Rick Perry just came out with a political ad that looks like it's a trailer for a feature film.
That's one thing I've noticed about campaign ads this year, they are the slickest they've ever been. Which makes sense given technology is enabling high-quality video production at less cost and less expertise required than ever before.
Rich Perry's Trailer Ad
Ron Paul's Trailer Ad
Compare those videos to what was being produced in 2008 and it's night and day.
Barack Obama's 2008 campaign Ad
This transition to movie-trailer type ads, I think, is in response to Obama's success in 2008. While he didn't have ads as slick as this, what his campaign showed was that the masses vote emotionally. The success of "Yes We Can" showed other politicians that if you can manage to move people emotionally, you can generate far more support than by simply stating your policy differences.
Old campaign ads always highlighted the difference between candidates. And while they still do that, the primary focus is clearly on elevating candidates to almost hero-like status.
I'd call it 'superhero' campaigning. Forget the issues, what America needs is Superman! No mere human can fix the problems before the world, so what we need is a superhero!
The narrative use to be all that was important in the past. Lots and lots of low-ball tactics were used to manipulate the narrative, but it was still about talking points - positions, policy stances, growth strategies, etc.
What politicians are starting to realize now though (after seeing Obama in 2008) is that if you can achieve superhero status (which is not easy to do, even with slick ads) the narrative doesn't matter nearly as much. People become emotionally invested in you and simply trust you as their savior. Now that obviously backfires four years down the road, but most politicians don't care about the long-term outcome (just as long as they get elected).
This plays to another trend that I've mentioned briefly in past posts, the transition from messaging/PR/narrative to propoganda. Propoganda is dangerous because it often has no narrative - there is no running conversation. It's generally designed to create zombie voters, people who are encouraged not to think but rather simply follow blindly a certain ideology/person/belief system.
I don't think we are neck deep in propoganda yet, but I'd definitely say we are dipping our toe in the water with campaigns focusing more and more on targetting viewers emotions rather than attempting to appeal to / manipulate their critical thinking abilities.
Why try to convince someone of something intellectually if you can convince them using their emotions?
I do think this trend will eventually break down mind you. Years ago many products were marketed using women in bikinis. Today though, as consumers get more savvy about their product purchases, those tactics tend not to work. In fact, the more obvious it is that you're trying to manipulate their emotions, the more distrustful they become (which is going to be a big issue for Obama in 2012).
This is also why I think PR continues to be critical. What most people are looking for are brands they can trust, which is only something that can be achieved by organizations conversing with their publics through clear and consistent messaging. It's extremely rare for marketing techniques to create trust with consumers (interest yes, trust rarely).
So we'll see how this plays out in the political realm. We should have some interesting ads to watch over the next year.
That's one thing I've noticed about campaign ads this year, they are the slickest they've ever been. Which makes sense given technology is enabling high-quality video production at less cost and less expertise required than ever before.
Rich Perry's Trailer Ad
Ron Paul's Trailer Ad
Compare those videos to what was being produced in 2008 and it's night and day.
Barack Obama's 2008 campaign Ad
This transition to movie-trailer type ads, I think, is in response to Obama's success in 2008. While he didn't have ads as slick as this, what his campaign showed was that the masses vote emotionally. The success of "Yes We Can" showed other politicians that if you can manage to move people emotionally, you can generate far more support than by simply stating your policy differences.
Old campaign ads always highlighted the difference between candidates. And while they still do that, the primary focus is clearly on elevating candidates to almost hero-like status.
I'd call it 'superhero' campaigning. Forget the issues, what America needs is Superman! No mere human can fix the problems before the world, so what we need is a superhero!
The narrative use to be all that was important in the past. Lots and lots of low-ball tactics were used to manipulate the narrative, but it was still about talking points - positions, policy stances, growth strategies, etc.
What politicians are starting to realize now though (after seeing Obama in 2008) is that if you can achieve superhero status (which is not easy to do, even with slick ads) the narrative doesn't matter nearly as much. People become emotionally invested in you and simply trust you as their savior. Now that obviously backfires four years down the road, but most politicians don't care about the long-term outcome (just as long as they get elected).
This plays to another trend that I've mentioned briefly in past posts, the transition from messaging/PR/narrative to propoganda. Propoganda is dangerous because it often has no narrative - there is no running conversation. It's generally designed to create zombie voters, people who are encouraged not to think but rather simply follow blindly a certain ideology/person/belief system.
I don't think we are neck deep in propoganda yet, but I'd definitely say we are dipping our toe in the water with campaigns focusing more and more on targetting viewers emotions rather than attempting to appeal to / manipulate their critical thinking abilities.
Why try to convince someone of something intellectually if you can convince them using their emotions?
I do think this trend will eventually break down mind you. Years ago many products were marketed using women in bikinis. Today though, as consumers get more savvy about their product purchases, those tactics tend not to work. In fact, the more obvious it is that you're trying to manipulate their emotions, the more distrustful they become (which is going to be a big issue for Obama in 2012).
This is also why I think PR continues to be critical. What most people are looking for are brands they can trust, which is only something that can be achieved by organizations conversing with their publics through clear and consistent messaging. It's extremely rare for marketing techniques to create trust with consumers (interest yes, trust rarely).
So we'll see how this plays out in the political realm. We should have some interesting ads to watch over the next year.
Comments
Post a Comment