Is online TV for real? You betcha.

Hard upon the heels of her Joe-the-Plumber -clogged visit to Memorial Coliseum, Sarah Palin is attracting even more attention elsewhere--online, on Hulu.com, for example. AdAge.com reports that while the live TV-viewing audience was SNL's largest in 14 years, it will soon be surpassed by the online viewing audience:

Two clips of the Alaska governor on "SNL," her fake press conference and appearance on "Weekend Update," have racked up 6.1 million views on NBC.com. Derivative versions such as those used in news coverage, as well as pirated versions of the clips, have been viewed another 2.85 million times on sites like YouTube, MySpace and Yahoo, according to web video measurement firm Visible Measures.

Combined, the videos have been viewed 8.85 million times since Sunday, an impressive number in four days. But that doesn't include what may be the biggest source of online viewing: NBCU and News Corp.'s joint venture Hulu.com.

Neither Hulu nor NBC will provide Hulu's streaming numbers, but they're likely to be high. Hulu streamed four times as many videos (142 million) as NBC.com (36 million) during September, according to Nielsen's Video Census. While it's possible a high percentage of viewers looking for "SNL" clips would go first to NBC.com, it's also likely that Hulu counts for as many, if not more, views as NBC. The opening skit with Tina Fey holding a press conference as Sarah Palin, while the real VP nominee looked on, was the No. 3 most watched Hulu clip this week, while the clip of Amy Poehler's Palin rap sat at No. 2.

The success of Hulu.com points to three important trends for marketers and other communication-watchers:

• Audiences are learning that there's no sense in investing 30 minutes in a show when you can watch the best bits in a fraction of the time. Shorter is better.
  
• The size of the audience gravitating to online viewing is only going to increase, so keep an eye on what you're being asked to pay for broadcast and cable air time.
• Also pay close attention to content that's timely, and line up your advertising accordingly. Palin is a phenomenon, but a week from Wednesday she may start to be forgotten altogether. Get on the bandwagon as soon as you can, but bail out before the wheels start to fall off.
  

Obamamercial planned for Oct. 29; first of its kind since '92

The New York Times reports that the Barack Obama campaign will run a 30-minute ad on Oct. 29. The spot, which will appear in prime time on NBC and CBS, is the first 30-min. candidate infomercial since Ross Perot 's in 1992. One of the more interesting aspects of this news from an advertising perspective is the cost for the airtime, which--while undisclosed--is clearly significant.

Neither network officials nor Obama campaign aides would discuss the cost of the television time. An analysis of advertising rates shows that the price of the commercial time alone between 8 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on a Wednesday night would be about $1 million. It was unclear whether the networks were charging the campaign for only that commercial time or for the entire half hour, which would cost significantly more.

If nothing else, it's clear that the Obama campaign is in good financial shape as the campaign heads into the home stretch. Whether the 30-min. message will change anyone's mind is another matter, but it's always easier to script your own story than to let the media tell it for you--especially as all the undecideds start to decide.

Rhymes with "Dork Invaders"

Not content to sit by while Barack Obama gets all the kids' votes, the McCain campaign has introduced a new Facebook app called "Pork Invaders." Maybe I'm wrong, but it may not be the best idea for the last hawk standing to remind people of his fondness for bombing the crap out of stuff.

Hat tip: AdRants

I "hope" they "change" this ad

Texas's Central Kia does its part to remind all of us that most advertising is pretty lame.

Hat Tip: AdPulp

Vintage political ads: the good--and bad--old days

Despite the battle on the Democratic side, this campaign season hasn't yielded much in the way of landmark political advertising. A compilation of old political ads on Parade.com, however, shows that every election year offers the chance of spots that are good, bad, and ugly. For every "Daisy Girl" or Willie Horton ad that shakes things up, there's an Adalai Stevenson or "Ike" Eisenhower jingle to drag things back to earth. It's good to know that while things may not have gotten any better, they haven't necessarily gotten much worse, either.

Despite political ad windfall, local TV stations' ad revenue down

The Wall Street Journal reports that even during a contentious political primary season, local TV stations' ad revenues continue to slip:

This year, political advertising pumped about $216.1 million into the local TV ad market in the first quarter, more than double the $99.7 million in the first quarter of 2004, the last presidential election year, according to Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group at TNS. Even so, overall revenues are down, in comparison to the 8.7% rise in local ad revenue the industry saw in the first quarter of 2004.

The problem? Well, just about everything else is going wrong: real estate sales are down, car sales are down, and advertisers are continuing to shift dollars elsewhere. As the story suggests, 2008 should be an interesting year, given that the presidential election, local elections, and the Olympics will boost ad spending considerably. Will it be enough to offset the overall downturn? Tune in later to find out.

