Campaign Advertising - September 30th
Find two examples of presidential campaign ads – one
from the 2012 election and one from a previous election (2004 or earlier).
Discuss what makes each ad effective and what, if anything, you might do
differently.
“During the electoral campaigns of the 1980 continuing through the 1990s and the 2000s, it became increasingly apparent that political advertising on television is a central communication strategy for the growing numbers of those to seek our vote” (Trent, 145). The very first sentence of chapter 5 gives a pretty good idea of the increasing use of advertisements in campaigns. For almost that last 60 years television advertisements have been used. They started out with not very any television ads because there weren’t as many people with televisions. Now there is an abundance of advertisements.
ReplyDeleteOver the years not has the number of advertisements increased but also the quality. The ads start out black and white then move into color, which is very grainy, and it’s not until 2004 that the color picture gets a little bit better. And then in 2008 the quality is slightly less than what it was in the past election in 2012. Not only does picture quality increase but so does the sound quality.
It seems like up until 2008 most of the advertisements contained mostly b-roll and were often attacking the opposing candidate. For example in the 2000 election Bush has several ads that target Gore. I think these work because he was showing that his opponent had flaws in the past so he wouldn’t be a good candidate. I think people see ads like this and it really makes them think about whom they want for president.
At the same time this process has it’s flaws. You have two candidates both attacking each other. I think seeing both sides’ makes you worry if either will be good for president. It also seems kind of childish to attack one another and gives the voter a false sense of who the candidates really are.
“Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics. This is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than anything else.” (Devine, 29). There is a reason we keep on using advertisements. They work. And they are going to continue to be used more and more until something even better comes out.
I noticed that ads from the last election in 2012 were a bit different than the ones in the 2000 election. The ads are obviously better quality but they also target more specific groups. The ads still target the opponent; especially the republican ads but they include less text and more video. I think that less text is important because people don’t want to read what’s on their TV they want to hear it. That’s mostly the difference between the 2012 election ads and previous elections. The 2012 ads also include some more of the candidate talking opposed to other people. Also, Obama’s ads show more of him while he’s talking and relaxed which I think makes him relatable because he’s calm and collected.
I believe that the use of ads is a good thing but it’s coming to a point where it is too much. I have to watch an ad about Obama in order to watch a music video. I think there comes a point where it’s too much and the viewer gets tired of them and decides not to vote for them based on their abundance of ads. I know that would easily influence my vote because it’s annoying. But, I don’t see a change happening in the near future; advertisements are definitely going to be used for a long time.
Works Cited:
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
By: Taylor Popielarz
ReplyDeleteThe first ad I selected is an ad promoting Ronald Reagan for president in the 1980 election that I found on livingroomcandidate.org. Reagan was up against incumbent Jimmy Carter, and this particular 31-second add attacked President Carter for his pitfalls throughout his term in office so far. “However, during the 1980s, the thirty-second spot became dominant – largely because research had documented that they were just as effective as longer spots in getting the message across” (Trent, 150). The short ad was definitely effective, mainly because it attacked Carter with five separate accusations within only 30 seconds. The ad started off by explaining that women voters had invited Carter to participate in the 1980 debates, but that he declined to attend. The ad then goes on to explain that Carter may have not wanted to attend because inflation had risen up to 18 percent during his presidency, more than 8.5 million people were out of work, housing starts had dropped to a new low, and interest rates were higher than ever. The 30-second ad then wraps up by asking Americans if they can afford four more years of Carter as president. Lastly, a picture of Reagan appears, with a voice saying, “The time is now for Reagan; Reagan for president.” I thought this ad was exceptionally well produced, and summed up why President Carter should not be reelected in literally 30 seconds.
The second ad I found to be really effective is an ad promoting President Obama for reelection as he competed against Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. This ad was also found on livingroomcandidate.org. This 32-second ad was produced in a way that cast a very eerie ambience to it, because it showcased Romney singing “America the Beautiful” as numerous reports, filed by prominent journalistic sources, appeared on the screen showing Romney’s poor decisions in the past. “Political advertisers, however, must still reach that enormous segment of voters who are less involved than activists but still believe that the act of voting and the choices made for political offices are critical” (Semiatin, 40). One reason I believe this ad is so effective is because it appeals to that exact segment of voters who may not know a lot about Romney’s political past. In only 32 seconds, the ad brings to light six different stories published about Romney’s outsourcing of jobs to different countries, him having Swiss bank accounts, and him having tax havens in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Though quick and concise, I think the ad reflects really poorly on Romney, and leaves the voter feeling that it would be good to stick with President Obama. Lastly, the sketchiness of the ad, and how dark and dreary of a shadow it casts on Romney, does nothing but hurt Romney’s political image enormously.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. USA: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
The Living Room Candidate. Livingroomcandidate.org. Museum of the Moving Image. 2012. Web.
“Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics” (Devine, 29), Tad Devine argues. Television ads give candidates the ability to reach a mass audience to get their message across in a short, thirty second clip. Here, I’ve looked at President Obama’s 2012 “Go” campaign ad and former President George Bush’s 2004 “ Whatever it Takes” campaign ad. Both advertisements would be described as, “issue ads”, as each candidate delivered their stance on various issues facing the country at the time.
ReplyDeleteIn Obama’s ad, the president tackled the economy and the Iraq war issues at hand. Having a third party narrate, the ad starts with powerful language, describing 2008 ( when a Republican President was in office) as an “economic meltdown”, then, “the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression”. That type of language gives the audience an idea of the condition of our economy that the Obama administration inherited from the previous President. Then the ad goes on, claiming, “Our auto-industry is back, firing on all cylinders”, as images of Americans working on cars control the screen. Next, an image of a chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows an increase in jobs created by Obama from March 2010 to April 2012. As the ad continues to glamorize what Obama’s administration has accomplished, the narrator states, “ Our greatest enemy brought to justice by our greatest heros”, and images of Osama Bin Laden and Seal Team Six flash on the screen. Immediately after there is an image of a little girl running and hugging her father, a marine, as he returns home. The voice says, “Our troops are home from Iraq”. The ad ends with an image of Obama walking in Washington, seemingly heading to work, with the narrator proclaiming, “We’re not there yet, it’s still too hard for too many, but were coming back, because America’s greatness comes from a strong middle class. Because you don’t quit, and neither does he.” As Judith Trent discussed in chapter 5, this was an example of a ‘benevolent leader ad’, which, “focuses on such traits as the candidate’s courage, honestly, strength of character” (Trent, 153). The closing makes Obama out to be a hard worker, just like the American middle class.
