The vast majority of these ads are from the USA and generally from Republicans. Like them or loathe them, they do campaigning very well, especially during the Karl Rove era.
First up however is one of Obama’s ads. He never created “great” ads, but a good deal of his involved just him, speaking directly into camera to the audience. This has the benefit of giving a personal message and engaging directly with the viewer. In this ad, he also personalises the story of his mother’s death and the extra pain of her death due to the insurance system in the US. He then brings that story back to the personal lives of everyday Americans which is vital for a successful visual engagement strategy.
If only he was still showing this ad in the last 6 months.
This Carly Fiorina ad is bizarre. Nick named the Demon Sheep ad, it has become the object of ridicule but also fascination. It is weird and out there and I guess that is its charm. I don’t think it will work, it’s too long, appeals to a fairly small part of the population (the Tea Party) and most importantly, it doesn’t actually target the candidate that is leading the race. This is an attack ad for a spot of the Republican California Senator ticket. Fiorina attacks Tom Campbell, who is a leading member of Governor Arnie’s Cabinet. They are both losing ground to Republican Chuck De Vore, a State Assemblyman who is know for his ultra conservative stance. No wonder she was rated as one of the US’s top 20 worst ever CEOs.
George Bush Senior’s attack ad on Michael Dukakis is one of the most infamous ever. Drew Westen describes it as “one of the low points in American electoral history.” Willie Horton was a felon of the worst order and whatever happened for him to be released was clearly a mistake. The ad however has become part of history. Using emotive, almost subliminal written messaging such as Rape, Kidnap, Stab, stuck in the heads of the public. Fear is everywhere in this ad, the frightening statements, the scary mugshot, the fact that you could be the person stabbed, kidnapped and raped under a Dukakis Government. It is enough to frighten anyone. In fact, this ad wasn’t even an “official” Bush Campaign ad. It was made by the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee (NSPAC).
Hilary Clinton’s 3am ad made a big difference during the 2008 primaries and was one of the reasons why she stayed in the race so long. Questioning Obama’s ability and experience, she came up with a pretty powerful and effective ad. It preyed on the fears of parents and grandparents alike. It gave her a good boost in the polls, but let’s face it, the rest is history
Gough Whitlam was the Australian Labor Prime Minster from 72-75 after 23 years of Liberal-Country Government, mostly under Sir Robert Menzies. This ad may seem a tad naff now, but at the time, the ad and the slogan “It’s Time” was hugely influential. Delightfully simple, the slogan simply pointed at the last quarter of a century under a Conservative Government, similar to the Change slogan used by the Obama campaign. No one over in the UK would realise, but the singers are all Australian celebrities and politicians. Australian’s might notice a young Jack Thompson, Jackie Weaver, Graham KennedyandBert Newton singing away. Whitlam however only lasted 3 years before he was controversially sacked by the Governor General Sir William Kerr. Whitlam, on the stairs of Parliament House then made the statement “God Save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General.” Thus started the first big push for an Australian Republic.
Ronald Reagan put this ad out for his re-election campaign in 1984 and it is brilliantly simple. Patriotic, conservative and a vision back to the halcyon days of America. He doesn’t even appear or speak in it, but at the same time he seems both Presidential and grandfatherly.
Just like his father, Bush Junior wasn’t officially behind this ad, but it was paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. There were plenty of memorable negative ads that hit Kerry hard, but this was particularly effective. Kerry made a big deal out of his Vietnam veteran status saying in a time of war, it was important to have a Commander and Chief who had proper militaryexperience. Kerry won two Purple Hearts and one Silver Star for his heroism, but there were controversial circumstances surrounding this award and this came to the fore in the 2004 Presidential campaign. Kerry also immediately came back to the US post the war and began protesting against it. His initial campaign strategy was to portray him as a war hero, but not long after, these swift boat vets came out and hit Kerry hard. Again, the rest is history
In response to the Robin Hood Tax ad, which is one of the best campaigning ads I have seen for a while, I thought I would post some historically very effective political and advocacy ads. I’m also currently reading The Political Brain, by Drew Westen that looks at the role of emotions in political campaigning. It has been an eye-opening read, so this also gave me some inspiration for this post.
