Last post for Tri 1
Pick a classmate to respond to. Read their post and watch the ad that they selected. Write a response to their post addressing both the ad and their writing about the ad. Remember, one should not need the original post in front of one's face in order to understand your response.
Please do not respond to a post that is about the same ad that you picked.
This is due by Monday, November 9th. Thanks for sharing your insights this trimester.
Labels: advertisements, campaign
posted by Ms. Aby @ 9:07 AM
20 Comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GYGsIpP54
For this response post, I watched the HIllary Clinton campaign ad titled “Fighter” which Aly Sartain wrote about in her blog post. In her post, Aly gives the reader a brief summary of what the video is about. From Clinton’s 1995 United Nation’s speech in which her famous quote “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights” is derived from, to the present Clinton advocating that she wants to work for this country, this video really covers a lot. While Aly acknowledges that this ad “makes Hillary seem appealing” and that it “shows her in the best light,” Aly fails to identify any of the strategies that the makers of this ad employed to make Clinton seem this way.
One of these strategies is the background music used. Music is used to pull on the heartstrings and to make people feel things. This strategy is used effectively in this ad. The particular song used in the ad starts out slow, but eventually picks up steam as the ad moves on. The song builds up to a climax near the end of the advertisement, leaving viewers excited about Clinton and what she could offer the country as president. Another strategy that is employed in this ad, is how at the very beginning, viewers hear a few definitions of what being a “fighter” is. While hearing these definitions, viewers also see various pictures of Hillary Clinton throughout her life. These things insinuate that Clinton is a fighter, and will fight for the American people. This effectively gives viewers a positive view of Clinton.
I agree with Aly in that this ad is “successful” and makes Hillary Clinton “worthy of the presidency.” This ad strengthens my own personal views on Hillary Clinton, and continues to show me that Clinton is a real, strong, possible candidate for the Democratic party.
I agree with Meghan that this ad for Bernie Sanders in successful in the techniques used. The way that the advertisement is made makes it seem like it could be split in half into two separate ads. The first half of the advertisement goes into Sanders’s background and childhood, while the second half shows him at a rally where it describes his plans for what he would do as president. This then and now aspect of the advertisement shows how Sanders developed into the politician that he is today and why he believes in policies that way that he does. His participation in the civil rights movement and the March on Washington shows that he is active in change in progress, something that he emphasizes in the title of the advertisement. This is appealing to voters who want change in government and causes these voters to feel like they can trust Sanders to make the right decisions. Meghan noted that Sanders appealed to the importance of family, which draws parents and people who want their families to be protected, which is a large amount of the population and eligible voters. Meghan also said that he used a bandwagon approach, which was mainly used in the second half of the video. Using this method, Sanders is able to show that there are many people who strongly support him and draws in other people who may be on the fence on whether they should vote for him. The clapping and cheering following Sanders’s proposals cause viewers of the advertisement to think that these ideas are highly favorable and that since others like these ideas, they should too. These techniques are successful in portraying Bernie Sanders as a favorable candidate that people should vote for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyee_sxJpXc
I agree with Courtney about Marco Rubio’s ad. Even though it was just a connection of him giving speeches over the past few years. One thing I noticed right off the bat was that he never looked ahead. He was always looking to the sides and down. I know this is not a huge issue. But, it made me not trust him as much. One other thing that I didn’t like about Rubio, which Courtney also brought up was that he used Obama as a scapegoat but then didn’t give any reason why. He made a lot of derogatory comments and then didn’t give many reasons why. However I agree with Courtney about how his repetition techniques were successful. The things he said didn’t have a whole lot of substance to them, but after he repeated them a couple times they gained in credibility. In addition he said that he wanted to make the U.S. greater than what it is now, but didn’t give any details. Politicians love to say they want to make the U.S. better, but then not give any examples of how. Overall Rubio seems to be a passable candidate for President.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtZLnpW7FX4
