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.

A month or so ago, we were privileged to watch a cross attack by McCain and Obama, referencing each other’s homes.  You know, your run of the mill elitist house hit.

Now, Barack Obama has this new spot attacking McCain for his cars – all 13 of them.  Airing in Michigan, which actually makes sense.

MI “Foreign Vehicles” Ad

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.

This year’s convention had a lot of excitement, with the Clintons’ drama, the brief appearance of Hurricane Gustav and the Palin non-stop news coverage.

So I wasn’t surprised when I found something missing from the mainstream press coverage – the attacks. Reporting paid very little mind to the tee-up on the contrast messaging for the Fall.  

At party conventions, normal fire breathing and attack messaging is done through surrogates.  This allows big name party leaders to go after the opposite party’s ticket without leaving any stain of negativity on their own nominees.

The nominee ticket usually spends their prime-time address outlining their vision and firing up the base.  Not this year.  

As this presidential head-to-head polling numbers bounce within the margin or error, the attacks were infused into all elements of the convention addresses.  And if this year’s conventions are any indicator of the heat to come, we are in for a good ride.  All four members of the national party tickets spent a great deal of time and energy during their nomination speeches whacking at their opponents.

How does this old news translates into new news?

These convention attacks provided the menu for what will be served up in the paid communications for the fall.  Sans, the surprise hit pieces that may rear their ugly heads in October, much of what was mentioned in these speeches will be communicated over the web, on the airwaves, over the phones, in mail boxes and on the stump this fall.

Already, not a moment to spare, Obama lit the airwaves this week, with a spot aimed at McCain, claiming ‘he doesn’t understand’ and painting him as another four year extension of Bush.  These attacks were showcased by Obama the night of his major address – if you missed it, you were asleep or under rock.

What we will see over the coming weeks is a build toward contrasting messages and themes, where each presidential ticket and respective party attempts to line up their values and vision with the voters, while pinning the vision and values of their opponents and their records in conflict with voters.  Remember, alignment and conflict.

So below, I laid out the attacks, launched by both tickets at their opponents, during the convention.  These were pulled from their speeches and their respective party messaging surrounding coverage.  

Attacks on McCain/Palin

• McCain is 8 more years of Bush
  
• McCain sides with Bush 95% of the time
  
• McCain only wants tax breaks for the rich, corporations
  
• McCain’s foreign policy is simply “Bush-McCain”
  
• McCain was “wrong” on national security
  
• McCain doesn’t get it
  
• McCain has caused our oil addiction
  
• McCain has poor temperament & judgment as a commander in chief
  
• Palin is inexperienced and is a heartbeat away from presidency

Attacks on Obama/Biden

• Obama opposes drilling & nuclear energy
  
• Obama has no record, and no experience
  
• Obama’s only experience is as a “Community organizer”
  
• Rural and red state voters were reminded of the perceived Obama slight when he said people in small towns ‘Cling to religion and guns’
  
• Obama is nothing more than, “dramatic speeches” and “devoted followers”
  
• Obama is a celebrity with no substance
  
• Obama will raise your taxes
  
• Obama uses “change” to promote his career

As the election progresses, it will be important to hone in on the arguments being made over time, and watch how each campaign makes points that fit into these arguments to build their strength and legitimacy among voters – which in political speak is referred to as ‘traction.’

Creating and finding traction with attacks and messages will be the main objective leading up to election day.

 

The Obama campaign is working on getting its footing back in the election, with a new line of attack on McCain.  Obama took the gloves off again this week, with a tough speech in Michigan and a new spot titled ‘WHAT KIND.’

This is another example that the Obama campaign decided to shed the cute and funny spots and replace them with traditional attack ads that center around crystal clear message delivery.

Unfortunately, I do not have a brightcove player so you can see the spot through the link below.

“What Kind”

In keeping with the theme of this blog, I rarely touch upon speeches or media activity unless it relates to political marketing, advertising, messaging or media as ‘medium’.  

However, we can’t forget, before newspapers, print ads, phones, direct mail, TV spots and viral campaigns all a candidate had was a stump speech.  This was the first and most truest form of political advertising – the speech and the word of mouth which followed, carrying the message of what it meant to others.

Governor Sarah Palin’s speech last night at the Republican National Convention has generated a lot of word of mouth and reminds us all how important a single speech can be to a candidate for president or any other elective office.

This speech had the level of anticipation equal to any major sporting or theatrical event.  The media built a a heaving wave of drama, sex, excitement, criticism and vitriol that drew political junkies and the average citizen into what became the Palin whirlwind.

Palin entered the Xcel Center, and more importantly, the arena of major league professional politics last night and delivered in a very big way.

Here is a list of reasons why Palin was so successful:

• She exuded confidence in a way that was trustful and reliable, not boastful and arrogant.
• She alluded to criticisms of her family and quickly rejected them by displaying her faults for what they are, rather than taking a hyper defensive posture and appearing emotional and weak.
• She did not flub a single line and she hit her humorous lines on exact cue. This was impressive, given the venue and the audience.
• She struck her opponents with a velvet sword.  Not taking the attacks over board or risking the appearance of gratuitous joy in settling a score.
• She tapped into the average voter’s disdain for Washington and belief that people in the ‘real world’ can do it better.
• Most importantly, she spoke from the heart; about herself, her family, her issues, her love of country and most importantly, her belief in John McCain.  This heartfelt appeal went directly past the media and the pundits and landed squarely with the average American voter at home.

The last time I have seen a politician deliver remarks with such grace, raw emotion and magnetic demeanor was the late Ronald Reagan.  I hope I am not speaking to soon when I say, Palin’s way is similar in many ways to the late great President.

