The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Call me totally naive....

Re: Call me totally naive....

Kai — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:05:28 -0000

I think JB makes the critical point about over-rating our ability to not be bamboozled by advertising. Billions of dollars and decades of research say that we are not quite as clever as we'd like to think we are, myself included. There is a documentary called Century of the Self which delves deeply into this very issue and how advertising has shaped almost entirely the modern market place for non-essential products.

The thing about political ads is not so much that they make you decide, but they provide the "information" that many folks use in weighing the pros and cons of candidates/policies. Most people aren't doing alot of research on their own, they are forming opinions based on what they catch in a newspaper here, a cable show there, and an ad here. Sometimes its as simple as keeping a narrative afloat, irrespective of its relationship to reality.

Re: Call me totally naive....

Tom in Ma — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:23:33 -0000

Ads also communicate to supporters. You feel more committed if you see your candidates ads on TV -- which is why the "swing state strategy" is counter-productive. You don't want to be going with a loser, and if you see no ads for your candidate, you start to feel like one.

Ads also give you, the viewer/supporter, a chance to vicariously say what you like to say. Ever notice how many commentors on political blogs suggest ad copy? Everybody is an ad critic, and one of the reasons why blog readers are impatient with the campaigns don't run all the great ads we suggest. Ads serve as talking points for the masses to use in conversations with friends and co-workers.

Re: Call me totally naive....

Reality Man — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:41:16 -0000

A lot of advertising seems to be based on the idea that the target audience is full of idiots that need to be talked down to. My favorites have been those aimed at people under 20 where everything looks like a Mountain Dew commercial saying that buying product X will make you cool. Since every ad says that, each message gets crowded out by another. (My recent favorite are the ads on the Beijing subway system for IIRC instant noodles with the tagline "Young people love the taste!" with a bunch of pseudo-neo-punk rockers in the foreground.) I've noticed that even when I like an ad, like the King commercials for Burger King, I haven't felt a greater need to buy that product, especially considering I haven't eaten Burger King since around the time Princess Di died.

Political ads seem to double down on the idea that the audience is stupid, mostly for reasons outlined above by others. If you were swayed by the Kerry windsurfing ad, you are a moron. The people who make those ads know you would have to be a moron to be swayed by them, so they get tailored made for morons.

Re: Call me totally naive....

jaye — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:56:40 -0000

Millions of people have already decided who they're going to vote for, either because of party affiliation or because they've taken the time to watch a few debates, read a few articles, talk to some friends. So the ones left over are...I mean, do you know anyone who hasn't really decided yet? Probably not, because that's not the kind of people you have around you.

These ads are not talking to you, they're not talking to anyone who would read a political blog and take time to comment on the influence of political advertising. These ads are speaking to the kind of people you will probably never know in your lifetime, and that's why it's so incomprehensible to you...and me.

But I do think it also helps to influence the narrative in the media, and that affects a lot of different kinds of people.

Re: Call me totally naive....

JT (Chicago) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:49:38 -0000

I agree with Tyler's assessment that political ads reenforce already held opinions. I believe LBJ's "flower girl/mushroom cloud" ad only ran once but it stuck (after being discussed by pundits).

BradL is also correct in that the Rove-McCain folks are using the kitchen sink strategy at this point. However, I'm not so certain that it points to desperation. I think they are trying to find out how far they can go before they start getting major backlash.

I wonder if this Slate/Newsweek take on the election is as accurate as I think it is:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155117/output/print

Re: Call me totally naive....

AlexG — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:39:06 -0000

I had a poli sci prof in college--Brilliant guy named Sid Plotkin. He set aside an entire class to really get into the issue of media in all forms and campaign outcomes. His ultimate thesis is that the media (include ads in that) does NOT determine the outcome of a campaign...Media heads WANT to be the deciding factor, mostly so they get better viewership, but I think there is something fundamentally flawed about our current thinking that ads somehow "work". Correlation of ads to poll numbers does not imply causation.

Re: Call me totally naive....

J.B. — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:37:07 -0000

An ad has made me decide to go investigate an item, but never to just purchase it sight unseen.

Perhaps you've never done so consciously, but people vastly overrate how influential their conscious mind is in their decision-making process. By the time you actively engage in a decision, your subconscious mind has all but closed the deal. And that's where advertising gets you.

