Posts Tagged ‘Wisconsin’

Getting back into the game

September 25, 2012

Been a while since postings, part of that is I’ve been busy, but also I find it difficult to find something to post about that I’m really interested in.  Most of the ads I’ve seen are pretty standard fair. I like un-standard, that’s what I want to write about… ah well.

In the interests of posting, some quick thoughts today.

I always find the word “liberal” as a throwback to the 90’s when Republicans were using it like a four letter word. I like the graphics of this spot, they’re neat in a Matrix kinda way, though not sure if they’re adding to the message or just neat.  Also, not sure I’ve ever heard a more cranky/crotchety disclaimer.

Next up, a new Tester ad. I can’t tell if I like this ad or not. On one hand it’s a clever concept, and they stick with it.  On the other, the talking animals are a little… creepy. The first time I watched the spot, I was so caught up in animals talking, I didn’t even listen to what they were saying. Also, what format are they shooting on? For a professional ad for a big senate race, the video looks really cheap and crappy I noticed this last time, I reviewed a Tester ad). Still I give them points for trying something different.

Advertisements

It’s on the screen

February 29, 2012

You know I once sat next to Tommy Thompson at a dinner, didn’t know who he was till he introduced himself, for the life of me I don’t remember his lips being so red.  In fact, I can’t remember an ad I’ve watched where a candidates lips have stood out so much. Not sure if his lips really are that red or it’s some kind of make-up malfunction — sorry digression.

What really struck me about this ad was how flat it was. There was no energy to the spot. Even the shots of him listening to people, he looks cranky.

Whether or not these Thompson felt comfortable with these words or he was really happy to be listening to the people in the spot, I can’t answer those question. Boris used to say, “Guys, your work is on the screen,” when a director would try to explain why a shot wasn’t working or an actor’s performance was off. What he meant was an audience doesn’t know or shouldn’t care  about all the time and trouble that went into a shoot, they don’t care about the obstacles overcome or the problems that plagued you, all they can judge you by is what’s on the screen.

By that standard, I question the decision to run this ad.  I don’t care what the plan is, if it’s not working, you have to be able to adjust.  I don’t see how putting Thompson to camera, looking grumpy and sounding uncomfortable helps sell his campaign message or convey the the emotion he wants voters to feel. Honestly, I was so distracted by what was going on, that I didn’t even hear the words until the third of fourth time I watched the ad. And, when I did hear them, they didn’t resonate at all, there was no conviction behind them, so why should I believe them at all.  The ad felt very paint by numbers, like they were all just going through the motions, I don’t blame Tommy Thompson for that, I blame his consultants.

 


%d bloggers like this: