A tale of Two ads (in one)

http://youtu.be/r5BU8FPmccU A couple of posts ago, I looked at the Tammy Baldwin ad where she talks about taking care of her grandmother. That ad failed because it forgot about telling a story in favor of relying talking points. The story was really just a MacGuffin, so it rang as inauthentic.

Now we have Mazie Hirono's ad "Determined."

So I really loved this ad or should I say the first :30 seconds of this ad. The graphics and pictures are wonderful, and I find her story totally compelling and interesting. Because this ad is a :60 second ad it let her really unwind the story without rushing.

Unfortunately it's :60 second ad, and they felt compelled to get back to the issues because campaigns are supposed to be about the issues. Look, I know what people tell you they way (to quote Henry Ford, "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have told me they wanted faster horses"), but values are issues, and frankly I learned more about Mazie Hirono from the "soft" first :30 seconds than I did from the "hard" blah blah blah issues back end.

The transition from story to issues was awkward too, she's telling a pretty personal story about her mother and growing up and suddenly the narrator interrupts (and it felt like interrupting) riffing off the word "determined."

Look the issues part of the ad isn't bad, it's really nicely laid out and designed.  The issues are interesting, and not the same old same old we normally hear, but it's an entirely different ad. It's not like a Resses peanut butter cup (hey you got your chocolate in my peanut butter, you got your peanut butter in my chocolate...). Instead of :60, they might have been better off running 2 x :30 a bio/story spot and an issues spot that built off it.

I don't know if the second part of the ad diffuses the power of the first, but it certainly gets lost in the emotional connection of the first part. Sometimes less is more.

Throwback...

A quick post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F2Dtxx2klE

Don't see too many jingles now a days.

This one is actually pretty catchy which is good, because Nancy is actually a write in candidate, so remembering her name is doubly important (of course, I can't remember her last name now... maybe not as effective as they'd like).

I like the ad because the jingle actually serves a message purpose, that's form and function, and that's the way it ought to be.

When Story Fails...

http://youtu.be/p3uX1neKHLM New spot from Tammy Baldwin. Watching this spot, I wanted to like it -- it the kind of personal story, values spot that I think we need more of in our politics. Did I say I wanted to like it already? I did really, but at the end of the spot, it just leaves me feeling... flat?

I went back to watch the spot a few more times, trying to figure out what I was reacting to. I think it comes down to a couple of things:

1. Why oh why do consultants feel compelled to insert talking points into ads, hoping they'll sound conversational?  "So when people in Washington talk about slashing medicare benefits instead of asking millionaires..." Ugh. Baldwin is telling a moving story of caring for her "Nana" and slips into political speak -- it just doesn't work and breaks any mood they were building.

Sometimes you have to trust your audience to get the subtext. She's talking about her elderly frail grandmother for christ's sake, do you really need her to spout some policy talking point about medicare in the middle of it?  We get it, if you must, CG what you need or have her make the political personal... Something like, "That's why protecting medicare for me isn't a political fight, it's personal because..."  Even that's a little too much blah, blah, blah for my taste, but you get the gist.

2. I just don't buy it. The words, the performance, it just doesn't feel real to me.  I have no doubt Tammy Baldwin loved her "nana" very much, but the spot doesn't come across as personal. The line "it was my honor to help take care of her" just sounds awkward.  It seems something so personal would be better explored in an interview, where the candidate can be more natural and emotional.

This ad seems like a missed opportunity, they had the chance to tell a powerful (and personal) authentic story about their candidate, and blew it. Sometimes playing it safe can fail too.

Does interesting = Good?

I was just lamenting to a friend that it's sometimes hard for me to blog because I feel like I'm saying the same things again, and again, and again. That's because for the most part you see the same ads, again and again, and again. In my more down moments, I wonder if I have anything to add to what I've already said, and worry that it's not enough to beat the drum, if you're beating out the same rhythm (rhythm is a ridiculously hard word to spell by the way, I never get it right). http://youtu.be/u8jt5DYnovo

I cam across this ad in the Daily Kos' election roundup, a pretty useful daily guide to election goings on, and a great way to see new ads. They have a pretty good sense of the subtext of ads, and said about this one:

"This ad from 25-year-old Republican Weston Wamp (notable only because his father, Zach Wamp, held this seat until a cycle ago) is just deeply... weird. I can't summarize it at all—it's a series of different images (John Wayne! moonshot! Bill Gates!) accompanied by a strange meditation on the meaning of freedom. I will say, though, that I was sure Wamp had hired some ridiculously deep-voiced announcer to narrate the ad. Instead, it turns out that the ridiculous deep voice is Wamp's own. (He doesn't sound that way when he's not trying.) Overcompensating much?...:

It's a little weird, and not really your standard political ad, and yet, there's something about it I like. It puts a premium on emotion and theme over pure message and facts. I just finished reading Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failures, by Tim Harford. Harford talks about the need to experiment away from the harsh glare of success and failure, in fact he says explicitly that being able to experience in places where you can fail is critical to future successes. He calls these outposts Galapagos Islands -- places outside the scrutiny of everyday business or the mainstream focus of action.

