Posted at 10.31.2018
Throughout background, politicians have used generally used several methods, such as brief speeches, political advertising and rallies to attain their main target of winning votes. Not surprising, as social mass media becomes the largest platform to reach out to individuals, politicians took more good thing about it to make use of political advertising to persuade voters. That is evident from the amount spent on political advertising growing exponentially, from few hundred millions of dollars before to a projected total of almost three billion us dollars in the current US Presidential Election. A lot of the books on political advertising targets its success, how it will affect voters' intent as well as how it will affect the conception of the candidate. As political advertising must achieve results a brief period of time, a variety of techniques of advertising are usually utilized, such as unpleasant or strike advertising, negative advertising, and self-image advertising to mention a few. Prior to the 1980s, individuals usually start off with self-image advertisements to establish their positive image before shifting to negative advertisements to assault the challenger. However, such strategies were less often seen in recent elections. The questions are, however, why do politics candidates significantly choose to rely more on negative advertising? Is that the most effective way to persuade voters in a short amount of time? We will look at a few types of political ads and attempt to understand the magnitude of how the approach used ads development has altered and how it affect both voters' decision and candidates themselves, as well as perhaps the underlying intent behind.
Perhaps one of the most controversial advertisings is the "Daisy Gal " advertisement by Lyndon Johnson's Democratic Get together in the 1964 election. It was referred as Lyndon Johnson's respond to Republican applicant Barry Goldwater's affirmation that he'd consider a nuclear battle in Vietnam. The advertisement instantly created a controversy and ended airing following its first run. The main element point in this ad was the countdown and nuclear explosion that used following the young girl try to rely the petals on the blossom. The approach taken in this advertisement was perhaps to use good thing about the nuclear warfare likelihood raised by Barry Goldwater, as an instrument to frighten the voters that the results would be devastating if indeed nuclear weapons were to be utilized during the battle in Vietnam. The advertising was labeled as an strike or negative ad since the fundamental objective was to condemn Barry Goldwater's methodology that Vietnam should be continuously bombed rather than ending the conflict in a less brutal method. Even though the ad was pulled out immediately, the point was made. However controversial this ad was, it have serve its reason for receiving the votes over where it can be seen from the landslide triumph Lyndon Johnson got over Barry Goldwater, with him receiving 44 areas to Goldwater's 6 claims only. It turned out the effectiveness of negative campaigning and the reach of advertising. As an undecided viewers, one would have easily casted his vote for Lyndon Johnson because of the serious results that would affect future decades if nuclear weapons were used. Probably, the truth is that negative advertising such as "Daisy Woman" are regarded effective because the note itself is kept in mind, but at the same time ineffective because the candidate sponsoring the ad may be placed to a drawback instead, such to be criticized for bias or inaccurate analysis of the targeted prospect. Therefore, negative advertisements may be dangerous and could backfire anytime the targeted candidate locates a loophole. Nonetheless, negative advertising are very effective in discriminating candidates' images, especially to prospects voters who do not follow the marketing campaign as attentively. Inside the 1964 election, although this controversial "Daisy Lady" ad might not be the main reason behind Lyndon Johnson's victory, the approach taken for this advertising proved to be a debatable point: to instill fear into voters' head (the nuclear effects), or to portray Barry Goldwater as being an aggressor or extremist who organized to keep to inflict torture to the foe.
Moving forwards to the 21st century, such offensive advertisement like the "Daisy Young lady" might not exactly be as effective now as it might be. This is because of the fact that people tend to be educated than before, meaning they are able to think more objectively and analyze the framework behind the advertising more elaborately based on the issues elevated. Also, with technological improvements anticipated to globalization, people get into connection with politics easier though social marketing or virtual systems. Nonetheless, this does not mean that negative ads have lost its appeal to the individuals in deciding their advertising campaign ads. Actually, negative ads take up the majority of the commercials expenditure put in by both individuals in the 2012 presidential plan. Barack Obama has spent about 85% of his campaign's commercial expenditure on negative ads, and Mitt Romney a hefty 91%. However, it is lucky to notice that the amount of negativity is way better off than before since outcries of controversies have been reduced, and candidates tend to target more on their policies and method of enhance the life of the people which they rely to succeed votes. Why then, is the amount of negative ads becoming more frequent? Perhaps emotional and psychological areas of human nature could be the reason behind. As pointed out by experts, the ability of negative ads may compel voters to look for more information about the applicants, and along the way influencing the undecided.
