As soon as the first Presidential debate was finished the phantom ads started.  It’s as if each campaign keeps a voice talent and an editor on staff 24 hours a day.

McCain beat the Obama campaign to the punch with this spot:

Obama countered with this one, released this morning:

But - not on youtube yet - so click here to view.

Have you noticed something similar in both the McCain and the Obama commercials? Have you recognized a common look and feel in many political TV ads this cycle?

Well your not crazy.  It’s true. There is something all to familiar in many political advertisements this year.  I found it unbelievable, how many Obama ads and McCain ads look so similar.  Many actually look like they were created in the same production studio, by the same editor.

It’s called, “Kid Stays in the Picture.” It’s a production technique. And both presidential campaigns, and many other campaigns with a high end media budget, are using this relatively new production technique.

What is it?

It’s a cinematic production effect that’s created when you separate the layers of the photos and move them independent of one another to gain depth.

This style is being used commercially as well, as you may have seen much of this technique in ads airing during the olympics.

The look ads drama to still photos, taking it an extra step from the tried and true Ken Burns effect, which is when you pan and scan or pan and zoom on still photos in a video piece. 

Here is a good description given by Bob Donlon, a TV editor with Adobe.

This [Kid Stays in the picture] has become a pretty popular technique, lots of doc-style shows and films are using it. The first film I saw that used this at length (and by “at length” I mean for the entire duration of the film) was The Kid Stays In The Picture. Almost the entire movie was photographs busted up into layers in Photoshop, then animated in 3D in After Effects.

See this new McCain spot as an example of multiple uses of this technique

Many campaigns do not have the luxury of being able to do multiple shoots or get a lot of stock shots of opponents, which cost a tremendous amount of dollars.  So often times, media consultants will use still photos in TV spots to give changes in looks or to tell stories.

But just plastering a picture on a TV spot would be very boring to an average viewer, who’s eye has become used to seeing repetitive amounts of flash and motion.  So, by employing the Kid Stays in the Picture technique, the producer creates movement and depth from simple stills.

Also, campaigns opt to use this technique if a candidate does not look particularly good in video footage.  As you know, except for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald reagan, most candidates are not actors or actresses.

Many times, candidates for office are very awkward on camera.  If a media consultant doesn’t see this and doesn’t address it, they will run spots with a poor portrayal of their candidate, exposing them to unintended negative consequences.  Properly executed still photography alleviates this problem in positive ads.

In negative spots, the use of stills can also create an interesting drama effect.  By cutting the opponent out of stills, and laying them against dark backgrounds or footage related to the subject the spot is talking about, you can tie the visual much tighter to the audio of the spot.  This helps tell the story much more effectively.  It also helps to create a negative visual without doing the fuzzy, grainy, ominous stuff media consultants did in the past - which turns viewers off.

There are a few other very popular techniques being used this cycle, which I will share in future posts.  But this one appears to be the hottest craze.  Now you know what it is.

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. 

What are America’s “fictional Everyman couple” doing now? The stars of the famed 1994 TV ad, Harry and Louise are back for some more - 14 years later to be exact.

The original spot centered around two actors, who effectively portrayed an average working class couple, distraught by the flawed healthcare system which was then being touted by first-lady Hillary Rodham Clinton .  The spot became the focal point of the opposition’s message, which effectively derailed Clinton’s socialized healthcare reform agenda.

This time conveying a somewhat different message, the couple engages in another discussion on healthcare, this time encouraging John McCain and Barack Obama to make healthcare reform a center of their message for America:

The spot will air through both conventions on a variety of cable and broadcast media. It is intended to influence both party’s leaders and policy makers expected to visit Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul media markets over the next three weeks.

See the original Harry and Louise spot after the jump

(more…)

In response to PATRICK RUFFINI’s post on why web videos trump TV ads

Recently, my friend and colleague Patrick Ruffini, whom I respect dearly, posted on the subject of ‘new media’ versus ‘traditional media.’ The subject is a new lightning rod for political marketers and advertisers – especially the ones that fall into the ‘new media’ camp.

Here is a third approach – one that addresses the values and weaknesses of both forms of media and how they intersect, compliment and supplement one another. 

The bottom line is – comparing ‘traditional media’ vs. ‘new media’ is like comparing apples and oranges, they are not mutually exclusive mediums for advertising and carrying messages – but different vehicles, that target different audiences, with different creative formats – each working best within their own confines of delivery.

Allow me to examine and respond to several of Patrick’s points: 

1. Unlike broadcast ads, web videos can move an edgier message

Web videos are a tried and true tool to move an edgy message, but not necessarily more so than broadcast spots.  If the point is to be edgy for the sake of edgy – then yes there are a lot more edgy web videos out there.  Some are smart and funny, others are dark and dramatic – done correctly, and they get a lot of views and thus a lot of play in the news media that follow such activity closely.

(more…)