For this blog reponse, I chose to watch the Ben Carson ad that Schmitty analyzed in last week’s post. In the ad, Carson is standing next to a cartoon cardboard box that has “Washington Political Class” stamped on the outside. He spends the duration of the short ad talking about how those in power think so many things are impossible, and he, as an outsider, is the one to change that. I agree with Schmitty in that the ad has little to no substance, with Carson putting forward no plans on how to fix any of the things he claims that the “political class” can’t. I also agree with what Schmitty said about Ben Carson’s lack of political knowledge. The man doesn’t understand most areas of politics beyond a bare minimum. His pledge to never raise the debt ceiling would be disastrous to Americans and the country’s debtholders. If America were to have no borrowing power, the country would be able to trade and deal on an international level with anything close to the same clout it has today. The basic design of the ad, while I’m sure it was created by someone who was payed a lot of money, is far too basic. The cartoon box looks like it was designed to impress an elementary school kid, and Carson’s stiff acting does nothing to help his case in this ad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc3qtfUkOKs
The ad created by the Carly for America Committee, which Eli talked about in his last blog post, uses the technique of attacking the opponent. Eli mentioned that although it is an ad, it is more of an attack on Hilary Clinton and focuses a lot on the inadequateness of Clinton being the next President. This technique is successful for promoting Fiorina because her and Clinton are the only two women who are running for President, so it makes Fiorina look like the better choice. It helps Fiorina’ s campaign for her to attack Clinton, than it does to attack an opponent like Sanders. Fiorina gets to use being the only female running for the Republican nominee to her advantage, especially in this ad. Another technique used was showing the viewer that democrats ,when asked, did not know what Clinton’s greatest accomplishment was. Although the ad is biased, as I am guessing a few people did answer the question, it only showed people saying “I don’t know,” or just having no idea what Clinton had accomplished. I think that this technique is also successful as it reveals that even Clinton’s avid supporters could not name one of her accomplishments. Eli talked about how this this ad makes it seem that Clinton is running on the fact that she has made a lot of great changes as Secretary of State, even though she really has not. I agree with Eli that these techniques used by the committee are quite successful, and even though this ad is not made by Carly, it still really helps her campaign.
After watching the ad it was portrayed that Fiorina’s track record compared to Clinton’s holds far more accomplishments. But, as this ad is only made to attack Clinton, and help Fiorina, I decided to fact check and see what Clinton has done while Secretary of State and also when she was first lady. After reading an article which quoted what the top Democratic leaders had to say when asked what Clinton’s greatest achievement is, I could see that Clinton was not as un-accomplished as the ad made her seem. A few accomplishments mentioned were the creation and guidance of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, being the point person in the the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and also “galvanizing the Senate after the tragedy of 9/11” (Politico Magazine). Although there were many more accomplishments listed by these Democratic leaders, some of the accomplishments in my opinion were not fully her doing (she had the help of others), and also were not always true (some were more of an opinion). However, the ad made it seem as though Clinton has achieved absolutely nothing tangible or important, but I do think that she has accomplished things in the past years that Fiorina can not say that she has accomplished.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157?o=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GYGsIpP54
In response to last week posts on candidate advertisements I agree with Emma that the ad labeled “Fighter” for Hillary Clinton came off as being very convincing. Just as Emma said, the background music is very calming and sets a relaxing mood as they talk about how Hillary Clinton has been a fighter since 1973. The ad worked to appeal to families, children and women and used many old clips of Clinton at conferences speaking to large groups of people ranging from young to older people. A technique the ad used to appeal to even more people was that during the side interviews it had a wide range of people commenting on Clinton including ordinary people and those of other ethnicities. Since the advertisement portrays Clinton reaching out to those of all age groups and backgrounds it makes Clinton come off as being very worldly and open minded. Like Emma stated, the ad was honest when talking about how Clinton had failed to achieve universal healthcare for all citizens, and the fact that they put in something Clinton had failed at made it easier to consider it a trustworthy advertisement. In order to counter what they had said about Clinton’s failed attempt at healthcare for all citizens, the ad addressed the fact that she had worked towards getting universal healthcare for children. In contrast to the ad for Clinton labeled “Family Strong” , this ad is more believable and portrays Clinton as being a qualified presidential candidate.
