http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980

My favorite ad from the 1980’s is the first ad you see on this link: Reagan’s Record. This ad epitomized what I expect from a presidential ad; catchy music, boosting of candidate, cheering and handshaking, and so on. One of the main reasons that I liked this ad was because of their use of “advertising” and statistics, which I found interesting and relevant from last class. For example, this ad states “Reagan was elected governor of California, which, next to president, the biggest job in the nation.” I saw this statement as a parallel to one of the examples that our reading gave, like “number one pizza in America.” Furthermore, the ad also introduces statistics. The ad states that when Reagan was elected “California was faced with a 194 million dollar deficit, which he then turned into a 550 million dollar surplus.” I found these statistics and comments incredibly interesting because they are crammed into a one minute long campaign ad. Therefore, they provide almost no depth or no context. Taking these statements at face value, Reagan seems like a pretty awesome candidate for the presidency. However, given our readings and class discussions from last class, I wonder what is “true” and is solid information to use as a basis.

I also liked this ad because it did not attack Jimmy Carter but instead, it boosted Reagan. Carter’s ads dealt mainly with military issues and attacking Reagan (not many focused on Reagan, but a few). There were also a few ads focused on faith, leadership, and patriotism but in regards to substance and “reform”, his ads talked a lot about military. However, Reagan’s ads did talk a lot about interest rates, security and prosperity, and peace. There were of course a few ads attacking Carter and his foreign policies. However, I found Reagan’s ads to be more appealing to the average American voter and saw how they would be more successful. The reason I picked this ad as my favorite is because I feel that it is the most emblematic of all of Reagan’s ads and found it to be the most successful in appealing to American voters.

My favorite ad was the 1964 Democratic ad called Accomplishments. When evaluating the ads, I watched I was looking for two things: did I personally like the ad? And did I think it was a good campaign ad? The Accomplishments ad succeeded on both fronts for me. Personally, I like ads that focus on past successes, future goals, and the ideals the candidate is bringing to the table. This ad does all of those things, by listing Johnson’s accomplishments and weaving them into the American ideals, making them all the more effective. I particularly liked his focus on the War on Poverty and civil rights efforts.

However, this was also a good campaign ad in its own right. The ad very effectively draws Johnson and Kennedy together, effectively saying they’re the same. At the time, Kennedy was an American hero and incredibly popular. By making himself Kennedy’s successor, Johnson was able to use Kennedy’s popularity to increase his own. Despite all this, the ad isn’t perfect. The mention of the Tonkin Gulf for example, and how he, “turned back communism” is a falsehood, as we all know. Rather than turning back communism, Johnson would help drag us into a brutal and long-lasting war that would cost tens of thousands of lives only to end in a complete communist victory. While of course all of this hadn’t come to pass, Johnson already knew that he hadn’t won a complete victory in the Tonkin Gulf incident, and yet chose to put that forward anyway. This wasn’t Johnson’s first lie, and it wouldn’t be the last. However, I still see this as my favorite ad for the reasons previously listed, despite lie about Tonkin.

My favorite ad is an NFL Play 60 ad encouraging kids to get 60 minutes of exercise a day. It stars NFL quarterback Cam Newton and a small child. The ad uses humor to get its point across and for this reason is very memorable. I think that is one of the biggest things advertisers should consider is how well people can remember their ad.  This ad aired years ago and I still remember it, so they accomplished their task.

This ad mainly uses comedy to get its point across. It could possibly be using ad populum as well because it is trying to make it seem like every kid that exercises will grow up to be the next Cam Newton. Still, by using comedy, they get away with it and it is an effective ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aKYZFcmAmU

