Data still shows that the internet is not king…yet. A Rasmussen survey from July still indicates that more Americans put their trust in network television than the internet for the news. The poll of 1000 adults had 46% agreeing that network television is a “more reliable source of credible news information” followed by 35% siding with the internet and 19% that are unsure.

Also, according to Rasmussen, women are more likely than men to trust the network news. Men are evenly split. At the same time, Democrats favor network news two-to-one compared to Republicans and politically unaffiliated adults who see the two mediums as equal in terms of reliability.

What does all this mean? Two things. First, the data represents an overall decline in the ratings of the major news networks: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Second, it lends credibility to the idea that the declining ratings of the networks have been because of a perceived bias in reporting.

More than half of the Americans surveyed go online almost every day and see online reporting comparable to their local newspaper, contributing to the decline in network viewership.

Furthermore, last August, only 10% of voters said they watched any of the three major anchors every day for information about the election. Where were they getting their news? One place was talk radio, which was grabbing viewers at a rate of two-to-one compared to network news.

All indicators point to the decline in the traditional format of the network news. Many believe the internet and other outlets will eventually replace the TV networks as the standard bearer of news in America. The issue is not if, but when and to what degree, the internet and others will rule the news business.

Who will be the next Walter Cronkite?

You may want to look on YouTube before you turn on your TV.

There’s a bore in the Woods

Marco Rubio: I’m Running for Senate

According to Jarvis, “The Crisis of Credit Visualized distills the economic crisis into a short and simple story by giving it form. It is also argues that designers have the ability to see a complex situation, then turn around and communicate it to others. By giving graphic form to the credit crisis, it becomes comprehensible. Not only do economic activities take shape, but new relationships can emerge between these shapes.”

This type of work epitomizes smart media – defining an important and complex issue in a clear and easy to understand format.

The effort, the first targeting a 2010 senate candidate, flies under the website called www.REIDistributewealth.com .

The new spot, titled, “Trillion” was released this week.  The details of the broadcast buy are unclear. 

The NRSC’s interest in targeting Reid stem from what Republicans consider his staunch partisan approach and what appears to be his electoral vulnerabilities.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal article on Monday cited recent polling, by a conservative political action group, showing Reid vulnerable among Nevada voters.

Reid was viewed favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 47 percent of Nevadans surveyed by the Salt Lake City-based polling firm NSON Opinion Research for the Legacy PAC, a California-based activist group that hopes to target Reid for defeat in 2010.

In the survey of 400 Nevada voters, which carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points, 47.3 percent viewed Reid favorably, including 27.3 percent who had a very favorable view and 20 percent whose opinion was somewhat favorable.

Among the 46.8 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 8.8 percent of those polled viewed him somewhat unfavorably, while a whopping 38 percent had a very unfavorable view.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

The original spot can be seen here:

Both spots were paid for by a coalition led by the National Federation of Independent Business.

The Harry and Louise spots are rare for political advertising.  Rarely do you see real actors used in campaigns and not many as effective at pushing a message as these. Normally, campaigns attempt to utilize real life voters or constituents to hammer home a message in support or against a candidate.  There are several reasons why this is the case:

1. Real people come cheap compared to actors – actually most real live voters do not cost anything.  This helps keep production costs low for campaigns with limited budgets
2. Real people tend to convey a sense of shared feeling by average voters.  This is the same reason why reality television is still thriving.  People tend to connect more with people they feel are not  scripted like a polished actor or actress.
3. Real People have an easier time projecting themselves on voters that look or act like themselves.  This shared experience helps to persuade a voter into believing that their support or opposition to something is common to people just like them – so its ok.
4. Actors also open a line of attack up by an opponent who could accuse them of using paid people to tout their message – begging the question whether or not real people actually do share the sentiment being conveyed.
5. Similarly, real voters or constituents can not be attacked by an opponent.  Attacking an average voter expressing a point of view, no mater how emphatic, is political suicide.  Real life surrogates are protected from such attacks, which allow a message to be conveyed while minimizing counter messaging.