Which side has the more effective TV ads?

[Trilobyte]

I watched some of them, and I think Bush's and Kerry's ads are both pretty mediocre. I have to give Bush an edge though. I think Kerry's ads aren't dynamic enough.

By the way, most of you probably know about this already, but The Living Room Candidate (http://www.ammi.org/livingroomcandidate/) has some great ads from past campaigns. I think many of Clinton's ads would work for Kerry too. He needs that "For People, for a Change" sort of message...

[The Vorlon]

I watched some of them, and I think Bush's and Kerry's ads are both pretty mediocre. I have to give Bush an edge though. I think Kerry's ads aren't dynamic enough.

By the way, most of you probably know about this already, but The Living Room Candidate (http://www.ammi.org/livingroomcandidate/) has some great ads from past campaigns. I think many of Clinton's ads would work for Kerry too. He needs that "For People, for a Change" sort of message...

We all bitch and complain about negative ads.

Why do they keep running them then...?

Because they work.

Look at Kerry's negatives from 2 months ago, and look at them now.

Look at the "Kerry is a flip flopper" Then versus now...

Look at "Kerry will raise your taxes" then versus now...

Bush's approval rating is 45-47%, Kerry's is going to end up about the same.

Can't remember when the last time a sunny face positive campaign actuallly won..

Reagan in 84 I guess...

[Lunar]

If you guys have RealPlayer, I would check out The Daily Show's analysis.

Bush's ones are better.

[agcatter]

I haven't caught but a couple on the internet.  Living in Texas we won't see any this year just like we saw zero in 2000.

[angus]

surprisingly, we see quite a number of Bush commercials out here.  I haven't seen any Kerry commercials yet.  But I get Kerry pop-up spam on occassion.  There's even one with him pointing his index finger at the air.

[Lunar]

Bush can afford to spend on ads across the board.  It'll boost his national polls (more confidence on victory = more money) and help the word of mouth battle, such as people discussing the election on a forum.  Kerry has to focus on his, which is yet another reason why Kerry could win the EC but lose the popular vote if he does manage to win.

[California Dreamer]

We all bitch and complain about negative ads.

Why do they keep running them then...?

Because they work.

Bush is trying to do to Kerry what Clinton did to Dole: Define him before he can define himself. Remember how Clintons ads made it look like Dole and Gingrich were joined at the hip and just waiting to pounce a radical right wing agenda on America and take away Social Security, Medicare and do all sorts of crazy things.

Rove buys time in all the right places, he puts negative ads up in states on the same days that Kerry campaigns there, often nailing him for the issue he is speaking on (the "i voted for it and against it" ad went up the day he was speaking about veterans, the gas tax ad went up the day he started talking about high gas prices). As a marketer, all in all I would say Bush's March ad campaign was masterful. (except for the first week with the 9-11 coffins thing)

Howerver it is unclear whether they are working now or not. Bush just dropped $40 million in 18 states, and Kerry's negatives only went up 1 point...as did Bush's in those states. And Kerry is now leading in many polls. In the same period Kerry spent almost nothing cause he was broke, MoveOn spent a bit but not nearly as much as Bush did.

click here for Annenburg Report on Ad Effectiveness

Either the ads arent working, or real world events are trumping the ads.


....I am California Dreamer and I approved this post

[© Tweed the Younger]

CNN airs both Bush and Kerry ads.  Both are hilariously inaccurate whent hey attack each other.  But MoveOn takes the cake.  The last ad they have out is an ad where George W. Bush's voice is imitated.  I wish MoveOn would go away, they will hurt Kerry more than they will help him.

[Beef]

We all bitch and complain about negative ads.

Why do they keep running them then...?

Because they work.

They are going to work a lot better for Bush than they are for Kerry.  Kerry, as the challenger, needs to tell America why he should be President - it isn't enough simply to bash Bush without presenting an alternative.  For people who hate Bush, attack ads are preaching to the choir.  For people who are Bush-neutral (such as myself) the reaction is, "yeah, I know Bush has his shortcomings, but he's the President, and he's proven he can be an effective leader in this position.  Tell me why YOU will be any better."

Bush doesn't have nearly as much of a burden of making himself known - we've seen him in action for four years, and we know what we're getting.  Therefore, he is more free to attack Kerry.

I guess the principle at work is, the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.

[Beef]

The Living Room Candidate (http://www.ammi.org/livingroomcandidate/) has some great ads from past campaigns.

Great site!  BTW, if you were ever curious about what a Green Party campaign would look like if they had a real war chest, check out the 1984 Mondale ads.

It reminds me of when I was a kid, and my mom would rant up and down about how Reagan was a "war criminal," and we needed to eliminate the military, and how Reagan would ruin the economy while making the rich even richer in the process.

My mom's a Republican today, just as she was in high school .

[angus]

I haven't caught but a couple on the internet.  Living in Texas we won't see any this year just like we saw zero in 2000.

Before I lived here I had lived for about five years each in the Greater Boston area and in the DFW metroplex.  Neither of those areas get presidential campaign ads.  I remember thinking I wished I lived in an area where I could see the ads.  Now that I do see them, I realize I was better off in MA and TX where I didn't have to put up with the distortions and bullsh*t.  Count your blessings.

[Lunar]

Most of the ads carry some kind of strawman attack or huge distortion.  It's kind of amazing that they have to resort to do that since there is so much negative stuff about each candidate that doesn't NEED distortion.

[zachman]

Bush does. His ads make him seem so uncorrupt, and optimistic. I think his low blow negative ads are uneffective though. Kerry has just the opposite situation.

[angus]

Kerry has just the opposite situation.

Kerry:  paragon of moral fiber.  okay, well, if you say.

[zachman]

I meant that Kerry's attack ads were currently better than his positive ads. He had two good ads during the primaries: a Vietnam comrade who charecterized Kerry's leadership and a good healthcare ad. He should start airing those again.

[ian]

I think that the Bush ads are way more effective.  When you publicly state extravagant lies, such as Kerry wants to up the gas tax, raise taxes, etc., it's going to ring a bell with the American people.  And obviously it did, since his # rised in the polls.  Even after Kerry did advertisments defending himself.