it seems so over the top, so lacking in anything authentic, I get that the guy is running for President, but he's not giving the Gettysburgh address or saving the world from Astroids. The video while beautifully executed seems so out of proportion, it's full of sound & fury, but there's no there there. I guess if the only take away is that this guy can appear presidential, then it serves it's purpose. But I'd worry that it also could make him appear smaller ironically. It is so excessive that it makes me wonder why? Why does he need so much propping up?

Over the top works for Armegeddon (in my opinion). Sure it sucks, but it doesn't seem to care, it's so earnest and so overindulgent that it wins me over despite it's paper thin characters, plot and excess. But this video isn't a movie, so that same earnestness feels manipulative to me in this context. Like big dramatic music, fast editing, extreme close ups and iconic shots can compensate for a boring candidate.

Still, it must have been fun to film this one.

Now, I'm going back to a real american hero Bruce Willis.

Paint by Numbers

I remember an interview way back before Beverly Hills Cop 2 came out. Eddie Murphy was promoting his new movie, and he said something like, "People loved the first movie, so we took everything they liked in the first movie, and made it bigger in the second one." Now, I was pretty young, but I remember thinking at the time that seems to miss the point. You can't just paint by numbers, we need a bigger explosion here, we need this & that, and expect a movie to be better. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPJCt-am6I&feature=player_embedded]

I feel the same way about this ad. In theory it has the right approach, it's trying to appeal to emotion with shots of kids and families, trying to engage our outrage, but the whole spot is just... I don't know, flat. It's soulless.

It's not that script is so bad or the images stink, it's just doesn't add up to a good spot or even mediocre spot. Now, the voice over doesn't help at all, the narrator sounds like she's on ambient. The spot has no energy or hook, there's nothing memorable about it.

That leads me to another point, to call the bill Affordable Health Care Act instead of health care reform is an interesting choice. On one hand I applaud the effort to embrace a new frame, Health Care Reform has been branded Obama Care with all it's death panels and job killing effects. On the other hand, even though I know they're talking about Health Care Reform, I find the ad confusing, I don't really know what they're talking about. Maybe I don't connect it in my mind to my support of Health Care Reform, it almost feels like a whole new issue.

This ad is one of those rare birds that's actually worse than the sum of it's parts. Like Eddie Murphy learned, it's not enough to have bigger explosions and expect your movie to be better, you actually need something authentic and fresh to engage an audience.

Being in Harmony

Been a long time between posts, part of that is the season, part of that is the lack of things to post about, part of that is I've moved a lot of quick hits over to Twitter, where I usually post a few times a week if not a day. What would I do without Rahm?  Wait for superbowl ads I guess. Another ad for the former congressman, turned White House chief of staff, turned candidate for Chicago Mayor.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hZjZYgxC8M]

Pretty standard stuff, a couple of things jumped out at me:

• It was a contrast in tones, the music and images serve to contrast a pretty tough on crime message. It seems like a deliberate effort to 'tone' down the image of Rahm as a firebrand, but allow him to appear tough and passionate without the histrionics. The danger is if this isn't the real Rahm, that the effort appears as manipulative.  I don't think that is the case, but it is something I'd worry about.
• The line "These gangbanger... don't own the streets..." is at once awkward and power.  Don't hear the word gangbangers tossed around in elections too much these days.
• Mentioning Clinton, the entire ad seems aimed at lower income and minority communities where the former President is still extremely popular.  Is this the campaign's attempt to hold off the challenge of Carol Mosely Braun?
• The choice of crime is an interested one, and a further one that makes me think this spot is targeted to a particular audience. Even so, there must have been some strong polling out there because crime is a particularly rare issue these days (terrorism yes, street crime not so much).

So overall this ad is alright, doesn't stand out, and isn't as good as the first one which is the best of the bunch.  It appears to be serving a tactical purpose, but at least at seems to be matching the tone of the others even when taking on an issue that often has a harsher tone than they've shown so far.

Embrace your story

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXmy73luV9M&wpisrc=nl_fix] The second Rahm ad has been out a while now.

