Why Do TV Ads Suck So Much Compared to Web Video?

matthew is correct - having worked with him for 15 years i do agree with his argument that positive ads aired specifically for television today are basically a wash in terms of actual votes by the likely voter - the likely voter being one who has voted consistently (i.e. showed up) regardless of choice, whether it be strict or swing.

television advertising does have its place.  the 50+ are actual voters, yet are still technologically challenged, and i have long argued we air television advertising till 2012.  the reason?  positive, informative advertising engages this select audience.  and these voters will not branch out to inform themselves online.

negative ads (today we call them contrast ads) do work.

in 2000 and 2004 our goal was to create an ad so provacative, judy woodruff would kick off her segment with a clip on CNN's Inside Politics.  positive ads have no chance, it's the contrast spots that gain attention.

many say "why go negative"... i say, "are they?"  if a true contrast ad provides the facts mixed with a touch of humor, it will go viral.  and it will reach the 50+ via email, engaging and enticing this audience plug in to the Internet.

we must not neglect those offline.  there will be a time, 2012 or 2016 that television advertising will fade.  and if we do this right.  if we create viral web ads that reach all ages whether it be via youtube, campaign sites or email forwards, we have successfully transitioned to the next phase of political advertising.

I see that Patrick is selling the idea that internet gimmicks can make up for bad candidates, failed administrations, and lousy staff work.  Maybe if SEnator McCain was a much stronger candidate and maybe if his staff was capable of competent work and maybe if the Republicans were not burdened by the failures of the Bush Administration, one could argue that internet video actually means something. 

But as long as the Repulbicans are running candidates who are too lazy to read their briefing books and too stupid to understand what they are being told, there is no amount of interent gimmicks that will change anything.

I guess what Patrick really shows is that the left is dominated by people who what to make changes to the U.S. and the right is currently dominated by people who want to advance their careers.  Maybe when Patrick realizes that without competent leadership there is not going to be a relevant Repubican party around to hire him to do internet gimmicks.

Elegant post Patrick, as usual just a bit ahead of the wave. But, as correspondent lauracrawford  (Wed, 08/06/2008 - 03:48) points out, the re-branding game never ends. To wit:

     negative ads (today we call them contrast ads) do work.

Slime and mud became negative ads, and now under magic of the market place have become contrast ads. Love it, get your contrast ad over here, do not wear white linens, and we recommend boots.

The problem with negative ads is Obama can can collect snippets of them together in a montage and then simply ask at the end, "Is that all they've got? This is what we need to change about Washington."

Yeah negative ads work, but people hate them and hate all poliiticians when they see them. The target and the shooter. It's worked to Republican advantage when Rove was interested in increasing base turnout and discouraging indies from voting at all. I'm afraid with Obama's ju jitsu talents it may backfire this time. The indies are engaged this year and a lotta Repubs have drifted into their ranks. McCain can't afford go 50/50 with them trying to paint Obama as an effete snob if it's gonna just make him look like a nasty old man.

Someone noted that in '04 hundreds of million were spent on TV ads and the needle barely moved where they were broadcast.

Well, assuming two equally well funded , equally competent  campaigns, that's sorta what should happen.

If you doubt me, consider why when one campaign has ads up and the other is dark the guess is the party not airing is sure it's lead is large and durable enough to deal with a slow leak. in that state. 

Think professional sports. The year Michael Strahan set the sack record he was on the field for probably 500 pass attempts against the Giants, yet he got only 22 sacks.  Did he "fail"  96% of the time? No. Obviously that's because the other team blocked him.  But a marginal difference--which is only achievable at this level with extreme skill and extreme intensity--could make a huge difference in a close ball game. (Florida 2000 anyone?) 

The problem we have is that with saturation of the usual time windows (local broadcast news in battleground states)  successful national and statewide campaigns are going to need to expand the field by buying ads in different time slots and different cable networks. And at last the Mark Penn theories might work. You are not going to run an ad on Conan O'Brien that is going to work on Lifetime.

I think a lot of folks have bought into the industrial age attrition style of politics (if 1000 points doesn;t work. well, make it 2000!) when TV will play a decisive role in a more agile and nimble "high touch" post-industrial political of maneuver.