Category Archives: Campaign Advertising

Fallon replaces Leno in 2014? Talk about bad political timing!

by

2

 

Jay Leno is No. 1 in ratings for late night comedy among the networks for his time slot and in the key 18-49 demographic.

NBC apparently perceives a threat to its late night ratings from Jimmy Kimmel, the younger 45 year old comedian who does late night comedy on ABC in the 11:35 p.m. slot. Leno is 62.

So in the Spring of 2014, Jimmy Fallon, 38, moves from his 12:35 a.m. perch on “Late Night” to take over “The Tonight Show” from Leno.

Presumably, NBC feels that it will hold the No. 1 ratings for late night comedy with Fallon.

Maybe yes; but, maybe no!

2014 is the year for mid-term elections.

There will be a firefight in this nation by Democrats and Republicans in the elections for members of Congress to control the Senate and the House.

Voter turnout could be unusually high because of the hundreds of millions in campaign advertising dollars flooding the airwaves, and what can expected to be increased competition for Senate and House seats by women, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, groups neglected by the GOP in 2012.

Indeed, should Democrats take control of the Senate and House in 2014, it is almost a certainty that Hilary Clinton will run as the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. A Clinton candidacy will spike political activism and turnout especially among women.

Jay Leno has been one of the leading late night comics for every Presidential and mid-term election since he took over “The Tonight Show” from Johnny Carson in 1992. And to the extent that comedians have influenced voters and the outcome of elections, Leno has been at the top.

But, on the brink of the 2014 mid-term elections, one of the most important elections in history, NBC decides to replace time tested and proven Leno with the new face of Fallon?

Talk about bad political timing!

Suppose the FOX Network decides to pick up Leno for an 11:35 p.m. comedy show?

If Leno holds on to much of his viewership, he could tank both Fallon and Kimmel in the ratings.

More interestingly, he also could draw a new base of politically active viewers to FOX, viewers in that key 18-49 demographic who are likely to vote and affect political outcomes in 2014 and 2016.

Talk about ironies, the joke could end up being on NBC!

Related articles

Election 2012 lessons for effective political media and campaign ads

by

3

Joe Biden und Barack Obama in Springfield, Ill...

Joe Biden and Barack Obama in Springfield, Illinois, right after Biden was formerly introduced by Obama as his running mate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

There were significant lessons learned from Election 2012 for effective political media and campaign ads.

JIM MESSINA WON BIG FOR OBAMA

In the words of a winner, Jim Messina, manager of the Obama Biden campaign:

A decade ago, the average voter got most of their information from the  evening news, Messina said. Now, the average voter gets their news from 15  different sources, he said.

Like the individually targeted fundraising appeals, the Dashboard system also  allowed them to generate tailored voter appeals.

The campaign shifted some of its resources to online advertising, an arena  that provided more targets and a wealth of specific users.

“Television is still the dominant media, but I think online will catch up  very quickly,” Messina said. “I think it already is for young voters out there.  The next presidential, whoever has my job the next time, is going to have to  decide what percentage you spend online.”

The shift to online was even more dramatic between 2008 and 2012, Messina  said. On Election Day in 2008, the Obama campaign sent out one tweet on the  social networking site Twitter.

In 2012, the campaign not only had a Twitter team but also had a Facebook and  Tumblr, as well as additional online social media presence.

Read More: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84103_Page2.html#ixzz2CsND38b0

SOCIAL MEDIA EXPLOSION

As noted by David Zurawik, baltimoresun.com, the explosive growth and use of social media in Election 2012 was indeed staggering:

Tuesday night’s election generated a record-setting political conversation of 28.5 million social media comments, according to Bluefin Labs.

The previous high was 12.2 million social media comments made in connection with the second presidential debate, according to the Boston-based firm that specializes in social-media metrics.

The first debate drew 11.2 million comments

Read More: http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-social-media-comments-election-night-bluefin-20121107,0,2827252.story

GOING FORWARD

The landscape for effective political media and campaign ads is ever changing.

It poses major challenges for candidates, political campaigns and their strategists in future elections.