If there was more out there to talk about, I'd probably not even bother with this ad.  It's not bad, but it's not particularly good either.  I like that it tells a story.  Stories are always more powerful than facts.  Compare an ad like this to the Reid or Lincoln pork ads (they brought $XX million to our state). People can connect with stories, they can put themselves in the shoes of the people in the story, stories are emotional, facts are cold and unmemorable.

Jonah Lehrer explains this effect around charitable giving on NPR: Basically, the story of one starving child doubles contributions from the fact that five million are malnourished.

The ad tells a pretty good if common story. The most powerful aspect of the ad is how it embraces what people probably already know about Rahm -- his temper, his bulldogedness, they embrace it and frame it for viewers.  Because it's not new information, but simply information put into a different frame, its probably more believable for folks.  Rahm isn't a monster or someone with a temper, but he feels the righteous indignation to fight the good fight.  More than that he wins the good fight, not for himself, but for real people who need help.

The power and the pain of falling down

Things have slowed down here a lot with the end of political season, last week was the first time in a long while I didn't post once.  If you're missing Ad Nauseam, check out my Twitter feed, a lot the action has moved over there, with short comments and links to things I think are interesting or relevant in one way or another.  Still, I'll be trying to post here once or twice a week or more if I see things that are interesting to me and require more than 140 characters to discuss. Like this ad from GM:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr94zStsk8E]

Wow. This ad is a strange one for me to review, I've put it off because I wanted to really nail down what I thought, but at the end of the day, I'm not any closer to that for a simple reason, this ad really leaves me conflicted.

On one hand, there are things I absolutely love about this ad. The music is great, I really appreciate the lack of voice over, and the simple CG at the end "We all Fall Down... Thanks for Helping Us Get back Up again... GM 1908." Those words imply humbleness, give the impression of the company as a scrapper (who doesn't love the underdog), but also recall that the company is an American icon, part of the fabric of industry that made America a great country. That's good writing.

The ad does a great job of stringing the audience along, what do these scenes have in common, where is this leading, how will it payoff? There's no big boast, no big claim, just a message of thanks. In some ways that's the best advertising for the company, GM is like us, we stumble, we fall, but we have to get back up (sometimes with help), that's America.  The emotional appeal of the ad allows the consumer to relate with the company in way that a laundry list advertisement (listing attributes or a plan) never could.

So why don't I love this ad? Why don't I think it's a home run?  Because I think the images and the execution are not up to the appeal.  I love the rocket collapsing, and Evil Kenevil crashing, but Popeye and Animal House?  Those guys aren't even real, how can we relate to them?  The Truman image could be powerful, but it feels out of place here, where each other sequence gets a fall and a getting up, the Truman photo tried to be both.

The boxing shot is fine, but what about a sport that's not so old fashioned, what about a baseball player giving up a homerun, and the manager comes out to boost him up.  Or a parent helping a child who's fallen off their bike (or a child helping a parent who is sad), those are just off the top of my head, sitting in Starbucks writing this blog post.  There must be at least 10 other iconic images they could have used that would have been more powerful than Popeye, Animal House, and Truman.

This is a good ad, I just feel it could have been so much better. I'd be interested to hear why they chose the images they did? Was it a cost issue? A brand or metaphor issue? Some other deep thought? Or just that's the way it worked out.

I'm not a SOB..., I'm you.

I miss political ads.  There I said it, you heard it.  I miss them, in all their glorious negativity and cliche grainy shots, I miss them. But just as I going to start a loop of the Daisy Ad, Morning in America, Willie Horton (which is actually a horrible ad), and Fast Talker, along comes my savior, the Chicago Mayor's race. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEiBKJIvWI]

Hey this guy looks familiar (actually he looks a little like George Clooney the way he's dressed and with that salt and pepper hair). If I was Rahm's political consultant, I would tell him the biggest hurdle he would have to overcome is to make him accessible. Some of this opinion might be inside the beltwayitis, but the notion Rahm and his personality are almost mythic.

The question of how to introduce a candidate is always a hard one. I like that they decided not to go for a traditional biography spot instead opting for a vision ad.  Well, really the vision part of it is a MacGuffin, it seems to me what they're really trying to do is make Rahm a real likable person -- to allow voters to connect to him.  They do a pretty good job of that too, grounding him as someone who is passionate about Chicago.