I thought a lot about the idea of Galapagos Islands in politics -- the stakes are so high (win or go home) and so much money is spent, there's not much room to experiment because the costs of failure are higher than almost any other industry save ones where life and death are actually on the line (Nuclear plants, airline pilots and the like). Shit, Coke can role out a whole new formula, turn on it's heels and call it a mistake with little or no fallout, other than a cautionary tale. A politician can't even change their opinion on an issue opening themselves up to a negative attack.

I'm getting a little off topic here, but the point is it's hard to try out new things especially in political campaigns. Every candidate wants different, or so they say.  The various occasions they're presented with different, the reaction is almost always the same, wow, that's so different, can't we do something you know more... (I wrote a post about this very fact some time back).

Back to this spot, it's different, and sometimes that seems weird.  What I don't know is if it's authentic? Is the spot just spitting on the table (if I stood up and spit on the table in a meeting, you'd certainly remember it, but would it be the message I want to convey)? Look at those Pawlenty for President spots if you want to see spitting on the table in action. I don't know if this spot fits people's image of Wamp, is he seen as a daddy's boy, and this spot seems strangely like he's overcompensating (as Nir implies)? Why did they make his voice sound... so oddly deep? My guess after listening to him speak normally is that they put some kind of effect on it in post.  What will people think of that? Is he trying too hard (like Pawlenty) to be something he's not?

I don't know the answers to those questions.  But here's the thing I do know, I actually find the spot kind of interesting, and think in this case the usually astute David Nir misses the mark.  There is something bigger going on here.  "We went to the moon and played Sinatra 'cause no one told us not to..." that line is odd, but also strangely compelling and memorable. Which is what I'd say about the spot.  I'm not willing to say it's good, but it is interesting, and in a world filled with safe and normal, that's a step in the right direction. Is it a failure? Well, if it is, then it's a failure that moves us closer to a success, and in my book that's something to be admired.

Let the message speak.

Obama is up with another attack on Mitt Romney. http://youtu.be/oWdZEJW1vWY

I think this is a good ad and an even better attack. The ad itself is simply executed, but has some nice graphic touches (like the graph lines rising up in the columns of the Mass Capitol, the way they pull the quote from the editorial and the way they scroll the list of states to #47).  I think the simplicity shows a good touch with the material, letting it speak for itself.

In lieu of some alternative information, the attack seems pretty damning -- Romney did a horrible job with the Massachusetts economy.  As the opening and closing quotes show, this goes to the heart of the rationale for voting for Romney -- his record.  This strategy is a nice bit of political aikido turning your opponent's strength and energy against them. That's the real power of this ad, it succeeds at the strategic level because it calls into question the foundation of Romney's experience and appeal.

That attack works because they stick to the "facts" using editorials and statistics without commenting too much on those objective descriptors of Romney's performance. I've written before that sometimes an ad needs to just get out of it's own way, and this is a good example of that.  The message is the thing here, if they had tried to do too much with it, they could risk losing that powerful message in the barrage of the messenger.

Reality speaks for itself.

Been a long absence -- a lot of travel, and I keep meaning to post, but I've been too tired and distracted.  But I saw this ad today, and it kinda annoyed me, so I thought I'd take ten minutes to share my annoyance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4LQEoaOnxM

The ad is actually shot pretty well, nice shots, readers of this blog should be able to guess what drives me nuts about the ad.... Did you guess yet?

I think the acting in this spot is flat, and it's made worse by the language, "Folks who want to keep things going the same way in North Carolina...." Lines like that are political rhetoric not how people talk, it's a talking point, not casual conversation.  They try to juxtapose that language with some casual lines ("is he not well," "good guy...").  I guess the reason this spot bothers me so much, is that it feels like the creators are smart enough to know they can't just use talking points, so they're trying, but they can't help themselves.

The lose the real in the message. If this ad had tried to have less message, but more real, it would be a better ad. Still it was shot pretty well.....

Reinforcing the "truth"

Truth gets thrown around a lot in politics. What's true? What's not true? I read an interesting book recently "Storybranding," that has something important to say about how we ought to think about truth. In the book, the author talks a little about truth, but he divides truth into big "T" Truth and little "t" truth.  Put more succinctly by Robert McKee, "What happens is fact, not truth. Truth is what we think about what happens."  The author then says, "Stories don't create our beliefs. Rather, their themes are like magnets that find and attach themselves to beliefs that already exist." (Story Branding, p. 215)

That leads to this ad by President Obama.

http://youtu.be/sWiSFwZJXwE

The execution of the ad is solid enough, nothing earth shaking. I do like the juxtaposition (in college, I tried to use that word in every paper I wrote, might be the greatest word... ever) of Romney's quotes, how he cares about workers and the like, and the worker's bitting comments comparing Bain and Romney to vampires. That part was pretty effective.

But I think more important than the elements of the ad itself are the theme it presents. The Obama campaign is working on creating a meme regarding Romney. Here's the brilliant thing, and it gets to the the reason for my quotes, Obama is only reinforcing the narrative people already have in their minds about Romney.

The idea that Romney is an elite rich guy, who can't understand working people. I don't know if that account is factual or not, but given our definitions above, I think it's pretty true. Take a look at this previous ad:

http://youtu.be/R5e0QoUdPJM

Again pretty standard stuff except for the last snarky line "That's what you'd expect from a guy with a swiss bank account."

I was talking with someone about Romney, and they said, well it's not like we've never elected a rich guy before. That's right, but it's one thing to be rich, it's another thing for people to think that being rich somehow make you out of touch or elitist.

What's the point of all this? Why am I reviewing two pretty generic Obama ads?

I remember when  Slate Magazine doing their truth watch on the 2000 Presidential campaign with GW Bush and the liar Al Gore. The piece stopped after five articles because the author much to her surprise couldn't find enough Gore lies to justify a continuing run. The author

The thing is, the stories we carry with us are powerful -- like stereotypes, they help us navigate the world (like stereotypes those truths can often led us in the wrong direction too). When we can reinforce those truths with our ads, like Obama does here, and the effect resonates with viewers.

What happens when the "Truth" is against us? I alway thought the best weapon on Gore's side was Spike Jonze's unseen documentary -- which was the only time I've seen him portrayed as a real person.

Romney now has a decision to make does he fight against this meme, this narrative? If he chooses to fight, then he has to proceed very carefully because just protesting will only reinforce the frame people already have.  He has to do more than tell people he's not an elitist, he has to show them he's not. If he can't do that in an authentic way, then he'll never convince people otherwise. Cause that's the thing about truth, it's sticky till it's not.

Power of the personal

Two ads, well an ad and a video, that I thought were interesting though neither feels fully expressed somehow http://youtu.be/upbjHwo0ncg

This intro ad from Hector Balderas is pretty nice. I thought the first half was better than the second. The line "He understands the power of education in a way most senators never will" is particularly powerful. I kinda wanted the spot to end there. After that it turns to issues and policy and the spot loses me.

Also I would have liked a simple presentation of his village at the open, the execution isn't quite right, though the copy is good.

http://youtu.be/U7T5psHRFB0

I loved the copy of this ad. So powerful. The shots are awesome, and the sound effects are really well done (the child laughing at the beginning, you almost miss it, but it totally makes that opening sequence). And that beginning sequence, the personal connection, the connection to his values, his principles are what really makes this video work. Funny thing, about 50 seconds in, the video lost me. After his father, it seemed to get I don't know political. Watching it the first time, I was totally engrossed, then I remember looking up because I was bored.

That's the thing about both these videos. Once they turn from personal to political, from values to issues, they lost my attention, I want to stay connected, but they've stopped resonating, and I've started thinking (or worse, not paying attention).

One of my partners always says, voters don't care about issues per se, they care about values. To the extent that these videos show the values of the candidates they have power, once they veer into issue territory, they become "political."

Do Production values matter?

http://youtu.be/J1pteKuWCEI Interesting ad from John Tester. It's a total gimmick ad, but I like the concept. I think the gimmick works here because it's on message and on emotion, the key elements for any ad, but specifically an ad that revolves around a gimmick. Tester has never seemed Washington, so telling people he packs his Montana steaks, the nice touch with the boots (and the shot of the TSA agent looking at the x-ray of the steaks) works here because it matches what we think of him already.

What I don't like about this ad is the execution. The shots are a little sloppy, the lighting is really flat (especially at the end of the ad), even the audio sounds a little crunchy. Frankly the ad feels cheap, more like a low budget commercial, then a commercial for a US Senator. Maybe that's a stylistic choice, but I think you can be homey without looking cheap.

A good story with poor production values still works, and I think this ad mostly works. The sloppy and cheap execution do hold it back though, it feels less real, more staged, less believable somehow. Compare this ad with the gimmick ads from Hickenlooper, those were highly produced and yet still felt intimate and personal.