In response to Leela, the political advertisement about Hillary Clinton, and how she is a family woman. Leela wrote about how this ad, titled “Family Strong”, focused on how Hillary was a family woman, and how she appealed to the needs of children and families who have been through loss, and I agree fully. In the advertisement, it is explained that Hilary is a family woman because she helped people during 9/11 to get the care that they need as well as healthcare to families and to people who need it. Leela also wrote about how the advertisement brings up the story of Hillary’s mother, who was abandoned at age 8, and had to fight and survive on her own. This inspired Hillary to stand up for families and kids, and make a change. It then goes on to explain examples of how Hillary made a change (through public works such as working for the Children’s Defense Fund, and fighting for School Reform in Arkansas). These examples are vague, and do not provide strong points to bring home the idea of how Hillary works for families.
In Hillary’s advertisement, the narrator says, “as first lady, she helped get healthcare to 48 million kids. You probably know the rest...” This is flawed, however, as we do not know the rest. I have no idea of the past policies Hillary Clinton has promoted and voted for, and I have no idea what other things she has done to help families. Leela notes that, “without much evidence, it is hard to take her advertisements seriously”. This is entirely true, and the techniques used are inefficient for this advertisement. The producers used videos from decades ago, as well as images of her working to pass helpful legislation to those families and people with children. This technique is not helpful to bringing the point across that Hillary Clinton works for families because it does not seem relevant to today’s time period. The images and video clips are either black and white, or faded, which makes it seem unrelatable and too old to use as actual fact and current legislation. Leela notes that this advertisement does a poor job of promoting Ms. Clinton’s image in that sort, and I agree. This advertisement, while it has good ideas and promise, it has an insufficient amount of information and facts about the topic to make viewers believe it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKsA4q-FFA
I agree with Zach that the techniques used in this grassroots advertisement for Bernie Sanders are effective, though the many directions and messages that the ad presents makes the ad seem confused to me. The title of the ad is “The President We Need,” but I find that it is trying to prove simultaneously that Sanders is a credible candidate, a man with great ideas, the problems that are facing America today, and several other topics. This creates a muddled message, though a positive one for Sanders.
Zach is correct and did a very good job analyzing the two techniques that were most prevalent in the video. The music in the background is inspirational in nature, causing a swell of emotion at critical moments. These critical moments coincided with specific news clips, directing the ear towards what Sanders was saying at that particular moment. The various news clips are woven together in a way that does tell a story about the type of man that Senator Sanders is. The testimonies by various news anchors and political analysts do support Sanders’ credibility as a candidate.
Another technique that I saw the creators of this advertisement do was to establish that Sanders is genuine and honest, something that Hillary Clinton has been accused of not being, whether it is due to the questioning of her handling of the Benghazi attacks or her seemingly artificial demeanor in the Democratic debates. The clip taken from “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC in which Sanders corrects Maddow shows that he has some spirit in him still despite his older age. In his interview with Fox News on “The O’Reilly Factor,” he seems to be holding his own and sticking to his points, though it is hard to tell based on the edit as it does not show any back and forth between Sanders and O’Reilly.
I do agree that this ad paints Sanders in a very good light, and does make a compelling case that Bernie Sanders should be the next president. However, I think in the attempt to support that message, the creators of the advertisement should limit how many directions that they go in and add distinct title screens to present a clear message in support of their candidate.
Charlie responded to a YouTube campaign ad for Ben Carson, and his response did a good job of outlining what Ben Carson did in his ad to appeal to people. I agree with Charlie that the ad is well-made, and I will address the ad along with him.
