Repetition Works In Political Advertising

Repetition works in political advertising It’s another concept central to advertising success, and that is to avoid making the consumer work too hard. That’s why repetition works. Repetition makes things clear.

By ALAN BONNER | Published: Monday, 06/01/2015 12:00 am EDT

TORONTO—Like all angry young men with a couple of credits in political science, I once denounced government advocacy advertising and political ads during

coverage, so who needs the parties’ ads? Moreover, negative ads debate the

elections. Worse were the Americanstyle attack ads. On the former, I thought it was pretty obvious that smoking is bad, exercise is good and we all should insulate our homes. In elections, we were saturated with news

coinage of all politicians and depress voter turnout. Well, fast forward many years, I’m still angry, but have some political experience to go with the incorrect theory.

About 25 per cent of the Canadian population opts out of the public discourse on politics and public policy. They have language barriers, are new parents raising kids, are on long commutes to work, or just opt out. They play candy crush on their mobile devices; they’re not reading political blogs. Moreover, the fragmentation of the market means the other 75 per cent

The Conservatives may have decided Mulcair is not actually a threat outside Quebec and they will be in a two-way contest with Trudeau. Hence, they better tarnish Trudeau early. This may be in line with a Quebec tactic by which the Conservatives just communicate all the good that has flowed from the government in Ottawa to Quebecers. The Conservatives benefit from three

aren’t getting the same information on issues.

and four way races in ridings between

Both advocacy and election ads are needed to tell Canadians what the issues are, and even that there’s an election on. Negative ads can have a tendency to increase voter turnout as they increase our knowledge of the issues. Canadian political parties have launched both positive and negative advertising well in advance of our fall election. Now is a good time for some product labelling, even for astute readers of this newspaper. First, why now, before the summer, when no one is focusing on politics? Second, why have the governing Conservatives attacked Liberal leader Justin Trudeau when it appears that Thomas Mulcair and the NDPare the real threat to remain the official opposition or even form a government? Third, how are the Liberal and NDP ads performing?

Montreal and Quebec and some ridings in both those cities. But Ockham’s razor (named for the 14th century Franciscan Friar) dictates that a more simple explanation is probably more accurate. These Conservative attack ads may have been a tactic devised (not a strategy), and they’re sticking with it, regardless of whether it is still relevant. Or, because of the deep antipathy to the Trudeau name in many Conservative circles, this may just be manifestation of that fixation. This ignores some residual good will that the Trudeau name evokes in some parts of the country and in the media. The Conservative attack ad uses a good comparison—politician leaders are in job interviews. I used this in a Globe and Mail piece about 10 years ago. I’m sure it’s been used many times, including in Manitoba some years ago. But the attack ad is gentle on Trudeau, saying he might

be ready to govern some years hence and that he has “nice hair.”

what shall we do with Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, who has little?

The NDP ad shows average workers with a voice over by Mulcair stating how the government is going to help them and their families. The Liberal ad has Trudeau in a nice family’s modest home and notes they are not paying down debt in order to save money for their kids schooling.

The attack ad works in that it is not personally offensive and is anchored in the reality that Trudeau is unproven and untested in many ways, as are most challengers. But, it is a Conservative ad that is actually suggesting voting Liberal in a future election. If I were working for the Liberals, I’d save that and play it

The first cautionary tale is that negative ads work better in the U.S. than in Canada for a variety of reasons (issue identification, candidate name recognition, money, etc.). Negative ads must have a strong grounding in fact and reality. The Conservative ad, which showed Justin Trudeau unbuttoning his shirt at a charity event probably didn’t

next time, and rejoice in the Conservative endorsement.

test well in focus groups. Politicians do silly things in photo ops and this silly thing was for a good cause. Canadians were being asked to make a connection between an unbuttoned shirt and public policy—a bit of a leap. But this negative ad, is a Canadian attack ad. So it’s very polite. The hiring committee reviewing Justin Trudeau’s resumé notes his nice picture and nice hair, but come to the conclusion that he’s not ready. Maybe next time, but not now. Moreover, is “hair” a worthy debating point during an election? If so,