As I read in the Devine chapter, “the statements are road tested in polls before they are written as a script for broadcast ads.” (Devine, 33). Political consultants for the Obama 2012 campaign recognized that the American people were concerned about the economy and the war in Iraq. This advertisement portrays that President Obama has worked to improve our economy and get our troops home from the Middle East in his first four years in office, because that is what the people want to hear.
Thompson continued....
ReplyDeleteIn George Bush’s 2004 “Whatever it Takes” campaign ad, the former president focuses solely on the Iraq war, targeting military families and veterans. The Bush campaign team went with the, “cinema verte’ technique” that Devine described. “These ads are typically made by filming a live event, such as a speech” (Devine, 32). This ad was a speech Bush delivered on the war, cut and edited in sound bites that appeal to the audience. The first line of the ad has Bush saying, “I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right.” Here, Bush backs up his decision to invade Iraq while showing emotional support for those Americans impacted by that decision. The next clip has Bush stating, “I have met with the parents, wives and husbands who have received a folded flag. In those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation.” Bush is clearly sympathizing with families who have lost loved ones in the war, but also praising the character they have shown in these tough times for their families. The ad ends with Bush proclaiming to a cheering and supportive crowd, “I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes!” Personally, I want to know what limits Mr. Bush is willing to go to defend America, American interests. But again, he is showing the audience that he is willing to keep America a safe place.
The campaign media personnel that put together this ad also did a very good job with the background music. Devine writes, “In many ways, music is the secret weapon of television political advertising, since it can evoke a mood or underline the message being delivered through words and images” (Devine, 32). Throughout the entirety of this ad, there is American patriotic music playing in the background of Bush’s speech. This makes Bush out to be a patriot, a true American hero, while delivering a message about the Iraq war. The background music underlines the message that invading Iraq was the right decision for our country as well.
Works Cited:
Semiatin, Richard. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. USA: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Presidential advertisements are crucial to the success of the candidate. Advertisement in its different forms are made to spread the word out about the candidate, their political views and their personal views, which is meant to gain voters. There are many different kinds of ads and they all are made for a different outcome. This is illustrated by the quote, “Although there are numerous specific advertising formats and strategies, there are four basic political advertising messages. There are positive messages designed to promote the positive personal characteristics and attributes of a candidate. Elements of leadership, character, and experience are highlighted within the context of traditional values and those of the ‘American Dream’. Negative messages are specifically designed to attack the opponent. They tend to focus on the personal weaknesses, voting record, or public pronouncements of a candidate. Comparative messages are still designed to attack opponent, but tend to focus on issue positions. Comparative messages give the impression of providing two sides or positions of an issue, but the resulting comparisons clearly favor the candidate sponsoring the ad. Finally, there are response messages designed to directly answer opponent charges, allegations, and attacks” (Trent 323).
ReplyDeleteIn the 2004 presidential race between President Bush Jr. and Senator John Kerry, President Bush released a “Safe, stronger” ad, which would be considered positive advertisement. This ad was established to state the current condition of the country and to show what President Bush had accomplished. The ad talks about the 2001 recession, the stock market decline and the tragedy of 9/11; and promotes that the country needs consistent and steady leadership through 9/11 and that he is “rising to the challenge”. This was an effective ad for many reasons. Firstly, he made the ad visually look very patriotic. He had images of the average American, of firefighters and of flags, which made the television ad look appealing to the eye. Secondly, he used the tragedy of 9/11 to his advantage. He stated that he will be the man to lead the country out of this devastating event and that he has risen to the challenge. This was beneficial to him because he made himself appear like a leader and the public wants a strong leader in the time of need.
In the 2012 presidential election between, Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama, President Obama did an ad titled, ‘always’, was an example of a response ad. He did this ad to address his stance on small businesses. He stated that his words are often taken out of context and he clarified himself to the public. He said that America needs to stand behind the small business owners; by supporting education, training, infrastructure creation and technology. This ad in my opinion was effective and necessary because he needed to clarify his message to people that had seen the other negative ads that were relating to his comments on small businesses in America. The message could have visually looked better. Personally, TV ads with words or short phrases on the screen seem more effective because it shows what to pay attention to and captures the essence of the message.
Overall, no matter the type of message and what the message is, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics. This is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than anything else” (Devine, 29). Television is the best way to advertise to different demographics in the most efficient and effective way. In both instances, both Presidents used the power of the television to get their message across America.
ReplyDeleteWork cited
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
The Living Room Candidate. Livingroomcandidate.org. Museum of the Moving Image. 2012. Web.
It is known that when it comes to political campaigns, advertisements play a key role. Advertising is most certainly essential with campaign strategies and helping a candidate, specifically presidential, win or lose presidency.
ReplyDeleteCandidates spend millions of dollars on political advertising each year in the United States. There are several factors that result in political advertising having an impact on its’ audience. These include the tone of the advertisements, the exposure the audience has to the advertising, and how many voters turn out as a result of advertisements.
An example of one of many of these campaigns is the presidential campaign of 1976. This campaign was between Republican candidate Gerald R. Ford and Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter. “Attack ads” were prevalent during this campaign resulting in two new types of attack ads called personal witness and neutral reporter. “These ads featured ordinary Americans (not actors) expressing their beliefs about the opposing candidate (personal witness), or they presented a list of factual statements and invited people to make a judgment call (neutral reporter)” (Trent et. Al 149). One advantage of personal witness advertising is softening the tone of the ad and allowing for audiences to hear from people “just like them”. In addition, one advantage of neutral reporting allows for just the facts to be presented without any bias and results in the audience making the decision themselves. In one of Carter’s advertisements, Carter presented himself as a man who is relatable with the public. In the beginning of this particular ad, Carter is shown shaking a citizen’s hand and introducing himself. There is a voiceover discussing the public regarding Carter as a leader and as a man changing the way the country is run; “A competent man, who can make our government open and efficient.” The ad pictures Carter shaking hands with many people and always smiling. This allows for Carter’s potential voters to place trust in Carter and see him as a confident, understanding, and efficient candidate. These forms of advertising eventually helped Jimmy Carter land his position as U.S. President.
