An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Realities of Advertising

alex.jpgI had to sigh when I read William Kristol’s litany of complaints regarding the new “Alex” advertisement opposing John McCain’s candidacy. It’s not that Kristol doesn’t comprehend the realities of military enlistment, family choices or the tides of war. He grasps and explains those things perfectly. What Mr. Kristol doesn’t understand, however, is advertising.

For a bit of disclosure, I work in marketing and am responsible for the development and deployment of various marketing tools in a completely non-political field. Worse, and more embarassing, is that I’m addicted to advertising. I’m addicted to adcritic dot com. My wife and some of my colleagues sit around evaluating the advertisements on television more than the actual shows we’re supposedly watching. And from that background, I feel a need to explain a few things about the Alex ad and political advertising in general.

The intersection of politics and marketing is a strange, convoluted landscape. We in the political punditry party have some bedrock assumptions about what’s important in our nation’s political discussion. Truth and facts are paramount. The issues are what matter! What plans do the candidates have for the country? Integrity, experience and strength of character are the hallmarks of our debate! Each and every one of these points are absolutely, 100% true. And in advertising, my friends, they are about as interesting as watching paint dry.

Advertising does not rely on facts, statistics or logic. In fact, it often seeks to actively avoid them. Successful ads don’t want to speak to the frontal lobe of your brain where facts are juggled and logical decisions reached – it wants to leap right past there and down to the lizard hind-brain where things are much more simple. They seek to pluck the strings of our emotions (often the most base and dangerous of them) and elicit a response. As advertisers, we don’t want you thinking about the fact that the latest widget is going to bust your checkbook and max out your Mastercard. We want you to remember that Bob Next Door already has the new widget and YOU look like a Damned Fool because you don’t have one!

Kristol strives mightly to point out the following “problems” with the Alex advertisement:

- John McCain won’t even be president when Alex is old enough to serve.
- McCain couldn’t make Alex serve anyway because we have an all volunteer army.
- The “mom” is a narcissist because she wants other people’s children to serve while hers remain safely at home.
- McCain doesn’t want a 100 year war in Iraq, but a peaceful post war presence

All valid points of debate and discussion, but again… in the advertising world, totally uninteresting. First of all, we don’t care about Alex and his pre-school playmates. They won’t be eligible to vote for nearly two decades and, as such, are persona non grata in the rules of target demographics warfare. We’re talking to the mothers here, and facts or logic can be damned. Here’s what we’re really saying:

You may be sitting there evaluating the relative experience of the candidates. You might be considering who will handle this economy the best or fuming over the high cost of gas at the pumps. But you’d better remember this: The Iraq war is still going on out there somewhere. And when your baby graduates high school, he or she may just decide to enlist and wind up in some far off desert. The next time you see them, do you want to risk having it be inside of a flag draped coffin?

And that, my friends, is a Louisville Slugger straight to the hindbrain. The ad, in terms of effective production, is a thing of beauty. It takes a rocket launcher to the emotional core of the target audience. The actress pulls off her role incredibly, wavering just on the point of tears, but not quite crying. The baby, (we don’t even know if it’s really her kid and, frankly, we don’t care) is in just the right mood – giggling but oh so vulnerable and adorable. The lighting is soft and casts the setting in non-threatening shades of white and beige. And as much as I may enrage our Right wing, war supporting friends to say this, everything about it hits a home run straight out of the park.

The factual premise may be wrong in the Alex ad. But for the advertising community, if cold, logical analysis is wrong we don’t wanna be right, baby. This ad works where it needs to and does so in a brutal fashion. Laugh at it if you like, but you do so at your own peril.

  • Potfry
    Huh? You're in marketing, and you offer that analysis? Don't quit your blogging job.

    The ad harkens back to a day when consumers were not sophisticated enough to see through maudlin nonsense. That's simply not the case today, and as a marketing person, you should know that. You believe her voice breaking is compelling when in reality it will create more eyerolls than sniffles.

    You see, people are willing to accept emotion when they believe the factual underpinnings. There are none in this ad, as Kristol points out. And the folks that the ad needs to impact-- blue collar Democrats, independents-- understand what McCain meant by his 100 year comment, and understand that there is no conscription. The ad, therefore, relies on deception to be believable, and there's nothing worse than a consumer who feels that someone's treating them like a naive idiot.
  • mwp
    Kristol says it's bogus because, among other things:
    "- McCain couldn’t make Alex serve anyway because we have an all volunteer army."

