Political ads don't work
There is something very wrong with this article about political advertising.
I think there have been cases where political advertising worked. Otherwise, why are people convinced that Al Gore said that he "invented the internet", or that Kerry is a flip flopper whose record in Vietnam is worse than that of that "no-show" George AWOL Bush. Perhaps things in Britain are different, but character assassination, if done well, does bring about the desired results.
I also can't help wondering how they went about measuring the effectiveness of these adverts. Did they just go to people and ask them, "Do you feel that this advertisement made you like Tony more or less?". The point is that these adverts should work on subconscious as well as on a conscious level. But I am speculating here, since there is no account of their methodology at all.
"There is a myth about political advertising," warned Philip Gould, New Labour's polling and marketing guru, in his book The Unfinished Revolution. "Advertising has an effect but it is small and rarely decisive. It is certain that in four of the last five elections, advertising did not materially influence the result.
"The one possible exception is the 1992 election, where it can be argued that [Labour's] Tax Bombshell had some effect on the electorate. But even that is highly debatable. Labour lost that election because it was not yet electable."
That scepticism is echoed in the only recent study of political advertising in Britain, by David Sanders and Pippa Norris, which examined the effects of ads in the 2001 election. They found that the overall impact was small, that attack advertising was counter-productive and that ads were disproportionately effective for smaller parties who otherwise struggled for coverage.
I think there have been cases where political advertising worked. Otherwise, why are people convinced that Al Gore said that he "invented the internet", or that Kerry is a flip flopper whose record in Vietnam is worse than that of that "no-show" George AWOL Bush. Perhaps things in Britain are different, but character assassination, if done well, does bring about the desired results.
I also can't help wondering how they went about measuring the effectiveness of these adverts. Did they just go to people and ask them, "Do you feel that this advertisement made you like Tony more or less?". The point is that these adverts should work on subconscious as well as on a conscious level. But I am speculating here, since there is no account of their methodology at all.
posted by amitav at 4/19/2006 01:20:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
i think the author of that article made one very good point about how the ad could be counter-productive.
a cute adorable chameleon on a bike... ?!?
instead of smearing Dave C isn't this reinforcing many aspects of the compassionate conservatism; that conservatives are now vibrant; that they now have a sense of humour; that they are youthful; that they are environmentally aware; and crucially that they have changed...
"i think the author of that article made one very good point about how the ad could be counter-productive."
I agree that it's a valid point. But this is just further evidence that ads are effective. I believe the purpose of this article was to show that political ads as a method for swaying population to your side are ineffective.
This article should have been about the people who are supposed to be creating effective ads and why are these people are incompetent.
Maybe they should have contacted Karl
Rove for more insights
Mr Rove was supposedly demoted yesterday.
i don't know too much about him but did find out where you can get Rovey merchandise :)
Barry, how can you not know the man who has been the leader of the "free world" for the last 5 years?
As for the article you quoted, Rove himself,
"brushed aside suggestions that the change was a diminishment of his role."
Mr. Rove will retain his title as a deputy chief of staff, as well as his catch-all designation as Mr. Bush's senior adviser.
He said he would continue to oversee broad policy issues.
So where exactly is the change? Does it matter where his desk officially is? From all I know about gentleman, he does not spend a lot of time in one place in any case. It would be interesting to see the visitors log book to the White House and if the number of times Mr Rove would see the president would diminish as a result of this "demotion".
It does not matter which puppets surface to the public eye, the man in charge is not only pulling the strings, he does not even care to deny it.
"The change in Mr. Rove's responsibilities was at a minimum a signal that the White House was serious about reorganizing itself to get Mr. Bush's presidency back on track".
That's pretty much all it is - a signal. Noone is taking it seriously.
I wonder if they had a party afterwards and if P. Diddy was invited.
Post a Comment
<< Home