While it is important to humanize political advertising and communicate without bias in this type of advertising, I believe it is important for the political candidate themselves to be present in the advertisement. As a voter, I would like to hear from the candidate and learn about their views, opinions, etc. That is one aspect I would change about this particular form of political advertising.
Noordsy Continued
ReplyDeleteAnother example of the utilization of political advertising is the presidential campaign of 2012 between Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Paid political advertising was the main forum of advertising used in this campaign. It has been at the core of campaign communication in the United States for many years. For example, during the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign had an “innovative use of the Internet and social media” (Semiatin 28).
In a race where middle-class female voters were encouraged by both Obama and Romney’s campaigns, “the Obama campaign advertised heavily on CBS’s sitcom “2 Broke Girls,” according to a Yahoo analysis of Federal Elections Commission data” (Rucker, Wilson 1). Advertising on this outlet of media helped increase the number of voters, middle-class females, in this case. This was effective because Obama appealed to this demographic.
Obama was the first presidential candidate who was able to increase voter numbers through the utilization of advertising and communication through social media. Obama wanted to establish positive relationships with his voters. “There are lots of social dynamics that influence people’s opinions and behaviors. From social validation to familiarity that turns into acceptance, social networks and the ability to link peer to peer, supercharge the type of self-organizing movement that Obama’s campaign seeded through strategic social media use” (Rutledge 1). In one of Obama’s advertisements from the presidential campaign of 2012, the media was integrated into the advertisement. The ad had Romney singing “America the Beautiful” in the background with headlines from newspaper articles as a slideshow in the ad demonstrating the negative actions Romney had committed. I think that this was a unique and effective way to get Obama’s message across and to demonstrate to voters that Romney was not the right decision for the country. The use of political advertising and communication through social media had an extremely significant impact on Obama being able to win the 2012 presidential campaign. This was also effective in reaching the demographic of students ages 18-24 who are most certainly users of social media. This made Obama seem relatable and humanized him in a way.
From my point of view, I would not have changed the way Obama advertised during the 2012 campaign. The forms of advertising Obama’s campaign utilized, especially through social media, were effective and aided him in becoming the current U.S. President. The presidential campaign of 1976 was also effective and I believe that Jimmy Carter’s methods of advertising were positive and had a significant impact on voters. It is clear to see that political advertising is one of the foundations for presidential campaigns.
Works Cited:
Rutledge, Pamela, Dr. "How Obama Won the Social Media Battle in the 2012 Presidential Campaign." Pamela Rutledge Media Psychology Blog. N.p., 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2014
Semiatin, Richard. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. USA: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
The Living Room Candidate. Livingroomcandidate.org. Museum of the Moving Image. 2012. Web
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011
Wilson, Scott, and Philip Rucker. "The Strategy That Paved a Winning Path." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 7 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2014
Campaigns have always looked for ways to reach a larger audience and bring in more voters. “During the electoral campaigns of 1980s and continuing through the 1990s and the 2000s, it became increasingly apparent that political advertising on television is a central communication strategy for the growing number of those who see our vote,” (Trent 144). Most households in the United States have at least one television set and therefore politicians are able to gain access to more potential voters through political commercials. According to Devine, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics,” (Devine 29). This is why so much money is spent on these ads, as well as, lots of time, though and energy is dedicated to making ads the best they can be.
ReplyDeleteCommercials can be used to introduce and defend candidates, such as, “identifying the candidate’s causes, ideas, and concerns- what the candidate stands for,” (Trent 152). They are also used to attack other candidates, “that are direct and personal attacks meant to reduce the credibility of the opposing candidate- create doubt, stir fear, exploit anxiety, or motivate ridicule,” (Trent 152). Once an attack ad is released it is important that the politician that is being called into question responds to insults and acquisitions, as soon as possible, in order to restore faith in his or her voters. According to Trent, “most media consultants believe that some kind of a response to a televised attack spot must be aired as soon as possible after the initial attack because people are influenced by them, (Trent 160).
The ad entitled “Always” by President Obama in the 2012 election does a good job at responding to Mitt Romney’s attack that he does not care about small businesses. He remains calm, collected and well spoken during the commercial and clearly addresses all of the claims Romney made about his lack of concern for small businesses. He also offers an explanation for it, that everything has been taken out of context. He should different images of the average American citizen working in small businesses, looking happy, while doing a voice over explaining his appreciation for all the hard work these Americans are doing. This ad worked well because it was able restore faith in voters and shows them that the attack made by his opponent was false. The only thing I might have changed was showing an image of the president interacting with the people working in the small businesses.
In the ad from the 2004 election, between George W. bush and John Kerry, President Bush released an ad entitled “Wolves”. This ad visually shows a pack of wolves creeping through the forest, giving off an eerie and dangerous feeling. The ad is accompanied by a voice explaining how dangerous the world is, especially after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. It then goes on to attack John Kerry, explaining that he voted for cutting America’s intelligence by 6 billion dollars. I believe that this attack was extremely successful because the American people were still feeling the affects of the 9/11 and were extremely scared of what could happen next. I think it would have made the American people doubt whether or not to trust someone, Kerry, who was willing to make such great cuts in something that was protecting the population as a whole.
Overall, I feel that ads can be extremely powerful because they are viewed by thousands of people every minute. They are able to get a message out there and reach a number of potential voters. Ads are crucial in the campaign process.
Works Cited
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media-In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. 2nd ed. Thousands Oak: CQ, 2013. 28-47. Kindle file.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign and Communication Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011. Kindle file.
