Today, two political video media pieces were sent to me, which could not be any more different from one another.   One is an example of interesting and thought provoking, while the other is an example of stodgy and standard.  

The first piece was produced by CatholicVote.org, a faith based educational program dedicated to informing all Americans about the critical issues in the public policy arena.  

According to their website, “Life: Imagine the Potential™ is our newest campaign designed for sharing on the Internet, and for use on broadcast TV. ” The campaign is focused on reaching beyond staunch pro-lifers, Americans who are either indifferent, or who have not yet thought about the great potential of every human life.”

The second piece is a spot released by Terry McAuliffe’s campaign for VA Governor.  It’s the first television ad in the race, five months before the state’s June primary.   He is truly defining ’slow burn’ strategy, this far out with TV.

While neither media piece appears to be edited using high end graphics or cinematic techniques, the catholic spot has much more value in terms of appeal.  The music grabs your attention, while the chyron graphics keep you guessing with questions.  It creates drama and makes the viewer think about the spot after it’s played.  

As much as the Catholic piece provokes interest, The McAuliffe spot provokes boredom.  It’s chyron graphics are tired and the look and feel of the spot equally passe.  The spot could have been shot for a candidate in 2002 – really.  It’s surprising, for a guy who has and can raise millions of dollars.  With the amount of money McAuliffe is spending on the buy, months in advance, I would imagine much more would have gone into producing a much better spot.  

Yes its bio, and yes it’s for  raising name ID, but that still doesn’t mean all creativity is lost.

Two spots. Same day. Different effects.

Yes, now “Joe the Plumber” is a household name.  I actually had friends of mine, not in politics, texting me all day about “Joe the Plumber.”

It’s really quite amazing how one man can wake up one day, meet Barack Obama, ask him a question about taxes, and then instantly get shot onto the national stage of presidential politics.  Joe, the plumber from Toledo, instantly filled the role of average American worker perfectly for both candidates, as their poster child on a range of issues from taxes to healthcare and everything else in between.

But in my book you really haven’t made all the history books until you’ve been immortalized in a political TV spot.  Well, Joe the Plumber” did that one too.

Washington Post Staff Writer Howard Kurtz has an interesting piece today highlighting a trend I have been discussing for a while, the concept of making an ad for talk, not for air.

Kurtz calls refers to them as phantom spots – and for lack of a better name, that’s what I’ll call them.

Using Phantom Spots is a tactic that’s feverishly taken off this election cycle.  Here’s how it goes:

• Determine a searing line of attack on opponent
• Construct a :30 or :60 second ad
• Claim it’s a new ad that the campaign is running
• Show it to the media
• Run it just a few times to factually back the claim that it’s a legitimate spot

Kurtz highlights several examples of how this tactic was used this election cycle:

Sen. John McCain received considerable publicity for a television ad accusing his Democratic opponent of having “lashed out at Sarah Palin, dismissed her as good-looking . . . then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful.”

In the two weeks after the Republican convention, the commercial aired seven times.

Sen. Barack Obama drew substantial media attention for a spot declaring: “John McCain is hardly a maverick. . . . Sarah Palin’s no maverick, either. She was for the ‘Bridge to

Nowhere’ before she was against it. Politicians lying about their records.” During the same period, that commercial aired eight times.

In the two-week period that ended Sunday, the McCain campaign released 25 ads, 12 of which aired fewer than 25 times. The Obama campaign released 28 ads, 11 of which aired fewer than 25 times.

My friend EVAN TRACEY of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group has a good take on these Phantom Spots, “They’ve smartly figured out that there’s news of the day, and by feeding the content beast that is cable news and the blogosphere, they’re getting out their unfiltered take on the news of the day.”

Kurtz goes on to describe how the campaigns are putting the least money behind their most slashing spots, like the Obama Sex Ed spot and the McCain Internet spot, which are the kind that tend to drive news coverage.

My take on these on spots, is more about the role they fill, rather than what is on TV versus what is not.

In past presidential elections, campaigns would normally have a cadre of party stalwarts stumping on behalf of the candidate, doing most of the dirty work.  They would be the visible attack dogs of the campaign, discussing the opposition candidate’s record or problems.

The only problem was, these candidates rarely received large scale national coverage.  Only in the markets where they visited, did they get their attacks covered by the news media.  So campaigns were only left with two options for getting something out to the mainstream mass media – press release or candidate remarks.

Press releases rarely carry any weight with the media anymore and attacks from the candidate appeared to close to home, often times driving up a candidate’s negatives while they attempted to drive up the negatives of their opponent.

What operatives and consultants realized was that the media likes to cover the release of any new advertising.  It’s sexier, it has substance – audio and visual.  Most importantly for the campaign, it has the appearance of a third party making the attack.  Rarely do you see one candidate attack another in a political TV spot.

So the Phantom Spots, have become the new campaign attack surrogates, with video to match.

McCain has a new spot titled “FACT CHECK“, which features a pack of wolves, symbolically representing the pack of lawyers which recently descended on Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.

This ad reminds me of other more famous political spots featured in past presidential elections, featuring animals as symbols for menacing enemies, demonstrating an  excellent use of cinematic symbolism.  

And why does this work so well? Because, scary animals scare people.

Let me explain.

We are in the business of emotional advertising. Emotion creates a very effective path for psychological message delivery. If a political advertisement or direct mail piece does not create some form of fear, love, anger, or pleasure, in line with the intended effect, then it is ineffective.

Animals in action drive people back into a state of emotional instinct.  So naturally, wolves on the hunt or a bear lurking in the woods makes the viewer feel uncomfortable and fearful.  This produces a subconscious ’conditional reflex’ toward that negative emotional state. AKA Pavlovian condition.

