Democratic operatives oft stand accused of not really knowing how to play this game, but when I saw this DSCC attack on George Allen on TV last night, all I could think was "man, that was a good ad." Perhaps people are learning. It still does strike me every election season, however, that political advertisements seem incredibly crude compared to the ads used for most commercial products. Or, rather, when there's no election ongoing, you see two types of ads. Some are nice, slick spots put together for national brands. Some are incredibly crude spots put together for random local brands. Politica adverisements tend to look like the latter sort of ad -- as if no advances had been made in the theory or practice of advertising over the past twenty years. It's odd.
« Proliferation Pessimism | Main | Subpoena This »
New Ads
16 Oct 2006 09:03 am
Comments (27)
As to the seeming crudeness of political ads, there are reasons.
Heavy artifice, which is accepted for product ads, can play very badly in a political context. Part of politics is selling authenticity, and if you used the techniques of a pharmaceutical ad for a political candidate, it could easily convey a message of phoniness.
One recent exception has been the usage of DIY artifice, which doesn't convey the same phoniness.
And to continue...
Voters skew way old.
And you may notice that lots of non-pharma product TV spots aimed at old folks employ very crude technique, with noticeable lack of artifice.
There's a well-documented schism between political ad people and commercial ad people. Kos noted how Spitzer went to a commercial ad guy for his (extremely good) ads, even though the Dem establishment hates him. Errol Morris made commercials that could have been picked up by the Kerry campaign, but they chose not to take them.
I'm going to disagree with you, though: our local GOP representatives political ads are astonishingly crude, and definitely fit into the 'local car dealership' model. They probably cost less to make than they do to air per spot. The Dem challenger's ads are definitely more polished, but they aren't up to the level of big prime-time commercials. I'd rank them as 'middle-market', the kind of ads that you see for regional chains but not national campaigns. (Then again, even the slickest American ads, outside the Superbowl, are generally of a lower quality than the ones regularly shown in Britain, where the hard sell was abandoned a long time ago.)
Tangentially, I wonder how much local network affiliates and cable operators make during election season? For some stations, I get the feeling that Christmas comes every two years.
Heavy artifice, which is accepted for product ads, can play very badly in a political context.
That's interesting. I don't know if you've ever seen British party political broadcasts, which -- especially during election season -- can be extraordinarily slick. They're a different beast -- 3-5 minutes long, and shown in advertised spots on the broadcast networks -- but the new era dates from Hugh Hudson's 1987 piece, which became known as 'Kinnock: The Movie'. (The closest point of comparison is probably the films shown at the party conventions.)
Does anything prevent a candidate from buying a two- or three-minute block of commercial time on a particular network during election season?
"Does anything prevent a candidate from buying a two- or three-minute block of commercial time on a particular network during election season?"
Remote controls.
"Kos noted how Spitzer went to a commercial ad guy for his (extremely good) ads, even though the Dem establishment hates him."
Markos' commentary on Dem ads should be taken with a bucketful of salt.
Political advertising budgets are an order of magnitude smaller than advertisig budgets for major national brands. Most ads are produced quickly and on the cheap.
"Does anything prevent a candidate from buying a two- or three-minute block of commercial time on a particular network during election season?"
George Allen actually bought a 2 minute spot aired simultaneously on multiple networks this campaign for his apology ad.
It's a combination of factors, but most importantly I think there is huge cautiousness, risk-aversion, conservatism what-have-you.
Yes, the audience for political ads is much different than the audience for commercial products. Elderly women compared to twenty year old men.
But mainly, it's not just that political ads spend less, but how extremely cautious their frame is. A campaign spends almost its entire budget on ads (say for a competitive rep seat, $500k)which really only means 3 or 4 different ads produced and aired over the month of October. Now how risky can you afford to be? Do you really want to make an ad that may blaze, or may get you laughed at, and spend all of your money to do so? Or you can just make the same tried-and-true one. Most campaigns get extremely nervous and default to that same old position.
My guess is the main reason the ads are less slick is budgets. Most political ads are local ads rather than national ones. For Chevrolet (say), spending $200k to produce a 30 second spot that they're going to have in rotation nationally for a few months makes sense financially, because the airtime cost makes the production costs a drop in the bucket.
In contrast, a local rep (or even a state senatorial candidate) is buying time on local stations, and is probably running any given ad only for a month at most. So the relative cost of spending $100k to produce an add is a lot higher.