I watched an interview on the show Conversations with Bill Kristol entitled “Our Civic Life in Decline” with Robert Putnam. Robert Putnam is a professor of public policy at the Harvard School of Government, a distinguished author, scholar, and political aid and commentator, among other things. This interview focused on the work that Putnam has been focusing on in the last few years, the decline of communities and the growing opportunity gap. Over the last fifty years our nation has gained getter technology, better acceptance of minorities (for the most part), higher life expectancies, etc. yet our sense of community has gone extremely down. Putnam discusses the fact that our nation was built on high social capital and high social trust, but currently our nation is lacking in those areas. The reason for this according to Putnam is the growing opportunity gap and the growing segregation of American society as a result. The current trends occurring in the US are that the kids from upper class families continue do better and better, while kids coming from working class families are doing worse and worse. Putnam points out that this has a lot to do with the differences in the times that America has faced. He Is referring to the 50’s when he grew up when the phrase “our kids” meant the kids of the town, when today that same phrase means only your biological children. People have stopped caring about the well-being of the kids in the areas they live in because they want their kids to have the best opportunities, which has led to this nation feeling like less of a community.

Today there are so many barriers that prevent kids from working class or lower income families from succeeding and or being on the same level as kids from college educated or upper-class families. One example that I did not even realize that was contributing to this problem was the fact that the majority, if not all, sports and extracurricular activities are “pay to play”. This means that there are so many fees and costs of equipment that often lower income families could not afford to let their kids participate. These extracurriculars are so important because they teach kids soft skills that will be useful in the workplace, as well as giving kids positive role models that are not their parents. The skills that the kids from upper class families receive from these activities put lower income kids at a disadvantage that is not realized in this country. Although test scores and schools do play a large role in the opportunity gap, there are people actively trying to solve those problems, but one of the biggest problems is that kids are not being given to learn teamwork and comradery. Putnam made a great point in that the opportunity gap was just as big in 1910, but the people of rural Kansas came up with public high school, which closed the gap and instantly helped the economy grow. Putnam urged the audience that there is a way to change the opportunity gap that we face today and that all it would take is people banding together and coming up with a solution like introducing public high school to the nation.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHZc-kcyQ

I was assigned to watch both the Democrat and Republican campaign ads for 1964, surrounding the election between then current president, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barry Goldwater. This was an interesting election because in 1963 Johnson went from being JFK’s Vise President to the President after JFK’s assassination.  I was fascinated while watching these ads because they are from over fifty years ago and the issues both candidates focused on are so different from what I am used to seeing in current political ads. I thought that it was so interesting how both Johnson and Goldwater has so many “attack ads” but not in the way that I was used to. The threat of nuclear war and communism was consuming people’s minds as the Cold War was occurring, and both candidates used fear of both to prove why they are the better choice for the US. Also, another huge topic that was focused on in 1964 that is still focused on today are the social welfare programs. Johnson was trying to increase Social Security and introduce Medicare to the nation and used quotes from Goldwater to show how he was not for these programs that would benefit all. I think that Johnson did a much better job in his ad campaigns because he used real quotes from Goldwater and his supporters liking him with the KKK, as well as using testimony from Republicans, both government officials as well as regular people, to show why Goldwater was not the right choice.

I was not expecting the amount of fear mongering these ads would have in them, but it does make sense due to the state of the world at that time. I thought that Johnson’s campaign slogan, “Vote for President Johnson on November 3^rd, the stakes are too high to stay home”, was very fitting for the times because with everyone so afraid already of the threat that the Cold War posed to them, Johnson was showing in all of his ads that he was handling it and that everyone would be safe. My favorite ad from 1964 was for Johnson, and it was entitled “Ice Cream”. This ad consists of a video of a little girl eating ice cream while a voice over plays discussing atomic bombs and what their effects can do to children, and how they can make people die. The ad goes on to say that this was thankfully stopped when the government got together to sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to make the radio activeness “go away”, but that there is a man who wants to bring it back, aka Goldwater, and finally ends with Johnson’s campaign slogan. . I liked this ad so much because it really tugs at your heart strings, seeing this sweet little girl enjoying her ice cream while the threat of nuclear testing in the US is threatened if you do not vote for LBJ. I find this ad to be extremely efficient, because it reminds the viewer that the stakes ARE too high, and that innocent people would be at risk if they did not go out and vote for him.