Related Articles

High Tech Lynching web ad launched hitting Cain’s coverage by political media-will media strike back?

by

5

Cain’s Train 11/3

Rolling into what’s bound to be a hot bed of media coverage this weekend Sunday 11/6, on all the major morning TV Talk shows, where sexual harassment accusations, the Herman Cain campaign and the state of the GOP primary elections are bound to be among the hot issues of the conversations and debates on TV Talk, an independent political advocacy PAC launched a hot political ad on 11/3: “HIGH TECH LYNCHING” on YouTube featuring, of course, Herman Cain!

Train’s Moving Target: It hits the coverage Cain got from the mainstream political media.

Our Reaction: It’s smokin’!

And, It’s No Denying:  “If It’s Sunday [i.e., 11/6], It’s [Herman Cain]“

Likely Impact:  A surge of media covergage may roll into next week too!

Read Also:  Jim Geraghty, New TV Ad for Cain: ‘A High-Tech Lynching’  posted on nationalreviewonline.con who writes (11/4):

[T]he plan is to get on TV in Iowa next week with it [and] drop about a million calls into Iowa and Nevada starting tomorrow with the same message.

This is from Americans for Herman Cain, which has “established a non-connected political committee that is established and registered with the Federal Election Commission. * * *

Other Articles on Point
Hotter Than Hot!!
Our Double Take: Think the ad is hot, click the link for the article on the comments made by MCNBC contributor Goldie Taylor.

WOW!

Do you get the sense that the lid could blow next week in the intensity and sheer meanness in coverage of Herman Cain and the GOP contest by mainstream political media as surely everything media will hit back?

Lighten up on Huntsman

by

2

Ok, let’s give a round of applause to Jon Huntsman’s daughters on the launch of their “Smoking Ad”  parody for their dad. 

Shucks, if it works for Herman Cain, to the tune of over one million viewers, it should work for their dad too! Why not? At least it’s worth a try! Or, at least that may have been the thinking.

Here’s the YouTube link for: “Jon2012girls Smokin’ Ad,”

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iOYVB2hc0HA

The L. A. Times writes:

If policy speeches and retail campaigning don’t work, there are always fake mustaches and bubbles.

Eager to find its way into any story line, the Jon Huntsman campaign is up with a new Web video parodying the viral Herman Cain spot featuring his smoke-blowing campaign manager.

*     *     *
 
The former Utah governor entered the race with great fanfare, but has resorted to such attention-seeking tactics of late as he stands mired in the low single digits.

Source: Michael A. Memoli, “Can the Huntsman girls burst Cain’s bubble? [Video],”

POLITICS NOW Blog on latimes.com

Blog Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-huntsman-girls-20111028,0,5590241.story?track=rss

I’m not  quick to criticize.

After all the daughters seem sincere. They could have thought that the ad was a neat way of helping their dad.

The ad is funny. Let’s see if it goes viral!

If it does, it may become something to talk about.

Are Herman Cain’s Campaign Ads Seriously Real As Conceptual Art?

by

7

Herman Cain’s campaign video ads on YouTube have drawn a lot of interest and a lot of coverage.

There is the smoking ad and the Western short film yellow flowers ad.  Commentaries run the table on whether the ads are Presidential campaign level material,  and even whether Cain himself  is a Presidential candidate to be taken seriously.

John Presnall is a serious writer. He edits the Postmodern Conservative Blog on FirstThings.com, the online edition of First Things, a respected and influential journal about religion and society.

On his Blog, Presnall has published a very interesting article entitled: “Herman Cain Gets Seriously Real with Lighthearted Conceptual Art,” in which he talks about the ads, and describes them in a serious context. I will not spoil the fun of reading Presnall’s article  by excerpting from it. Read the article yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

But after reading it, you may feel inspired to comment on these questions.

1.  Are the ads  ”Lighthearted Conceptual Art?”

2.  Is it your sense that “Cain Gets Seriously Real” in those ads, and that they convey serious political messages?

3.  Are the ads “Presidential?”

4.  Will the ads help or hurt Cain’s campaign?

Source Link

John Presnall, “Herman Cain Gets Seriously Real with Lighthearted Conceptual Art,” on FirstThings.com Blog: POSTMODERN CONSERVATIVE

Related articles

White House Counsel Bauer May Reign In Corporate Political Money Adverse To The President

by

0

Robert Bauer, a Washington, D. C. political power lawyer who recently became White House Counsel, is likely to emerge as the most important in-house counselor to President Barack Obama and his reelection campaign committee as they begin to gird themselves against what could be a torrent of negative advertising openly attacking the President’s leadership, sharply criticizing his policies and aggressively advocating his defeat.