Just a few days ago, Matt, you were speaking up in defense of crude-yet-effective. So unless one can prove that slick ads work better than crude ones, there's nothing to complain about, except a general love of production values per se.
DJ, you've really mastered the Yglesias style, right down to the thumb-in-the-ribs technique of bolding key phrases. This isn't a knock. The style is effective and one of the many reasons I read the boy.
But can we safely say that well-produced ads work -worse-? Given that slick ads are the standard for convincing me to buy car tires and Snackables (and whether or not they actually work is a moot point for us to argue: since you never see shoddy GM or Apple commericals, you can assume shoddy product commercials would be bad), what's the harm in trying?
And on the artifice note, when I think of durably famous political ads, I tend to think of ones like 'Morning in America' and 'Daisy' (would someone PLEASE teach that girl how to count...oh, thank you), neither of which is a fast-paced bricolage of text and stock footage.
Part of politics is selling authenticity, and if you used the techniques of a pharmaceutical ad for a political candidate, it could easily convey a message of phoniness.
This would be an excellent critique if the single most often often heard complaint about politicians (and Dem politicians in particular) wasn't that they were inauthentic. Unfortunately, in this world, not so much.
If anyone is interested in campaign ads, this is an amazing archive of historical Presidential TV spots.
Well worth checking out.
"Yes, the audience for political ads is much different than the audience for commercial products. Elderly women compared to twenty year old men."
I just think this is a pretty important point that is commonly missed.
There's a reason a Medic-Alert commercial has dramatically different style than a Burger King commercial.
And you may notice that lots of non-pharma product TV spots aimed at old folks employ very crude technique, with noticeable lack of artifice.
Like doggy steps?
Unexpectedly, two of the most innovative and electorally effective ads I've seen this cycle have come from the ... (wait for it) ... Lieberman general election campaign - the infamous sunrise/sunset ad and the lightbulb ad.
They're clever and memorable, and they are very good at accomplishing their purpose in terms of the larger campaign strategy.
(The link for the lightbulb ad in the next post because Matthew's blog won't allow two links in one comment. Perhaps this should be fixed?)
Remote controls.
And TiVo, yeah. But my guess is that a two-minute ad with a different flow from a 30-sec ad is actually less likely to make people instinctively reach for the clicker. Or take the Geico approach and run 15-seconders.
As for Kos's pronouncements... well, look at Spitzer's ads and judge for yourself. They're great, they're playing in a relatively tough media market, and they're distinctive. To me, it feels as if too many Dem ads are mass-produced, down to the same effects and even the same fonts. I even love the signature font for the Spitzer campaign: it's got a real 'Fuck yeah, I'm from New York' sensibility about it.
the relative cost of spending $100k to produce an add is a lot higher.
True, but why throw out that number? The tools to produce very decent TV slots are in the hands of consumers these days (or 'prosumers', if we're talking about a decent digividcam and Final Cut). Sometimes I get the feeling that cheap-and-nasty might be optimal in certain local races, but I'd be more receptive to something that's not necessarily slick, but at least different.
"look at Spitzer's ads ... they're distinctive."
They're good ads, but they seem different from most political ads because they have a different mission statement.
Spitzer doesn't have a competitive election. The commercials have a different purpose than a spot for Sherrod Brown would have.
"Markos' commentary on Dem ads should be taken with a bucketful of salt."
Why? Markos hates on the establishment, sure, but he's not in the ad business, is he?
"It still does strike me every election season, however, that political advertisements seem incredibly crude compared to the ads used for most commercial products."
Ask yourself this: How would Budweiser commercials change if there was only going to be one brand of beer after November 7th?
George Allen actually bought a 2 minute spot aired simultaneously on multiple networks this campaign for his apology ad.
Allen liked that 2-minute speech well enough that he's doing another long ad tonight. 7:58 pm, on Channel 7 (WJLA) in DC (and on other channels in other parts of VA).
True, but why throw out that number? The tools to produce very decent TV slots are in the hands of consumers these days
Robert Rodriguez made the 81-minute Sundance Festival winning El Mariachi nearly 15 years ago for around 7 grand. I think someone could manage a pro-looking 30-second ad for less.
Comments closed October 30, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"Perhaps people are learning."
Or perhaps the ads have been good previously.
Perhaps the famous folks in the lefty blogosphere constantly knocking Democrats ads have a non-altruistic motive for doing so.
Posted by Petey | October 16, 2006 9:22 AM