“For more than four decades, political advertising has ben the most powerful vehicle for a candidate to deliver an unfettered message directly to voters” (Devine 28). The most effective use we see of political advertising is through television commercials and plugs. What makes these ads co effective is the fact that you can reach a plethora of people from a variety of demographics in short, efficient amounts of time. Although they offer many more advantages than disadvantages to a candidate, if a candidate does not do well with their political advertisements, it can essentially cost them the election.
ReplyDeleteThe 2012 Presidential election was one that made great strides in modernizing the advertisements of political candidates. Both Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney did a very good job at utilizing television ads to not only promote themselves as Presidential candidates, but to say why their competitor wasn’t a good fit. One ad that struck me didn’t show a picture of either candidate! I remembered it from television in 2012 but was able to find it again on the website http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/. The ad was one minute long and featured the hilarious Will Ferrell talking to the American public about what he would do to get them to go out and vote on Election Day. About fifty seconds of the video is Will Ferrell doing his typical slapstick humor trying to urge Americans to get out and vote. I thought that this was simply an ad to try and involve the American public in the voting affairs, until the last ten seconds of the video that is. In bold, bright letters the words “VOTE OBAMA” reigned supreme in the center of the screen. I thought that it was absolutely brilliant. I was captivated by humor as I imagine many other viewers were too, only then to be given a glaring message to vote for Obama. The ad made people smile, subliminally sending them the message that if his commercials make you smile, made his Presidency will make you smile too.
In many elections, a large part of the television ad process is attack advertisements. “One of the most discussed disadvantages in employing attack ads is that they will “turn voters off” or away from the election itself “ (Trent 173). While utilizing advertisements to explain exactly why another candidate is not the right person for the job can play into the opposition’s success, it can often lead to failure if not utilized correctly. An attack ad that did not work for the man supplying it was in the 1992 George H.W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton election. I came across this attack ad on www.livingroomcandidate.org. The ad features two politicians with gray dots over their faces, both expressing contrasting opinions regarding the same opinion. The audience was supposed to be under the impression that the good opinion was Bush and the negative was Clinton. The end of the ad revealed that men were both Bill Clinton, representing what the Republicans wanted to appear as a flip flopping opinion. My initial reaction was that this was just another ad, but as I thought about it further, I realized that they were actually bringing up positive points that Clinton had preached. Not only did they not attack his platforms with enough aggression, but they gave indecisive voters information on positives he proclaimed as well. Clearly the ad didn’t work in Bush’s favor as Clinton went on to win the ’92 and ’96 elections.
Work Cited
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
"The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 1992 - Leaders 2." The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 1992 - Leaders 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"Campaign 2012." PCL: : Presidential Election Ads. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
Emily Fagan
ReplyDeleteIn today’s political world, it’s all about how you look to the people. And what is the best to do that? Advertising. Advertising has become a staple in todays political world, without it campaigning would be a struggle, and almost impossible for candidates to get their name out there. “Paid political advertising which has been the centerpiece of campaign communication in the United States for decades, has entered a period of rapid and potentially revolutionary change. From the Obama campaign innovative use of the Internet and social media to the election tools, such as Gov. Sam Brownback's campaign app "SamForGov," and YouTube sensations like Alabama agriculture Commissioner candidate Dale Peterson, campaigns are communicating with voter in ways that were not available or even conceivable only a generation ago. Practitioners of politics at all levels must recognize that the rapid changes in campaign communication are a wildfire on the political landscape-- a fire that will not be contained (Devine 28).
“Technological changes that will affect paid advertising in the 2012 presidential election will transform the way candidates communicate with voters in the next decade. Not only is the digital process changing the quality of the product, but also the means of communicating information are becoming more and more diverse” (Devine 35), and that’s exactly what it did. An ad that really stuck out to me was one Obama made right before the 2012 election. It was posted on YouTube and it is basically his 4-step plan for his upcoming term. This was a really effective idea because people who have not been involved in the campaign will see it and know what Obama is about even if they haven’t been paying attention. It also helps that he posted it to YouTube, because it then make a wider range of people see it, and then they can share it with other people, so more people can see it. The 2012 election was a different type of campaign, more information was being posted online, and it gave the voters a better sense of who the candidates were.
Another ad I thought seemed effective was the “Its Morning In America Again” that Ronald Regan did during the ’84 campaign. “During the 1980’s the thirty second spot became dominant- largely because research had documented that they were just as effective as longer spots in getting the message across” (Trent 150). Reagan’s ad got really personal in a short amount of time, and it was clear that he was trying to give a message that he cared about the country and wanted it to succeed. It was also all about the people; the ad didn’t mention anything about him until the very end. Which was good for him because everything that he would do in his time as President would be for the people, so they are the number one priority. This ad was just a short way to show the people that Regan cares about them. They didn’t need to go into a long speech in order to get the point across it was all about getting personal with the voters, which is what he did.
Works Cited:
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 20
ReplyDeleteAlthough the media evolution of American campaigns has progressed immensely over the past decades in an attempt to incorporate new platforms, the television campaign ad still trumps the rest. From a production standpoint, the quality may be better with improvements in technology, but the messages and tactics have remained the same. Comparing Bill Clinton’s 1992 ad entitled Second, with Obama’s 2012 ad Determination, one can see how similar the message is, while noticing the clear improvements in effectiveness from two decades prior.
