Obama and McCains Advertising Campaign - Case Study Example

Running head: OBAMA AND McCAIN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN Obama and McCain’s Advertising Campaign Obama and McCains Advertisement Campaign Abstract This paper explores the advertising campaigns of U.S election 2008 for President. It is a comparison between the campaigns of Senator Barak Obama and John McCain which they adopted for election. It compares and analyzes the overall strategies, common and different tactics used by both camps. The paper also studies the effectiveness and impact of advertising campaign on the overall results of election. Obama and McCain’s Advertising Campaign The 2008 U.S Presidential election was a classic example of modern advertising war between Barak Obama and John McCain. This aggressive campaign left Obama with victory and McCain on the losing end. Considering diverse canvas of these advertising campaigns the messages are strategically crafted. Obama camp opted for an out modern and specific stance while McCain played it the traditional way. Robert (2009) claims, indeed, it was in the early portion of the 2008 campaign that decisions were made and paths were charted for which there could be no turning back. As I will argue, the communication functions performed during the preprimary and primary stages of the 2008 campaign were at least as important in determining the results of the entire elections as they have ever been. (p.4) McCain’s web ad “The one” mocks Obama and compares him with Moses. It is an effective ad but leaves the viewer on a thinking note about Obama’s credibility as a leader which can be more effectively proved wrong through the debates between Obama and McCain. The strength of this ad lies in its use rather manipulation of Obama’s own statements with a humorous touch which give it an edge over the Paris Hilton and Britney spears commercial. Kathleen Hall Jamieson narrates in an interview with Alex Koppelman (2008): …Charlton Heston as Moses is unexpected the first time you see the ad, and the juxtaposition with the theme of Obama quotes on each side is effective. And so unlike the “Celeb” ad [featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton],in which the test of plausibility is immediate, that you can begin to ask, what are these two women doing in this ad; you’re far less likely to ask that in “The One”. (Slon.com) According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson (2008) across those ads youre seeing the same basic theme: Is Obama ready to lead? The Republicans got the theme for campaign but it proved not to be very useful for them as Obama proved his ability during debates. History tells us about John Kennedy‘s gain in 1960 who was asked by Richard Nixon. Republicans, in this way are repeating the same old ineffective strategy which becomes null by the performance of opponent. However, it is an effective ad as it uses Obama’s words and manipulates them in a humorous way.1 (salon.com) Celeb ad with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is effective to some extent. The message is given about Obama’s credibility and worth as a presidential candidate and a question is raised that if Obama is actually ready? The ad is not highly effective as this is the traditional way of attacking strategy which question’s the credibility of candidate. However, it tries to intrigue doubt by showing superfluous celebs and symbolizing Obama with their emptiness, worth and even masculinity. These celebrities are mostly targeted as being empty and superfluous who just show what they are not in reality. It suggests resembling Obama with them; as a good debater but with empty words and false promises who presents himself well but he is not that honest with people and he will prove that in terms of his policies and tax conditions if you vote him. It leaves people on thinking about who Obama actually is? Should I trust him by his consistently credible image and charismatic personality or there is some truth behind that. Brainwashing and reconstruction of image is done with McCain’s ad “Love”. In response to Obama’s resembling him with Bush and the likes, McCain camp represented him as a different kind of Republican by portraying him with the likes of Ronald Reagan. Past images, image of a reformer and love of the country are strong points which make it quite credible and projected McCain as an experienced and strong contender for presidency. A serious attempt to promote McCain’s image, his understanding of war and keeping America safe is depicted effectively through ad “Safe”. A negative tone is adopted in the contrasting ad “Troops Funding” ad in which Obama is showed as poor and weak contender for troops given his past with troops in comparison with McCain (the patriot) who supported and will stand by them. Obama’s own words are used against him strategically. A very effective ad regarding the troop issue is “Promise” in which Joe Biden’s words against Obama are used in order to dishonor Obama. In addition to vice presidential candidate negative tone, message of “Playing Politics, Risking Lives” and “Not ready to Lead” proved to be the final hit to troop funding case. On the other hand, Obama ads present specific details and high level of credibility which depicts the seriousness of their commitment. Obama camp is aggressively fighting for establishing their image as credible not empty. Rather than being defensive or directly attacking, they are comparing Obama and McCain offering in energy sector in their “National priority” ad, specific claims and details answer the blame of non-experienced and big talk by actually showing the records and proof of change being actually delivered by Obama in past. Obama uses the disadvantage and turn that into an advantage by offering people what they really can relate to. It is more practical, realistic and effective ad. According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson (2008), the most important thing an ad can do on an issue is to differentiate a candidate from the opposing candidate. (salon.com) Kathleen Hall Jamieson (2008) further argues about the contrasting strategy ads are better than the attack ads with negative message. They serve the duel purpose of attacking and positioning the stance. It contrasts Senator McCain as an issue or problem and Senator Obama as a change agent and solution provider/a savior. It is the ad which challenges McCain and show Obama as hero. However, practically, none of them is challenger. The ad is effective as people can relate to it at the moment.2 (salon.com) Obama attacks McCain’s mortgage plan in a cable TV ad. According to Falcon, SCORECARD With millions of Americas at risk of foreclosure, Obama has targeted McCain on his stance over economic policy and its effect on Americans. This ad highlights the plan critically. It is everybody’s