Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike KeliherWhat is the biggest sin of modern political television ads. Inaccuracy? Negativity? Hyperbole?
Sameness. Sameness, sameness, sameness. The sheer repetition of identical production techniques is what causes most television ads to be a mindnumbing waste of money. They sound so much alike that they wash over us like Muzak in a mall.
We all know the drill. The dire music. The dour voiceover. The grainy, contorted still photo of the opponent having a bad hair day. All interspersed with headlines o’ doom.
Then, aburpt transition. Sunny music. Upbeat voiceover. Gorgeous glossies of the sponsoring candidate having a decidedly great hair day. Listening intently to granny. Reading to sonny boy. Touring a high tech plant with sleeves rolled up, “creating jobs.” Working hard at the desk late at night. Receiving adoring applause from constituents. All interspersed with headlines o’hope.
The messages? The issues? The ideology? The point? Don’t ask me. I was thinking about something else. The last 20 roughly identical ads that barged into my living room robbed me of my ability to focus and differentiate.
Why do all campaign ads look alike? Because pre-fab, mass assembly ads are quicker, easier and cheaper to produce than an original concept, and the less money spent on production the more that can be spent on the consultants’ fees. Consultants like that model.
Unimaginative political consultants eager to keep fees to themselves, employ all political strategists and no true artists or visionaries. They run ad agencies entirely populated by Account Planners, and devoid of Creative Directors, Art Directors and high end Directors and production professionals. The few that have them obviously don’t empower them.
Thus, sameness. While Madison Avenue agencies often err on the side of all art and no strategy, K Street agencies err on the side of all strategy and no art.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one who claims all political advertising is ineffective. Even really poorly executed political advertising is often extremely effective, particularly negative advertising. I’ve seen it dramatically change survey results overnight.
I’m saying that political ads could be even more effective if more of us noticed the ads more often. And more of us would notice and remember them if they occassionally contained an unexpected twist of humor, color, candor, metaphor, analogy or original design work.
In the time I was pecking this post, three very expensive political ads ran, and I, a recovering political junky, have absolutely no idea what they said. After all, when produced as Muzak, even Nine Inch Nails and Nancy Sinatra tunes begin to sound alike.
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications, Media, Politics | Tagged: Art Directors, Creative Directors, Muzak, Nancy Sinatra, Nine Inch Nails, political consultants, poltical ads, sameness
Right, I haven’t followed the ads all that closely but over the last seven months the most memorable to me are: “Three AM Phone Call”; “The One”; Maybe the first Al Franken with his teacher; and of course that nucleic acid diffuser musical (dazzling!)
This is the one part of Obama’s campaign that has been horrible. All that money, and I can’t remember a single ad.
Exactly. So how do you capture the spirit and virtue of the person we thought Obama was (and hope he is) in an inventive, memorable spot that isn’t just another empty “change” bromide or the redundant negative charge on McCain and the previous eight years of disasterous leadership. Should it have a cool documentary flavor or where is Guillermo del Toro when we need him? We want it to go “viral” (I like that expression) don’t we?
Well, okay.
Strategic Problem: Obama’s opponent has established the following framing. Celebrity status =shallow self-centeredness. Crowd enthusiasm = shallow celebrity/cult worship. Therefore, people are made to feel silly and self-concious about supporting Obama and feeling hopeful that things could be better than Bush and McCain say they can be.
Team Obama’s current approach: A cookie cutter ad that essentially says “oh yeah, well you’re a celebrity too, so there.” Looks and sounds like a thousand other ads, so it largely washes over you.
Strategic need: Reframe rallies and other manifestations of Obama enthusiasm as a triumph of The We, rather a triumph of The One. Reframe Obama as in awe of The We (Note: Not the Wii) rather than in awe of himself.
Way to make it look different than the cookie-cutter ads: Shoot in rougher documentary style. Show Obama high above an arena in a press box by himself, as an arena begins to fill. After an initial shot of Obama in the press box, the rest of video throughout the spot shows the diverse crowd slowly assembling, as Obama’s voiceover reflects on them. People cautiously checking each other out. People of different races and ages beginning to warm up to each other. People handing out flags to each other. People helping young and old people through the crowd. Cross generational interaction. These are real shots from a real rally, and noticeably not staged and scripted. Very different looking than most ads.
What’s different about it to make it stick out in the sea of ads? It looks completely different, with a rougher production value. It features real unscripted supporters, and barely shows or brags on the candidate, but instead spotlights the shared value of the campaign. It shows the candidate admitting self-doubt. It shows the candidate in awe of something bigger than himself – American people and American values. It glorifies them much more than him.
Look, I’m not an ad maker. I can barely match my socks much less be an Art Director. But my bigger point is this: There are a million ways to produce an ad, and all this sameness has people numbed.
You’re good.
I love the line at the end: “…and *we* approve this message.”
This is a remarkable idea for a short film. Of its many interesting characteristics, wonderful use of the subjective point of view. We observe what Obama observes through the eyes and contemplative voice-over of Obama. It works to erase the distance between “us” and him, humanizing him. And note the very rhythm of the interior monologue: the short sentences, the subtle punctuation of the visuals and the refrain, the substance of the piece–”We”. Plus, and not least, the “bonus feature”: the director’s comments that walk us from concept to realization. Really good!