|
Dear CMO: I won’t go political. Not here, not anywhere. We keep our political rants well away from our marketing discussions just like we keep our peas from touching our carrots. Usually. Sometimes, succotash happens. But someone has to give a great big “Wow, did you see that?” to the 1984 spoof ad that an unknown perpetrator has launched on YouTube for Barack Obama.
Have you seen it? A Citizen Marketer has launched a scud at the Clinton campaign putting her in the place of “Big Brother.” This is another in a series of third-party actions – whether video or verbal – for which the benefiting candidate doesn’t have to answer. Expect this to increase dramatically. Surrogates can keep up the barrage for as long as they produce breakthrough creative. Uninspired work – and I’m sure YouTube is full of it – won't hit the surface for good reason.
The marketing lesson I'm left with here is that powerful and well-aimed metaphors always hit harder than beautiful creative. The spoof ad itself isn’t terribly unique; it’s a bit run-of-the-mill, given the fairly simple change of image from the original ad.
But the impact it has caused has been anything but. If the face in the video was that of Bill Gates, George Bush, Barry Bonds, or Simon Cowell, this wouldn’t have resonated. In this case, though, it did. Much like the Geffen quote of weeks past, it struck a nerve. This may simply be a case of someone shouting, ‘The Empress Has No Clothes,” giving voice to the unspoken beliefs of everyone present.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
> Surrogates can say what is politically impossible for a brand (or candidate) to say; and often, this will carry far more weight than a paid for, branded message. In our newly emerging age of user generated content, this is something we’re all going to get to know very well. After all, they say an election is coming up.
> Snappy creative is a distant second to a powerfully delivered metaphor. You can smack your audience in the face with a CGI-fueled diatribe to little affect, but lightly touch a nerve and the reaction is immediate and visceral.
> Your end users are very smart. They probably don’t need much help in articulating the metaphors, talking points, or relative weaknesses of your opponents. However, it never hurts to make sure they know what your metaphors, talking points and relative strengths are, does it? And even coming across as a positive, authentic, and likeable brand probably increases the chances of gaining a bit of their advocacy, don’t you think?
* * *
As far as being a powerful political message, I don’t think this qualifies. It isn’t portraying much of a positive image of anyone; it’s a negative attack on the opponent. I know this is shocking given the nature of political advertising. I think the irony is that it won’t help Obama’s image, but will certainly hurt Clinton’s. It may simply open the door to a third candidate. Or brand. Maybe something in green?
Regards.
|
Comments
Stephen - Interesting post. Welcome to the dark side. Yes, this qualifies. :)
Hey... Last night I read the first couple chapters of "Made to Stick." What I find interesting so far is how often an idea doesn't even have to be true to have legs. Who was it that said, "A lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth even has a chance to get its boots on..." or something like that...
In politics, putting a brand on your opponent is probably more effective than attempting to brand yourself. It's easier to get a majority to distrust a politician than it is to get a even a plurality to trust another. By the time anyone really starts paying attention to the substance of the candidates, it will likely be too late to counter the negative brands that the candidates have acquired, IMO.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 03.21.07
Really enjoyed this post. I too love metaphors. But being that it's Hillary's mug up there isn't this rather literal? I know they're drawing the analogy that she's just as big bro, all-talk as the rest of 'em, but the original Apple commercial didn't actually place IBM up there. Whatnot.
A couple things that resonated with me:
1)"Surrogates can say what is politically impossible for a brand (or candidate) to say; and often, this will carry far more weight than a paid for, branded message." Well said. I think this was planted by O's team but, nonetheless, you are spot-on in that we're going to get to know this--and leverage it--very well.
2) Love this line from Cam: "In politics, putting a brand on your opponent is probably more effective than attempting to brand yourself." Very well said, Cam. I shall steal that line from you lots :-).
In politics the rule seems to be "when you're in the lead, play to your strengths...when you're not in the lead prey upon your opponent's weaknesses." (It's likely the same in all branding, not just politics). But with viral and RSS technologies now all these surrogates can harp on these weaknesses. It will be interesting to see which citizen marketer pieces rise to the top/cut through the clutter. And which so-called CM ads are called-out as obvious "plants". Look for some battles there.
In any case, I am looking far more forward to surrogate ads than the broadcast ones (yawn). Denny, by looking at these campaigns you're not getting political you're just being analytical and sticking to marketing. Really.
Posted by: CK | 03.21.07
"In any case, I am looking far more forward to surrogate ads than the broadcast ones (yawn)."
I wonder if that isn't the true message behind this spoof? Is it an Obama supporter slamming Hillary, or is it citizen media slamming broadcast media?
Apple's 1984 is arguably the most recognizable ad of the last couple of decades, maybe of all time. But in 2008, all it will take is one YouTube going viral, to suddenly capture the nation's attention.
I think that's the real message here. In 1984, citizen marketers didn't really have a way to instantly get their message out to the world. In 2008, they will.
Which is why 2008 won't be anything like 1984.
Posted by: Mack Collier | 03.21.07
This is why I hate politics. It brings out the worst from the worst people.
Anonymous attack ads. More to come, I'm sure.
Posted by: David Reich | 03.21.07