Dan's Papers - October 31, 2008

TV political advertising isn't what it used to be. And that's putting it mildly. Barak Obama spends as much as $3 million a day to run TV ads, compared to John McCain's $1 million. Advertising strategy follows Madison Avenue standards.

Gone are the days when TV commercials first began in 1952, when a town hall format had audience members asking prewritten questions and Eisenhower and Stevenson responding with prewritten answers. One important fact does remain the same, however. Experts still aren't sure if TV ads make a significant difference in election results. Yet that doesn't seem to matter: TV is still the most powerful medium we have to convey a message, particularly when a candidate's image counts more than an idea. Clearly, the visual power of TV cannot be dismissed.

Consider the famous 1964 ad that the LBJ campaign ran against Goldwater: a little girl pulling petals from a daisy and the bomb going off in the background. (That ad was too controversial; it ran only one time.) An anti-Kerry ad in 2004 had the same power, showing the candidate "flip-flopping" in the wind as he rode a water glider. This particular ad ran several times, and experts agree that it may have contributed to Kerry's defeat.

The present campaign hasn't come up with a similarly potent image. Maybe that's one reason why the ads are, frankly, boring and without focus.

Simply put, Obama's and McCain's ads have not approached "art" in the way others have previously. (We will never forget a 1988 Primary ad where Gary Hart spoke to the camera, at us, in a huge close up, to prove his directness.) The current campaigns just don't have time to pay attention to the composition of a shot, creative visual metaphors, and imaginative sound effects. Instead, strategists are too busy responding to daily issues from the opposition in an expedient and boring manner. Thus, ads are often filled with texts and a candidate's photograph rather than visual images that communicate meaning without written or oral explanations. Consider these examples: In an anti-McCain ad, the following words spread across the screen: "Out of time, Out of Ideas." A photograph of McCain occupies either the left or right side of the frame. At least the images are asymmetrical, meaning off-balance; this composition turns up in most of the candidates' ads and is the only indication that graphic art principles are acknowledged.

Another meager application of artistic elements includes the pro-McCain ad featuring photographs of "mavericks" McCain and Palin from a worm's-eye perspective, signifying power and strength (an obvious visual device perhaps recalling similar shots of western heroes like Clint Eastwood).

But words mostly dominate the ads. For example, an anti- Obama ad uses written text instead of visual images, highlighting words like "misleading" and "not correct."