This ad is very plain and simple: Carson is up against a white wall, just talking to the camera. There are no flashing pictures, no others coming to talk about Carson; it’s just Carson talking to the audience about what he would do, as a doctor might address his patient. Charlie noted that Carson starts the ad as though the viewer has arrived in heaven, where Carson is speaking to the audience about his plans. I do not agree that the ad portrays heaven, since the wall behind Carson is just blank, but I do believe the white wall is a key tactic. By having a completely blank background, the audience is drawn to Carson (there is no other place to look), and if the audience is focused on him, then they can listen to what he is saying uninterrupted. The whole time, Carson looks fondly at the camera and tells you in a slow, Mr. Rogers-esqe tone that he will do a better job in Washington. Charlie addresses this, as well as the floating, soothing music in the background, as a tactic Carson uses to make him seem kind and legitimate. I agree with him, and add that these tactics are used so that the audience can totally understand Carson. The camera panning into Carson throughout the course of the video makes one feel closer to Carson and his views also, which is a brilliant technique. Carson’s use of a suit and flag pin, as well as a reciting the last part of the Pledge, gives him an air of trust and calm loyalty, as Charlie noted. I would also like to add that Carson uses the technique of just advocating what he knows people will agree with. He talks in the ad about how we should fund education, but he says nothing about how America has turned into Nazi Germany, which is a comment that he stands by (1). He uses this technique, along with the other visual and audible techniques to make this ad a good sponsor of Carson.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/carson-stands-by-nazi-germany-comparsion/ (1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gze5cqk2O5U (Ad)
To respond to Gina’s post about Ben Carson’s “If You Were President, What’s the First Thing You’d Do?” campaign commercial, I would also agree that it used the technique of personal appeal, and I would go on to say that that’s the only selling point of the commercial. Carson didn’t talk about any of his qualifications- which was a primary technique in the Jeb Bush commercial I watched- and only briefly addressed any policy plans. Instead, he uses cheery and simple acoustic background music and a very conversational format to make him seem more like a people’s person, as Gina said. While I agree with Gina that it was a good move for Ben Carson to avoid attacking his opponents, I think his commercial is still akin to a negative attack ad because he voices failures he sees in the government. Carson reminds the audience of problems in America, such as legislative gridlock and the rising debt, and that he, as an outsider, can bring reason to Washington.
To expand a little more on the content, I found it pretty shallow. First, Carson says his plan to beat gridlock is by having a chat with Congress to establish common goals and just “knock the easy things out.” This sounds like an effective strategy- to settle a dispute between two friends, perhaps; I think Carson is greatly oversimplifying the issue. There are hundreds of people in Congress, all with their own influences from their parties, their beliefs, their constituents, and interest groups. And a lot of gridlock stems from a great divide between the parties and unwillingness to compromise.
Another example of Carson underestimating the complexity of the problems we face was his plan for relieving the debt. Carson would like to deregulate; that is, he would have his chat with Congress and “agree on regulations we do need, and get rid of all the other ones.” Again, there is no way that Carson plus all 535 members of Congress would agree on any regulations. And if he means that he is just looking for a majority, then he’s not suggesting anything new and we’d be in the same place we were before his hypothetical presidency.
While Ben Carson’s demeanor, outlook, and tendency to speak very matter-of-factly in this campaign commercial make him sound reasonable and refined, I think the content detracts from him being seen as competent or knowledgeable in politics enough to actually solve any problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6R-wTLQYew
I agree with Esther that the ad “Ben Carson’s Message to America” is very effective in appealing to voters. As she mentions, Carson appeals to the emotions of his viewers. Along with the actual content in the video, where he addresses the unity of the nation, I think Ben Carson uses a few techniques that appeal more to the viewers’ other senses. For one, the background music plays a large role in setting the tone for the ad. Music is a great way to make a viewer feel a certain way without saying anything. Carson, using a song with a rather cheery tune, makes the viewer feel inspired and hopeful. Along with that, his wife being in the video throughout its entirety implies that Ben Carson is caring and someone who families can identify with. Another visible tactic the candidate uses is showing himself talking to large crowds of all ages, which shows that he is relatable and makes potential voters think that he is a man that really cares about the future of our nation. A final method is, throughout the video, showing the phrase “heal + inspire + revive,” along with each of those words popping up individually. This allows the viewer to physically see what Ben Carson stands for while also hearing it.