So a good concept taken down by poor execution. At least they're trying to be different.

The road ahead or dead end?

Protect NC Families is up with two ads trying to defeat the discriminatory Amendment 1: http://youtu.be/coAussnLrjY

http://youtu.be/OlKsycrW1rw

I'm split on these ads.  From a tactical point of view, I like them, they try to tackle an issue in an emotional way, telling a story and putting a face to the consequences of passing an amendment that might otherwise be anonymous. They're well filmed and well made, not earth shattering, but really solid and professional.

At the strategic level, I wonder if these spots are barking up the right tree. I totally get the thinking, we can't argue gay marriage in North Carolina, we'll never win, so let's make it about straight folks, real North Carolinians who will lose their rights. We'll get them on self interest. Shoot, even as I write the argument down it's compelling, and I could see myself falling down a similar rabbit hole.

But while it's compelling, I'm not sure it's right (funny thing about being wrong, it feels just like being right... until the moment you realize you're wrong). First off people vote on values, they vote on emotion, they don't vote on rational self interest. Secondly, there's been some pretty interesting research that you don't move people when you talk about gay marriage as a rights issue.  People don't get married for their partners benefits, they get married because they love each other, they get married to make a commitment to that love, they get married to spent their lives together -- not to spend their insurance coverage.

So I wonder if the Protect NC Families is miscalculating. I'm sure on a poll this message drives voters, but in the real world, I wonder if it's a dead end -- especially to the extent that the Amendment is associated with gay marriage in the mind of voters. It's sort of pulling a bait and switch, don't think of an elephant kind of trick.

Compare those ads with this one from New York:

http://vimeo.com/26626292

This ad takes the point of view of straight people, but does it in the context of a mother's love for her child, and her approval of her son's love for another man. That's a pretty powerful message, and it doesn't risk alienating voters. I wonder if these ads are just being too cute with this issue instead of trying to deal with it head on.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning....

Sometimes it's hard to write about bad ads, sometimes it just makes me angry ,or makes me feel like I'm repeating myself. But sometimes an ad is so bad and cliche, well it just tickles me: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_S6gPcc78&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

In what has got to be seen as one of the worst campaigns of the year so far, Dick Lugar comes up with one of hte most cliche and desperate ads of the year. Lugar you may know has taken heat for basically living in DC for 36 years while representing the state of Indiana.That probably wouldn't be so bad, but it only reinforces a growing image among conservatives and votrs in general that Lugar is out of touch. So in this context a little political aikido would be perfect.

This ad feels less like Aikido and more like... Inspector Clouseau. First off all, I was confused, "Washington Outside Groups"? It's a strange turn of phrase, usually we're worried about inside groups, what they mean is groups from Washington, outside of Indiana, but the phrase is awkard enough that it wasn't clear to me at first.

The next point that struck me as odd was the attack itself. Murdock is saying he's going to get national money, I guess if you're Dick Lugar and people think you're not in touch with the state that might be an issue, but I wonder if it's too inside baseball for most voters to really care. Inside baseball is a term we use from time to time, it means, focusing on the internal politics of a situation, how you make the sausage -- the kind of stuff that political junkies love. But most voters really don't care about inside politics, it feels, well, too political to them. They can be made to care if the inside baseball attack somehow resonates back to the story they already believe.

Finally let's talk about cliche. The music the voice over are so over the top, it really feels like the "Mickey Mouse" politics it talks about in the ad. Cliche can be useful, but in this case it just weighs the ad down. It's so overtly negative that it leaves the viewer no place to go, no room to put themselves into the ad emotionally.

So let's see we got awkward phrasing of an inside baseball attack that presented in a very cliche execution... what's that leave us with? Desperation. I read a study that said most casualties in combat don't happen during the combat itself, but during the retreat. One side starts to retreat, and suddenly the retreat turns into a route. Desperation is a bit like that. This ad wants to present strength, but really it only represent's Lugar's weakness.

Four for Friday: The Subtle and the petty

Been traveling this week for work, so it's been tough to post. Today is a hodgepodge of ads, I came across this week. First up Chrysler's followup to "Halftime in America":

http://youtu.be/kjv8u_1uLzk

I thought the ad did a great job of re-framing the halftime in America message that started with Clint Eastwood at the Super Bowl. If that ad was a 50,000 ft view, this one is closer to ground level. It tells the story, without telling the story, if you know what I mean. I just read this list of writing tips from the great screenwriter Billy Wilder. The two rules that seem to apply here are:

5. The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.

And,

7. A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They’ll love you forever.

This ad is very subtle, it never reveals the subtext, and I think it's better for it.