In the 1992 election, Clinton’s campaign created this simple, more posed, ad to show that he had a plan for the country in regards to welfare reform. Choosing to place him in what appears to be his home living room, he is positioned comfortably in an effort to be relatable. Yet his clothing and the backdrop of the windows and elegant curtains, show both a sense of professionalism and down-to-business attitude. The ad’s simplicity, focused on one single issue that impacted the entire population, presenting Clinton’s true political values. This is the opposite of what Trent defines as the “benevolent leader ads” that instead “focus on candidates personality traits rather than programmatic actions, policy, positions, or politic values” (Trent 153). Such an ad would have been crafted with the intention of balancing the ads that tended to be more like the “benevolent leader,” in order to show a more well-rounded candidate. The ad could have been more effective with music, and other video. However, it may have been the creator’s intent to keep it simple, and to the point with the time allotted. However, the lower third used to outline his key points was effective, and further demonstrated that he had the plan thought out.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteObama’s 2012 ad takes the concept behind what the Clinton campaign did, and brings it to the next level. The length of the commercial is much longer, but it puts forward a plan to improve the economic life of the nation. Throughout, Obama is seen sitting comfortably, speaking to the American people about what he has in store. There is a simple lower-third text to visibly show the key points. However, it also shows a book within the graphic that implies there is a tangible document with this plan. The background piano music, combined with charts and images of happy citizens, creates an aura of pride, and proof of the accomplishments in his last term. Devine acknowledges that “ads can direct viewers to campaign websites and create the potential for interactive communication driven by the power of paid media” (Devine 40). As the Obama campaign did that at the end, they aimed at constantly creating that interactive element to better engage voters through a call to action. However, it could have gone without mentioning the plan of the opponent, Romney. The biggest flaw of this ad is the scope of the topics. Unlike Clinton, it did not zone in on solely welfare, most likely due to the more emotional impact it intended to have. One could also argue that it was not as programmatic and effective as it could have been, because of the emotional spin. Its careful balance still made it an ad well beyond what the Clinton campaign achieved in 1992.
The simple concept of programmatic advertising such as these allows campaigns to regain a focus for potential voters. Amidst all of the efforts to bash the other candidate, and often delve into the personal lives of one another, such ads bring it back to what the election is truly about. It is clear that improvements, such as stronger production value and the use of call-to-action have made the effectiveness of these ads much stroger than before. The foundation still remains the same, in that the candidate talks directly to the people about what they will do for the country—something that will never lose its effectiveness for the people of the United States.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media— In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. SAGE Publications, 2013. Kindle Edition.
When researching campaign ads it was striking to find how many talking points remain the same throughout the years. Every politician talks about their hardworking American roots and their love for their family and the American people. Even the political issues remain the same, jobs, national security, economic and social rights, and taxes. I wanted to focus on something that has changed over the years, how politicians appeal to women voters.
ReplyDeleteThe first ad I looked at was an ad for President Eisenhower in his 1956 campaign against Adlai Stevenson. The ad features a conservatively dressed female commentator telling women what their concerns are, while people dramatize the scenarios followed by a series of testimonials from American women who share the same concerns and who trust Eisenhower to fix them. Trent classifies this type of Ad as personal witness ads in other words “These ads featured ordinary Americans expressing their beliefs about the opposing candidate” (Trent, 149).
According to the advertisement women’s main concerns are, the cost of living, their family budget and their children’s future. Looking at the ad now, it is at best condescending, but of course you need to add historical context. The ad aired before the feminist uprising of the 1960’s. Many women in the 1950s were limited to being housewives who cared for the home and children. In the end Eisenhower’s appeal worked, 6% more Women voted for Eisenhower than Stevenson. (Freeman)
In comparison, I looked at a 2012 campaign ad for Obama titled “My First Time” The ad features actress, Lena Dunham talking directly to the camera in a white tank top showing off her tattoos. At first it’s not clear what this ad is about since is laced with sexual innuendo. Dunham begins by saying “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody, you want to do it with a great guy” the add continues with Dunham listing off other qualifications such as “a guy that cares weather you get health insurance specifically weather you get birth control or a guy that brought the troops out of Iraq” the add ends with Dunham continuing the virginity analogy by saying “my first time voting was amazing it was a line in the sand, before I was a girl now I was a woman”. Dunham’s ad is obviously much different than Eisenhower’s because the appeal to women voters has changed drastically. Discussing any kind of birth control or making references to sex would have been completely taboo in 1956. Even in 2012 Dunham’s ad was considered risqué causing it to go viral. As Devine describes, “In order for an ad to forwarded it must strike a special chord with viewers oftentimes being quirky, funny, or just plain ridiculous.” (Devine, 37) I certainly think Dunham’s ad aimed for all three of these.
Cinematically the two ads were different as well. The Eisenhower ad was made much like a movie as actors demonstrated what the narrator said. Dunham’s ad was full of quick cuts and close shots a style that became popular with the rise of YouTube. These ads that look amateur even though they were professionally produced.
President Obama won the vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, Meanwhile, Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952. (Obama Romney Gender Gap)
I think that in the future as gender becomes less binary and sexuality become more fluid even Dunham’s ad will seem as condescending and ignorant as Eisenhower’s.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteTrent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011
Freeman, Jo. "Gender Gaps in Presidential Elections." Gender Gaps in Presidential Elections. N.p., June 1999. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print.
"Obama-Romney: Record Gender Gap." USA Today. Gannett, 09 Nov. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"Lena Dunham: Your First Time." YouTube. YouTube, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
""Women Voters" Eisenhower Ad 1956." YouTube. YouTube, 20 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
There are numerous political campaign ads which appear throughout the election season. However, in my opinion, I find many of them to be very similar and do not differentiate themselves from others. However, two in particular stand out to me. During the 2012 election Obama released a particularly unique campaign commercial entitled “Challenges”. There were two versions of the ad; one was a minute long the other was thirty seconds, however, each generally encapsulated the same idea. “Challenges” is a very unique compared to other political advertisements. It is much more dramatic; the commercial uses picture stills, dramatic music and is narrated by Morgan Freeman. The music is key in creating the mood of the commercial and Semiatin describes its importance: “In many ways, music is the secret weapon of television political advertising, since it can evoke a mood or underline the message being delivered through words and images.” (32)
ReplyDeleteRather than specifically outline simply what a candidate wants to do or what is wrong with their opponent, this commercial focuses on Obama’s success as president since 2008. It then states some of the policy changes and improvements Obama hopes to have in his second term. The commercial ends with the tagline “the last thing we should do is turn back now”.
I found that this commercial to be rather ingenious. During campaign seasons, media outlets seem to be flooded with attack campaigns criticizing opponents for everything. While other styles of political commercials it seems that attack ads are the most popular. I believe that is why the “challenges” commercial was so effective; while attack ads are negative and try and refocus blame, this commercial was positive and dramatic. Rather than convincing people simply not to vote for Mitt Romney, this ad encouraged people to stick it out another term with Obama. It seems that its positive energy was a stark contrast to the other attack ads going around at the time which made it much more memorable.