Out of all the campaign ads, Law and Order by Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey was the best. The reason is that this was not a regular political ad attacking the campaign of an opponent. This ad shows Humphrey being asked about obtaining respect from America if he becomes president. This ad was logically sound and precise because it did not snip together random images of the American society. It showed a candidate actually defending their intentions and goals for presidency. Humphrey’s words might have sounded revolutionary in 1968, but they sound normal by today’s standards. He argued that we shouldn’t seek to increase convictions in America and build bigger jails. Despite the social and political violence occurring during the 1960’s, this argument rings true today. Humphrey’s ad also emphasizes his belief in providing support for American citizens such as social welfare. He stands in stark contrast to the restrictive and untrustworthy stance that Nixon has towards the American public. His critique of Nixon is not based on insults or offensive remarks, but on ideological differences. This public campaign is a mature approach that many modern campaigns today fail to follow.

This ad made me think about our system of criminal justice in the United States. I think Humphrey’s comment in this 1968 ad is startling;  “you’re not going to make this a better America just because you build more jails.” We failed to listen to this advice and now we have the most amount of people incarcerated per capita in the world. As everyone has seen, jailing more individuals has not decreased the issues we have in society. This can be seen in the rise of crime throughout the 20th century. I agree with Humphrey’s perspective about rehabilitation because locking people up doesn’t completely restore justice. This can be seen in people who are habitual offenders. Much of the neglect and abuse that occurs in prison only creates contempt among prisoners. Our prison system frequently violates basic human rights in order to exert unnecessary force on vulnerable people. If individuals are viewed as forever unfit to live in society, what is the point of reformation and rehabilitation? There is no incentive for prisoners to self-improve and atone for one’s mistakes. Thus, Humphrey’s remarks on reforming criminal justice are morally sound and I respect him because of this.

URL: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968

I watched the ads from both the Republic and Democratic runnings for the 1956 election (Eisenhower V Stevenson). The differences between the entire ad campaigns were interesting to see. The Democratic campaign was centered around fear-based tactics and critiquing Eisenhower’s previous term. The Republican approach highlighted a series of Americans and allowing them to talk about why they were voting for Ike. This approach is important for two reasons, 1. the American people were speaking for themselves, this celebrated unity and “the people” ideals, and 2. women were voting, so the marketing approach was focused on women, as individuals.

Lots of studies say Eisenhower’s approach to campaign TO women aided in his victory. The Republicans were able to exploit the gender ideology of the mid-1950s while the Democrats were trying to campaign to everyone, creating too broad of a marketing strategy. My personal favorite ad was titled “Women Voters.” It begins with the statistic: “This year there are fifty-four million women eligible to vote – two and a half million more women than men, enough to decide the whole election.” This clearly explains Eisnhower’s marketing approach, female voters could determine the election results! The speaker continues on and says “because they believe he represents their best hope of achieving these things, the women of America are making their choice for president Dwight D. Eisenhower.” That line is so important, the women of America are a separate group in this election when for so long women did not vote, and when they started to, they followed their husband’s vote. This differentiation of women as a separate voting demographic was a genius marketing strategy. This highlights how crucial women were to this election and that they deserve special attention during campaigning.

When watching the ad you will see a series of 10 women speak about why they chose to vote for Ike, they mention security and minimum wage laws, but most of all, they speak about his character. Words like sincerity, honesty, God-fearing, and respectable. It speaks to the truth of the time: women votes during those years were based on more personal and subjective judgments of the candidates. I was reading up on the marketing strategies of this election and found two interesting quotes. From Republican Bertha Adkins: “There is no question that the woman’s point of view is more subjective and personal. Women are more concerned about the honesty and integrity of the candidate, and they often react emotionally to his personality. If they don’t like him, they may very well stay home on election day.” And from the Democratic side, Katie Louchheim believed, “There just isn’t any such thing as a women’s vote, or any appeal that is more effective for women than for men. The appeal of a candidate’s personality is just as strong for men as for women, and women are interested in all issues.” Here you have two contrasting views, and when understood in the context of the time (because obviously things have changed greatly and I would say Louchheim’s statement is true today), one can see the reason the Republican’s took that specific marketing approach, and they ended up winning; so although the marketing strategy wouldn’t work today, it was genius for this election year.