FACT CHECK (McCain 2008)-Use of wolves to show how the Obama campaign is viciously going after Sarah Palin.

WOLVES (Bush 2004) – Use of wolves to symbolize terrorists.  This spot, not so subtly, draws the connection between agile packs of wolves and terrorist cells, both similarly capable of vicious attack on unsuspecting victims.   This was used by the Bush campaign to illustrate his strong position against terrorism and keeping the country safe.

THE BEAR (Reagan 1984) – Use of bear to symbolize the threat of communist Russia.  This spot was very well executed.  It is subtle yet it creates tension, through the sound of a heartbeat and the calm yet concerned voice of the voice talent.  During the Cold War, Soviet Russia was known symbolically as the bear.  So this spot really played to this already identifiable symbolism.  Well done.

Yesterday, I spent some time speaking with a voice talent actor, who recently read for a spot I produced that is currently airing.  Our phone conversation quickly turned to the sudden death, earlier this week, of the most famous Voice Over (VO) artist, Don LaFontaine.  

If you’ve ever seen a movie trailer for anything, and I mean anything, in the past 30 years, I will bet you’ve been treated to the voice of Don LaFontaine.  Most people probably could not recognize LaFontaine by name, but his voice is as familiar as a close friend.

Reading of his passing got me thinking about this hidden art, which unless you live in a cave, you are exposed to on a daily basis.

It’s amazing how little attention ever gets paid to voice talent actors.  Anyone who works in media advertising (and does it well), understands the value a good voice over provides a television or radio spot.

Finding the proper voice over for a spot is like paring the right shoes with the occasion.  You don’t wear dress shoes to go running, nor do you wear flip-flops to a formal dinner.  The same is true for paring the right voice over for a spot.  Done properly, the spot is delivered with the perfect pitch and rhythm.

The voice over, also called the voice of God, serves as the conductor of the spot, telling the story in a way that brings the viewer or listener in and holds their attention.  A talented voice actor will use voice to drive the heart of a script, and when done perfectly, will go hand in hand with the music, the footage and the graphics to create emotion.

Here are a few factors a good political media consultant considers when choosing voice talent:

• Media consultants try to use familiar voices (actors that read for regular TV shows or other commercials) so that viewers and listeners will be comfortable with the ad immediately.  Similar to the feeling one gets when they receive a call from a recognizable voice rather than from a stranger.  
• Male and female voices can be chosen based on what the spot is attempting to do.  Female voices can soften a more conservative male candidate, while a male voice can give more masculine qualities to a female candidate.
• The same tactic is true for distinguishable ethnic voices, which are often used in an attempt to create credibility with a targeted demo.
• When using character voices and accents be careful.  When overdone, these sound silly and contrived, leaving the viewer or listener to think the spot is silly – think bad car commercial.  However, good character voices can be a real asset in making an effective humor spot.
• Pay attention to word count and timing – Do not rush the spot by maximizing words in the script.   A fast read make the spot weaker, because the message could be missed.  Usually, the best voice actors read slowly to create more affect and drama.  Too often, political spots are stuffed to the gills with words forcing the script to be read at an unusually fast clip.  Unless it’s for humor effect, people do not properly identify with speed talking. 

The Obama Campaign released this ad today, titled SAME, which is a straight forward attempt at illustrating a close intimate relationship between McCain and Bush, on a personal and political level.  

This is the least creative spot put out by the Obama campaign so far in the General Election, and I think it is the most effective.  Past spots by the campaign tried poorly executed humor, light hearted songs and insinuation to try to convey the message that McCain is simply an extension of Bush.

This spot cuts to the chase and it is clearly Obama’s strongest line of attack.  I am willing to bet the Obama team planned this spot in timing with the Bush speech, which was supposed to take place at the Republican Convention.

This ad also shows message discipline, compared to the recent attacks on Sarah Palin.  These kinds of undisciplined, personal and overtly malicious attacks, if kept up, will undoubtedly back fire.  

Why? – While, voters have come to accept contrast and negative campaigning as part of the political process, they can much more easily identify personal attacks – and they have limited tolerance for it.

Ira Teinowitz of Ad Age, writes an interesting behind the scenes piece featuring Fred Davis, who has assumed the role as the RNC Convention’s head of creative.

Davis, a longtime Republican media consultant and the founder of Strategic Perception, has become known for his attention to high quality television production.

Davis has handled media work for the 2004 presidential and does work for several statewide candidates and issue campaigns aside from non-political work in entertainment, corporate and new media. According to Davis’ bio:

SPI was hired to help reinvigorate the sinking Corker campaign just five and a half weeks before the general election. Senator Corker’s victory was the sole shining light for the national Republican Party in 2006. 

Davis also worked as one of the top creative/media consultants for the George W. Bush presidential re-election campaign of 2004, filming the President and First Lady in the White House residence and on the road campaigning. SPI won both the Gold and Silver Pollie Awards for this presidential work. He’s handled the media for winning U.S. Senate campaigns for Elizabeth Dole, Chuck Grassley, Jim Inhofe and more. Davis served as Chief Creative Consultant on the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain and is now working on 2008 Senate reelection campaigns for Dole, Inhofe, Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn. Also, the branding for Bono’s ONE Campaign, the effort to end worldwide extreme poverty. 

Davis is also the only known political media strategist who has based his consulting operation out of Hollywood.  

Davis’ work is interesting, in that he portrays a unique production style in his TV ads.  Some recognizable traits are large indistinctive backgrounds, different shoot locations, blur lenses (or post-production blur effect), and distinctive brightening and shadow effects.  He’s been also employing the newly popular cut-out still photography effect in his spots for McCain, which is a production effect I plan on writing about in this space this week.