That spate of advertising probably will be fueled by gushers of political money, in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, which corporations are now free to spend seeking to influence the outcome of the 2011 Presidential Election. The prediction is fair in light of the recent decision of the SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court declared, in a 5-4 decision, that corporations have a free speech right protected by the First Amendment to tap their vast treasuries, without government interference or regulation, and spend unlimited sums of money on advocacy and advertising to defeat or support candidates in federal elections for political offices.

Bauer formerly chaired the political law practice group of Perkins Coie, a national law firm. He is an expert in campaign finance and the regulation of political money. In addition, he has authored several books and maintained a weblog on the subjects. He also has lectured and litigated on the subjects.

More important for the President, Bauer has been his personal lawyer. He represented President Obama in the litigation challenging the President’s nationality and qualifications to serve in office. There is no question about Bauer’s loyalty to the President, and his motivation to lawyer and advocate for the President with zeal.

So what’s the bottom line?

Corporations may spend their treasury money as they please to make independent expenditures playing politics. Having said that, there are still regulations in place limiting their political activities. Those regulations prohibit direct corporate contributions to political candidates; limit the amounts of contributions which can be made to political candidates through corporate political action committees; and, outlaw any political spending in federal elections by foreign corporations.

The law is clear with respect to corporations making independent expenditures. What’s not clear is whether corporations have a First Amendment free speech right to collaborate with political candidates on the expenditure of corporate political money to advocate or advertise the defeat of their opponents. As stated by Craig Engle, head of the Political Law Group at Arent Fox: “These expenditures must still be made independent of the candidate’s campaign.” Supreme Court Strikes Corporate Speech Prohibition in Campaign Finance Case (01-21-10) Link:  Arent Fox Article  That issue alone is likely to generate a slew of complaints, compliance investigations and enforcement suits.

Bauer’s task is clear.

He must give counsel and direct implementation of a broad strategy to monitor and review closely corporate political expenditures for advocacy and advertising adverse to the President. He and his staff must respond quickly and aggressively to any negative advocacy and advertising that damage the President. They also must take the necessary action to assure that the related expenditures comply with the regulations which have survived the Supreme Court decision.

Small Business Political Money & Free Speech-Will Their Political Activism Lead To Gushers Of Political Cash And Campaign Ads?

by

2

After considering Ted Olsen’s comments in The Wall Street Journal about the impact of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clear that the free speech rights of small business and their entrepreneurs were as much intended targets of the decision as those of major corporations. Olsen, the lawyer for Citizens United, said:

 The decisions that the Court today overruled rested on the faulty premise that political speech can be restricted in order to prevent corporate money from “distorting” political discourse. In fact, the vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses. Far from “distorting” the political process, the speech of these corporations reflects the views of their members or the entrepreneurial individuals who formed the corporation. Permitting these individuals to have a voice in the political process adds an important perspective to the public debate and enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich. McCain-Feingold silenced those speakers, and, as the Court concluded, was therefore impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment. 

That was a mouthful. Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/21/free-speech-v-democracy-rounding-up-the-citizens-united-reactions/tab/article/

Apparently, Olsen envisions significant and substantially increased levels of activism in policy making and politics by thousands upon thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Those are the legions of “S” Corps, LLC’s, LLP’s and their owners. For the most part, they have not been players in politics: they have not set up PACS; they do not have lobbyists; and, have not spent money on political ads.

But, they will have a lots of political money, heretofore untapped gushers of political cash in the millions of dollars, to spread around on the political playing field and deploy for all types of public affairs advocacy; to influence policy; and, to take sides and spend those millions on ads for political candidates they like or dislike influencing the outcomes of elections.

In that respect, whatever the original intent of the litigation was, the Citizens United decision has fostered a new, unchartered and possibly unlimited frontier for the deployment of political money and advertising dollars spent lavishly not only by major corporations, long term players in politics; but also, by small businesses and their owners, the new entrants.

 That conceivably will revolutionize, and perhaps even radicalize, politics, policy making and election outcomes well beyond the bounds as we now them!