Photo: Romexico on stock.xchng

Primary doing a number Indiana TV ad inventory

The May 6 primary is severely limiting TV ad inventory--good news for broadcasters, but not such great news for advertisers. The bottom line is that if you're interested in being on the air in the next couple of weeks, you're out of luck--and even if you've already booked space, you still may be out of luck.

The reason? Political ads preempt everything else, regardless of when you reserved your space. If the Clinton, Daniels, Long-Thompson, McCain, Obama, or Schellinger campaigns want your time slot, it's theirs--and there's nothing you can do about it.

One example: we had booked space for a southern Indiana client a few weeks ago, and we found out yesterday that 15 of the spots were being preempted. Our only option was to reschedule them for after the primary if we wanted them to run at all.

Expect the same problem in October, as the general election draws near. That means rates will be high, and you'll want to have a Plan B. In fact, if you don't have to run TV spots in October, it's probably a good month to avoid altogether.

McCain takes a licking, but built Ford tough

According to a Washington Post story printed in today's Journal Gazette, Barack Obama's not the only presidental candidate with a differentiated brand:

A pair of market research firms in South Carolina polled voters there in April and September and concluded that if [John] McCain’s brand were a product, it would be part Ford pickup, part Wrangler jeans and part Timex watch.

“His brand strengths were identified as: trustworthiness, looks presidential, prepared for the job, has relevant experience,” said Mark Newsome, a senior vice president at Chernoff Newman, which conducted the surveys with MarketSearch. “He’s really resting his laurels on his own brand.”

But the firms also concluded that McCain’s brand has weaknesses: a striking lack of warmth and personal charm. And Democrats insist that there are opportunities to attack the building blocks of the McCain brand, especially his assertion that he is a moderate.

So, what about Obama and Hillary Clinton? What do you see as their primary brand strengths and weaknesses? And if their brands were products, which products would they be?

He's got the Brazen Careerist's vote

Slate doesn't like the new ads for Johm...make that John...McCain. And the typo shown above is just one of the reasons.

Maybe Penelope Trunk is on the McCain campaign payroll.

Clinton ad begins Tuesday; Obama debuts new spot; SBB yawns

The first Hillary Clinton TV spot to run in Indiana will debut on Tuesday, four weeks ahead of the May 6 primary. Today's Journal Gazette reports that the ad carries an endorsement from Sen. Evan Bayh:

On TV ads that will appear statewide beginning Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., says Clinton has a “spine of steel” and will change the North American Free Trade Agreement that cut barriers to trade with Canada and Mexico.

Here's the ad:


Does the spot work? Well, if you like Evan Bayh and you like Hillary Clinton, you'll probably like it. If you don't like either one of them, you probably won't. If you like Bayh but not Clinton, then you'll probably still like Bayh despite his endorsement of Clinton. (I know--this is exactly the kind of insightful commentary you look for from SBB. I aim to please.)

And if you like Barack Obama, you'll probably like his new spot:



True to the consistency that brand Obama has demonstrated throughout the campaign, the new spot is very similar to his prior Indiana ad:



My take is that both Obama ads and the Clinton ad are pretty ho-hum. No one's taking any chances. No one's telling us anything we don't know already. And no one is likely to change anyone's mind.

The biggest impact these ads probably will have on Indiana voters, in fact, is that they'll make air time much more expensive, and inventory much harder to come by, during the next month. The big winners, then, are our friends at 21/33 and 15.

Hat tip: Taking Down Words

Fast Company on the Obama brand

On Friday, after Barack Obama's visit to the Fort, I posted about "The Obama Brand"--the marketing behind the campaign. That very topic is also this month's Fast Company cover story. A sample:

The fact that Obama has taken what we thought we knew about politics and turned it into a different game for a different generation is no longer news. What has hardly been examined is the degree to which his success indicates a seismic shift on the business horizon as well. Politics, after all, is about marketing -- about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace -- and, potentially, the global one -- is moving. His openness to the way consumers today communicate with one another, his recognition of their desire for authentic "products," and his understanding of the need for a new global image -- all are valuable signals for marketers everywhere.

The Obama brand

A friend pointed me to a Brian Collins interview in Wednesday's New York Times that praised "Barack Obama’s sophisticated typographical design scheme." In Collins' words:

[T]he Obama campaign really stands out. From the bold “change” signs to their engaging Web site to their recognizable lapel pins, they’ve used a single-minded visual strategy to deliver their campaign’s message with greater consistency and, as a result, greater collective impact.

The NYT piece follows a March 30 Los Angeles Times story that says each campaign has done well, stating that "Clinton's friendly serif, McCain's classic Optima and Obama's newcomer Gotham are [all] on message." But according to Collins, Obama is the hands-down choice--not just from a typography standpoint, but when it comes to his campaign's overall brand:

Barack Obama is running the first real transmedia campaign of the 21st century. His people not only understand how media has splintered, but how audiences have splintered, too. Cell phones, mobile devices, Web sites, e-mail, social networks, iPods, laptops, billboards, print ads and campaign events are now just as important as television. The senator’s design strategy has given these diverse platforms (and their different audiences) a coherence that makes them all work together. I’ve worked with giant, global corporations who don’t do it this well.