The next ad up was sent to me by a friend:

http://youtu.be/_hQyHHWLsOs

I like the tone of the ad, and I think it does a nifty job of making it's political points without sounding (or looking) too political. The ad is well shot too, with lots of pretty pictures. It makes something that could have been dry interesting, so it scores points there too.

My only objection to the ad, is the whole "Your friend Ben" theme.  Maybe it's how folks already see Cardin, but it feels a little forced. I guess it's better than a more traditional, "that's because Ben Cardin cares..." or "Ben Cardin is on our side..." line, but not sure I buy it, in an ad that I generally buy.

Alright, ad number three comes from the Republicans:

http://youtu.be/MXhLtb-NKY0

Don't love this ad/video for a number of reasons:

1. Not sure how folks will feel about using audio from the Supreme Court. Usually the Supreme court is above politics, pulling in Lawyer's arguments seems debasing somehow, but maybe that's just me.

2. The quote feels lacking context. So, the lawyer had a brain fart, but does that make healthcare a tough sell? Not sure I get the connection? Maybe if we heard a question asking him to describe what the health care law does or some other reference, but right now it just seems like a guy who lost his train of thought.

3. Who cares? I mean, yes we ought to care about health care, but what I mean is, hitting Obama for health care now seems like hitting Clinton for having affairs, haven't we played this out already?

Maybe as an ad that gets the base angry this works.  The fact that it only had 400 hits on youtube (and I've watched it twice), makes me think it's pretty ineffective.

Finally, an ad that's about as simple a repines as they come. In one of those petty (and dumb) political moves, opponents of Jose Hernandez are asking a judge to stop him from describing himself as an Astronaut. 

Hernandez answers quite eloquently in this one minute long video:

http://youtu.be/LQSD9UTgwcA

Is there a more clear example of show don't tell? This response is a also a great example of political aikido. Whatever a judge decides, the fact that opponents are arguing he's not an astronaut, this video response will cement the fact that he did indeed fly in space. At once a response like this makes the opponents seem small minded and Jose Hernandez never has to break message to do it, that sounds like a win in my book.

You can't handle the truth.

This is a bit of an unusual post.  Usually I reference an ad, but today, I'm going off book.  Don't know if you have been following what happened with "This American Life" and Mike Daisey.  Essentially "This American Life" ran an episode on working conditions in Apple's Chinese factories based on Mike Daisey's monologue.  Mike Daisey's monologue is a first hand account of his experiences meeting and talking with workers at Foxcomm. I didn't hear the original story, but it was the most downloaded episode of "This American Life" and sounded like a powerful piece of storytelling. Only problem, turns out after some digging by other NPR reporters, many of the stories Mike Daisey tells didn't happen.

This probably breaks some blog protocol, but take a listen to "This American Life" show "Retraction." It's a powerful episode and instructive lesson in truth telling, accountability and transparency.

Ok, you back (hopefully)?  Truth is such a funny thing.  Are the ads we produce truthful?  Are the facts true? These are questions political advertisers face every day. What the best attack? How far can we push it? Is it true? Personally, I take the truthfulness of the ads I create very seriously.

This story is a great example of why we owe it not just to the public, but to our clients to be careful with the truth.  Mike Daisey wanted to tell a story that resonated with his audience.  But if he claims the story is true and it's not, then the audience feels betrayed. My biggest worry about stretching the truth, especially when it comes to ads about our opponents, is that the pubic throws the baby out with the bath water. Meaning, they dismiss the entire story for one or two small lies that might make for a cleaner narrative or make something a little worse than it was or more meaningful.

That's what Mike Daisey did here, and now he's done a disservice to his cause.  Where is the truth in his story? Is any of it true?  I sat here trying to figure out what was true and what wasn't, and even I wasn't sure at the end of it all.  It makes you doubt the entire narrative he paints.  And what about the next story on China factory workers, will people take that with a grain of salt because of this one?  Probably.

What Mike Daisey did was confuse truth with verisimilitude.  Truth is pretty hard and fast, but verisimilitude is not quite in that realm, its something softer,is the essence of truth, it feels real.  Something can feel real without being true and conversely something can cling to true facts and be a lie.

There's probably a lot of verisimilitude in Mike Daisey's worthy story, but by not being honest about the truth, he has compromised trust with his audience.  So, they believe nothing he has to say.  It's a cautionary tale for all of us.

P.S. "This American Life" is to be commended on how they handled the situation. If you're gonna make a mistake, this is the way to clean it up. Basically, come clean, be transparent, accept responsibility. A good example to remember when things go bad.

