- Post a comment
- Skip to the latest comment
- Back to the blog
As an advocate of a tightly focused campaign on the positive virtues of the Green Shift for the economy, I really like the overall intent of the Liberals' new ad.
But I'm not a big fan of the actual technique.
I like negative ads negative and positive ads positive.
I like issue ads to sell the issue and make it real for people.
I like candidate intro ads to introduce the candidate memorably.
I like contrast ads to draw a sharp contrast.
I'm not a fan of trying to do too many things in one ad. Simple, simple, simple. People are smart but busy, so you need to make it straight-forward.
So my first critique would be of the conception. A soft contrast ad like this is trying to do too many things in 30 seconds: attack Harper, define the Green Shift, contrast the two on the economy, etc.
The second critique is of the specifics of the message.
I think the most effective line the Liberals have in this election is “worst economic record since Brian Mulroney.” And it's easy to make visuals with photos of Harper and Mulroney together.
While I think the visceral hatred of Mulroney has died down, it's important to make the point that “Tory times are tough times” and push down Harper's lead on the “best leader to manage the economy” question. So the entire front end of the ad I would have done differently from conception to technique.
Meanwhile, the back end of the ad doesn't link the tax breaks in the Green Shift to creating the jobs, so that claim has less power. You can't explain a major policy shift in 15 seconds with a few words and stock visuals.
So overall, the ad is an improvement over the first one, but still has a ways to go.
-
dave weatherall from Ottawa, Canada writes: Interesting that the new liberal ads have dropped Dion's signature, incomprehensible sign off and have replaced their narrator with a midwest-sounding american. In fact, Dion appears NOWHERE in the ad at all. It must be really difficult in the liberal war room trying to figure out how to win an election when your leader is the last person anyone wants anywhere near their campaign.
- Posted 16/09/08 at 2:25 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Albin Forone from Canada writes: I hope the G&M will delve into the Tory/Liberal "strategy" to neutralize discussion by major parties arising, from the contemptible "Manley Entente" under which they cynically agreed on extension of the Afghan mission to 2011 without discussion in this election. Manley reported and the mission was extended on the spurious fiction that only 1000 more NATO troops would be needed as of this year. Today the US field commander tells us what even I knew - more like 20,000 troops required right now:
"U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the head of the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, said he needed three brigades plus support units -- possibly around 15,000 troops -- in addition to other forces scheduled to arrive in the coming months."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080916/tsnm/afghangates_dc- Posted 16/09/08 at 8:08 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment
This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?
You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!
Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