This integration gives Obama a significant edge, but his campaign enjoys some other benefits from a branding perspective. First, he's doing well with young voters, over whom branding has the greatest influence. What they lack in money they make up for in incredibly large, viral social networks, and they have the most diverse media consumption habits as well. They also know technology, and use it well in communicating messages that they believe in. That makes Obama seem omnipresent, at least among voters under 40.

Another thing about those young voters--they generally like great design. And when your brand has a strong visual message, your audience is much more likely to share it, wear it, and display it. One example: I was walking down Wayne St. today, and there was a large, Shepard Fairey-designed "Hope" banner on the east side of one of the buildings. And my first thought--the same thought I have every time I see it--is how striking it is. Now I think the comparisons to Soviet-style icongraphy are accurate, which makes it a risk, but the fact that first-run "Hope" posters are selling for $1,500 on eBay indicates that it's hitting a nerve.

Sure, fonts by themselves don't win elections, and neither does great design. But strong branding can impact a political campaign in the same way it impacts consumer preference. JFK understood this. Reagan got it, too. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but it sure isn't going to change anytime soon.

Senate candidate holds logo election

Scott Kleeb, a candidate for U.S. Senate, is letting visitors to his web site choose his new campaign logo. I like this idea for a few reasons:

• It gives people some ownership in the Kleeb brand, possibly leading to them having more ownership in his campaign as a whole
  
• It drives traffic to his website, and
  
• It's consistent with the "grass roots" campaign theme he's using to differentiate himself against his opponent

Kleeb announced his campaign in February, just three months before the primary. But with strategies like this, he's quickly making up for lost time.

Hat tip: BrandNew

"And then, I left and took a cab to Hooker Highway"

Eliot Spitzer's 2006 gubernatorial campaign ad, back when he didn't bring to mind headlines like these, or inspire minor league baseball promotions like this. If you work on campaign ads, this is a good reminder to avoid claims that make your candidate sound like a saint, because he or she probably isn't.

Hat tipped to AdFreak, briefly placed back on head, and immediately tipped again

It's 3 a.m. Has anyone checked on the kids'...endorsements?

Saturday Night Live put together a funny (albeit a little too lengthy) skit about the Hilary Clinton "3 a.m." ad:



But lending more proof to the theory that reality is funner than fiction, the sleeping girl in the original "3 a.m." ad, it seems, is an Obama supporter. As AdFreak reports:

To be fair, the stock footage in the ad was shot nine years ago, when Casey Knowles was 8 years old. (The Clinton campaign bought the footage from Getty Images.) But Knowles, now 17, has been campaigning for Obama, and denounces the “3 a.m.” spot as an exercise in “fear-mongering.” The Obama camp has been in touch with Knowles, and they’ve been having a laugh or two. “I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary,” she says. “They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it.”

Ah, the perils of using stock photography. But it could be worse for the Clinton camp: at least they're not being sued by an angry poultry farmer.

Hat tip: Fort Wayne Left

Nine questions about Axe's "Clinton Endorses Obama" ad

1. Is it funny?
2. Are presidential candidates fair game for parody ads?
3. Would it be better, worse, or no different if the button said "McCain"?
   
4. Is it sexist (any more so than the typical Axe ad)?
5. Does it help Obama?
6. Does it help Clinton?
7. Does it have any effect on either candidate?
8. What do you think they're implying?
9. Will it help Axe sell any products?

Your thoughts?

Hat tip: Collective Wisdom

Romney ad attempts to move McCain to the left

As Super Sunday hype dissipates and Super Tuesday hype builds, voters in key states are facing another barrage of ads--this time from the candidates. And this Mitt Romney ad may be the one that says the most about the current political climate. Just a couple of the things it reveals:

• On the Republican side, the race may very well come down to whether Romney can dodge questions about his inconsistent positions on the issues and instead cast doubt on McCain's conservative credentials. By literally and figuratively moving McCain to the left in this spot, the Romney camp reinforces its commitment to that strategy. Should the Republican race get any more contentious, the question isn't if McCain will counter with a detailed criticism of Romney's record as Massachusetts governor, but when.

• There is no more polarizing political figure than Hilary Clinton (in fact, on the Democratic side her "electability" appears to be a primary issue motivating voters to support either her or Barack Obama). Romney's spot banks on conservatives' hatred (and I don't think that's too strong a word) of Clinton to tarnish McCain by association. From a purely strategic standpoint, that's a pretty decent gamble. But with the latest polls showing Obama pulling away from Clinton, it will be interesting to see how Romney will adjust his strategy if Clinton is still in the race on Wed. morning--assuming, of course, that Romney is still in the race himself.

