|
PBS did a special on advertising, how ad campaigns try to get into our "reptilian brain" through emotional advertising. The entire 90 minute show is available to view online.
Of particular interest are the 5th and final segments, about political advertising. Republican strategist Frank Luntz is interviewed, and we get a glimpse at one of his focus groups. Luntz has definitely propelled the Republican Party to the lead in the "word war," but it will be interesting to see what happens once there's a level playing field between both parties. My prediction is that it'll play out similar to the money game over the past few election cycles. This time around, the playing field was pretty level, but the Republicans won with their rhetoric (e.g. "we share your values", "we're tough on terrorism"). Next time around, the rhetoric game may be fairly matched, but don't think the GOP won't have an even newer card up their sleeve.
Today on Marketplace, Grover Norquist had a segment on "The Next Four Years" in which he repeatedly referred to the DNC as the "Democrat Party" as opposed to the "Democratic Party," a line straight out of Luntz's playbook. Kos had an astute look at Bush's alternating use of Democrat vs Democratic, depending on where he was stumping. I know they try to get the viewpoints of every political persuasion, but I'm not sure why a public radio program would turn the microphone over to a man who goes on record stating that he wants to reduce the government "to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." |
|
Theirs is a bit more factual and less negative than mine was. Here are a few interesting stats about ad impressions and money spent. (Emphasis mine)The final week's television frenzy put an exclamation point on a stunning year for political ads in which viewers in battleground states were barraged with more than 675,000 commercials.
Kerry and pro-Democratic sources spent more than $31 million on cable TV and local broadcasts in the top 100 markets for the week that ended midnight Saturday, according to the report for The Times, compiled by TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group. In all, these players spent more than $357 million since the general election campaign began March 3.
By comparison, Bush and his allies spent more than $29 million on TV last week and about $229 million for the year.
The combined spending of more than $580 million dwarfs what CMAG tracked four years ago. Presidential television ad spending in 2000 totaled about $200 million. Those totals don't include tens of millions of dollars spent on radio and newspaper ads and TV time in smaller broadcast markets. |
|
I wanted to write a little wrap-up before the election was over so that my thoughts wouldn't be tainted by its outcome. It's especially prudent to write a conclusion at this point, because from what I've seen of this season's political ads, there's already a clear loser: the American public. With very few exceptions, the ads that invaded living rooms across the country were base, degrading, and as cheap in their catering to the lowest common denominator as they were expensive in their production values.
If ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) 2004adwatch were to have a book club, I'd recommend The Revolution Will Not Be Televised by Joe Trippi. I'd like to pull a quote from Trippi where he indicts the medium of TV as a whole, a quote whose length probably stretches the definition of "fair use"
( Read more... )
I'll leave it to the disciples of Marshall McLuhan to describe the feedback cycle between American society and our mass media, but suffice it to say, it doesn't take a communications major to realize how Trippi's "self defeating cycle" has permeated politics as a whole, not just advertising. I'd go so far as to say that the cycle has come all the way around, and the negative campaign ads we saw were no longer just an unfortunate but necessary facet of the TV as a medium, they were simply the PR arms of two campaigns that were mostly negative to the core.
Upon closer inspection, the positive talking points and campaign messages that come to mind as possible exceptions (Kerry's "help is on the way") are really just positive spin on a negative idea ("help is on the way" because the other guy is such a moron).
I'm not sure where politics is going, or what it will look like in 2008. Trippi would say "the internet!" but most people under 35 would probably disagree, and they're the ones who get to vote. Nor am I convinced that the amount of negativity we see today was only recently borne from political advertising on TV. It's not just political ads, of course; in fact, it's not just advertising at all. The "vast wasteland" that Newton Minow saw on his TV set in 1961 has grown more prolific over the past 40 years, but the quality is unchanged. Far be it from me to claim that negative ads and Fear Factor are one and the same, but think about it: one is about slinging mud, and the other is about eating it. Which begat which?
It's been a pleasure providing sporadic posts and punditry to y'all. I'm sorry that my time didn't allow a more comprehensive look at the campaigns and their ads, but there were a number of sources out there who did a much better job at that anyway (especially bushout.tv). Thank you to everyone who posted, commented, discussed, disagreed, and linked here. I'm not sure what's going to happen to 2004adwatch, but if anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears. Also, I'd love to hear anyone else's take on the political season. Feel free to wait until after the election has been decided. And even if you didn't read anything else I just wrote, at least read this...
Don't forget to vote today! |
|
Short on time, so I'll like to what others have been saying about recent ads:
Wonkette correspondants snarkily review a few Kerry and DNC ads and the now famous "wolves" ad
More on those crazy "wolves" from joshc and bushout.tv
Two recent RNC ads:
Who knows?, about Kerry's "terrorists are a nuisance" gaffe.
Risky, perpetuating the "most liberal man ever" meme. |
|
One of the stipulations that both campaigns agreed upon for the debates barred either campaign from using clips from any debate for future campaign ads. However, the party organizations are not bound by any such limitations.