This list is by no means definitive and if anyone wants to send links to some campaigning ads, that would be great, I’d love to watch them.
This post will focus on a few advocacy ads, starting with the Robin Hood Tax ad that has been the focus of the media of late. It is a very simple ad, two voices, one face but plenty of emotion. Bill Nighy plays a leading banker who ends up squirming in response to the questioning about why a Tobin Tax shouldn’t be created. Squirming bankers is something that reverberates with a good portion of the public at the moment. This campaign plays to the slightly divergent emotions of good will and revenge brilliantly.
This next ad scares the heck out of me, although I’m not sure how effective it is. Shock ads, as I have written before, have the tendency to decline in effectiveness over time simply because of people being desensitized. I’m not sure anyone would be able to put themselves in this guys shoes, unless they have been in the same situation.
This shock ad from PlaneStupid, the organisation that focuses on climate change issues caused by the global aviation industry, is different from the previous one however. Shocking - yes. Disturbing - definitely. Effective - most certainly. Polar bears dropping from the sky crushing cars and smashing into buildings may seem like an odd choice, but it is actually very clever. The stance is that every person on a trans-Atlantic flight creates 400kg of carbon. Most people can’t conceptualize what that means however. A polar bear, which is also an icon of climate change devastation, is imaginable. Therefore this appeals to our sense of wanting to save these animals, horror at their gruesome deaths but it also puts our carbon footprint into a physical and understandable context. It was filmed in Canada, but it could be any city, again personalising the imagery.
The final ad is one that has screened on UK screens recently and was the subject of a number of complaints, but is far more subtle that the polar bear ad. Act on CO2 is a non-departmental government body that is the public face of the Government’s climate change policy. This ad simply shows a father telling a bed-time story to his child, but it is a story of the effects of climate change and includes drowning pets and other disturbing results of unabated climate change. But this ad is clever in the fact that it appeals on a personal level to adults and children. This ad scares children, hence the complaints, but it also contextualizes climate change for them ensuring they understand the potential of doing nothing. It also will frighten adults on a parental level - how can I let my child live in a world like this, what can I do to prevent it?
As I said, this isn’t a complete list, but it just a tester. I’d love your thoughts and if you want to send me other campaigns, feel free. I’ll post the political ad blog in the next couple of days.
On the 4th of January The Conservative Party launched their election campaign by releasing this new 15-ft wide poster, which is erected on 759 sites across the country. Already it has been one of the talking points of the election campaign and like marmite, people either love or hate it. So, I wanted to have a look at the key features that are drawing attention:
The clothes: Cameron is shown without a tie, which has become a common feature of his leadership. Apparently this was developed by Steve Hilton, his PR guru, to show that he is both in touch and ready for business. Advertisers have said that this image gives off a strong message of his willingness to get on with the job of Prime Minister.
The message: The message, highlighting the NHS, has been used to counter the Labour attempts to define themselves as a party of investment. It is also highlighting one of the cores of the Conservative election strategy - the size of the budget deficit.
Some people have highlighted the use of the term ‘cut’ in the same sentence as the NHS may impact negatively. The terms could be associated and seem too negative.
Reaction to the poster
Labour party figures immediately attacked the poster because it was airbrushed. John Prescott went on the attack parodying David Cameron and the Daily Mirror also criticised the poster.
But other advertising figures have said it sends a strong message and plays to his key strengths. Commentators also say that it shows the speedier start to the election campaign on behalf of the Conservative Party. This could reflect the greater funds reported to be at the Conservative leaders’ disposal.
So, bearing that all in mind, what do you think? Hit, Miss, Maybe?
For me it is a HIT - simple, effective and to the point. But I know others will think differently.
I read something interesting and provocative in PR Week today. It was an article outlining the views of different Directors of Public Affairs companies on David Cameron and Gordon Brown’s election campaigns. The article focused particularly on David Cameron’s announcements on the NHS yesterday and Labour’s retort, which could be seen as the two parties kicking off their election campaigns. One particular comment by Phillip Snape, Managing Director of PSA Communications, was extremely interesting. He said of the election campaigns:
‘No one is listening to them [Brown and Cameron]. Everyone has already made their minds up and this is all background music. It is boring.’