Romney's spot is a study in how political candidates use the zeitgeist to differentiate themselves--and the powerful effect that a TV spot can have in reinforcing those points of differentiation.

Is this Texas candidate The Biggest Loser?

Fox News reports on a Texas congressional candidate with a big fat PR problem:

Dean Hrbacek appears slimmer than usual in a new campaign brochure because a photo of his head was affixed to the image of a different body.

While the mailer sent to voters this week by the former Sugar Land mayor says "Dean's record speaks for itself," his physique clearly does not.

The picture, presented as a true image of the candidate, is a computerized composite of Hrbacek's face and someone else's slimmer figure, in suit and tie, from neck to kneecaps.

[...]

Campaign manager Scott Broschart acknowledged the image is a fake. Hrbacek has been so busy meeting voters that he had no time to take a full-length, genuine photo for the political mailing, Broschart said.

So Hrbacek's campaign put the headless body with the candidate's head.

"He may appreciate that we took a few pounds off him," Broschart said. "I think the voters ... are more concerned with the issues as opposed to pretty photo shoots."

Actually, Scott, they’re concerned with both. An audience will let you get away with best-foot-forward tactics in your advertising, as long as what they’re seeing is somewhat authentic. You can have the photographer adjust the lighting. You can have the candidate shave right before the photo shoot. You even can put him in a suit that hides a few pounds. But use the ol’ head/body switcheroo, and voters are going to start wondering what other tricks you're using to deceive them.

Advertising on its own doesn’t win elections, but advertising that creates PR problems sure doesn’t help. In trying to make Hrbacek look like The Biggest Loser in his brochure, his campaign may have just ensured that he’ll be a big loser in the March primary.

Bonus coverage: the Lone Star Times has a close up of the less-than-stellar PhotoShop work that started the big fat controversy.

One way the web is changing political advertising

How has the Internet changed political advertising? One example: It’s moved the mass media conversation from monologue to dialogue.

Rudy Giuliani’s “Ready” ad is a great example. The candidate creates a spot that uses some compelling imagery and strong words to make a strong statement. And the responses, issued almost immediately, use that same imagery and those same words to make some excellent counter arguments.

Take this parody touting Ron Paul (this and those that follow are NSFW):

Or this one, which accuses Giuliani (and others) of fascism:

Or this one, that’s just plain silly (and not for the squeamish):

The true question is whether any of this changes minds or moves the debate forward. And if it does, is it because of because of the power and reach of the traditional campaign TV ad, or because the collective power of these parodies overshadows the power of the original message? One thing’s for sure: if the latter is true, then the campaigns are spending a lot of money to give their detractors some pretty powerful ammunition.

Hats tipped to Left in Aboite and Rachel B. at BPOTS.

Positively negative

Candidates are usually criticized when they run "negative" campaign ads. But what if the ad's message is relevant and based in fact? Steve Chapman, a Chicago Tribune columnist, says that many so-called "negative" ads actually serve a very important purpose:

It would be nice if politicians were all saintly figures who do the right thing. Since they are not -- and since Americans often disagree on what constitutes the right thing -- negative campaigning serves the helpful function of illuminating facts that a) people are likely to care about and b) the targets would prefer we didn't know.

Without the balance provided by "negative" ads, Chapman says, we'd only hear the messages crafted by each campaign to deify their candidates--messages, that is, with far less truth than most "negative" ads.

What would we glean about the candidates from watching only their own positive ads and presentations? That Hillary Clinton has unmatched experience in government and is a good listener to boot. That John Edwards is tireless in fighting for You. That Mitt Romney loves his highly photogenic family. That John McCain is a common-sense conservative.

That Mike Huckabee is unabashedly in favor of Christmas. That Rudy Giuliani will kill terrorists with his bare hands. That Barack Obama's serene wisdom would make Gandhi look like Bill O'Reilly.

Compare those blinding revelations with what we know about the same candidates from unflattering portrayals offered by their opponents and other uncharitable souls: Clinton's experience is greatly exaggerated. As a state senator, Obama's Zen-like approach to divisive legislation often led him to vote neither "yes" nor "no" but "present."

Giuliani has a history of support for gun control and abortion rights. Huckabee has changed his position on illegal immigration. Edwards has changed his position on the Iraq war. Romney has changed his position on everything.

As ten months of contentious campaigning begins, Chapman's argument is worth remembering. The next time you hear a campaign ad described as "negative," take note of who's making that claim. If it comes from the target of the spot, it might be worth asking whether it's the ad, or the subject of the ad, that truly deserves to be disparaged.

Hat tip: Rachel Blakeman of BPOTS