Now, for the sake of being accused of sheer partisan adulation, I have said for the record, Barack Obama’s convention speech was also excellent.  He hit his marks, delivered his speech gracefully and attacked McCain with class and discipline, not indignation.  He galvanized the audience and fueled excitement, with the help of the very-well produced intro video, a packed football stadium and Hollywood quality set production.  But when compared to Palin, Obama clearly did not have something she did.

Barack Obama did not connect with people in a way that Palin did.

With this, I am talking about the vast majority or average American voters, not party stalwarts or partisans.

Palin’s awe shucks sense of humor, mothering warmth and tough-as-nails-if-you-cross-me attitude, gave the average person something that has been missing for a long time in politics – heart.  She did it while successfully the loyalists a sense of tremendous assurance and the swing voters a real easy way to support the whole ticket.

Palin delivered the whole package and I think everyone knows it.

Palin will have some missteps I’m sure, but speeches like these transpire from the heart, which rarely goes away.

Highlights from the speech below:

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.

This one hits hard. A spot titled “Tiny“, was just released by the McCain Campaign in perfect timing before Obama’s big nomination speech.

For decades, foreign policy, military and security issues have been a perceived weakness for national Democrats – an achilles heal, if you will.  Also, national security and dealing with outside threats of terrorism or war have been a largely solidifying issue for religious conservatives and more fiscal libertarian Republicans.

The Cold War under Reagan and Bush’s unmovable determination to root out terrorism kept Republicans together under one issue they can all agree on.  After the Cold War ended Republicans began to splinter.  Social Conservatives and small government Capitalist Libertarians woke up and decided they didn’t have much in common with each other anymore.  

Under Bush 43, Republicans began to unify again in perfect harmony, first for their mutual abhorrence for Bill Clinton, then with their shared belief that, after 9/11, terrorists would not be tolerated abroad under any circumstance.

As the the war in Iraq began to wane in media exposure, as a result of better military leadership and more pressing domestic issues, we began to see grumbling within the GOP by fiscal libertarians, who were outraged by the notion of Republican members of Congress spending like drunk sailors and the perception that social conservatives had more weight within the party.

Now, as John McCain has found his voice, gained momentum, and as he begins to to make his case to the voters of the United States, we are seeing the makings of a foreign policy appeal within the framework of-  ”is Obama ready to lead?” – theme.

McCain can keep Social Conservatives and Fiscal Republicans on board together, against Obama, if they see him as weak on Iran, the next perceived threat to America’s existence.  This will allow McCain to maintain and grow his base, driving up overall Republican support, while also appealing to Independents and soft Democrats that turn to Republican candidates in times of threat and crisis.  

The McCain camp has vigorously, and successfully, set-up the argument within the framework of the ongoing questioning surrounding Obama’s experience and leadership skills through a series of hard-hitting spots and web videos.

Now the McCain campaign releases this spot, titled “Tiny.”  Which takes the message to a new more critical level – effectively striking into the key emotion of fear.

With more evidence to show that gas prices are trickling down throughout the economy, broadcast TV advertising has taken a hit.

With less cars being purchased, car companies have pulled back on some of their advertising. This has generated a net decrease in broadcast TV ad revenue of 4.8%. AdAge’s Brian Steinberg observed last week:

Network TV ad revenue was down 4.8% in the quarter, and local broadcast ad revenue fell 9.1%, while syndicated TV ad revenue was up 9.1%, the TVB said, citing statistics culled from TNS Media Intelligence. For the first half of 2008, network TV ad revenue fell 1.5%, local broadcast ad revenue fell 3.8% and syndicated TV was up 10.2%, the industry organization said. 

The figures come as media buyers have said that third-quarter scatter advertising, or ad time purchased closer to the time it airs, has been sluggish, and also as advertisers have dithered over whether or not to trim some of the dollars they committed to network TV in the upfront. Media buyers say clients and networks have seemed nervous about whether all the money put down by advertisers during upfront negotiations will remain available as marketers try to navigate their way through a tougher-than-expected economic time. 

As the political market heats up, media buyers have seen a sharp increase in third-quarter scatter advertising, airtime that is purchased close to the air date. This type of buying is very typical in the political media purchasing world.

Political media consultants are gearing up to make very large purchases on behalf of candidate committees, IEs, IAs, PACs, Coordinated Expenditures and any other type of committee I may have forgotten.  These buys will sharply change the amount purchased and the inventory available across all platforms – broadcast networks, spot cable, national cable, Direct TV, Dish Network, radio broadcast, and XM/Sirius radio.

As reported last week, the RNC and McCain have almost $96 million on hand. Much of that money needs to be spent before McCain takes public financing after he accepts the nomination at the beginning of next month. Obama and the DNC have yet to publicly report their figures. 

It will be interesting to see the change in ad revenue from this election cycle alone. $1.6 billion was spent on political TV in 2004, far surpassing the $771 million spent in 2000.

The full article is available here.

Finally a direct mail piece to chew on.  This one, from NBC’s First Read Contributor, MARK MURRAY, features an AFL-CIO direct mail piece aimed at none other than John McCain.

According to Murray, the union mailer is targeted to 50,000 targeted swing-vote seniors living in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The mailer hits a few new lines of attack – McCain’s family’s wealth and an inference that he would consider raising taxes. (Yes, you read that right, the AFL-CIO makes a claim that a McCain would raise taxes to fund Social Security!)  The piece also hits old recognizable lines of attack as well – age, and the policy connection to Bush.   

An interesting part of the piece is the numbered footnotes, which bring the reader to a bottom section titled, “check the facts.” I don’t recall seeing the reference/attribution done this way before.

Keep the mail coming.  Great communications medium for longer form and often edgier messaging, that rarely gets on the air. I’m sure this won’t be the last from the AFL-CIO.