I find this a spurious point of view. It suggests that the ‘Punch and Judy’ politics of election campaigns - the adverts, the slogans and the glitzy promises - will have a relatively small effect on the majority of voters, who find this overt posturing off-putting. He, also, seems to find this element of the election run up ‘boring’.
I disagree on both counts. The next six months will be the critical last stage of a close and enthralling contest. The UK Polling Report is showing that the Labour Party’s poll showing has rallied in the second half of 2009, rising from an average of c.23% to c.29%, whilst the Conservative Party’s has fluctuated between 37% and 43% in the same period. This may suggest that the Conservative Party have a strong lead in the polls, but the number of seats they have to take from Labour means that these numbers would only realise roughly a 26 seat majority for the Conservative Party - a long way off certain victory. Clearly the unstable polls represent a general public still not absolutely certain who they want at the next election and whilst the Conservative Party will almost certainly have a higher share of the vote they are not ensured victory.
In this climate the next 6 months could be critical. Voters have had two and a half years to size up David Cameron and Gordon Brown - their characters, policies and styles - and still some are undecided. Yet, (unless they abstain) these voters will be forced to make up their mind in the next few months and in our modern society, filled with apathy, it is eminently feasible that an undecided voter could be swayed to vote one way or the other by an eye-catching policy, good debate performance or brilliant advertisement in the run up to the election.
For this reason I think the election campaigns will be extremely exciting and relevant and should not be dismissed.
But I think this is an interesting debate, what do you think? Is the election decided or is it still all up for grabs?
After the #pbr announcement this afternoon, I put up a quick Twitter question regarding how Darling will be able to police how bonuses are paid and how banks *may* decide to reward bankers without using the B word….here are some of the replies. Any more to add?
The Queen’s Speech, which took place last Wednesday, went as we predicted with proposals announced on fiscal responsibility, financial services, constitutional reform, education and energy amongst others. The Speech was short and to the point with only 13 bills and 2 draft bills announced and no announcements on Health (one of the largest Government departments), immigration or MPs’ expenses.
The Speech was touted as being the most political for a decade, as was to be expected with a General Election taking place next year and once the Queen had left Parliament Gordon Brown and David Cameron drew the battle lines. The Prime Minster defended the speech saying that it showed that the Government was ’standing up for Britain’ and criticised the Conservatives over their inheritance tax policy, whilst the Leader of the Opposition responded by calling the Speech ‘half-baked’ and a ‘waste of the country’s time’. These soundbites, like the contents of the Speech itself, were not particularly surprising.
There is now a period of reflection in the House of Commons as the Speech will be debated for no fewer than 6 days. With that in mind we gathered together leading parliamentarians to see what they made of the speech:
Dr Des Turner MP
Labour Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown
“Given that the Parliamentary Session will be shortened by the General Election this was a very ambitious Queen’s Speech, containing very real and useful legislation.
I totally disagree with those who think it is simply part of the Election manifesto - such claims are very wide of the mark.
These measures are very important and legislation like the care for the elderly Bill are part of a long overdue revolution for people who are in the latter part of their lives.”
Chloe Smith MP
Conservative Member of Parliament for Norwich North
“For me the Queen’s Speech was a mixed bag. For the most part it was all about the Labour Party serving itself rather than the country. It was a case of politics not Government.
There were a number of measures that simply served to create the next Labour election manifesto and you have to ask yourself if these measures are so important then why have they taken 12 years to be implemented? Furthermore, a number of measures were policies that the Government should be getting on with anyway rather than legislating on.
Having said that there was one measure that my constituents might welcome, which was the announcement on flood defences.”
Lord Avebury
Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Spokesperson for the Home Office
“The Queen’s Speech has rightly been criticised for pretending that so many Bills can be passed in the few days of Parliamentary sittings before the 2010 general election. When there is no chance of getting most of them into law it is farcical.
I hoped there would be more realism but this is obviously just for the shop window. Nobody would guess that six months from now a new government will have to make huge spending cuts.
The absence of any mention of a referendum on electoral reform, widely supported in all three parties, is a serious disappointment.”