Real Magic

When I was in college, I quickly realized something about the class I took.  My best classes, the ones I was most interested in, the ones that I worked the hardest in, the ones, I remember today, weren't always the most interesting topics. Sure some of them were right in my interest wheel house, but many of them were subjects I never really cared much about then or since.  Conversely, the worst classes were often in topics I was sure I'd love.  What separated the bad from the good, the boring from the interesting was the quality of the teacher. The best teachers made subjects (like English History 1600-1658) fascinating and relevant.

I bring that up in the context of this new ad from Jessie Jackson Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0XwaNaxC2o

On the face of it, it should be compelling, it should be heartbreaking, it should move me to outrage..., but it doesn't. The spot is flat emotionally. Now, I know a mom telling the story of her son gunned down on the way to choir practice is inherently powerful, but it's not. That first line "I'm Pam Bosley, my son is dead..." should grab you and make you sick, but it doesn't.

I'm not blaming the mom, who has obviously gone through a tragedy no parent should ever have to face.  It takes courage to get on camera and speak about it.  I blame the consultant.  It appears that she's reading a teleprompter, repeating words from rote rather than telling her own tragic tale.  Then to make matters worse, they have her spouting political blah, blah, blah about there opponent (the highlight of the ad is actually the phone of Debbie Haverston behind Jesse Jackson with that awful expression on her face).

I saw a quote from a screenwriter that said if the answer is 4, write 2+2.  Unfortunately the script here gives us 4.  There's no room for the audience in this ad either emotionally or intellectually. Instead of bringing us into the story they hold us at arm's length.

"A million deaths is a statistic. One death is a tragedy."

By the time she says, don't let my son die in vain, we should be heartbroken.... I read a great line about Jeremy Lin, the Knicks point guard, who came from no where to dazzle the NBA -- a reporter said the true story of Jeremy Lin was "about how in a society full of nonsense and noise, of fizz and vapour, of pretty colours and manufactured products, we ache for real magic."

This ad has the potential for real magic but instead they gave us more nonsense and noise.

What more do you want?

If you follow my twitter feed, I mentioned how much I loved this ad. I was going to leave it at that, but a friend of mine has been encouraging me to blog more (guess they don't follow Twitter), so here goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDGrfhJH1P4

I loved this ad.  First of all it's a great execution of a good concept. The production values are top notch, but more than that, they really trust the concept, going all the way, and allowing the concept to speak for the brand.  They show the values of the Guardian rather than have a narrator who tells you, "The Guardian, the whole picture -- our voice and yours..." or some other bullet point.

The details are nicely done as well from the copy (the police raid yelling "little pig, little pig let us in") to the way they inter-weave the story between web, headlines, user commentary, to the graphics -- seriously this is top notch stuff.

Also, its both telling a compelling story, but maybe more importantly a familiar story with a twist. Using the three little pigs is a clever way to spiral out a story we've all seen before -- the crime, the commentary, the reaction and counter-reaction, the eventual fallout to larger issues.

Storytelling.

Show don't tell.

Great execution.

What more do you want from an ad?

Gimmicks

I came across the new JC Penny ads today.  Usually JC Penny wouldn't really hold much interest for me, but Ron Johnson, the new CEO of JC Penny was the man who designed and ran the Apple Stores is remaking JC Penny. http://youtu.be/FlNAvRXfJIo

http://youtu.be/SsFMMf_1VzU

http://youtu.be/SRwki8jOAB0

http://youtu.be/k5F7NG8vBOQ

I liked these ads. Using Ellen is a bit of a MacGuffin, she brings attention to the brand, but also her association lends some character to a brand that's really nondescript -- what does JC Penny stand for anyway? Are they design oriented like Target? Or cheap like Wal-Mart?  What's their story.

These ads are gimmicky and entertaining, but I think it serves a purpose beyond attention -- it signals a new direction for JC Penny. By focusing on four different areas -- returns, coupons, sales and $.99 pricing, they show the new direction.  They could have just run ads saying, JC Penny, no coupons, easy returns, blah, blah, blah. Instead they indicate the new direction, a sense of putting customers first, a sense of caring about customers in way that other stores don't, a sense that they understand our frustrations (and in that sense Ellen as the "every women" is a perfect choice for a brand spokesperson).

My only quibble would be are they JC Penny branded enough? Meaning, do you watch the ads and know it's a JC Penny ad without the fanfare?  But still, I think these are really well done, entertaining and on-emotion, good job.