One of the ads that Mitt Romney's Republican Party used in the 2012 election is named "We've Heard EVERYTHING Before ". The advertising depicts his opponent, Barack Obama, constantly duplicating some of the speeches and assures he manufactured in his 2008 election and expressing it again in today's election before ending it off with a question requesting, "Are you better off?" and a sentence, "Obama isn't working". Yes, it is definitely a negative ad, albeit in a much more reserved manner when compared with "Daisy Female" that was more offensive. The Republican Get together merely has to expose failed polices under Obama's supervision by effectively using his exhausted, rehashed talking factors against himself. It isn't a typical negative ad whereby the methodology considered is to only lower the opponent's image and features. Instead, this advertisement has an additional stint of sarcasm that mocks Obama for his insufficient creative imagination and new or much better plans for future years. In addition, the reason why this advertising may be useful is basically because it sets the viewer to think about the message that is helped bring across: Have you been better off? It activates a chain of thought in everyone, especially because the US current economic climate has barely retrieved from the 2008 financial crisis (coincidentally the same season as the prior election), it is an excellent time to start reflecting and evaluate how far better or worse off one is since Obama required charge four years back. The point out of recovery from 2008 financial crisis was a good chance showing how effective Obama's regulations were, and hence it fulfilled the aim of this advertisement which is to cause the voters to believe and perhaps vote for a change if indeed they feel shortchanged in the last four years. For Mitt Romney himself, this ad may put him at an edge as it had not been predicated on groundless accusations, but merely increasing questions which Barack Obama could find it difficult to answer.
On the contrary, positive advertisings do stick out as well even if its impact may not be for as long lasting. The procedure towards positive ads would generally focus on how well the prospect appeals to the masses by projecting his understanding of the concerns that the voters have so as to devise a plan that will influence and secure their votes. It reassures the voters and reaffirms the choices for individuals who have already chose, and informs those undecided voters the candidate's anticipate exactly what will be implemented or further improved upon after election. As previously mentioned, even while positive ads are not as preferred to as negative advertisings based on the amount allocated to them, we do not underestimate the impact of your positive ad. Probably, negative ads are just effective if it triggers an optimistic difference in evaluation between the source and the targeted applicant, whereas positive advertising are always effective since it serves and then promote the source.
One of the advertising that the Democratic Party stated in the 2012 election was named "THE DECISION ". It was a very different genre of ad whereby Barack Obama himself was the main cast; speaking as though he was having a about a minute rally. It had been a simple and straightforward advertisement; with the charismatic Barack Obama evidently depicting the major differences in the strategies which both candidates will be concentrating on and reminded the voters to vote for the applicant whose plan they think is more good for them. Having illustrated a few negative advertising prior, for once, this ad portrays the positivity in politics which people tend to view it as 'grubby mind game titles' between politicians. It shows a distinction with "We've Read It All Before" and "Daisy Woman" as it does not sensationalize the subject subject, no meaningless quips; neither would it contain exaggerated says nor advertising hominem attack, but the opposite of just the applicant explaining the distinctions in economic eye-sight in a polite manner. While using vast amount of viewership, of about three million views just on the digital platform itself 90 days after released, one can simply understand how important this man is garnering attention without the utilization of an offensive approach. On a personal basis, I feel that such way taken is appropriate at current point of energy as it encapsulates the vision of looking forward and be ready for the challenges, rather than always condemning the particular opponent has didn't fulfill in the last four years in a bet to win over votes. It is a composed ad that will not try to implore voters on casting their votes for him, but instead to put over the message of making a selection they deemed is better. Thus, the ad is very effective for people who do not understand the differences between the two candidates very well, such as young or first time voters who aren't yet very included. Comparing Barack Obama's "The Choice" advertising with Mitt Romney's "We've Observed EVERYTHING Before" ad, it shows the difference in objective and personalities of the two candidates. The prospective audience for his or her respective ad is different; with Barack Obama speaking to the general populace while Mitt Romney intends to sway the undecided voters over by feeling appeals that set them thinking.
In conclusion, the approach used ads development over the years has altered in the sense that the degree of negativity has lowered and therefore less controversies surfacing. This could also be the key reason why the amount allocated to developing ads has soared exponentially as the impact of every advertisement could be directly related its amount of negativity. Furthermore, we also recognized that the percentage difference of negative advertisings to positive advertisements is widening because of this. As human beings are tuned to become more very sensitive towards negativity, this would then in turn increase their curiosity when subjected to such advertising and leads these to attempting to get a clearer picture, which is good since their knowledge and understanding of the applicants will be much better on polling day. On the other hand, the eagerness shown in positive advertisings aims to fortify the position of the candidate by reaffirming those voters who have already constructed their mind, and also to assure undecided voters that candidate is more desirable to be the Leader. Knowing these results, an intelligent campaign organizer would use positive advertisings when they are ahead and vice versa. These could perhaps be due to the mentality that if the polling studies show that the candidate is currently behind, he'd have to try and disrupt the momentum of the opponent's run in order to sway voters' decision. Similarly, if the applicant is currently forward, he would want to cement the spot by garnering more helps through dispersing positivity via mental appeal and eagerness. Although this method is not proven hundred percent useful, it is a reasonable one. Nonetheless, political campaigners should be cautious in the use of advertising. A plan that relies intensely on negative advertising may cause a backlash to the get together themselves, thus it poses more risks than benefits. True enough, the results of 2012 US elections became unequivocal facts towards why political campaigners shouldn't rely so closely on negative advertisings as its main tool to have success, but to place more work in increasing their credentials to win voters over.