With so many attack ads going around this commercial was rather refreshing and I believe that is one of the reasons it was effective for Obama. It focused only on his success which put him in a very positive light. It also suggests to the audience that it would be foolish to “turn back now” that the country has gotten this far. This is a political commercial which I would be hesitant to change. I believe that it was very effective in its current state.
The other political campaign ad I focused on was on the other end of the spectrum. This is the infamous “Daisies” commercial used in the 1964 presidential campaign. Lyndon B. Johnson ran an attack commercial in order to create fear against his opponent Barry Goldwater. The commercial begins with a young girl picking daisy petals in a field. All seems well until an ominous countdown begins with the camera zooming in on the girls eye. When the countdown reaches zero and nuclear blast is shown.
LBJ would ultimately go on to win the presidential election in a landslide. It has since been speculated whether or not this commercial had a dramatic impact on the election, creating fear and successfully keeping people from voting for Goldwater. Even though the commercial only aired once, the message was clear. Trent describes this phenomena of the effectiveness of the idea rather than simply buying airtime: “Advertising media are simply vehicles for conveying the images and ideas of a candidate, and it is the images and ideas, not the size and placement of the commercial buy, that are ultimately the most consequence.” (324)
his commercial is effective because it is so over the top. It plays on the audiences’ affection for the young girl and then is suddenly shocked by the nuclear blast. This commercial could cause people to become fearful and weary of the threat of nuclear war. The implications are clear in this commercial; if Goldwater is elected nuclear war is inevitable and your children are at risk. The commercial is not concerned with being fair or even realistic put simply was used to portray Goldwater as negatively as possible. Today, this type of attack campaign may not be effective but at the time clearly it was enough to create a lot of fear and turn the election in Johnson’s favor. If I were to advise Johnson on this ad I would suggest leaving it the way it is. It may not be the honest commercial but history has suggested that it was very effective at the time.
ReplyDelete• Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Second ed. Print.
• Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr.. Political Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 22 Sep. 2014.
Political ads may be the single most important aspect of a political campaign. According to Tad Devine in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics. That is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than on anything else.” (Devine, 29) In the 2008 election, democratic candidate Barack Obama spent more on television ads alone than any other candidate in history. During the general election period, his campaign spent a total $250 million plus an additional $25 million from advocacy groups. His opponent, John McCain, by comparison, spent almost half of that with $128 million. (Trent, 345) Obama went on to win that election by over seven percentage points.
ReplyDeleteA good example of a political ad is from the 2012 election. It is a “get out the vote” ad featuring popular comedian Will Ferrell. Ferrell list all the different things he’ll do for people if they go and vote such as dancing or cooking. Most of the ad makes no mention of Obama until the very end where Ferrell is sitting in a chair, catches a football and says “Vote Obama”. I thought this was really good ad for a few reasons. The first is the talent it uses. It uses a popular, familiar face and it’s very engaging and funny. By not mentioning the candidates name throughout the ad, it makes you the very forget that it is a campaign ad because you are laughing at what Ferrell is saying. When all of a sudden at the end, it mentions Obama, you begin to associate that ad, including Ferrell, with Obama which would make a lot of people more likely to vote for him.
Another ad that I particularly like is one of the most popular ads of all-time and considered to be the best negative ad ever. I am, of course, talking about the “Daisy Girl” ad. This ad was run by Lyndon Johnson’s campaign in 1964. It was meant to be a response to a statement made by his opponent, Barry Goldwater, that he would consider using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. The ad depicts a little girl picking petals off a flower, then a countdown starts and you see a nuclear explosion. “The spot left the impression that if Johnson’s opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), was elected President, he might actually lead America into a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.” (Devine 35) The spot only ran once because it was so controversial. However, many news networks picked it up and replayed it. This is a big reason for why this is a great example of advertising. The Johnson campaign only paid for it to run once. When the media picks up an ad and starts running it like in this situation, that’s free advertising for the campaign. Another reason why it’s a good ad is how it got the message across so effectively without mentioning either candidate’s name until the slate at the end said “Vote for Johnson on November 3.”
Works Cited:
Ted Devine. "Paid Media – In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
I really enjoyed looking through the presidential campaign ads, as I realized I didn’t remember most of them and I have a fresh perspective now. Obama’s campaign posted an ad prior to the 2012 election that was titled “Challenges”. It was a 30 second spot narrated by Morgan Freeman that focused on what Obama had done during his first term in office. He highlighted the major accomplishments that had taken place – Osama Bin Laden being captured and executed, economic recovery in the auto industry, and soldiers being brought home from the war. It also highlighted that all presidents inherit problems but Obama did inherit an abnormally high number of them. Additionally it emphasized that there was still much to do but there was no point in turning back now. I think that this ad was particularly effective because it didn’t cast any opponents in a negative light. It remained positive and focused only on President Obama, which I think is effective as it will not turn off voters who are offended by attack campaigns. However, on the flip side there is little evidence to prove that negative campaign ads really do “turn off” voters. As the text mentioned, “…in spite of the fact that only a third of those eligible to vote actually do, there is really no direct evidence to indicate that people are ignoring their voting responsibilities because candidates employ attack advertising” (Trent 173). Looking at this fact critically though, it does not directly correlate to whether or not people will change voting preferences, simply that they will not be swayed to not vote at all.
ReplyDeleteThe second ad I chose to look at was a Bush ad from the 2000 campaign titled “Hopeful”. While I personally may not have agreed with what he may have been saying, the way in which he presented himself and what he had to say were effective. He spun off his call to the public in a way that made him see relatable and appealing, emphasizing that he knew that the political system wasn’t ideal. He focused on the “cynicism in America” and poor campaign tactics utilized in elections such as “mud throwing and name calling” and stressed that he wanted to run an optimistic and hopeful campaign and listen to what the people wanted, etc. etc. The gist of what he was saying partnered with the cheery uplifting music in the background made you as a viewer really believe what he was saying and feel like there was hope and chance for a bright future because he was going to make a difference. Bush was smart in how he capitalized on the fact that television appeals to many senses of the audience. As the text mentioned, “…it is the only advertising medium that appeals to two of our senses – seeing and hearing… it had a greater impact on the viewer who is getting “twice the message” (Trent 344). Bush’s campaign certainly knew what they were doing, especially with the music, as an additional text mentioned, “…music is the secret weapon of television political advertising, since it can evoke a mood or underline the message being delivered through words and images” (Semiatin 32).
