Skip to main content

View Diary: Wisconsin---these are the people running your state. (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thoughtful reply...a couple of points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StellaRay

    re: framing - "there is no singular right way to do this"
    Correct.  But there are a butt load of wrong ways to do it.  Case in point: Dems putting up recall billboards featuring a large picture of Walker and some verbiage about the dumb shit he had been doing.

    My comments are in specific reference to a specific (type of) image as a campaign poster - a static image.  I absolutely think Dems should use the bad/illegal things Walker&Cabal have done.  That should be done verbally and through radio & teevee (I can not stress enough that Dems should hit HARD verbally).  The comment or ad frames the bad stuff in moral and emotional terms then flows into the solution, the brand, the fix, the candidate.  You don't end with your opponent's image.  You guide them to the solution.

    "Every advertiser of consumer goods only speaks of the positive"
    That is just not accurate.  Arby's is running ads attacking Subway about where/when/who slices the meat.  But they end the advert with the solution, ie Arby's delicious freshly slice meat on a sandwich.  If they were to do a static follow up advert (and I don't know if they have) I tend to think it would feature the solution - Arby's sandwich - not the presliced meat on the Subway.

    Dems need to define themselves as I said in my original post.  But I also think the Dems should grind Walker to a pulp, not mince words, use moral and emotional framing and grow a spine.  I just think dense static images are not the smartest way to do that.

    Lobbyist, PAC, SuperPAC - a bribe by any name is still corruption

    by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 08:31:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lots of interesting thoughts here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreatLakeSailor

      and I agree w/many of them, particularly the idea that if the negative is used, what we're against, it must lead to the solution, what we're for. Absolutely.

      Just to note, when I said consumer ads only speak of the positive, I meant about THEMSELVES and their product. Advertisers don't say "We're pretty good, most of the time, try us." They all speak in glowing terms about their product, which is why most Americans try it before they believe it.

      One of the reasons the kind of negative advertising you mention w/Subway is used, is to set up a problem, so there can be a solution. If this other product causes you a problem, we do it better and here's how.

      That said, negative advertising of any nature can be hard to pull off and as you have noted, one of the dangers is that you end up saying more about the other guy's product, or the other guy, then you do your product or yourself. The balance, the tone, and the connection to the solution must be done just right. Many negative ads fail.

      Not sure what you mean by using "static" images. Many good ads, political and consumer, use static images, but they use them artfully with edits and music and they use them to build the story. If I were to turn the poster above that generated this conversation into a TV ad I would not just plunk it on TV in the form it appears here.  

      I would build it--- photo by photo of each of Walker's corrupt hires, listing a long the way what each is guilty of. Then Walker's Picture with his quote. Then pull out on his picture to reveal it surrounded by  all the photos, as it appears above. Then cut to our candidate and the solution.  Voiceover:  "So and So believes in Wisconsin's tradition of fair, legal, transparent governance. Decent governance. Let's get back there. Vote so and so."

      Ok, sketchy and quick, but you get the idea. My point is that showing the problem, can make the solution feel more needed and powerful. But too often political ads are done with too heavy of a hand---the typical scary music and deep voice of authority, the Snidely Whiplash school of delivery instead of what is real, focused and authentic.

      Actually, if I had my way, I'd pass a law that said ALL political ads for candidates MUST BE the candidate speaking for herself/himself, period. No gimmicks, no silly "symbolic" images---remember the red eyed sheep, LOL,---just the candidate face to face w/the camera. Nothing imo, would do more to put the candidate's feet to the fire when it comes to his/her advertising.

      Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble on here. Very much enjoyed the conversation.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:30:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  By static I meant posters & billboards.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StellaRay

        glance fodder; less than 5 or 8 seconds; stuff that is harder to develop the problem->solution narrative.

        Good conversation.  Thanks.

        Lobbyist, PAC, SuperPAC - a bribe by any name is still corruption

        by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:01:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Got it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreatLakeSailor

          And I agree. Broadcast is the best vehicle for political advertising, particularly TV, which is still, despite all the glitz of the net and the social media, the image leader when it comes to mediums.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 07:51:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site