Overall, I agree that the ad is effective in appealing to his audience. It definitely makes me see Carson as a more honest and relatable candidate, and it makes me more inclined to consider voting for him in our upcoming election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfjqdpfXPVA&list=PL_VK_44aXKFSnIO4svLuEu1Yq1SUt5Hm3
I agree with much of what Gina had to say about this advertisement. Mainly the fact that Carson does a good job pushing his feel good message and soft spoken nature. However, I think that these appeals cannot in and of themselves sustain Ben Carson’s campaign. As time goes on, I predict more voters will see Ben Carson, frankly, as a fool. For example, in this ad his proposed solution to partisan gridlock in Congress basically is to get them in a room together and to talk things out. Does anyone believe that would do anything? It strikes me as extremely naive that Carson honestly thinks that he will have the charisma to simply talk things out between the sides. It’s arguably worse than Donald Trump’s notion that he could curb Russia’s power projection simply because he and Putin would be friends. In the ad he also talks about how he would avoid raising the debt ceiling. While this itself is a nearly suicidal policy, akin to not paying your already earned credit card bill [1], it appears that Ben Carson doesn’t even know what the debt ceiling is [2]. No matter how nice you think Carson is, such massive gaps in extremely basic government knowledge should immediately disqualify him. Carson can continue to harp on about his outsider status and firm moral background but as the media spotlight uncovers more things like his wacky beliefs about the Pyramids [3] or his lying in his autobiography [4], that won’t be enough for most voters. Ben Carson sells his candidacy on little more than first impressions. And although first impressions are powerful things, they can’t cover up serious defects.
[1] http://www.nolabels.org/blog/just-the-facts-debt-ceiling/
[2]http://fortune.com/2015/10/08/ben-carson-economy/
[3]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/
[4]http://theslot.jezebel.com/ben-carson-admits-that-his-autobiography-isnt-100-accu-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEOKJRkhpxg
Although I agree with Samantha that Ted Cruz’s advertisement mostly only appeal to conservatives, I think it is a far more effective advertisement than she gives credit for. Cruz is in a strange position as the one of the top Republican candidates with actual experience. What Cruz needs to succeed is to absorb the fans of Ben Carson and Donald Trump by appearing far more competent for the job and still willing to “fight for the people.” Cruz first highlights his humble beginnings to create a sense that he is just another average joe citizen, not a scheming politician. This is an essential move for Cruz to appeal to those who are so keen to Washington outsiders in the race. He then sets himself up as someone with actual political experience, something that other front runners cannot claim. To further his image as a defender of conservative politics he displays his opposition to the Affordable Care act, the expansion of the debt ceiling, and Obama’s mass amnesty to immigrants. He also points out his frequency to oppose both parties with him voting no a majority of the time, including Republican measures (Govtrack). He claims that the real battle is between Washington and the people, an extremely attractive statement for libertarians. He also touches base with family values, christian values, the working class, and practically every other block of conservatives. Love him or hate him, this commercial is a truly excellent example of targeted marketing and gives Ted Cruz a much broader appeal, basically setting him up to take control of the election when the real outsiders popularity inevitably wane away.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s242
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzxM-kw27mk
I watched a Chris Christie ad called “The only one with a plan” which is just as self-centered as it sounds, but I suppose that is the point. When the ad starts fast paced music plays and a man starts shouting in a busy room and numbers and letters fly across the screen and creates a feeling of commotion and chaos. I agree with Wyatt that these techniques are successful and create urgency to get something done about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The video says that “it could end life as we know it” which is very dramatic and increases tension. Christie establishes that not only is he the only one with a plan but also the only one that trusts the American people. This appeals to his audience which is the American people and he comes off as the only reasonable politician.
In response to Scott’s post about Ben Carson’s ad I agree that the ad successfully does “put more emphasis on what he is saying” and achieves a clear focus on Carson as a person by de-cluttering the ad overall and leaving the viewer to only focus on what’s being said. Scott’s analysis also mentioned the setup of the ad and how it “ puts a positive spin” on what is being said. Although the music does make the overall aura meaningful and positive I think that Ben Carson’s ability to act does take away from the ad. Although it is true that we should not pick a president based on acting ability that same talent provides a foreshadowing of their role in office, since it is widely known that the president has the most media appearances. The comfort in front of cameras for a candidate also installs a sense of security within the viewers and with the awkwardness Carson presents in his ad almost seeming fake it takes away from the reach of the Ad. So even though there is a clear focus on his issues and the Ad structure itself is successful the actual role Ben Carson plays in the ad counteracts that.