Here's another gimmick ad:

http://youtu.be/Pj6FP7PkJNo

I liked the way they based the ad on a real stunt -- that kind of coordination is great in a campaign.  The hurdles are clever a way to make it clear the attack on women's health. A minute ad might seem like a luxury, but I thought it was nice that they took their time, let the viewer take in the stunt, the meaning of the hurdles and some of the message, without forcing it on us.

The ad kinda doesn't know where to go after it introduces the stunt, so it loses some steam (there are a lot of shots of people looking at the hurdles, that I'm not sure if they're helping), but it's a solid B+/A-.

It's on the screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P01QQIK5hok& You know I once sat next to Tommy Thompson at a dinner, didn't know who he was till he introduced himself, for the life of me I don't remember his lips being so red.  In fact, I can't remember an ad I've watched where a candidates lips have stood out so much. Not sure if his lips really are that red or it's some kind of make-up malfunction -- sorry digression.

What really struck me about this ad was how flat it was. There was no energy to the spot. Even the shots of him listening to people, he looks cranky.

Whether or not these Thompson felt comfortable with these words or he was really happy to be listening to the people in the spot, I can't answer those question. Boris used to say, "Guys, your work is on the screen," when a director would try to explain why a shot wasn't working or an actor's performance was off. What he meant was an audience doesn't know or shouldn't care  about all the time and trouble that went into a shoot, they don't care about the obstacles overcome or the problems that plagued you, all they can judge you by is what's on the screen.

By that standard, I question the decision to run this ad.  I don't care what the plan is, if it's not working, you have to be able to adjust.  I don't see how putting Thompson to camera, looking grumpy and sounding uncomfortable helps sell his campaign message or convey the the emotion he wants voters to feel. Honestly, I was so distracted by what was going on, that I didn't even hear the words until the third of fourth time I watched the ad. And, when I did hear them, they didn't resonate at all, there was no conviction behind them, so why should I believe them at all.  The ad felt very paint by numbers, like they were all just going through the motions, I don't blame Tommy Thompson for that, I blame his consultants.

Who is this Guy?

Just finished a great book Storybranding  The book echoes a lot of concepts I discuss here on the blog, like the need for emotional connection, storytelling and authenticity.  One idea it discusses is the difference between the outer layer of a brand and the inner layer.  The out layer of a brand is the how -- a better mousetrap, a easier to use computer, a new kind of laundry soap, the inner layer represents the why -- the values and rationale for why a brand, company, politician does what they do. I've been thinking a lot about these ideas in recent days, especially in light of Santorum's rise and Romney's lack of traction.  For simplicity sake, Romney is running for President, Santorum is running to restore American values (or something like that) -- which message is more powerful. You don't need to be a conservative to show (not tell) the values behind what you're doing.  A good campaign is able to "show" it's values in everything it does.

I bring up these thoughts in light of this first commercial from Bill Faison, running for Governor North Carolina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-6UHktV-s&feature=player_embedded

My first question after watching the ad is, who is this guy?  I assume most of North Carolina really doesn't know Faison, so they're trying to build his profile.  Ok, I get that, but other than name id, what do you know about Faison? Really, do you have any sense of who he is, why he's running?  The ad is filled with cliches: "Get North Carolina Moving," "Working together." Cliches are fine because they're shorthand, but you start throwing them around and they start to become meaningless.

The ad starts with "A New Leader" and he's "fighting for the little guy" -- either one of those ideas (both cliche) would make a fine theme to introduce this guy to voters.  But tossed in here together with getting the state "back to work" and "world class schools" (more cliche), they're near meaningless. I talked recently about kitchen sink ads, and while this one doesn't quite rise to that class, it has so many different ideas, that it's just more blah, blah, blah.

After 30 seconds, I have no idea who this guy is, I have no connection to him. What's going to happen after 1000 points? As I've drilled my kids over and over, anything times zero equals zero, 10,000,000,000 x 0 = 0.

The point here isn't to rip on one ad or make Bill Faison question his choice of consultant, the point is something bigger actually. Here's your chance to introduce your candidate statewide, what's the walk away? What the theme that you want them to connect to the candidate?  The theme doesn't have to be in the text, it could be the subtext.  (The subtext in this ad seems to be Bill Faison is very soft spoken.) But, they need a theme and idea.  I love fighting for the little guy, hell, we all feel like little guys these days with the bad economy, but here its nothing more than a throwaway line, that we're told and expected to believed.  How much better would it have been to have shown us. As a lawyer, he fought for regular people injured by medical negligence and big corporations (I just got that from his wikipedia page).

This kind of ad makes me angry, because it's shot fine, and it's predictably standard that no one will call it out for being the worst kind of tripe. Forget mudslinging and negative ads, these re the ads that destroy our faith in politicians and make us increasingly cynical about the political process, forget ineffective, this ad is guilty of a far worse crime.

Dueling ads - The Republican Presidential Primary

In sports there's something called a challenge trade -- when two teams trade underperforming players at the same position.  Romney and Santorum are engaged in something of a challenge air war.  Romney err, Restore our Future is up attacking Santorum, trying to undermine Santorum's conservative street cred. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xziumBt0Tls

The ad is pretty mediocre, basically a message delivery device without much creativity. But the point is to try and muddy the waters and subvert Santorum's message that he's the real conservative -- would the "right" choice really vote <gasp> to raise the debt limit? If Romney's not a man of the people, then neither is Santorum the "Ultimate washington insider." If I was grading the ad, I would probably say it's about a C or C+ if I was feeling generous. There's nothing really wrong about it,but there's nothing compelling or interesting.  Actually not sure why they include the Romney stuff, it's not really catchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOcrS6axnE

Santorum on the other hand is running a pretty interesting ad with an interesting strategy behind it. It's a gimmick ad, but the gimmick works because it reinforces the message. "Rombo" is on the lose shooting mud at Santorum.  It's actually a pretty clever concept, and they certainly go all the way with it, down to an actor who looks like Romney.  I like the concept the execution is good, but not great, but I think the strategy behind it is just as clever.

Rombo also is subtlety subversive -- Romney isn't the tough conservative he plays on TV (Rambo), but some kind of phony "Rombo" shooting a mud in a white shirt and tie. It's a slight jab, but  the subtext might be more effective at capturing the anti-Romney malaise that Republican primary voters are feeling than the text.

Santorum can't compete with Romney's cash advantage (I saw it as at least 3:1). This ad is trying to functionally dislocate Romney's advantage -- it's not an unusual strategy, but well played in this case. The hope is to remind voters of Romney's negatives every time you see a Romney ad attacking Santorum. While, I'm not a fan of the ultimatum approach at the end, I still think given the execution of the ad it could be effective in helping to blunt Romney's advantage.

By wrapping the message around such an entertaining and off-beat concept, Santorum might be able to poison Romney's negative ads.

The easy winner this round is Santorum.  The only question is can Santorum continue to move and out flank Romney.

Beware the dark side

Taking a break from political ads, to look at the controversy around the Westminster Dog show's decision to pull the sad pedigree dog ads it had been running. From the Article, the spokesperson (wouldn't it be cool if they had a spokesdog) said, "The feedback we got from our primary audience was that they were seeing commercials that made them want to turn the channel." Here's the commercial in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD1HsSUrXIo

I thought it was a pretty good commercial, I really liked the copy, which I thought was well written if a bit much.

Here's the ad that replaced it by Purina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3rwe-386c

Have to say I liked this ad better. The music and inspiring images, made me smile. I could connect to the home images of the dogs and be inspired by the working dogs (like the dog jumping out of a helicopter, maybe he or she could be a spokesdog someday).  I thought the message was clever, make a good dog great.

My wife works in international development, and she saw some polling data some years back that people didn't like to see sad images of kids in Africa in the advertising.  It depressed them, made the problem seem insurmountable, and left them feeling powerless and less likely to respond or act. Now we can argue how sad the Pedigree ad really was, but I wonder if the Westminster Dog show didn't have a point?

Look the Purina ad has nothing to do with pet adoption, but honestly, if you slapped a "Adopt a dog" message at the end of that spot, I'm pretty sure it would work just as well. Like I said, it left me with a warm feeling. The Pedigree ad reminded me of a problem I know existed, but I'm not sure if left me ready to go out and act (not that we're getting a dog, despite my two son's great desire for one). Showing the ads to my my eight year old said the sad ad makes him want a dog more because it makes him worry about them, but I think the feeling the Purina ad invokes -- companionship, the cuteness and love, the sense of play and connection with a pet, are equally powerful motivators (my eight year old says he liked this ad better) and their positive motivators carrying none of the guilt or avoidance of the Pedigree emotions.

Who knows why Westminster did what it, the decision has come under scrutiny, but reading the article Pedigree has found a way to spin the loss into a PR gain. The fight reminds me of something from Star Wars (doesn't take much to go there).  Luke asks Yoda if the dark side of the force (anger, fear, aggression)is stronger? Yoda replies, "No, quicker, easier, more seductive."

I would say the same is true about ads: The way our brains are designed it's easier to appeal to those "darker" emotions of anger or fear. The Pedigree ad isn't quite going there, but I think the point is the same. It goes for the low hanging fruit, guilt, sadness, hoping to inspire action, but the Purina ad reaches higher, it's aspirational, showing the viewer the way things could be and touching on what really inspires us -- that's real strength.