Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike Keliher
Joe LovelandWhy are political and policy ads so prosaic?
The new Harry and Louise health care reform ad is a case-in-point. The level of dialogue and logic exhibited by Harry and Louise is reminiscent of another famous couple — Dick and Jane. There is not a hint of the kind of intelligence, style, wit, edge or savoir faire that sophisticates prefer in their top Super Bowl ads.
Many of my friends in the commercial advertising business and elsewhere turn their noses up at these ads. They say the ads are banal because the sponsors and their admakers obviously lack creativity.
I disagree. They’re banal by design. The political admakers I’ve known are every bit as creative as the commercial admakers I’ve known. But the political admakers don’t indulge their creative itch to create ads that would be so artsy, nuanced, stylized, multi-layered and clever that they would not connect with their target audience.
After all, the careers of political marketing consultants rise and fall based on whether they demonstrably move swing voters enough to win elections and policy battles. Period. I’d submit they are held much more directly accountable than commercial admakers. Therefore, political admakers take the target audience where they are, not where they wish they were.
Let there be no mistake, these kinds of ads are not aimed at the most informed among us. They’re aimed at people who have proven over the last several months that they are unwilling to spend more than 30 distracted seconds learning about this issue.
The ads are dumb because the target audience is acting dumb. It’s simplistic and unfair to say the target audience IS dumb. Many are not. But let’s just say this: They have habits – failure to follow life-changing public issues and critically analyze claims based on credible facts — that lead them to mimmick the moronic.
And they will decide the outcome of this monumental debate.
So in an attempt to do what they are paid to do, persuade the persuadable, political admakers make Harry and Louise absurdly undemanding and linear. Near the end of this ad, our hero Harry says something the political admaker probably uttered himself when he breathed life into our health care heroes: “Sounds simple enough.”
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications, Messaging, Politics, advertising | Tagged: commercial advertising, Dick and Jane, Harry and Louise, health care reform, political advertising
Baaaaaaa……….
The coffee…
The coffee…
Yup, Citizen Joe has returned. The arm is looking good. But how far can these ads be stretched “creatively”? This one is especially forgettable. Quite a challenge though isn’t it? Informing, persuading–an issue of incredible complexity and controversy–that has to touch the audience intellectually and viscerally–all in thirty seconds.
Mr. Lang, the original Harry and Louise ad was forgettable too. For me. That’s my point though. Harry and Louise aren’t for Joe and Dennis.
Expat, the coffee is definitely key. The warmth and energy it brings makes me bond with Louise in a klatchy kind of way.
And for every icon, there is a parody…
mr loveland, i beg to differ about the so-called forgetfulness of harry and louise. if this over quarter century ad was forgettable, how come today we recall it simply by its name, “harry and louise”? it’s an icon of a failed campaign.
on another subject, that issue about the so-called 30,000 Canadians annually descending upon america for health related issues has me pondering. what is the documentation?
first, i expect that anyone who doesn’t/won’t sign his/her name isn’t bothered with documentation.
but, next, supposing the figure has some truth attached to it. i expect that over 30,000 canadians “winter” in florida/arizona, which could easily account for 30,000 annual uses by canadians of the american health system.
i have dual citizenship, and live in WA, but my two sisters still live in Canada, but — for warmth in the winter — spend time down here, and neither of them, nor their spouses, is a fan of the american health system
and, yes, like humans anywhere, there are canadians not wanting to wait their turn for certain kinds of operations and can afford it do come down here. (Moreover, a two-tier system is developing in Canada, which probably has slowed the trickle of Canadians coming for surgeries.) “waiting for your turn” also is the rule down here though. unless it’s an emergency, none of us get in the operating room without lining up.
Excellent post, Raymond. Thanks for joining us.
We all tend to remember the ad because it worked so well, not, I would submit, because of the content or approach. If the original H&L had not worked, I don’t think we would remember it. But it became iconic in the same way the jouneyman who hits the World Series-winning bloop single becomes iconic…because of the effect rather than the artistry.
What would you say are the top pros and cons of the Canadian system?
Harry and Louise are spot on–the problem is politics!!! All we need is less politics, and all of our problems would be solved. You guys are simply way too into politics to see the truth of this simple statement of fact. You are all political practitioners, part of the system/problem. Why don’t you just get out of the way, and let the doc’s and pharmaceutical companies and hospitals take care of this problem? Why do you always have to complicate things with choices and politics and trade-offs and stuff like that?