The Bills that were announced today were as follows:
Personal Care at Home Bill:
This will provide free personal care in their own homes for those with the highest need. Up to 350,000 people with the greatest needs could benefit from free charges and top-up fees for care in their own homes.
Children’s, Schools and Families Bill:
There will be a new duty on local authorities to act when parents are unhappy. Where standards are ‘unacceptably low’, schools will be closed. There will be an entitlement to one-to-one tuition if a pupil is falling behind.
Fiscal Responsibility Bill:
The Bill will enact the Government’s commitment to halve the deficit in four years.
Financial Services Bill:
The Bill will give the Government the power to intervene on bonuses, will create a new consumer financial advice body and enable firms to be less reliant on the taxpayers.
Crime and Security Bill:
The Bill will require parenting assessment to be carried out on parents of children aged 10 to 15 who are being considered for an anti-social care order. The police swill have to hold beat meetings; perpetrators of domestic violence will be banned from their homes; DNA records on adults arrested but not charged will be kept for six years; there will be compulsory licensing for wheel-clampers.
Digital Economy Bill:
New age ratings for computer games will be introduced to protect children; universally available broadband in the UK will be rolled out; tackling on-line copyright infringement; preparing the UK to take advantage of the digital age.
Energy Bill:
More help for the most vulnerable households with their energy bills; a levy on electricity suppliers to subsidise carbon capture and storage plants; Ofgem will be required to ensure customers get a better, fairer deal.
Flood and Water Management Bill:
Better protection for businesses, communities and homes from the risks of extreme weather.
Equality Bill:
There will be a new public sector duty to narrow the gap between rich and poor, ban age discrimination outside the workplace and introduce reporting for large employers on gender pay. Agency workers will receive equal treatment with staff members after 12 weeks in a job.
Child Poverty Bill:
The Bill will provide for the Government pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and will set up a commission to monitor progress.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill:
The Civil Service will be put on a statutory footing; continued reform of the House of Lords - they will have the power to expel a Member; by-elections to elect hereditary peers will be ended. Peers will be allowed to resign and disclaim their peerages.
The draft House of Lords Reform Bill will set out how the Government will bring about a wholly or substantially selected second chamber of Parliament.
Bribery Bill:
The bill would help to reinforce integrity in the business and public sectors. There will be a comprehensive UK strategy for tackling foreign bribery and of bribing a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain business.
Cluster and Munitions Bill:
This bill will ban the use, development production, stockpiling, retention or transfer of cluster munitions.
Draft Bills
House of Lords Reform Bill:
Further reform for the House of Lords including ending the election of hereditary peers.
International Development Bill:
The Government will be committed to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development by 2013.
The real question is - will this be enough to keep Gordon Brown at No 10?
The Government will offer free personal care in their own homes for those with the “highest needs”. This could benefit up to 350,000 people.
Legislation will be brought in to halve the current deficit and increase financial regulation
Commitment to ensure 0.7% of GDP for International Development
The Government will seek to abolish child poverty by 2020.
There will be a bill to continue the reform of the House of Lords
Other issues include:
Measures to deal with anti-Social behaviour
A Bill to enhance digital communications
A Bill to enshrine education guarantees
An Energy Bill to support carbon capture and storage
High Speed Rail Bill
Flood protection measures
Devolving more power to Wales
Legislation to ban cluster munitions
No real surprises contained in the Speech. More details will be provided on the content of the speech and on the Speech debate in the House of Commons later this afternoon.
As the Queen arrives at Westminster it is worth remembering that the Monarch is not permitted to enter the House of Commons and is only allowed into the Palace of Westminster by invitation. It remains the only royal palace to which the Monarch has no automatic right of entry.
Charles I was the last Monarch to enter the Commons in 1642 when he attempted to arrest John Pym and four other Members of Parliament for treason. The Speaker William Lenthall, when asked to point out the conspirators famously replied:
“May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”
However, the Monarch has been invited today to open Parliament and she has now arrived at the Monarch’s entrance.
Black Rod will approach the House of Commons and the door will be ceremonially slammed in his face. He will ten use his rod to knock the door three times. This is to allow the Commons to confirm that he is not the Monarch and signifies that although the Monarch is on the premises he is merely a messenger delivering her command.