That's a pretty powerful opening line, "Chicago is a great city, with great people, and I want my children to feel as passionate about it as I did growing up." There's a lot going on in that one line, some bio (has kids, he grew up here), some character (he's passionate), and some values (a sense that he's going to fight, that he wants to pass something important down to his kids). It's something every parent can connect with, passing something down important to their children. That in and of itself makes Rahm human in a way a more tradition spot could not. It'sa line that's working with the philosophy of "show don't tell."

Is this a great spot? No, but it's a solid B, maybe B+. Visually it has the requisite shots of the candidate talking with folks, shaking hands interacting with kids in the classroom when you discuss education or with cops when you're talking about "our streets." No, the visuals are pretty standard and a couple (the rack focus taking Rahm out of focus and the end shot where's he shaking hands, but not really looking at the guy) are odd choices.  The documentary style adds to a sense that he's not pre-packaged and it creates a sense of reality that enhances the believability of the ad.

Essentially this ad is trying to do what the Christine O'Donnell witch spot could not, which is to take the image folks might have of the candidate and turn it (or spin it if you will) into something more positive. This spot works because it doesn't ever go to far from what folks already know -- if they had tried to show Rahm as all soft and cuddly then it would feel fake. Instead, they take the strengths of his image, and say he's passionate and can make tough choices, now that's believable.

My biggest complaint of the witch ad was that O'Donnell didn't seem believable, this ad doesn't have the problem, I think it's very believable, and does a good job framing Rahm, which is ultimately the goal of your initial ad.

Telling your story

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4tFzuFGUOI] Not a lot of political ads these days huh.  While my posting my slow down here, I'm still pretty active on twitter, posting things that I find interesting.  You can check out the feed over on the top right of this page.

Why did I post this ad from Hovis? Adage reported that it had won "[the] Institute of Practitioners in Advertising awards, the U.K. ad industry's prestigious effectiveness prizes." Most effective ad, huh, well that's interesting, because for political ads it's all about effectiveness.

This ad is visual story telling at it's best. Through all the changes, the bread is constant.  It's patriotic (if you're British) and it also harkens back to better days (in spite of the conflict those days brought).  Hovis could have told you they've been making their bread for 122 years, they could have said it was made with such and such ingredients (or which out such and such), they could have used stats and CG, but they tell a simple a boy getting a loaf of bread, and bringing it home.  The gimmick works here because it connects the with the important elements of the brand.  The gimmick works because it tells a story. And story resonates.

Now what?

Things will be slowing down on the blog, I'll still be posting as much as I can as I see things that are relevant. This weekend, I did come across this article in Fast Company about Neuromarketing political ads. Neuromarketing is, well as the article points out there is some debate about what it actually entails.  To my mind, it basically means looking at physical reactions (brain scans or non-voluntary physical responses like public dilation) to determine underlying emotional states.

There's obviously something very intriguing about this research.  Scientific studies have often shown, most people are not very good about describing why they're feeling what they're feeling. They often give rationale's cloaked as rational reasons.  I also think the focus on emotion over logic is a step in the right direction for political advertising.

On the other hand it all feels like snake oil to me -- psuedo-science at his best.  A physiological response is just that, you still have to interpret it.  Maybe more importantly, the person having the response also has to interpret the response based on the filters they've collected in the course of their life.  Neuromarketing seems like a silver bullet, trying to quantify what is not quantifiable (like this scene from "Dead Poet's Society").

Who remembers New Coke? It was one of the most tested product roll outs of all time, it surpassed classic Coke in taste tests, and when it was introduced to the public...? Well, it failed the only test that really matters.  A friend of mine said of focus grouping spots, who are you going to trust, the consultant who you're paying a lot of cash for their expertise or the person you're paying with $20, a diet coke and a ham sandwich.

I think there is a role for testing ideas, concepts, messages, but not executions. The familiar, the tried the true, the boring and same old will always win over the cutting edge, the interesting, and the novel.  People will tell you they want logic, when they're longing to be touched emotionally.