concern and raises some serious issues about McCain’s economic plan.3(New York Times) Obama’s “low road Express” is also considered highly effective being supported by the reputed news outlets and fact-checking outlets. It is a character attack and questions McCain’s credibility who can give misleading and false statements. It is attacking and seems honest as unbiased bodies seems to confirm the claim made in this ad that portrays not only McCain but his ads making false statements about Obama. It results in increasing soft corner for Obama and believing him to be un-experienced but credible and trustworthy. Obama’s campaign adopted a much aggressive and modern approach by involving youth in it through games, mobile messaging and internet advertising. Both camps did negative advertising and attacked each other in every possible way but as far as objectivity, message, timing, media selection, urgency and budget is concerned, Obama’s campaign proved to be far effective than McCain’s. In “America’s Leadership” ad Clinton and Republican’s rhetoric accuse is being answered by showing Obama involved in a matter of national security with Senator Luger about the nooks which could have posed considerable terrorist threat.4 Obama’s debate give an impression of strong leader and eloquent speaker and the ad confirms it. People can relate and confirm his worth and infer his future showing the same level of competence. Obama’s contrast ads, fact aiding informational ads are more effective than attacking and mocking ads of McCain. Common strategies are heavy budget, attack, mock, Insult, contempt, comparisons, incentive, emotional, patriotic, defining opponent’s image According to Rutenberg: With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his dedicated satellite channels, Obama now is out-advertising John McCain nationwide by at least a 4-to-1 ratio, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states… In general, the Wisconsin Advertising Project says, 54 percent of McCains advertisements since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination have been completely focused on attacking him; roughly one-quarter have mixed criticism of Obama with a positive message about McCain, and 20 percent were devoted solely to promoting McCain.(The Seattle Time) According to Rutenberg: During the same period, the study found that 41 percent of Obamas advertisements had been devoted solely to attacking McCain; one-fifth have mixed criticism of McCain with a positive message about Obama, and 38 percent were devoted solely to promoting Obama.(The Seattle Time) Swearingen (2008) states that Obama’s strategy for in-game advertising and using his early vote campaign in Burnout Paradise was a smart move which made its impact according to the polls Xbox users found that Obama wining 43 percent of votes in comparison of McCain who won 31 percent of gamers. Aggressive advertising for election campaign sold the image of upcoming president and also showed the comparative side of opponent. Statistics and feedback from public indicated a Democratic victory. Both camps mocked and insulted each other in a way or the other. McCain camp portrayed Obama as a pop star by resembling him to Britney spares and Paris Hilton and presented himself as a maverick. On the other hand Obama opted for quite a realistic and effective approach by pointing towards McCain’s association with the Bush administration and framed himself in the minds of people as change agent and invited people to join hands for a better America. Both campaigns strategically tried to define each other’s image in their own terms. Effective ads tend to make news material and match news agenda of newspapers and channels. Considering Obama ads becoming talk of the town refers to most affectivity level while McCain followed the same strategy afterwards. According to Garcia (2009) Obama’s political advertising campaign is the most modern and exemplary with high scores in all kind of emerging media beating McCain strategy of getting all the search key words related to Obama. Rather than this passive approach, Obama camp opted for experiment and creative ideas by using video games, email and call campaign. Most appealing for youth was making Obama’s website as a social networking site and involving people in making my.barakobama pages which not only provided regular update and special insights about Obama and his policies but also involved and initiated user generated content which enhanced and aided Obama as a brand by generating stuff themselves. Moreover, his strategy of prompt response to the mobile and internet users made the whole effect more compelling. Obama’s advertising clearly stands out from the old traditional tactics and shows its ability to become the voice of future America. The messages convince the audience about Obama being a change agent and his policies as their survivors. On the other hand McCain’s limited strategies could not meet Obama’s level of effectivity.With that Obama focused more on inspiration, patriotism and making his identity as not only an eloquent speaker but a man of his words. Obama also worked on attack and mocking strategy aggressively but the tone and level of dealing was effective as compared to McCain. It was informational and cleared his own stance specifically targeting the problematic areas pointed out by McCain. McCain blame game, less objectivity and negative tone somehow worked against him. Higher budget, specifically targeted audience, modern tactics competitive and prompt strategy of Obama camp proved fruitful. Obama’s left public financing and advertising played proportionally on multiple levels, it attacked locally and kept the themes national and expanded the combat zone. Obama’s ads adopt the strategy to own the media space not to rent that. They targeted Red States opted for September Surge, the whole scenario throw McCain’s message strategy in an imbalance. On the other hand, McCain took the public financing and defined his limits in the traditional and saturated states. References Falcone, M. (2008, October 9). Obama attacks McCain’s Mortgage Plan. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/politics/10oadbox.html?_r=2&fta=y Garcia, D. (2009, January 25).KUROT SA PUSO.Message posted to http://kurotsapuso.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-vs-mccain-advertising-war.html Robert, E. (Eds.). (2009).The 2008 Presidential Campaign: A communication Perspective. Maryland: Rownman & Littlefield publishers. Rutenberg, J. (2008, October 18). Obama outspacing McCain ads 4-to1.The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/presidentialrace/2008281496_campads18.html Swearingen, J. (2008, October 14).Obama Using In-Game Advertising. Message posted to http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/1000262/obama-using-in-game-advertising/ Read More