Quotes from: Brown, Nona “Women’s Vote: The Bigger Half?”, New York Times October 21, 1956, 2.

http://livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988

“Bay” was probably my favorite ad from the 1988 Presidential Election. A lot of the Bush ads were attack ads on Dukakis, so it was nice to see him fighting back against them. I especially liked this because some of the information provided said that several of the Bush’s attack ads stated incorrect information about Dukakis, which ultimately changed opinions of him and played a role in Dukakis losing the election. This made me like to see Dukakis trying to write some of those wrongs.

“Bay” was largely about environmental issues and basically stated that Dukakis was the better candidate on environmental issues. It also listed a bunch of ways that Bush had worked to support policies that harmed the environment. To me, environmental issues are really important and I think this ad gave Dukakis a huge edge over Bush in that arena, especially considering Bush said nothing in any of his ads about helping the environment.

http://livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988

I also liked the ad “On Your Side.” It fought back against some of the rumors Bush was spreading about Dukakis. It also clearly outlined where Dukakis stands on a variety of issues. I also liked that some of these issues were issues that Bush never touched on, so it gave us a look at how Dukakis will work on a wide variety of issues. The only reason this was not my favorite ad was because it was a little long at 4 minutes and 20 seconds. That really would not hold my attention and there is no chance I would watch the whole thing, but I do understand that in 1988 people might have been watching more commercials than people now can tolerate.

Watching the 1984 campaign ads, Reagan’s ads are much more calming and enjoyable to watch, while every single one of Mondale’s ads are focused on attacking Reagan and they take an aggressive, too informative approach. While I don’t doubt that what Mondale was saying about Reagan was true, his approach was certainly off-putting, especially in contrast to Reagan. The economy was doing well under Reagan and in 1984 there was finally peace in the nation after WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all took place within Reagan’s lifetime. The American people craved comfort and stability, which is exactly what the Reagan ads portrayed and the exact opposite of what the Mondale ads portrayed.

Even when discussing difficult topics, Reagan’s ads did so in a comforting manner. My favorite ad from the campaign was Reagan’s entitled “Bear”. Part of why I liked it so much is that it took a completely different approach than any of Reagan, Mondale, or quite frankly any other ad I’ve seen has. The ad is 30 seconds long and consists of footage of a bear roaming around a forest with a very soothing, yet firm narration and slightly ominous music. The narrator at one point says “Some say the bear is tame, others say it’s vicious and dangerous.” It’s clear that the bear referenced is referring to the threats posed by the Soviet Union and appeals to the logic of viewers. Even if there isn’t a bear, shouldn’t we be prepared just in case? Without being overly alarming, the ad is able to make a convincing appeal that even though the nation was currently at peace, the United States should still be prepared for whatever dangers may lay ahead. I found this ad to be extremely effective and very different.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984

My favorite ad, or rather series of ads, would have to be those that have come over the years from Old Spice. Their ads do an excellent job of garnering the viewers attention, and convincing them to purchase their product. Old Spice’s most successful advertisement is one they title “The man your man could smell like”, and it displays a character viewers are likely to try to model themselves after. In a humorous way, the main character increases his level of affluency and ability over the span of thirty seconds, switching from being in the shower, to riding a white horse along a beach with a handful of diamonds. This commercial takes a satirical approach to the usual attempt to make viewers feel a sense of a need to improve themselves, yet it is still seemingly succesful.

Old Spice also centered many of their advertisements for years on Terry Crews, who is known for being loud, enthusiastic, and very strong. The advertisements mainly compose of him screaming, playing instruments, and doing other ridiculous acts to capture viewers attention. This pairs nicely with the already present celebrity appeal. By having Terry Crews seem somewhat absurd, the ads almost make viewers feel that they are similar to the celebrity, as they share the same sense of what is funny. These ads have certainly led me to buy Old Spice soap more than I otherwise would have, as when my usual favorite brands are not available, I recognize their products as well accepted, and mainstream. This shows the power of implicit messaging in advertising, even when ads seem to have a main goal of appearing somewhat irregular.