Back to Neuromarketing, here are the spots they looked at in the article with my brief thoughts (I've already written about most of them):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekUpo5Niljo]

This spot was the highest testing in the sample.  The tester points to the constitution and the pledge of allegiance as "making it pop."  I would say it's an interesting idea, that's not executed very well, and comes off as rather flat.  The fact that it tested well, makes me doubt the effectiveness of the test.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbaP0Jzd6QA]

I've already described this two minute spot as one of the best of the year. The test and I agree it feels authentic and real.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OmlkvPJZrk]

I thought this commercial was a little creepy, but to the extent that Ted Stevens' endorsement carried weight after his death, I thought it would be effective (as long as you could put the fact he was dead behind you).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yv_g7ZyADM]

I've reviewed this spot as well.  Good commercial that feels authentic to Hickenlooper (but wouldn't necessarily work with someone else). I agree with the analysis that viewers connect with Hickenlooper's disgust for negative ads, though not sure you need a brain scan to tell you that. Also which ad is stronger this ad or the West ad that started off the analysis?

Now the ads viewers did not like so much:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCa8xw9yGY]

This ad has been talked to death.  Good ad? Bad ad? Effective? Is it just a coincidence that the worst testing ads were negative/attack ads?  Or do negative ads routinely test worse?

The final ad also negative used the fake Morgan Freeman voice over:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGN3L7DOA4]

Again do negative ads get a bigger neurological response? Is that what makes them more effective? Did folks hate this ad because they believed the Morgan Freeman voice over was fake? Or did they hate it because other than the Morgan Freeman voice over and the restrained patriotic music, the script is so hack and generic that it's almost cliche?

Neuromarkerting -- new tool on the cutting edge of political advertising? Or pseduo-science?

Definitely something I plan to learn more about this off-season.

Final Push Potpourri

First off, no idea that's actually how you spelled potpourri, would not have guessed it in a million years. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbaP0Jzd6QA&feature=player_embedded]

A two minute closing ad from Rubio has some people thinking he'll run for President.  I can see that from this ad, he's good to camera, feels authentic and compelling, and the ad has an epic sweep, it's not just about Florida, but about America, it's not about issues, but about a philosophy.  Two minutes seems a bit indulgent, but when you're up big in your campaign, you can take a 50,000 foot view of things.

I don't talk about script all that often, but the strength of this ad is it's script.  Yes, Rubio is very good, and a lesser candidate would flounder with the sweep and narrative, but this ad gives Rubio stature without making him appear overly ambitious or pompous. It has him stake a position without him being political.  It all starts on the page, and if it isn't on the page, it won't appear on the screen.  The more I watch this ad, the more I like it, simple and elegant, it's form matches the function.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvcG-blt3pg&feature=player_embedded]

On the other side of the coin you have this line, "Harry Reid working for us, Sharron Angle pathological." Can't help but laugh even as I write it down.  This is exactly the kind of ad I really dislike (is hate too strong a word).  It's jammed packed, the last line isn't bad, but it's so rushed it feels almost like a parody of a political ad.

Going back to script, do they really need the first seven seconds of this ad? Can't they just say, a newspaper called her pathological, that she's lying, blah, blah.... They don't really connect running away from reporters its a macguffin that's not particularly useful or satisfying. While I usually like using newspapers as validators, here it almost gets lost, the impact of that word "pathological" never gets to settle because the script is on to the next line.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Gu57JPMqo]

I'm never a big fan of using your spouse or kids in an ad unless they really have something to ad.  Exhibit A is this ad from Rand Paul. Yes, he has a pretty wife, but of course she's going to be shilling for him, she's married to him.  I know the rationale for using her, it shows Paul in a softer light, it makes him seem human in the light of the Aqua Buddha stuff.

Still compare this ad to the Rubio ad, which one conveys a better sense of the person? Which one tells a better story, which one is more compelling both in philosophical terms and in the epic scope.  Yes, Rubio had more time to talk, but if you gave Mrs. Paul another minute and a half, don't think it would make a huge difference as she feels contrived whether she actually is or not.

It's drivel, it was probably drivel on the page, and it sounds like drivel on the screen.