The DNC is launching two ads, featuring clips from the third debate. The first, called Not Funny, takes a clip of Bush chuckling about health care issues. The second, Exaggeration [.wmv], juxtaposes Bush's "ex·ag·ger·a·tion" quip on "not being worried" about Osama, with an archived clip debunking the same statement.
I tried to find some RNC or other ads featuring debate for balance, but I was unable to. Does anyone have any leads on such an ad? Thanks! |
| » Ten Cuidado del Nombre Bush |
|---|
Maybe I'm being culturally insensitive, but this Spanish language "Anti-Bush fiesta" ad is a bit silly.
Sep. 20th, 2004 @ 08:22 am
|
| » Ad or film? |
|---|
Fahrenheit 9/11 raised this issue somewhat, but here's a better example. Is "Going Upriver", the documentary on John Kerry, just a film, or a 2 hour campaign ad? As if that wasn't a tricky enough question, I just read today that the film was completely redone to address the SBVFT attacks. The film comes out on October 1st.
Sep. 14th, 2004 @ 08:52 am
|
| » More SBVFT |
|---|
I should apologize. It wasn't fair of me to "link and run" to just one liberal source. Here's a bit more SBVFT info:
Swift Vets in their own words
Analysis of media's coverage of SBVFT by Columbia Journalism Review
If anyone else has interesting links (positive or negative) about the organization, their ads, or the media coverage, feel free to post them. This seems to be the only story that the media is interested in covering these days, even though Bush and Kerry have been putting out new ads at a constant clip.
For a timeline look at what a smear campaign does to one's opponent, take a look at Kerry's ad page. The ads are listed in reverse chronological order. Scroll down to about the middle, and work your way up. You'll be taken from "Born In Colorado" (a feel-good ad), to "Agenda" (a more substantive ad), to "Shame" (an attack ad).
Aug. 26th, 2004 @ 09:08 am
|
| » SBVFT |
|---|
I've been neglecting this community due to time issues, but check out bushout.tv's thorough coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans issue. Keep in mind they're a site with an openly liberal bias (if the name didn't tip you off).
Aug. 25th, 2004 @ 01:06 pm
|
| » Did they "serve with Kerry"? |
|---|
A group called "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" has launched an ad campaign and published a book with personal histories from Vietnam vets who "served with Kerry" and claim he lied about the events that led to his Purple Heart and Bronze Star medals.
Now the DNC's lawyers are working to muzzle the ad, based on their claim that since none of the veterans in the ad actually "served with Kerry" because they weren't on his Swift Boat, the ad is libelous.
The Swift Boat group doesn't deny this fact. The people in the ads were in different boats, but on the same river at the same time, so they potentially could have observed Kerry's actions. This nitpicking begs the question, what does it mean to "serve with" someone in a war? Does it mean to be on their boat, or in their platoon/division/regiment? Or can you "serve with" someone by fighting a war on the same side at the same time?
Aug. 6th, 2004 @ 09:34 am
|
| » Soy el Presidente George W. Bush, y yo apruebo este mensaje |
|---|
Bush counters the NDN's spanish language ads with one of his own. I haven't the slightest idea what it says, but it features flags and faces from various Latin American nations.
Judging by this mini ad war, it appears as if the Hispanic vote is very much in play this time around.
Aug. 6th, 2004 @ 09:17 am
|
| » Wonkette Reports, You Decide |
|---|
Two news bits from wonkette:
1. The Media Fund buys $2.5 million of ad time in 5 states, plans online campaign featuring Will Ferrell mocking Bush. I saw that ad online and it is funny! But I didn't realize it was going to be shown on TV.
2. A new feel-good BC04 ad, running in 18 states, says Americans are "standing up against terrorism and working to grow our economy. What gives us optimism and hope? Freedom, faith, families and sacrifice." [watch]
And don't expect the ads to let up any time soonYesterday, as President Bush rolled out a second set of image-enhancing commercials, two Democratic groups countered, saying they planned to flood airwaves with ads touting Democrat John Kerry and criticizing the White House for its handling of Iraq and the economy. The ads reflect both the ferocity of the presidential contest and the unexpected financial strength of the Democrats.
"We are in uncharted territory in terms of the intensity, the volume and the early start of the ad war in the battleground states," said Ken Goldstein, who is heading a project tracking political advertising at the University of Wisconsin.
Aug. 4th, 2004 @ 09:57 am
|
| » Spanish Ads |
|---|
Here are a whole bunch of Spanish-language ads, paid for by the New Democrat Network, some sort of PAC or 527 group. The DNC has pretty much been ignoring the Latino population so far, so NDN apparently had to pick up the slack.
