Repetition works in political advertising

Its another concept central to advertising success, and that is to avoid making the consumer work too hard. Thats why repetition works. Repetition makes things clear.

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

TORONTOLike all angry young men with a couple of credits in political science, I once

denounced government advocacy

advertising and political ads during

elections. Worse were the American-

style 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

coverage, so who needs the parties ads?

Moreover, negative ads debate the

coinage of all politicians and depress

voter turnout.

Well, fast forward many years, Im 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; theyre not reading political

blogs. Moreover, the fragmentation of

the market means the other 75 per cent

arent getting the same information on

issues.

Both advocacy and election ads are

needed to tell Canadians what the issues

are, and even that theres 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?

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

and four way races in ridings between

Montreal and Quebec and some ridings

in both those cities.

But Ockhams 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 theyre

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

comparisonpolitician leaders are in

job interviews. I used this in a Globe and

Mail piece about 10 years ago. Im sure

its 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.

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 familys modest home

and notes they are not paying down debt

in order to save money for their kids

schooling.

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 didnt

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

policya bit of a leap.

But this negative ad, is a Canadian

attack ad. So its very polite. The hiring

committee reviewing Justin Trudeaus

resum notes his nice picture and nice

hair, but come to the conclusion that

hes not ready. Maybe next time, but not

now. Moreover, is hair a worthy

debating point during an election? If so,

what shall we do with Public Safety

Minister Steven Blaney, who has little?

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, Id save that and play it

next time, and rejoice in the

Conservative endorsement.

Theres a concept in advertising and

brand building called the defining

moment. Are you really loving it at

McDonalds? 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. Thats 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 savingsyoure 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 familys living

room shooting the ad.

Theres another concept central to

advertising success, and that is to avoid

making the consumer work too hard.

Thats 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. Thats why I question

the NDPs 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. Its 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 doesnt 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

dont say overcome or disprove.

Circumventing could be simply stating

that the publics 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

clich 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. McDonalds

doesnt sell high-class atmosphere and

shouldnt 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, hes not

making an excuse; hes 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

shouldnt 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 didnt 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.

Finally, William of Ockham might just

say that all these ads are a test, in real

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

advertisingenough 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.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times