I was assigned the year 1988 and out of all the ads, the one that stood out to me the most was called “Willie Horton”.
In the ad (paid by National Security PAC) attacked presidential candidate Dukakis on crime. It begins by stating, “Bush and Dukakis on crime” and then makes it clear that Bush supports the death penalty. The remainder of the thirty-second video is dedicated to explain that Dukakis’ support of weekend passes using one example of how this policy turned deadly.
While this ad is incredibly direct in attacking policies of a candidate, it stood out to me as the most effective in turning an audience away from a candidate. The use of the example equates Dukakis with the actions of Willie Horton (a murderer that committed more crimes using the weekend pass) and shows how Dukakis isn’t qualified to be president. Even if this fact could be debunked, the association of Dukakis with Horton would not be easily erased. Also, the use of very little words draws attention to the specific associations needed to not support Dukakis.
It was my favorite in the sense that it was the most shocking and smartest use of few words, one example and reiterating a single message. Dukakis = Weak on crime
I was assigned to watch the ads on The Living Room Candidate for 1996, the year of the Clinton vs. Dole election. This was so interesting to watch and compare to the presidential campaign ads of today; they are not too much different, but they are also poorer image/sound quality and use terms that we don’t consider “politically correct” today (e.g., the term “illegal alien”). Of all the ads I watched, both from the Democrat and Republican sides of 1996 presidential campaigns, the Democrat ad entitled “Surgeon” was my favorite to watch and analyze. This ad utilized children to create an emotional appeal, by asking what they want to be when they grow up. Four children–of different genders and races–responded with a civil engineer, astronaut, orthopedic surgeon, and an airplane pilot. This emotional appeal with children then transitions into the ad explaining how President Clinton wants to create educational opportunities for children, and he will provide a $1,500 tuition tax credit and a $10,000 tuition tax deductible. Thus, most community colleges would be free and all colleges would become more affordable. Following this information–that is all presented in color–the ad transitions into accusing Dole-Gingrich of wanting to cut college scholarships and eliminate the Department of Education, which is presented in black and white. Lastly, one more young boy says he wants to find a cure for cancer, and President Clinton will help him reach that place of educational opportunity.
I thought this presidential campaign commercial for 1996 was so interesting through its utilization of children to make a statement about education reform. I can imagine how parents, who wanted their children to attend college, watching this ad would be led to believe Clinton would be the right candidate for their situation. Also, when the ad transitions from color and then to black and white when Dole-Gringrich is shown, I think that automatically creates a negative association with him for consumers of the ad. It is very interesting how colors and sounds can have that effect on people watching the ad, even when they do not realize it. As the years have continued, there has been an ethical debate about using kids and minors in ads. In the journal article, “Scenes from the Political Playground: An Analysis of the Symbolic Use of Children in Presidential Campaign Advertising,” by Susan A. Sherr, the research found that children are often used in ads to address “economic insecurity, poverty, crime, war, and hope for the future” (Sherr, 2001). I found this to be an interesting way to analyze the Living Room Candidate ads, and I’d be interested in hearing whether any of your ads featured children? And, do you think this is ethical? Why or why not?
My favorite brand has and will forever be Nike. As a kid, all of my favorite athletes such as Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Derek Jeter, and many others were sponsored by Nike so I naturally fell in love with the brand. Their saying “Just do it” resonated very much so with me because it can be applied to all facets of life and the way in which to overcome obstacles is not to wait but rather to just begin and start “Just do it”. I am also a huge baseball fan and admire Derek Jeter for the way in which he played the game of baseball in his lengthy career. Jeter has always respected the game of baseball as well as any opponent he came across in his 20-year career. The reason why this ad speaks so much to me is that not only does it encompass Derek Jeter, Michael Jordan, Jon Lester, and my many other favorite athletes and celebrities. It shows a variety of athletes, celebrities, and everyday citizens tipping their cap to Derek Jeter in his final season as a Yankee. Tipping your cap in baseball is a sign of respect as well as a salute to the opponent and is one of the kindest gestures in baseball. It has this underlying message when it shows men, women, children, and celebrities of all different ethnicities and races that no matter who we are we can all agree that Derek Jeter played the game of baseball in the proper manner in his twenty-year career and how that can unite us over our differences.
This time for me has personally been very much so a struggle with my baseball season being ripped away from me and witnessing the same thing happen to all of my fellow athletes around the world/country. Sports to me was my life jacket and is what I had to look forward to at the end of a hard day. Being able to see 35 of my closest friends. Sports have the ability to unite people from different backgrounds, religions, races, and socio-economic classes. After the 9/11 terrorist attack and the Boston bombing, the New York Mets and the Boston Bruin’s hosted games at their respective stadiums and both crowds were erupting in USA chants. Rather than the fans cheering against one another, they were cheering with one another and those cheers were directed towards the United States of America. The same thing applies with the Derek Jeter commercial everyone puts aside their differences and all come into one in-group about the level of respect they have for Derek Jeter as well as his greatness.
Ive always enjoyed the Budweiser Super Bowl Commercials with the horses and puppies but I thought the most recent one was the best. The company brands themselves really well presenting a patriotic, hardworking, and respectable image. The commercial is describing “typical” Americans in a sarcastic way while they are accomplishing extraordinary tasks (military members, farmers, firefighters, protestors, etc). It is an all around feel good commercial that is motivating and gives the audience a sense of pride in their actions and in their country. Because of commercials like these, when I see Budweiser I feel proud to be an American (even though the founders are German). I think that it is the commercials that leave you with a different expression or perspective at the end that are the best, both for marketing and getting a message across.
My favorite ad series is the snickers, “You aren’t when you are hungry”. I love how the Ad Campaign took a literal twist on the trite phrase by having the people who are hungry be actual different people. My favorite part is the ending lines:
Jan: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.