There’s a concept in advertising and brand building called the “defining moment.” Are you really “loving it” at McDonald’s? Is fast food fast? If not, the ads have created a false and high expectation that cannot be met. The political version is that a mistake calls the whole ad or candidate into question. That’s why I question the Liberal ad, which says the nice family is not paying down debt to save for school in the Liberal ad. If your borrowing costs are higher than what you are getting for your savings—you’re nuts. You should pay down your debt. Or perhaps your interest payments are a tax deduction. These thoughts are an unnecessary diversion from the happy times Justin Trudeau spent in the family’s living room shooting the ad. There’s another concept central to advertising success, and that is to avoid

making the consumer work too hard. That’s why repetition works. Repetition makes things clear. Repetition is vital because people are living their lives, wrestling with kids, reading the newspaper, doing the dishes and not paying close attention to the campaign or ads. That’s why I question the NDP’s need to connect the dots and explain what on earth the government had to do with a man making bagels or taking in dry cleaning in their ads. After 35 years of the Reagan revolution and attacks on government spending, about 40 per cent of OECD economies are still public sector and will stay that way. The NDP ad should have started with the fact that government spending is here to stay and no amount of right-wing rhetoric will change that. It’s whether a party will be good stewards of that spending that is the issue. “Stored” information in voters’ minds, much of it very deep, is more powerful than the ad. This is a great old theory by which the consumer doesn’t reach out in the grocery store for the can of soup, but rather the can of soup reaches out for the consumer by triggering those stored images. The NDP had to circumvent that 35 years of anti-government discourse. I don’t say overcome or disprove. Circumventing could be simply stating that the public’s money has to be spent wisely and for the benefit of average

people, not paving a road and then digging it up again. By the way, this cliché about digging up perfectly good roads is actually true. A Transport Canada study says we waste 30 per cent of public works spending this way by not coordinating the repairs of pipes, services, and pavement above. The other principle in both advertising and politics is to go with your strength, not your weaknesses. McDonald’s doesn’t sell high-class atmosphere and shouldn’t try tp. It would be ridiculous. And thus, to the Conservative ad featuring the Prime Minister. It features the PM working alone, in shirtsleeves, with his voice-over saying how tough the job is. But unlike Jimmy Carter, he’s not making an excuse; he’s just stating the reality. Out he walks and flicks off the light. We believe this ad, because we believe that the PM does work pretty much alone, at night and wrestles with the best course of action. A sticking point though is that he says one shouldn’t be “ideological.” Perhaps the next ad will advocate keeping politics out of the election. The PM is not a jokester and putting him in a nutty photo-op would have been a disaster. Harper was once asked if he had ever smoked marijuana. He responded, “Do I look like I smoked

marijuana?” One joke every 10 years is plenty for Harper. We have a lot more ads to come, so a little more product labeling might be in order. Conventional wisdom has it that the governing party can be more positive, with the opposition having to be negative to get voter attention. But the opposition has to follow up quickly with their positive method of approaching the problems they say exist. The test case recently was the Ontario election which should have featured very strong attack ads by the PCs and NDP, but didn’t and Premier Kathleen Wynne is grateful. A good strategy thesedays is to get a free media bounce from your ads. A good ad, played on YouTube for free, can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in discussion on political talk shows.

life and real time, long before voters start paying attention to the election— which raises the last piece of product labelling. The way to test ads is with what the Harvard Business Review calls “empathic testing” or what my colleague, the late Ken Kansas, helped invent— “animatics.” This involves testing a visual or script in the context in which it will be experienced. Ken would set up a screening room in a shopping centre to show a mock-up of an ad stripped into the actual TV show in which it would play. I say mock-up because viewers are sophisticated enough to critique production values (edits, voice-over etc.) and may miss the content. Animatics use amateurish drawings of eventual shots and a voice-over to elicit viewer response to the content. Ken, being based in New York, had tens of millions of dollars to spend on research and

Finally, William of Ockham might just say that all these ads are a test, in real advertising—enough to break the spending limits in 60 Canadian ridings. So, in Canada, it may be cheaper to run these ads up the flagpole and see what happens. Allan Bonner (allanbonner.com) has worked with two dozen Canadian premiers and party leaders, shot political ads and coached leaders for televised debates. He is the author of several books on communication and politics. [email protected] The Hill Times