In contrast though Scott states that “ it wouldn't make sense to attack a group of people without offering a solution” in accordance to Carson claiming the government is unable to reach conclusions about the budget, which in my mind is completely accurate. Ben Carson does in fact hold the budget highly and because of that it gives him almost a free pass to criticize the government since like Scott says he is offering a solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfjqdpfXPVA
Ben Carson’s campaign video, “If You Were President, What’s The First Thing You’d Do?” does have its highlights as Madeline says. I agree that the main technique used is the plain folks technique which appeals to viewers through the conversational tone of the video and the calm background music. The plain black background draws even more attention to Carson because he’s in the center of the frame and makes it easier to focus on him and what he’s saying. While Carson certainly has the childhood background to back up that he’s a regular person, that alone cannot make up for his lack of political experience. I have to disagree with Madeline’s view that this is a selling point. Beyond the primaries and caucuses, Carson’s soft spoken manner doesn’t leave the impression of someone who can unite a Congress plagued by partisan division, let alone Commander in Chief of the United States. Which leaves him at a disadvantage compared to the heavily tenured former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, who has a political record that’s decades long which includes terms in both houses of Congress. Carson lays out his plans in an easy to understand way in the video which is appealing to average American especially with the promise to actually get something done. Carson also puts the economy at the forefront of his platform because it’s something most Americans agree needs to be a priority and offers change because of the dissatisfaction with the its current state.
Despite the video’s short length, it covers a lot of what Carson hopes to accomplish should he become President and successfully paints him as the average American which has already won over much of America.
After watching Chris Christie’s campaign video, it was interesting to hear that he is the only candidate thinking ahead about social security. Wyatt mentioned how we have just over 18 years before the fund runs out and it may take that long just to reach a solution about this issue. I agree that Congress has been slow to react to this issue. Personally, I like the fact that Christie has a plan, but he never talks about what it would entail. I don’t know how effective his plan will be but at least he is thinking ahead. His statement about how he trusts the American people while accusing his fellow candidates of not trusting the public gives him an edge. People like to be trusted and hearing that others don’t trust them might sway some people his way.
The opening statement about how long social security has left is alarming, but it sure grabs the viewer’s attention. The very dramatic music magnifies the sense of urgency he wants you to feel.
Overall I think this video does a good job at sucking you into the video and holding your attention throughout. His use of news clips and rally shots enhances his image of caring and trusting American citizens. He also speaks in a very conversational voice. It doesn’t feel like he is yelling at you. He makes you feel like part of the conversation.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go (1)
http://www.nextavenue.org/at-gop-debate-social-security-has-a-moment/ (2)
This comment has been removed by the author.
After watching Leela’s ad and reading her post, I agree with what she had to say about it. The most obvious tactic that Hillary Clinton uses in this ad, is trying to appeal to the family values in Americans. Like Leela said, it starts out by talking about how Clinton’s mother overcame family struggles, and how that has influenced Hillary Clinton. This story in the beginning of the ad, attempts to acquire sympathy from the viewer, by making her seem like an underdog who has overcome struggles in life. A positive of the ad, is that she included the things that she had done to help the nation in the past, which is effective to retrospective voters. Some of the most important being, as Leela mentioned, Clinton worked for the Children's Defense Fund as well as helping to get health care for 8 million kids, while being first lady. After listing those accomplishments she ends the video by saying “it’s your time” which is meant to make the viewer feel as if they can make a difference by voting for her and encourages participation/ support of her campaign.
Although I would have to agree with Leela, in that I also believe that the ad has great appeal to those who strongly value family life, I’m sure most Americans agree that having family value isn’t one of the fundamentals problems facing our nation today. So in conclusion, this ad would probably appeal only to those who were already supports of Clinton but not really attract any new supporters, since overall it lacks much political substance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKsA4q-FFA
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home