I personally feel that both of these ads were well done, and I’m not sure that I would change anything. Both chose to focus on the candidate and what he would do to improve the political culture, and I prefer that over choosing to shame a fellow candidate. I think that both campaigns utilized the data that suggested the most effective means of advertising and ran with it in positive manners.
Sources:
The Living Room Candidate. Livingroomcandidate.org. Museum of the Moving Image. 2012. Web.
Semiatin, Richard J. "Political Parties -- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
During a campaign, political figures make tours from state to state, making appearances and giving speeches. But in order to make sure everyone hears your message, they also tend to rely on advertisements. And with today’s technology and media reliance, it’s never been more important to have a good ad campaign. Take Obama’s “Read my plan” television ad as from 2012. This was an advertisement, which he created during his reelection campaign, and may of well been his most important one, not only because of the message, but because of how many people saw it on TV. Tad Devine even stated his opinion on television ads, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern American politics” (Devine, 28). This ad was made very well in my opinion. Obama is seen sitting in what looks to be a causal white house living room as he addresses the audience. He makes himself seem humble and relatable when he says he wishes “ he could sit and talk with us in our kitchen or living rooms.” He then begins to go into a multi step plan, breaking down exactly what our problems are and what he’ll do to fix them. He even throws Romney under the bus a few times, saying he promises more tax cuts from the wealthy and that he is going to start a problem rather than fix it. All the while he’s doing this, clips of him in a hardhat or at a solar energy farm go by, showing that he actually cares and gets his hands dirty.
ReplyDeleteThe next advertisement I looked at was from the 2000 presidential campaign, specifically George W. Bush’s. In Trent’s reading, he went on to describe the role of an ad to “identifying the candidate’s causes, ideas, and concerns, what the candidate stands for” (Trent 152). I believe in this advertisement, Bush did just that. He starts off by saying he believes “in personal responsibility, people taking responsibility for their own actions.” This is done in an effort to gain trust, and to show he is the one wanting to take control. He then goes through ideas of trust he wants to implement, taking some social security from people for higher returns, local people to run their own schools, etc. he makes voters think that he believes in them 100%, so they should believe in him too, all while preaching his ideas and expressing that his philosophy is different than his opponents. I think in the key aspects Trent described, Bush made this advertisement well, although he could have done more to clarify on his concerns.
Works Cited :
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns in the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington DC: Sage, 2013. 28-47. Print
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011
Image has always been a crucial factor in political campaigns. Advertisements became a central focus in the image created for candidates: “political advertising on television is a central communication strategy for the growing numbers of those who seek our vote” (Trent 145) and “For more than four decades, political advertising has been the most powerful vehicle for a candidate to deliver an unfettered message directly to voters” (Semiatin 28). Statistics from December 2013 show that the average time that people watch television in the United States is for “5:11 hours” (StatisticBrain). That is a lot of hours considering many people work or got to school for up to eight hours a day. Candidates choice to target voters through television advertisements is a sure fire way to spread their reasons for being president.
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney, in the 2012 presidential election, followed suit of previous candidates and used television ads to show people his plans if he was elected president. In an ad addressing the American people, he focused on how Obama should not tear down those who have worked hard to build their businesses and how instead we should be relying on these people to help rebuild the economy. This ad is a personal witness ad. Personal witness ads are ones: “which feature regular citizens giving unscripted negative opinions about the opponents” (Trent 153). The ad begins with Obama speaking about people who have built businesses saying that they “didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen” (YouTube), while local business owner Jack Gilchrist prepares to go to work. Gilchrist calls Obama out by stating all the things that he, his father, and his son have done since the business was started and he said: “somebody else take out the loan on my father’s house to finance the equipment, did somebody else make payroll every week to figure out where its coming from” (YouTube). Romney then says that “President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that” (YouTube). Romney through the personal testimony of Gilchrist is able to reach out to voters who have businesses that have been built and worked by their family for generations.
Television ads first came to head in 1952: “Televised political spots entered presidential politics in 1952 when the Republican nominee, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, filmed forty commercials…” (Trent 146). In one of his advertisements, “I like Ike,” Eisenhower addresses the nation through cartoon and song. The advertisement has citizens, Uncle Sam, and various others singing that they like Ike: “In many ways, music is the secret weapon of television political advertising, since it can evoke a mood or underline the message being delivered through words and image” (Semiatin 32). This advertisement could be seen as a documentary ad. Documentary ads were: “spots that present the accomplishments of the candidate” (Trent 152). While the ad is in song, it still talks about the accomplishments of Eisenhower, highlighting the fact, that he: “battled day and night” (YouTube). Through this ad, he was able to reach the heart of the people by reminding them that he had helped to win World War II, as well as entertaining them. By entertaining them, he was able to show that he is not always the tough military man and that he did have a soft side. Also this showed that he related to the voters by having it be a cartoon. He also reached children who would then go and tell their parents about Eisenhower.
Damianos (cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe political advertisements of both Mitt Romney and Dwight D. Eisenhower looked to find their voters. Romney looked for voters by focusing on business owners. Eisenhower looked for voters by emphasizing that he fought in World War II. Both men had a targeted demographic and used their advertisements to draw the voters out.
Works Cited:
1952 Eisenhower Political Ad- I Like Ike- Preseidential Campaign Ad. 1952. Youtube. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. .
Romney Ad: Obama Attacks Success. Perf. Jack Gilchrist and Mitt Romney. 2012. Youtube. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. .
Semiatin, Richard J. "Paid Media- In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. CQ Press, 2013. 28-40. Print.
"Television Watching Statistics." Statistics Brain. BLS American Time Use Survey, A.C. Nielsen Co., 7 Dec. 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. .
Trent, Judith S. "Communicative Types and Functions of Televised Political Advertising." Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. 145-174. Print.
