Left Center Left

The Phoenix this week has an interview interview with Errol Morris, wherein he discusses the Republicans for Kerry ads he made for MoveOn.org. The ads are great, not so much for any deeper truth they hold (presumably one could find a bunch of Democrats who are voting Republican), but for their rhetorical force and visual style. In the interview, Morris explains

The underlying idea is that the election is going to be decided by a very small group of voters. The electorate, as we all know, is polarized; there’s a group that’s going to vote for Kerry no matter what, and there’s a group that’s going to vote for Bush no matter what. What about these so-called undecideds, or people who will abandon their traditional voting patterns and switch? What about these people? How do you reach them?

The resulting ads are interviews (with the Interrotron) shot against a white backdrop, much like the Apple “Changeover” ads, which Morris also did. He offered to make them for the Kerry camp, but so far there have been no takers:

There would be these conference calls, endless discussion. The feeling I had was of this bureaucracy that could just simply not make decisions.

Also, I was in favor of creating nontraditional political ads. I think that a lot of the ads are so pro forma — they’re so expected that they are not terribly effective. You have to come up with new approaches. Everybody talks about the “Daisy” ad in the 1964 presidential campaign… Everybody knows what perfunctory advertising is, and people know what innovative and cutting-edge advertising is, and there’s no reason why advertising in a political campaign has to be the way it is.

Amen. The ultimate problem in political advertising is that it is run by strategists who want the ads to correspond to the logic of political strategy rather than of advertising. Like Morris, I don’t like to be backseat driving and nitpicking and the campaign’s mistakes - in most matters they do a better job than I’d ever be able to do. But here are a couple of easy suggestions for making political ads effective:

1) No voiceover narration. Political strategists think it’s hardhitting, when in fact it’s hamhanded and off-putting. Besides, for more than the shortest-term gain, viewers should feel like the appeal is unfolding in front of them, that they are part of the process of political decision-making.

2) Titles (i.e. printed word) should be used only in counterpoint to the image and as a tagline, not to carry the meaning of the spot. Again, the “authoritative voice” is generally less effective than the soft sell. Besides, like narration, it’s a crutch that keeps admakers from thinking creatively.

3) In an extended ad campaign, don’t be afraid of opening up the ad, of making it stretch over multiple spots that aren’t in themselves self-contained. Morris discusses the dangers of that, but his Republicans for Kerry spot shows the power and upside of that thinking.

4) Think of ways to address political fights outside of the candidates themselves. Republicans for Kerry addresses the subjective concerns of individual voters, but there other ways if one just looks for them.

I’m sure readers who actually study or make or know a thing or two about ads can give many more suggestions. Meanwhile, what the hell are the Kerry folks thinking by not hiring Morris on?