    So what? I know several parents whose children are in Iraq or Afghanistan who wish their children had not made that choice. If this were a commercial to support legislation against tobacco companies advertising to children and the mother said "you won't get my kid" would that be bogus just because the child would have to choose to smoke in order to become an addict? As a parent of children, I have no problem with wanting to reduce the number of (from my point of view) bad, self-destructive, and dangerous choices my kids might make when they're too young to know better.

    The military seems like a good option to lots of young people graduating from high school and wondering how they're going to make their way in the world. It's especially seductive because 18 year olds tend to be pretty confident of their immortality. I find McCain's commitment to the military and an expansive foreign policy presents a danger to my children. It's one of many reasons I'll vote against him.
  • Aquater
    Potfry is right. Besides, the so-called realities of advertising are irrelevant to any concerns of ethical value. They also can be perceived differently by different individuals or groups. That certain ads occur as a fact is no excuse to tolerate their occurrence or to endorse them simply because of the fact that they have occurred. The argument from "is" to "ought" is a naturalistic fallacy and this I thought should be known to any thoughtful and well-informed person. The article displays no understanding of this. The patent distortion of McCain's hundred year comment is enough to indict the ad in question.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    I'm a little amused by the complaints about this advertisement.

    It's a commercial: of course it's spin!!

    Here's another example of spin: Opinion pieces published in a newspaper.

    Even if it's by William Kristol.

    Even if it's in the New York Times.

    Where I wrote the word "even" you might want to substitute the word "especially".

    Caveat emptor, people.
  • ...understand what McCain meant by his 100 year comment

    I've never heard him outline a scenario for withdrawal under any circumstances. McCain wants us to stay if things are great in Iraq, and he doesn't want us to leave if things continue to be awful. So where's the misrepresentation?
  • StockBoySF
    There are lots of soldiers who did one or two tours in Iraq and want to come home, but of course they can't. And what about the National Guardsmen, many of whom probably wanted to serve their country by helping here at home, in the event of an emergency, rather than being shipped overseas in a war of choice?

    It's bogus for McCain or Kristol or anyone else for that matter to talk about staying in Iraq for 100 years to maintain the peace. I think most people would agree that if the presence of US troops in a non-hostile situaiton could help maintain peace and order in a region, and were welcomed to that region, then we should go. But the fact is that we are in a war in Iraq, that McCain supported and has said numerous times that we are winning. Certainly there may be some recent reduction in violence, but we're still mired there. So until McCain comes up with a plan to actually win the war, rather than prolong the agony we're in- with occasional advances, but also set-backs, then he (nor anyone else) can talk about Iraq like it's a peacful situation.
  • Davebo
    So now quoting McCain verbatim is "distorting" his statement?

    Should we wait to judge his statements from now on until they have been Liebermanized
  • runasim
    On advertising as a marketing technique in general, I'm an irrational revolutionary.
    I hate it! Irrationally, emotionally, I hate it! (Sorry, Jazz)

    I hate it because it's based on manipulation. Advertisers would make a case to blind people for buying reading glasses, if they could get away with it. I hate the sell-no-matter what mentality. How many salesmen would walk away from a chance to sell a doghouse to someone who owns no such animal?

    I hate the clutter in my life provided by constant appeals to buy something, vote for someone, hate someone, love someone else, believe something , disbelieve (is this a real word?) something else.
    I hate not being able to walk in the city, without every available space being plastered with these appeals. TV ads, website ads, salesmen at he door and on my phone.
    Give me a little private space for just conducting my life, please.

    Okay, I feel better now, and I'm open to compromise.again.
  • I think what some people are missing here is this: Since when are emotions rational? Ads like this are meant to hijack the emotional reflexes, in this case, a protective one, of all of those parents out there. In other words, for at least some people it will bypass the logic centers and go straight to built-in reflexes. Who wants their kid in a coffin, really? Do you really think everyone who sees it will stop and reason logically through the facts of it?
  • If there is something to get emotional about, it's people dying in an unnecessary war.
  • PattonGuy wins a cookie. And that's all I was trying to point out in the post. We're not talking about the truth or logic of the ad. That's not how it's built. It's an emotional appeal to the protective instincts of mothers.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC