Because you think you are winning the debate they initiated, and that debate will continue until the ads stop running (not when the chattering classes grow tired of them). So you want your counter-argument in the news as well for as much of that time-frame as possible. At this point I think the Libs would like to keep these various CPoC attacks center-stage as long as they can; the ads provide a nice contrast with what Ignatieff is up to these days.
By the way, aesthetic merits aside, what is the point of a website like Ignatieff.me? Is anyone but the hardest of hardcore poli-junkies going to ever visit it more than once? Unless you're going to run a continual stream of updates, it essentially becomes a one-off gag. And the official party website exists for that kind of thing (updates, not gags).
This isn't just a Conservative fault. It seems parties are continually launching static web-pages that nobody is likely to visit a 2nd time. I don't see the point to it.
5 comments:
Indeed, the only point of such websites should be to drive home a single point, and then point people back to the main Party site. The main site should carry the theme of the one-off site with a daily feature, but that's it.
'Responding' to attack ads is reactive, and only emphasizes the message. The only true responses are:
1. Attack back with ads
2. Push positive messaging which contradicts the attack ads, or pushes a completely different message which outweighs the negativity of the attack ads
The point of attack ads like the Cons are using is to drive home a perspective, which, months later, will be (hopefully) prevalent in people's minds, without them even remembering the source of the opinion. That's the science behind these ads: Research shows that people usually forget where they learn things from, and will come to give the opinion veracity despite its source.
Although we've seen many pundits critical of the ads, this does not reflect the reality on the street. Months from now, I expect the media will be raising the issue of Iggy 'just visiting' as a 'controversy.'
"Although we've seen many pundits critical of the ads, this does not reflect the reality on the street. "
That all depends on what street you live on. That sure wouldn't be the case in my neighbourhood.
Iggy's youtube response was dead-on in terms of tone, message and cost -
if that's in the news, fine with me,
it is not like the ads are going away (or have they? I am not watching tv these days)
Northern,
I see them about once a night on various sports channels. Don't know if there's anything on radio yet or not.
Why keep them in the news?
The same reason that the US democrats loved to keep Sarah Palin in the news. Like her speeches, these tory ads transparently play to what's seen as the lowest denominator of society: insecure, scared, less-educated white hard-core conservative people. If those watching the ads generally get that impression, then they may not want to be associated with Conservatives, since most don't care to define themselves that way.
Post a Comment