Re: Call me totally naive....

patriot games — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:36:19 -0000

Ads don't change minds directly as much as they set contexts. Ads are more like rumors than arguments. When rumors spread, the rumor becomes what everyone is talking about. Commentators and interviewers discuss the rumors, and in that a story gets told and retold, setting the terms for discussion and decision making.

Looked at this way, ads a part of a larger program of shaping the debate. The rumor - or story - doesn't have to appear in an ad. For example, the libel that Obama is a secret Muslim. Or jokes about McCain's senility. Though these things can become the subject of ads, directly or indirectly - e.g., McCain "can't remember" how many houses he owns.

Re: Call me totally naive....

Brad L — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:35:54 -0000

I think Tyler pretty much has this right: it's not the add itself, but the way it feeds or reinforces "the narrative" that matters. Good ads can bolster, or even help create that narrative. And unfortunately, the narrative does matter.

It only matters to a small number, but those small number happen to be right in the middle - they are a small portion of voters but a big portion of the gettable votes.

It also cuts both ways. Nobody that has already decided who to vote for really cares that John McCain forgot about his houses, any more than anyone really cared that John Kerry windsurfed. They only care about how it looks to others. Fortunately for Obama, it looks really bad for McCain

And, frankly, house-nesia looks worse than your political opponent saying bad things about you, because a) most people understand that and b) McCain's opponents weren't exactly sending him love letters.

[Even worse for McCain is his assertion that no American would want to, or could hack, picking lettuce full time for $50/hour. That one actually does make him seem out of touch (100k/year is good money!), and has the added bonus of insulting our/Americans' industriousness. I am amazed this isn't being thrown around a bit more.]

Further, at the same time that McCain's camp is attacking Obama for picking one of his critics (Biden), they are attacking him for not picking an even harsher critic. This speaks to a certain desparation, a lack of message discipline and a "throw it out there and see what sticks" approach. Which normally isn't that bad, but looks particularly unflattering on a candidate that talks so regularly of honor and straight talk.

Re: Call me totally naive....

DHN — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:33:22 -0000

Ask an economist -- it's all at the margins. The parties start with their base of 40% each, and are fighting over the remaining 20%. By definition, that excludes most people.

In a high profile contest (president, governor, senator) the point of ads (especially attack ads) is not so much to get people to switch from one candidate to another as to get the opponent's marginal supporters sufficiently disgusted that they won't bother voting.

In a down-ticket race, the point of ads is to build name recognition, because some sub-subset within the 20% of switchable voters is more likely to vote for the guy they've heard of over the guy they haven't. It's the same reason why they plant a billion little signs by the road that have nothing but a candidate name and the office he/she's seeking.

Re: Call me totally naive....

blackink — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:30:21 -0000

I remember that Bill Maher quote from his recent interview with Larry King: "The American people are too dumb to be governed."

So, while I agree that it would seem that ads should play little role in the decision process of a reasonable, informed voter, the problem is that there are too few reasonable and informed voters.

Most people don't have time to parse the significant issues, so they let their chosen political parties or beliefs inform their every decision. We really can't underestimate how dumb people are in this country when it comes to politics.

I mean, goodness, a sizable percentage of folks still think Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim.

Re: Call me totally naive....

rickhavoc — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:28:44 -0000

May be that there's a genetic marker for resistance to ads. I seem to have it, but its hard to believe so much would be spent on ads if they did not have some effect.

The ad fits into a larger notion that McCain is running an obligatory campaign (per Dole in '96) that has never mapped out a strategy for actually winning enough electoral votes in November, and has no intention of doing so.

Re: Call me totally naive....

Tyler — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:14:44 -0000

I sort of agree with you.

I think successful ads play on thoughts and feelings that people already have. So in that respect they "make" people vote or buy something. I also think the long-term effect of ads is more sinister than the short-term effect. Meaning, after hearing something over and over and over again, I do think that people's perceptions change or shift. Because I think the media parrots what is in ads, with pundits dissecting it, and then the good ads sometimes become part of the dominant narrative on a political figure. So I guess it's once removed.

Re: Call me totally naive....

Alok — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:03:57 -0000

Can you link to these polls stating whether ads do have a strong effect on how people vote?

Andrew Bacevich's thesis is that Americans must look themselves in the mirror instead of relying on the leaders/congress. Bill Maher put it bluntly: half of Americans are too dumb to to vote.