In President Bush’s 2004 campaign ad, “Whatever It Takes” (BattleCryOfFreedom, 2004), the emotional strings were meant to be tugged. It focused on American Soldiers while President Bush went on talking about how he is thankful for their heroism and sacrifice and that he will not stop defending America. This campaign advertisement worked because it made people feel safe. We were at war and people were anxious and fearful of what was going to happen and George Bush with his Texan cowboy way made us feel safe. It was also effective to the families and people against the war because he acknowledged that it is hard for them to see loved ones fighting but reminded them that they are our country’s heroes, fighting off terrorism. I would say that he was using “The Cruise Strategy” (Trent, 2010) because he was already ahead in the polls and just had to maintain what America liked about him. Something I would’ve added in to address the voters extremely against war would’ve been something like the sooner the war is over the sooner we’ll have peace. It also wouldn’t of hurt to point out that they attacked us and we needed to go to war to defend ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn 2008 our Country was fighting a different battle, the recession. President Obama produced an inspirational campaign ad that featured both republican and democrat political figures endorsing him and ended with the final words “There is not a liberal America, or conservative America, there is the United States of America!”(BarackObamaPresident, 2008).The strategy of going for the moderate voters worked because at that point in time most of the voters were moderate. But it also worked because his message was basically the economy’s in trouble and I’m not going to solve it in a liberal way or a conservative way I’m just going to solve it whatever way works best for our country. And that is what Americans needed to hear at that time, reassurance. . He was successful in letting voters know who he was and what he stood for because he used “The Spurt Strategy” since he was a senator from Chicago that no one had really ever heard of. “The strategy is to “spurt” early in the campaign, often four to six months before the election, purchasing a large amount of radio and television time for one or two weeks”(Trent,2010). It’s hard to think of what I would’ve done differently about this ad because it was so brilliantly strategic. It addressed all kinds of voters, white old men because of the senator endorsing him, women when a woman senator endorsed him, black americans when the Harvard newspaper publication flashed with the headline “First Black Elected to Head Harvards Law Review,” and finally with the moderate Americans that just want to see change
BattleCryOfFreedom. (2009, November 9). Bush 2004 Campaign Ad - Whatever It Takes. YouTube. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgS_qPsTfmQ
ReplyDeleteBarackObamaPresident. (2008, January 21). Barack Obama inspirational TV ad. YouTube. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from http://youtu.be/NKGqyMtnO7E
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteIn the 2004 presidential election between Bush and Kerry, it was clear that for the first time in many years, the discussion would not be about domestic issues. September 11th was still fresh in everyone’s mind, and the war in Iraq was continuing to be a very central issue. According to livingroomcandidate.org, a comparison of the ads by Bush and Kerry suggest that Bush’s campaign as a strong and steady leader was effective. One ad in particular has the incumbent walking down an outdoor hallway with marble arches at the White House. He is wearing a suit with a red tie and has an overall impression of someone who is handling a dire situation but is still in control. “The ad starts with 2001: A Challenge:” The ad flashes a phrase on how the economy was on the brink of collapse, the stock market was down…and then….a tragedy. As many ads for Bush did, this ad capitalizes on the events of September 11th and showcase Bush as a strong leader who was there for his country. The ad finishes with the phrase “Rising to the challenge” and “Safer, Stronger”. Safety was a primary concern for the country in the wake of 9/11.
In my opinion it was more difficult for Kerry’s ads to have this type of effect because Bush was seen as a national symbol of strength (or that was the administration’s intention, at least). While Bush was the steady commander in chief, Kerry used the platform that he was more in touch with the daily voters. But with a war, and continued fears about security and foreign policy, Bush’s ads were more effective with him as commander in chief. Personal feelings aside for Bush and his presidency, I think his campaigns were spot on. I would have done the exact same thing as his campaign manager and capitalized on national security fears to show Bush as a safe and strong choice for America. And while 2008 may have been the year that internet ads were really refined, 2004 was a “watershed year” according to Trent in terms of internet ads and if you look at livingroomcandidate.org, Bush used the internet most effectively. Chapter 10 of Trent points out that, “Alternative media enhances the impact of television advertising” (Trent 348) which is what Bush does in his TV ads that would prompt you to his website and also in ads that were more colorful done by PACS that were strictly online.
Sarah Faidell Pt 2
ReplyDeleteEconomy was the running theme, and imaginably the everyday voter’s concern, in the 2012 presidential elections. According to livingroomcandidate.org Obama’s campaign focused on the fact that although the economy was in a bad state, only the incumbent had the ability to steer it in the right direction. Mitt Romney’s campaign decided to take the direction that the recovery Obama planned was not happening soon enough. With the economy in such a bad state, livingroomcandidate.org says it was no surprise that the tone of the campaign was exceedingly negative, and that 75% of all campaign ads were negative. I believe this was a huge mistake and would have done things differently on both sides.
Although the tone of the nation was negative, I do not believe that was what should have been focused on and that there was a better way to spin it. People like hope; it was a prominent theme in Obama’s first campaign. Obama should have done less attacking on Mitt Romney. Yes, I think it is important to point out his multi-millionaire background and affinity to help the wealthy, but maybe do that in an underhand way by showing a contrast in Obama’s journey to presidency and how he could be a voice for all people. Obama could have argued in a more hopeful manner that if big business is what put the economy in this state (and he should emphasize that), then it would be backwards to have a big business guy try to turn it around. Conversely, I would have advised Mitt Romney to positively show how adept he was with business and that the country needed someone who understood money in order to turn the economy around and give it the boost it needs. I think the best example of this is in Campaigns in Chapter 3 is the 2010 gubernatorial race in Rhode Island. There were a lot of negative campign ads but the winner was actually an independent and I think his use of an ad that was negative but informational was what voter’s wanted, and had a “Trust Chafee” logo ( Devine 45-46).
Sarah Faidell Works Cited
ReplyDeleteDevine, Tad. "Paid media - In an Era of Rapid and Revolutionary Change." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
The Living Room Candidate. Livingroomcandidate.org. Museum of the Moving Image. 2012. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011