Eric Blais is president of Headspace Marketing Inc.
Voting day is likely six months away, yet, we are already being treated to political ads – some paid by the parties, some disguised as government advertising paid by our tax dollars. There’s plenty more to come as party strategists and political consultants will be churning out an avalanche of ads. They’ll test them and debate them. Some will air. Many will be trashed. Some might become news like the infamous “face ad” by the Conservatives poking fun at former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s facial deformity. But the vast majority will just come and go in an irritating or indifference-inducing blur.
Who makes political ads? People like David Axelrod do. The American political consultant, who was chief campaign advisor to Barack Obama during the campaign for the presidency in 2008, created many political ads despite having never worked in a traditional advertising agency. Axelrod was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune before founding his political consultancy firm and creating radio and television ads for municipal and state candidates. Of course, political parties also hire ad agencies – usually with party connections. But Axelrod’s memoirs (Believer – Penguin Press 2015) reveal the degree to which people with no experience in crafting messaging to sell goods and services can become writers and directors of political ads.
Some believe ad men have no place in political war rooms. It’s the place for battle-tested ‘media consultants’ like Mr. Axelrod, speechwriters, and political strategists. Many argue selling beer and cars to young adults has nothing to do with selling candidates to voters. That the winner-take-all nature of political campaigns makes them inherently different from campaigns aimed at generating awareness and trial of a new 100% pure Canadian beef burger.
Perhaps it’s true, but it often leads to boring, safe and formulaic ads. And while safe is generally good in politics, it’s one of the surest ways to waste advertising dollars. Safe might be a valid approach for the incumbent, but the opposition needs to breakthrough, inspire undecided voters and hopefully create a movement. For product and services brands, this means taking risks, disrupting, getting noticed and creating a cult-like following. Why would it be any different for political advertising? Are the two so different? It’s debatable.
Mad men know how to sell soap, not politicians and their ideas
Is selling a candidate no different than selling toothpaste? Elizabeth Wilner, a media expert, argued in Advertising Age that “the shared goal is to help consumers see the personal benefit they’ll gain from the decision, whether it’s a good-paying job or fewer cavities. But the similarity ends there. On many fronts, the corporate and political approaches have become diametrically opposed.”
Things may have changed, but there was a time when only mad men had the experience and talent to create truly effective and memorable political ads.
Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign is a case in point. The ads were created by a group of ad men including Hal Riney, Philip Dusenberry and Jerry Della Femina. According to Dusenberry, when Reagan was introduced to the team, he said, “I understand you guys are selling soap. I thought you’d like to see the bar.” The result was an inspiring campaign known as “Morning in America” suggesting that President Reagan had restored American optimism.
Thirty years later, it is still considered one of best political ads ever created. The voice of Hal Riney, familiar from many commercials for Perrier, Gallo wines and many others, gently claimed that “under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder, and stronger and better” and asked: “Do we really want to go back to where we were four short years ago?” Reagan, the Hollywood actor, would no doubt have been perfect in a direct-to-camera message, but it would never have had the same impact as the Norman Rockwell-like depiction of American life.
Mad men don’t know how to do attack ads
Political strategists have perfected the art of negative advertising. It’s true that it’s rare to see a brand attack another brand. But when one does, it makes for engaging, entertaining and effective advertising. Most political ads are nasty and meant to destroy the opponent. Not what most of us want to have their favourite show interrupted by.
Brands have successfully used attack ads. They’re simply called comparative ads. Apple’s “I’m a Mac. I’m a PC” is a memorable and effective example. Just like a candidate can accuse his opponent of having broken his promises, so can a computer maker. Apple succeeded in using attack ads in a way that made people smile. That’s rarely the case with negative ads. While they work, they’re often in bad taste and people generally wish they weren’t used to influence them.
Mad men take too much time to react
Political advertisers deal with faster turnaround time and can produce ads overnight in response to the changing landscape. They can create ads in real time while ad agencies usually have the benefit of longer lead-times. That may explain why so many political ads look like late-night infomercials. Speed and quality rarely go together in advertising.
However, advertising practitioners have become much more agile in the real time world of conversational media, delivering clever brand messages in quick response to news and to capitalize on internet memes. Remember that blue and black dress?
Mad Men create fictional characters. Political strategists must convey authenticity
Most voters are non-committed because they are influenced by issues other than the traditional positions of the parties. They are significantly influenced by factors such as the candidate’s background, personality and appearance.
Political strategists know how to present candidates and tell stories in ways that are authentic. But they are not alone with that skill. The team that created the Marlboro Man and, more recently, the Man from Dos Equis – ‘the world’s most interesting man’, know a thing or two about giving meaning to made-up characters.
Doing the same for politicians would perhaps introduce us to more creative and entertaining portraits of our politicians than the Tim Hortons and sweater-vest ‘reality shows’ of past campaigns.