Aug. 1st, 2004 @ 09:28 am
|
| » A new game |
|---|
Now that the convention is over, and Kerry is the official nominee, his money game has changed significantlyToday, the free-flowing money gets shut off. For the first time in his campaign for the presidency, John F. Kerry faces a cap on his fund-raising. In exchange for accepting $75 million in federal money for the general election, he had to halt his private fund-raising at midnight -- barely an hour after he completed his speech formally accepting the Democratic presidential nomination and at the end of a day when his campaign collected $5.2 million in Internet donations. He also must agree to spend no more than the $75 million between today and Election Day, Nov. 2. So to pick up the slack, the DNC is launching an ad campaign over the weekendA team of consultants has created the ads as part of the Democratic National Committee's "independent expenditure" to help Kerry, according to sources familiar with the project's details...About $6 million will be spent on a week's worth of advertising.
By law, the party and campaign may not coordinate ad strategy or content, but Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill announced Monday that the Democratic nominees would curtail their television ads in August to conserve money. The Democratic ticket will try to minimize the financial advantage the Bush-Cheney campaign has with Republicans holding their nominating convention five weeks later. Upon nomination, each campaign will receive $74.7 million in federal money, the entire amount it may spend in the general election campaign. The Democrats effectively must stretch their money over a longer period, and the party's independent expenditure will help fill the gap. What I don't understand about campaign finance laws is how the Kerry/Bush campaigns and the DNC/RNC can possibly avoid coordinating ad strategy. Seems ineveitable, since the campaigns work so closely with their parties.
Jul. 30th, 2004 @ 08:37 am
|
| » advertising study |
|---|
per your fearless moderator's suggestion, an x-post:
The segment on tonight's NewsHour with JimLehrer about presidential ad spending was fascinating. Terrence Smith interviews Ken Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin about his new study:
 This presidential election is being concentrated on 19, 20 battleground states. There's 210 media markets in the United States and we're seeing advertising in only 93 of those media markets, and that translates into only 40 percent of Americans being potentially exposed to television advertising and 60 percent of Americans, those Americans who live in big states like California, Texas and New York, not seeing any political advertising at all.[pbs]
Jul. 20th, 2004 @ 01:20 pm
|
| » helpful |
|---|
More and more news publications are putting up registration pages. Whenever I encounter such a page, I create an account that you are all welcome to share. It's either:Login: dailykos
Password: dailykos
or if the login is an email address, then
Login: kos@dailykos.com
Password: dailykos Whether or not you agree with his politics, this is a good idea (dare I say meme?) to start spreading.
more...
Jul. 18th, 2004 @ 11:57 pm
|
| » Times Square Billboard Update: It's The Bomb, yo! |
|---|
Clear Channel allows the billboard to go up, unmodified, but in a different location, and gives Project Billboard a two for one deal[T]he company agreed that the group, Project Billboard, could display its ad on a billboard that wraps around the Condé Nast building at 42nd Street and Broadway, a prime location. The ad will go up in early August, in time for the opening of the Republican National Convention, and will remain for three months...
As part of the settlement, Project Billboard will also be able to use a second vertical billboard for four months, on the side of the W Hotel at Broadway and 47th Street. That ad will read "Total Cost of Iraq War," and will include a running electronic ticker displaying how much the United States is spending in Iraq.
Jul. 16th, 2004 @ 08:47 am
|
| » This land is my land |
|---|
Not a campaign ad at all, this flash animation was crated by JibJab, the same comic geniuses who brought us the Gore vs. Bush rap in 2000 (sorry, no link. Their servers are totally hosed right now).
It equally knocks both Kerry and Bush to the tune of This Land Is My Land. Keep in mind while you're watching it, where do these tried-and-true stereotypes (some true, some untrue) of each candidate come from? The media? The campaigns? Their PACs?
Jul. 15th, 2004 @ 11:16 am
|
| » How do you market to black voters? |
|---|
I don't know, and apparently neither does Kerry. His latest ad buy has been described as "uninspired and disappointing", which raises the question: is it better to market to a minority and fail, or to not market to them at all?
Also, a general tip for both parties' advertising firms: "It would have been nice if we could have seen the ads before they were out there," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Oops.
Jul. 15th, 2004 @ 11:15 am
|
| » Clear Channel Blocks Bomb Ad. Censorship? |
|---|
Group's effort to spread antiwar message lands in court. Billboard firm denies having 'agenda.'A group of Bay Area activists will go to court today to try to force media giant Clear Channel Communications to post its antiwar ad on a billboard in New York's Times Square after the company, which rejected an earlier design, said it had to be approved by the hotel where the billboard was located.
Clear Channel has faced criticism for its ties to the Bush administration and is being accused of censorship by the activists of the group, Project Billboard, a claim that Clear Channel denies.
Project Billboard intended for the ad — which says, "Democracy is best taught by example, not by war" — to be run in time for next month's Republican National Convention. Here's what the ad was going to look like. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, a private company has the right to refuse doing business with anyone, especially putting a picture of a bomb up in Times Square. On the other hand, it's fairly evident that Clear Channel made the decision for political reasons, since I've seen plenty of sexually controversial ads with the Clear Channel logo beneath them. The bunny-sex watch ad is one that comes to mind, in Times Square no less. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not positive that billboard is owned by CC, I'll have to look into it.
Jul. 13th, 2004 @ 08:59 am
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}