Cute.
I'm not sure that can win an election, but, still, cute.
Decent, I suppose, for the medium. Given the stakes, though, it seems odd how underproduced campaign ads are. The average American is by birthright inured to the lower types of advertising, yet we select leaders by virtue of these semi-professional efforts. Surely the "leader of the free world" is more consequential than the formerly heavy fellow who likes Subway, but whose image is the more expensively constructed?
The average American consumer != the average American voter.
Corporate ads are usually aimed at young adults and kids, who are forming buying habits for life and are more likely to be swayed by slickness and novelty. Political ads are more conventional because they are aimed at an older crowd, since those are the groups that actually vote.
Great ad. Not only funny, but informative and memorable.
And the logo at the end is all zingy and non-flaggy-wavey—huzzah!
5:
Ok, bangequals acknowledged, but even fogeys respond to slick advertising: reverse mortgages are still advertised, albeit through emblematic actors. My confusion emerges from the disparity between the amount spent to convince Americans that cool people enjoy McDonalds and that spent convincing people that a higher minimum wage is either a good or bad thing. The immediate consequence of the latter is greater, but the former receives so much more money. That's my puzzlement.
There are a couple of factors, off the top of my head, to explain the disparity, fm. First, it's not necessarily a good thing for political ads to be as slick as ads for consumer goods. There's already some background disaffection with the fact that candidates are "marketed," and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some threshold of slickness beyond which impressions of political ads turned negative. So the fact that their production values aren't so good could be both deliberate and beneficial. Second, campaigns work at a very fast pace, and you have to produce an ad in a couple of days in order to get out the message you're pushing just then. An ad campaign for, for example. a bar of soap, is usually developed over several months.
And how about some love for the good old ≠
How does one type the good old..
Maybe most political ads shouldn't be slick in the way that consumer ads are, but most political ads are really awful. They might benefit from imitating Madison Avenue a little bit.
I suspect that most tv ads are now a big waste of money, and they should be spending more on staff--yes, presidential campaigns get a lot of volunteers, but the volunteer effort is never well organized, usually to the point where I feel like I'm completely wasting my time & doing stuff I suck at; more staff positions would help change that....The best way to use ad $ is to run one that's going to get free media, not just flood the airwaves with generic stuff. Especially with the youtube and all. I remember being so appalled when I learned that it's common for the campaign mgr to get a cut of the ads through a media company, rather than drawing a salary.
I'm sort of off donating to campaigns right now, between the feeling that it doesn't buy much & accumulated years of bitterness at the Democratic party. If there were a good, broke, candidate I was especially excited about that'd be one thing, but Edwards & Obama aren't broke.
¡I ♥ ≠!
{BG: "& ne ;" minus those spaces.}
9:
So political campaigns don't want to seem 'marketed?'. Welcome to the club: neither do sneaker concerns. Yet the one dishes out half-assed ads and the other sponsors skate tourneys. Why? Not that I hope for a "Hilary '08 Grindfest". but I did expect something of the sort.
Ha ha. I get it. I, as the voter, am meant to be the impertinent dick in the interviewer's role, and Richardson is the eyerolling hot shot who can't believe he has to put up with my shit just to get the leader-of-the-free-world gig that he is so obviously entitled to. Nice. Next.
11: I'm not sure why I remember (#105) this.
They're good ads. I found Richardson a bit off-putting in the debate.
18: Since he's running for VP (I think), he has to be just off-putting enough to put off the primary voters, but relevant enough to stay on everyone's radar. Oh, and not shoot anyone in the face.
Ads: check!
I don't remember ever seeing a political ad I liked, other than this one. Doesn't seem like there would be much of a payoff, given the limited appeal.
I thought the ads were good. You haters have unrealistic standards.
That said, the ad in 20 is awesome.
God, I wish Wes Clark had demonstrated actual retail politics chops.
Sweet ads. Funny. I would not be too sad to see Richardson make a serious run.
22: yes.
≠. So how do you do smileys? :-)
The "over qualified" thing did not work, but otherwise these are pretty good ads. They make him simultaneously appear Clintonequely likable and approachable and yet at the same time highly qualified.
22: It wasn't so much the person-to-person chops he was missing as the organizational know-how -- from what I remember in NH, voters were receptive but he didn't have an office outside Manchester until November or December. I guess nobody told him that dithering until Labor Day was gonna doom him.
The "over qualified" thing did not work, but otherwise these are pretty good ads.
I agree. It would have worked better as a crack on Bush. "To be honest, you're a little over qualified for what we're used to."
"To be honest, you're a little over qualified for what we're used to."
I saw it as Richardson wanting to contrast himself from his competition in the primary. Neither Clinton, Edwards nor Obama have a resume in the same league as Richardson's IMHO. So it is an important point for him. The problem is that it comes out looking--as your comment implies--like an observation on the qualifications to be President. And there it falls flat. They probably wanted to say "You are overqualified compared to our other applicants," but that does not have the same bite or faux realism.
I don't want to watch political ads.