Carol: Jan, this isn’t about you.
Jan: It never is!
Steve Buscemi really nailed that! I think what makes this commercial hilarious and memorable
is the running joke even to the end. Also, ad campaigns tend to stick more such as flo, snickers
I liked Reagan’s ad campaign much better than Mondale’s. Reagan’s ads emphasized what he had done in office already, and shared some of his goals. Mondale’s ads however were mostly aimed at attacking Reagan. Reagan’s ads had hopeful, happy music and image of a happy America. They featured patriotic messages, and presented Reagan as a sort of hero to America. Mondale’s ads were fairly negative and were accompanied by ominous music. Overall, they were less pleasant to watch. Neither ad campaign, however, discussed the candidates’ actual plans for the country. In one of his ads, “Reaganomics,” Reagan touches vaguely on what he would do for the American economy, but other than that, neither candidate explains their plan for the country. This goes back to the “where are we going?” versus “how will we get there?” debate.
My favorite ad from he 1984 campaigns was Reagan’s “Peace” ad. I think that it does a good job of reminding American’s why they should care about the future of American- their children. I think that this would have sparked an emotional response from many viewers. Also, the commercial is uplifting and pleasant to watch. It talks about peace for America, which is something that almost everyone in the country was wishing for at that time. Finally, the ad explains what Reagan had done in office already, which is a good way to convince audiences that he already is a good president and should remain in office. Overall, I thought Reagan’s “Peace” ad was effective and pleasant to watch.
My favorite ad has always been the Budweiser “Someone Waits for You” ad that discourages drinking and driving with an emotional pull of a dog and an owner that almost doesn’t make it home. The idea of “man and his best friend” always has seemed to be a good way for any company or product to get the US to pay attention to their advertisement, because they want to ensure the relationship remains intact and positive. The Budweiser ad starts with the dog as just a puppy when the owner first picked him up, to show the immediate connection that began early on. It goes through them spending time together and playing, both making them happy. The footage they use is purposely relatable for anyone who has ever owned a dog. Though one night, the owner leaves with his keys for a night of drinking with his friends, and does not return home even though he told the dog (for some reason like it was his wife) that he would be home later that evening. When he doesn’t return home, the dog becomes extremely upset and worried, convincing the audience the owner died in a drinking and driving accident and leaving his best friend behind. However, it is revealed at the last second that the owner in fact spent the night at a friend’s house so he did not have to drive under the influence, therefore allowing him to return safe and sound to the dog and best friend.
The idea of having a dog who you can call your best friend that cares and watches out for you in my mind relates to the idea in Huff’s reading that there is often a skewage caused by purposely confusing “normal” and “desirable.” Through the creation of advertisements or the spread of information to the consumer, Huff states that the readers tend to miss the important figures or numbers that somehow disappeared in the process. Rather than include the scary and disheartening statistics of drinking and driving and the deaths related to it, Budweiser chose to completely side step and the scary side and instead show a loving story of best friends reunited after one decided to not make the decision to put his life in danger.
My favorite ad has to be the “Got Milk – Arron Burr.” I first saw this ad when I was about ten years old and my Dad showed it to me. I find it really funny and entertaining. It does a great job with humor and is a subtle ad, which is a rarity today. I also don’t find its humor pushy or annoying, unlike the GEICO ads which I personally have tired of. As I’ve gotten older, I continue to enjoy the sentimental memories of it. When I first saw it, I had no idea who Arron Burr or Alexander Hamilton were, this was before the famous play came out, and before I became interested in studying history. Now as someone who studies history and enjoys the Hamilton soundtrack I find the ad even more entertaining.
This is my favorite ad because its funny. I am a big fan of the funny ads especially with everything going on in the world right now. Its lighthearted, amusing, and kind of dumb but it gets the point accross. It depicts a game night with a sloth who is drawing really really slowly. The people are guessing all the different things the sloth could be drawing and all of them are wrong. At the end of the allowed time to draw, we are told that the sloth is drawing a bike. The punch line for the ad is that as long as you can count as sloths to be slow, you can count on Geico to save you money.
One of Geico’s more famous slogans is Geico can save you 15% or more on car insurance, but after reading the article on statistics and how you can manipulate them, I’m not sure how realistic that actually is. I knew before that stats could be manipulated but I had no idea to what extent they could be changed. Though this ad is funny and I laugh almost every time it comes on the tv, I would be curious to know what the true savings rate is for everyone.
My favorite ad would have to be the ads from the Allstate mayhem campaign, in particular the one about the cat. In this campaign, an actor plays “mayhem” in all of its various forms which in this case is a cat. The ad depicts a fully grown man living in a house with a couple acting like a mischievous cat would – riding around on the roomba, scratching at the owners – all while wearing a suit, talking to the camera, and interacting with the couple as they pretend to have no idea of any of the things he’s saying as he’s just a cat to them. The ad ends with the “cat” turning the faucet on, flooding the bathroom, and causing the upstairs bathroom to collapse into the living room. He cautions that without the right insurance, the couple might not be protected “so get Allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow”.
While I’ve always liked this ad just because I find it funny, looking at it after doing the readings definitely sheds some new light on why it’s effective. As discussed in Teavey, this ad seems to employ the third of the four tricks of effective advertising: solution. If homeowners wish to avoid having to pay for unusual damages out of pocket, they should get Allstate and be covered completely. In this series of ads, they’re giving solutions to problems homeowners, drivers, and others who need insurance don’t even know they have or now fear that they might have. They’ve also created an effective campaign by ending every ad with the same phrase – “So get Allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me” (the meow was just for the cat ad which I found much funnier than I probably should have). By using the same tagline, they’re reinforcing the notion that Allstate is the best equipped insurance agency to protect consumers from unexpected events.
