I was watching CNN this afternoon and they had a spot on "What Is a Negative Advertisement?" Are the words misleading? Can ads that are factually accurate be negative? To discuss this point, they brought on a McCain strategist and an Obama strategist. Of course, since the two were bickering the entire time the segment seemed like one big negative ad against both candidates. Negativity is the nature of politics. If you can't win on your own merits, then become the lesser of two evils by slandering your opponent. It's unfortunate, but it's true. It seems that few Americans are actively politically informed and will seek out "the truth." Many will grab onto a few chunks of information regarding a candidate or campaign. Barack Obama is a terrorist? Well, ok then, John McCain it is! By increasing the amount of negative information known about your opponent, one is more likely to get some of those pieces to stick with the less informed members of the voting populace.
This is an interesting twist on a negative ad against negative ads:
The Museum of the Moving Image website has some fascinating history about how campaign advertisements started:
The idea for the spots came from Madison Avenue advertising executive Rosser Reeves, who had created the M&M "melts in your mouth, not in your hands" campaign. Reeves convinced Eisenhower that spot ads placed immediately before or after such popular TV programs as I Love Lucy would reach more viewers, and at a much lower cost, than half-hour speeches.
Take a look at one of the very first 30-second campaign advertisements from 1952. There's even the beginnings of the negative ad meme in there with the Truman donkey:
No comments:
Post a Comment