Making Better Ads
I completely agree with Nate Silver: the Obama campaign needs to make better ads.
It's not that Obama's ads are bad by any normal metric. They're well produced and they usually hit the right themes. The problem is that they're very conventional. Obama is supposed to exude change. But his ads don't. They look like the ads we see every election cycle: images, text, and video footage linked together by the voice of a professional narrator. They may be marginally effective, but they are exceedingly forgettable and often make Obama come across as just another politician playing the same old game (even though his ads are much more honest than McCain's).
The Obama campaign needs to think a little more outside of the box. They should aim to produce ads that are either more creative/funny than a typical campaign ad, or more sincere. On the creative front, a good example is this anti-Norm Coleman ad from Minnesota:
With the exception of this kind of spoof ad, though, I think the Obama campaign should stop wasting its money on production value and professional narrators. If the message is change, why not cut out the middleman and simply have Obama and Biden address the American people directly? No narrator. No music. Nothing but the candidate himself, unfiltered, speaking bluntly to the American people. As I've noted previously, David Axelrod used this technique with great success in Deval Patrick's gubernatorial campaign, which also emphasized a "change" theme. (see these two ads for example).
Obama and Biden could use these kind of ads to rebut Republican lies and set the record straight. Each ad could be devoted to rebutting a single major lie (such as the Bridge to Nowhere claim or the claim that Obama will raise taxes). Both Obama and Biden have a gift for sincerity, and would come across well in this format. And I think it would help them really own the change theme. It would make the Obama/Biden campaign look and feel genuinely different and, if done effectively, would co-opt the maverick/straight-talker image that the McCain/Palin campaign is trying so desperately cultivate. I suspect ads like these would also garner a lot of free press as the news channels play them and discuss them.
And here's one more reason for the Obama campaign to take this approach. If they don't, the McCain campaign is going to beat them to it, and the media is going to fall over backwards praising them for being so mavericky. Mark my words.
It's not that Obama's ads are bad by any normal metric. They're well produced and they usually hit the right themes. The problem is that they're very conventional. Obama is supposed to exude change. But his ads don't. They look like the ads we see every election cycle: images, text, and video footage linked together by the voice of a professional narrator. They may be marginally effective, but they are exceedingly forgettable and often make Obama come across as just another politician playing the same old game (even though his ads are much more honest than McCain's).
The Obama campaign needs to think a little more outside of the box. They should aim to produce ads that are either more creative/funny than a typical campaign ad, or more sincere. On the creative front, a good example is this anti-Norm Coleman ad from Minnesota:
With the exception of this kind of spoof ad, though, I think the Obama campaign should stop wasting its money on production value and professional narrators. If the message is change, why not cut out the middleman and simply have Obama and Biden address the American people directly? No narrator. No music. Nothing but the candidate himself, unfiltered, speaking bluntly to the American people. As I've noted previously, David Axelrod used this technique with great success in Deval Patrick's gubernatorial campaign, which also emphasized a "change" theme. (see these two ads for example).
Obama and Biden could use these kind of ads to rebut Republican lies and set the record straight. Each ad could be devoted to rebutting a single major lie (such as the Bridge to Nowhere claim or the claim that Obama will raise taxes). Both Obama and Biden have a gift for sincerity, and would come across well in this format. And I think it would help them really own the change theme. It would make the Obama/Biden campaign look and feel genuinely different and, if done effectively, would co-opt the maverick/straight-talker image that the McCain/Palin campaign is trying so desperately cultivate. I suspect ads like these would also garner a lot of free press as the news channels play them and discuss them.
And here's one more reason for the Obama campaign to take this approach. If they don't, the McCain campaign is going to beat them to it, and the media is going to fall over backwards praising them for being so mavericky. Mark my words.
posted by A.L. at 5:15 PM
11 Comments:
I agree completely. Give the media a new "new" to talk about. A new, more honest and direct ad style would help make it happen and debunk some misconceptions in the process. Kind of fireside chat-like.
Today's DailyHowler has some additional deglamorizing detail on Palin's most fictitious tales.
For example, sales of assets on eBay were common practice: "Selling assets on eBay was standard practice for the state; it wasn’t the hockey mom’s kitchen-table-in-a-small-town idea."
Worth reading.
When I watched the Whoa, No Maverick ad, I thought exactly the same thing even before I read your post. Very typical political ad. Seemed contrived, insincere and forgettable. The could do much better, especially with the facts in their favor. I really like your Coleman and straight-talking suggestions. Would be a huge improvement.
Exxon has been running some ads in this vain for their green energy stuff where employees speak to the camera w/nice graphics around them. Very effective at humanizing a giant corporation, you would think something like that would work well for the dems.
Good ideas ... I think the "Whoa!" ad is an improvement ... it is important that the ad is calling what McCain-Palin is doing "lying".
The media cannot ignore such a strong charge, and watchers will want to know if it is true.
Hopefully, the Obama campaign can move on to stronger and better ads once they know what's working.
Nate Silver had a brilliant suggestion - work up the speeches of the ordinary people who addressed the convention into ads. Like the elderly life-long Republican woman who had no healthare
I'm not quite sure if the talking heads approach you suggest will work, bearing in mind that a lot of people out here have the attention span of a goldfish. I quite liked the "Whoa"-ad; it's clear, concise and to the point.
One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that a lot of elections are won by creating some sort of narrative about your opponent, and to build strong assocations in voters' minds. The McCain campaign already tried it with the "celebrity"-theme before falling flat on their faces with it. However, they've also repeatedly peddled lie after lie, and quite shamelessly so (the Bridge to Nowhere, "Obama will raise your taxes", etc), which the Obama campaign should use to their advantage, and I have a feeling they've already started. The Whoa-ad might well be the beginning of an attempt to create an association in voters' minds between the words "McCain", "Palin" and "lying". As well as the usual "more of the same", which is potentially just as effective, though probably not as much as saying "These guys are lying straight to your faces! They must think you're stupid!".
If they can manage to do that, run more ads of this sort, very plainly and clearly outlining the lies peddled by the McCain campaign, they'll have this election in the bag. I'm confident of that.
Michael,
I agree. I think the best thing to do at this point is to try to create a "liar" narrative. That would be attacking their strength (the "straight-talker" image) and would also served to set the record straight. And I think the best way to call someone a liar is directly, in your own voice. It's more forceful that way, more likely to get noticed. If you use a professional narrator to call your opponent a liar, it just sounds like a politics as usual attack ad.
Oh please, oh please have Obama on an add calling anybody a liar. Please!
I agree that there is a problem with the current narrator(s). They are too smooth and slightly smug. I'd rather hear the voice of someone "reading the news off of the ticker" like they did in the old days. That would be more vibrant andear-catching.
Obama's already called McCain and Palin liars on several occasions, mostly during speeches and town hall meetings; though I think doing so in an ad would be too strong. It would also risk leaving the high ground Obama has stated time and time again he would be conducting this campaign from.
Most of the time you can also call someone a liar without doing so directly. I think the "Whoa"-ad was setting the right tone, just using separate quotes and juxtaposing them, using a bit of humor for good measure; similarly to The Daily Show's instant classic piece about Republican hypocrisy over Palin's candidacy.
It's an unfortunate fact that the traditional attack ads work, though I see no real problem with Obama running attack ads if the attack is over something very legitimate (and not just a groundless ad hominem tactic vis-a-vis the Swift Boaters). It'd be almost like saying, McCain wants to make this an election about character? Fine, let's talk about character. Let's talk about the fact that he lied repeatedly. Let's talk about him choosing a VP without even vetting her. Let's talk about his infamous temperament. Heck, let's talk about how he left his sick wife to marry into wealth -- whereas Obama's a devout Christian and dedicated family man who worked his way up the ladder. Seriously, let's talk about character.
Of course, this runs the risk of turning this into a very dirty race, but it's not like the Obama campaign would leave the facts behind, unlike their Republican counterparts; so in essence they wouldn't be leaving the high ground. Also, we need to remember that the Republicans want to put Obama on the defensive; it's what they're so good at. It's how they manage to distract people from the real issues, time and time again. It worked with Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. A bit of attacking in kind wouldn't do Obama much harm; in fact, we've seen how quickly McCain can crack under pressure.
That said, of course Obama also needs to continue concentrating on the issues at hand; what he would do for the middle classes; how he would improve the economy and America's standing in the world. But that also doesn't mean he has to go all Dukakis and not fight back when he has to.
Besides voting with him 90% of the time, McCain's main similarity to Bush is that he lies, and Palin seems to lie even more. That's how and why we'd get four more years of the same. Of course it is important to point that out in dramatic terms.
Lying is a form of coercive manipulation to get people to believe or do things they would not believe or do if they knew the truth. Such as all the lies that led us into Iraq. Or the lie that we don't torture. The lie that extreme banking deregulation would lead to a fairer and broader mortgage market. Or the lie that massive tax cuts to the richest people pay for themselves and cause good things to trickle down to everyone else.
Obama must not allow these lies to stand. Every single one must be debunked in memorable terms. For example, when he correctly points out the problem with the big tax cuts for the rich he needs to follow that with something more than a vague reference to "failed policies of the past."
He should use something like this: "Bush 41 correctly noted that trickle down theory is voodoo economics. In these past eight years the rich got huge tax windfalls and what trickled down to the middle class were pink slips and foreclosure notices." The graphic image shows a shower of pink slips raining down on people in an unemployment line interspersed with images of rows of houses with foreclosure signs, and then the RNC balloon drop hoopla ... sad economic reality juxtaposed with phony patriotism and misguided policies. Close with an image of a shaman witch doctor and say something like "Can America stand four more years of voodoo? Vote for real change. Vote for Obama."
Unfortunately, it has to be just about that simplistic for many Americans to internalize what is at stake.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home