This was surprising to me because “yes on 29” is a anti-tobacco campaign and another sponsor is the American Lung Association in California. Lance armstrong had testicular cancer and when i think of him i think of the promotion of a healthy lifestyle. I think it is a good idea to use his well known story and cause to fight against lung cancer that does not have a “face” to go along with it like Lance Armstrong. Using his fame to fight a similar cause is a great idea because his campaign had already established itself as a momentous one.
My first blog post, ten weeks ago, was in response to a political ad that I completed mistrusted. Things haven’t changed much for me on this issue. I don’t care which celebrity they get to pitch their half-truths to me, I am just not buying these ads at face value. They have been lying to me my whole life. I almost have a knee jerk reaction to believe the exact opposite of whatever they tell me. I loved the statement in the article : “That’s why the most useful information you get out of an ad may just be the disclaimer at the end. ” That, I believe. Look at who is spending all the money to make you try to believe something and you may get some useful information, much more useful then what the ad actually says.
Politics has become a battle for who can raise the most amount of money. That party uses those resources to pound society with advertisements that are often misleading. But how does the public decipher between legitimate and truthful political advertisements ? It is a growing problem due to large corporations such as Phillip Morris spending millions of dollars on advertsiements to help pass propositions that will undoubtedly be beneficial for their business. With a presidential election looming, I believe it is our responsibility as voters to be as informed as possible and read the fine print for all political advertisements.
I think using someone like Lance Armstrong for this campaign is an effective strategy because he is known for living a healthy lifestyle. When celebrities are used for advertisements I don’t find them to be effective unless the person on the advertisement has a connection with what is being sold. Lance Armstrong has already established his LIVESTRONG campaign which makes this advertisement even more effective because his story about how he beat cancer relates to what is actually being sold here. People want to hear from someone with experience, they don’t just want a pretty face.
This was an interesting read. I didn’t know there were so many subtleties in political ads. Usually when those messages are zoomed by I don’t pay attention, it’s funny that they can tell so much about the campaign. Personally I don’t enjoy any political ads in general and the ones I watch I take with a grain of salt because I know politics tend to be shady. This should be a good article to remember once election season starts up in the next few months.
In complete honesty, I sincerely dislike political advertising. To me it is complete bogus half the time and just another way for certain companies to try and maintain their economical status. I always find it funny though how at the end of their ads they will very quickly read off who the ad was payed for and which party supports it. It was curious to see how many rules and regulations go into making the ad and policing how the names of the donors must be listed in the order by those who donated most to those who donated the least. My favorite quote from this article was this, “…Taking any of these ads at face value can be misleading. That’s why the most useful information you get out of an ad may just be the disclaimer at the end.” So come Fall I will try to keep that in mind, once the political ads are bombarded upon us, I will try to tune out until the last 5 seconds of the ad to really get what I need out of it.
I never gave much consideration to who was funding the political ads that are now common on television or in magazines. I knew they were often sponsored by those with a vested interest and therefore never cared much for what the ad was saying or who wanted it to be said. However, this article made me realize it is actually useful to understand where these ads are coming from. Knowing the rules on disclaimers provides a much deeper understanding of political ads which can be very helpful in determining who I side with and which ads to believe.
I usually don’t pay attention to political ads half the time, but I didn’t realize how many rules there were when making a political ad. The names must be in the right order depending on who donated the most. Its interesting to able to know which organizations donated the most and who donated the least to the cause. When watching political ads I can actually read the fine print and figure out who is involved in the campaign and how involved in it they are. Using Lance Armstrong is also an affective strategy because of his accomplishments and inspirational lifestyle. Celebrities are an excellent way to connect with the public, especially when they are helping support the cause.
I agree with some of the other participants in this discussion in finding these types of political ads unappealing. Furthermore, I find the small required fine print even more uninteresting and an unnecessary component of the ad. I believe that ads should follow the same rules for creating a Power Point presentation: the fewer words and simpler it is the better. It may be a legal necessity to stamp that small paragraph of donors and sponsors of the message on the ad, however, the advertisers then need to compensate for the ugly word vomit by making the ad really creative. No one actually takes the time to read that paragraph especially when the viewer has only a few seconds to read it. The most behavior or attitudinal changing message will come from the ad itself and not its source. I suppose there is no way to get around excluding the sponsor detail as it is a legal necessity but it is hindering the differentiation between political campaign ads thus confusing audiences and reducing impact on audiences.
I believe that putting those specifications at the bottom of the page is necessary for the ads but I have a hard time believing that most people stop to read them. Political ads these days have become so powerful in their content and use of hyperbole that most people only pay attention to the claims made in the commercial. I think that the script at the end of the advertisements should be before the advertisements and read aloud to give the viewers a better view of who and why they made the advertisement before they see the charged content. Campaign finance laws in our country are very complicated and especially in Political Action Committee’s. I am surprised the article did not mention PAC’s as they help representatives distance themselves from attack ad’s and other ad’s. This is another practice that needs to be reworked in my opinion.
As a society we are becoming more and more intertwined via a social media takeover and we demand to know every detail of everything nowadays. It seems injustices are coming to the surface everywhere hopefully someday eradicating major wrongdoings. This requirement to keep things translucent gives the public all the information for them to make decisions on their own instead of being manipulated without all the facts. Lance Armstrong is an athlete that because of his battle with testicular cancer and the creation of the LIVESTRONG campaign gets a lot of respect (despite his problems at home that some don’t respect). Everything now days is manipulation and when we see a respected athlete as a spokesperson we automatic trust the initiative or product for good or worse.
I think the celebrity endorsement says a lot about a campaign. Celebrity involvement no doubt draws attention to any campaign so it is extremely important to pick the right person. Because this is endorsed by Lance Armstrong, the campaign has a certain credibility. Armstrong is well respected as both an athlete and a businessman and because of this is an excellent resource for a campaign. When the public sees Lance as a spokesperson they are likely to think fondly of the campaign and be more inclined to get involved. However, the fine print does take away from the luster and credibility of the ads. The fact that there is information that the campaign is attempting to slip through unnoticed is questionable at best. In my opinion, political ads would be much more appealing to the public if they remained transparent and gave the public all the information up front with no fine print.
After reading this article I believe that using celebrity endorsement definitely draws attention. When people use celebrities it is for the purpose of giving their product or cause credibility. The level of celebrity as well, not just the fact of being one, makes the level of credibility I believe change. Political ads with celebrities can easily be questioned, as using them to be persuasive I feel can be cheap and a short cut. Within that having to put who the providers are, and where it is coming from I feel is a positive. This ad above I feel is very powerful, as it uses a celebrity who is well respected for what he went through and his push within the cause. With people respecting him immensely it makes sense why they wanted him. I go back to saying how I feel it as kind of cheap, as Lance Armstrong never had lung cancer. I feel some of these political ads will reach for any advantage they can get, which I am not to coy on.
Comments are closed.
Depicts 320,000 light bulbs, equal to the number of kilowatt hours of electricity wasted in the United States every minute from inefficient residential electricity usage (inefficient wiring, computers in sleep mode, etc.).