In this post Michael Turner talks about the rise of the political ad in Presidential campaigns, explains how campaign strategies have changes over the years and why negative ads are becoming more prevalent in the modern campaign.
Whether we like it or not, television has an enormous influence on our lives. They are a gateway into each and every home, where corporations pay millions of dollars for just a single run of 30-second adverts, designed specifically to grab your attention. Adverts are simply an opportunity for companies to put together a song and dance about their products or standpoint, to have a chance to win you over, or sway you towards buying in, both monetarily and philosophically, to their perspective; and unfortunately it works, and works well.
In no other country is the TV ad king than in America, where it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. In 2011 the size of the US television advertising market was $144bn, putting the industry on a par with most medium sized countries such as New Zealand or Ukraine for instance. It’s also home to the single most expensive advert ever made for television, Chanel No.5’s advert starring Nicole Kidman which is reported to have cost around $33million dollars, and naturally, the most expensive political advertisement ever aired. Ashley’s Story was run the during the 2004 Presidential campaign for George W. Bush and is reported to have cost $14.2million (though I can’t confirm that it’s been topped since, it has been widely cited that this advert was, in 2004 at least, the most costly Political ad ever ran).
Chanel No.5 Advert:
“Ashley’s Story” Progress for America Voter Fund 2012:
At this point there are two important themes to note. First, the TV ad has clearly caught on as a tool in Presidential campaigns and thanks to FEC Vs. Citizens United 2010 campaigns should have plenty of cash to compete with the corporate big-boys for what are eye-wateringly expensive prime-time slots. This in mind, it is easy to imagine that Presidential campaign adverts will become more prominent and more expensive, even with the rise of the internet’s influence and ‘internet-only’ adverts. The second point to be drawn, and perhaps more important than the financial concerns, is the message. Today, adverts are unbelievably sophisticated. The Chanel No.5 advert exemplifies how far they have come. They are intense experiences, where the musical score, cinematography and syntax are meticulously considered in order to maximise their impact. It is also important to remember that at no other point in the campaign do the candidates have as much control over how they are presented to voters then during their own adverts. So it obvious that television advertisement is a crucial medium to for candidates to win over voters.
To illustrate how far these adverts have come and the complexity of the modern political ad’s narrative, below are two adverts targeted at women voters. One for Dwight Eisenhower’s reelection campaign in 1956, the other is for the current Obama reelection campaign. Both identify and target women as key to influencing the outcome of their respective electoral contests, both are symbolic of their era’s philosophy on how these contests are won, and as such they are entirely different.
“A Message To All Thinking Voters” Eisenhower 1956 Campaign
“The Same” Obama 2012 Campaign
Aside from the very different attitudes for the role of women in society, which is hard to ignore and clearly reflective of the era in which they were aired, there is a very different perspective to how the campaign should and can be won. Eisenhower’s advertisement is a rather dry, ‘to-the-point’ and informative experience, where a carefully selected panel of women offer their opinions regarding his character, principles and record. It’s an optimistic advert designed to attract prospective voters over to the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket on Election Day. Contrast this to the more contemporary advert from the Obama 2012 campaign. Titled “The Same”, the ad is comprised of a tense musical score, features images of emotionally traumatised women and focuses more on the ‘scandalous’ nature of his opponents and their propositions rather than his own policy, the advert has probably more in common with a Hollywood movie trailer than the Citizens for Eisenhower-Nixon’s message for ‘all thinking voters’.
Today’s adverts are intense. In such a short space of time, usually 30-60 seconds, these messages are able to take us on a journey that’s sole objective is to tug on our emotional strings, using various visual and audio cues, and get us onside. Though as is increasingly the case in more recent campaigns, try to make us lose our faith in our party’s candidate and discourage us from turning out at all. These adverts are now commonplace in and it is widely accepted that running negative ads is an effective part of a Presidential campaign strategy, and unfortunately here to stay. Looking back, they are a relatively recent phenomenon and no matter which candidate or party, political ads for the majority of the 20th century were largely positive. Even during the height of the cold war most ads refrained from partisan sledging. Reagan’s ad on foreign policy is pretty tame for an area widely accepted to be hawk territory at the time, championing a positive vision of the future under a continued Reagan administration, where America is admired and respected. When you compare this to Romney’s rather undiplomatic attack on the Obama administration for failing to stop China from ‘cheating’, whatever that means, in the global manufacturing market, it puts these changes into perspective. It’s the serious, the cynical and aggressive disposition that most British viewers find exhausting and just petulant, that has now been normalised in America that is most disconcerting.
“Foreign Policy” Reagan 1984 Campaign
“Failing American Workers” Romney 2012 Campaign
It seems that the modern Presidential campaign is epitomised by the ‘Negative Ad’, and there is one very specific and easy to understand reason for its rise, that is its success. American political campaigns today are large, corporate-like entities, a far cry from the soapbox or Mr Smith goes to Washington. The two parties are large machines, well organised and influential. Because House elections take place every two years, campaigning has become a huge industry that the parties regularly buy into in order to maximise their influence. Campaigns have become a sort of ‘science’, driven by developments in polling and the social sciences at academic institutions. These developments have led to the consensus that the modern political battleground has no limits, that the Kennedy & Reagan days of championing competing ideologies and offering a vision for people to buy into are over, and if you want to win, then sometimes you need to help your opponent lose. Too much is understood and there is too much at stake for the parties to ignore the competitive edge. It’s now fair game to actively criticise your opponents, to question their character and actively attempt to dissuade your ideological opponents from turning out. Running negative ads are not only symbolic of the sophisticated and technical nature of the modern campaign, but they also emphasize the desperate, win at all costs approach the parties have adopted, if you can’t win alone, then you need to make sure your opponents lose. It’s got so bad that the ads have become reflexive, responding to one another almost instantly in cringe worthy and cantankerous spats.
“Give Me A Break” Romney Campaign 2012
“The Cheaters” Obama Campaign 2012
It seems a shame, that the modern campaign lacks the restraint of its predecessors, to campaign on a candidates’ own merits and present a positive image to encourage voters to participate, to choose them because they support their ideas and ability. Like those iconic adverts for Kennedy, for Reagan; a positive message can leave a lasting impression; that of a noble, principled and honest politician that stood by their convictions and won over the public. But then again, no one remembers second place.
“Kennedy” Kennedy Campaign 1960
“It’s Morning Again In America” Reagan Campaign 1984
Source:
http://thepolyticsshow.com/show/?p=648&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=twelve-steps-to-2012-now-heres-a-quick-message-from-our-sponsors