No More Excuses! No More Politics! Just give me what I want!
Beautiful.
Here is a great exposition of what i think is the problem with health care reform–and it comes down to the unrealistic expectations of the American people of what is possible (“just give me what I want”):
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/a-common-sense-american-health-reform-plan/?hp
Of course, this isn’t any different from any other issue–everybody wants more from government, and they want someone else to pay for it. And Conservatives are no different–they are just as willing to play this game as anybody else.
Great post, I’ve written on a similar topic. Though I fear not as coherently as you guys, being a Brit the sheer scale of the debate going on over there is slightly lost on me I reckon. You might like my blog, it’s about political advertising – mainly in the UK, but occasionally branch out on a crazy friday afternoon.
i agree with benedict, “great post”!
my theme — several posts — a naturlized american of canadian descent, is probably growing thin on this blog, but let me say one last thing: is there any chance that reinhardt’s “me” will become america’s “us”?
ie, we’re all in this together, thus we need a social safety net that is inclusive of everybody. something of a mental attitude that got us the gi bill, wpa, the marshall plan,
however, the likes of bill kristol strove mightily in the early 1990s to kill hillarycare, because it was known widely if the program succeeded, capitalist america, as they knew it, would be changed forever.
a similar circumstance prevails today, if obamacare becomes a reality, and the right is running scared. maybe the social safety net for all is achievable.
Raymond – you’re an American now, so you properly have say-so in American affairs.
And Canada is a wonderful country, my second favorite. But perhaps you can explain why so few Americans seek care in Canada, why so many Canadian doctors and nurses come to the U.S., and why disproportionally and numerically so many Canadian patients come here for care (snowbirds not withstanding).
I am intimately familiar with the transnational balance of healthcare trade. My experience is that Canadians are fiercely proud of their healthcare system … until they get sick. Then they are forced to leave. That’s why 3 provinces have a two-tier system.
The calculus that America needs to make is whether we choose to adopt a 2-tier public-private system with queues and waiting lists for the public system. The bad news for Americans: Not everyone can have world-class, heroic tertiary care 24-7 at any expense.
Obama and Congress haven’t figured that one out yet. Nor should they attempt to.
Well, xyz, first why can’t you come out from behind the curtain and declare who you are? i don’t mean to be disrespectful, just pointing out the obvious: why can’t you stand behind your opinion by disclosing your name?
next, no doubt what you say is true. in America. regardless of obamacare with a public option, we will have a two-tier system. it’s built in.
you might say though that here in america we have a three-tier system: (1) those private health insurance, (2) medicare, and (3) no insurance (ie, almost 50 million uninsured, always on the waiting list)
please give me the documentation on the Canadians who come to the US for medical care, so-birds notwithstanding
raymond: sorry, but i’m afraid i can not call you a true naturalized american until you can produce your birth certificate…
ellen, which one do do want me to produce?
raymond: ha! i love canadian humor. (of course, i’m a northern minnesota girl)
northern minnesota: near lake woebegon? but “mrja” looks hungarian, not norwegian.
seriously, i’d like this healthcare suspense over
Obama’s words on healthcare come back to haunt him:
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/
It appears that he struggles between the notions of campaigning and governance.
Thank God for the Digital Age.
Not really pertinent to the application and effectiveness of attack advertising, intriguing how one of the most memorable ads in history could have been diluted to mediocrity. Does “memorable” equal effectiveness in advertising?
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2007/10/1984-fares-poor.html
Testing today on an ad built to do its job 25 years ago is silly.
Whether an ad is “memorable” is only a meaningful measure of effectiveness if “being memorable” is your goal. Sure, you want people to remember your brand or product name long enough to do something about it, but more often than not, ads have a more direct, shorter-term goal. Get people in the stores during your big sale. Have people try your new cheeseburger. Encourage people to upgrade to your new software package.
Did people do those things? That equals effectiveness.
Right, although according to the comments with the video, at the time three focus groups and Apple all hated the ad. It was about to be pulled. What do we learn from this? Anything? Was the agency simply intoxicated with intself and failed in market research?
Memorability isn’t an end goal, but it is often a necessary precursor to an end goal. That is, if the message of the ad doesn’t stick in the brain until the point of decision or point of action, it often won’t be effective. In that way memorability is often a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of effectiveness.