Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Nicholls Makes A Good Point

Attack Ads don't always work.

Of course, as one of his commenters notes, the anti-Reagan ad that Nicholls refs lacked ominous music. Ominous music helps seal the deal. And, in Harper's case, throw in the red glowing eye thing. I love the red glowing eye thing.

7 comments:

MgS said...

Come to that, anybody else remember the PC attack ads against Chretien in 1993?

Hardly successful when you consider the outcome of that election.

More seriously, I think Harper is easily attacked on two key fronts - he's got a mean streak a mile long; and all you have to do is get him angry and he shoots himself in the foot.

It's high time that the opposition started playing on that.

Gene Rayburn said...

I remember the PC Attack ads against Chretien. They were Alan Gregg's idea. It's the reason I always giggle when I hear him talking about how attack ads work.

RuralSandi said...

I thought the Chretien attack ads were John Tory's idea.

Gene Rayburn said...

We're both right! It was Alan Gregg and John Tory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Chr├ętien_attack_ad

I had completely forgot about John Tory's involvement

Ti-Guy said...

I remember the PC Attack ads against Chretien. They were Alan Gregg's idea. It's the reason I always giggle when I hear him talking about how attack ads work.

Allan Gregg seems to have been trying to redeem himself for a while. I heard him on CBC sometime in the last year lamenting that these kinds of campaigns coarsen political discourse.

John Tory still insists that that ad was never intended to mock Chr├ętien's face.

Gene Rayburn said...

Alan Gregg has redeemed himself to a point. True he did speak out against negative campaigning in 2001 but he also said that the ads worked in focus groups. That takes a lot of the sincerity out of it for me. Now try finding a pic of Alan Gregg with long hair and one of those garish outfits he loved back then. :) Great Friday challenge.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

Most electorate education comes from the Daily Show and Rick Mercer. Voters like 30 second sound-bites - little McDonals happy meals of information.

So - if you've got 30 seconds to make a difference, what's more effective. 30 seconds of the positive plans you have for the Country.. or 30 seconds of something that leaves a negative general impression in the mind of the electorate.

Yup - it's crap, it's cheap and, when it's relevant and true, it works.

Now - it's only one factor. A dismall economy, a Conservative electorate in the West who's getting slightly jaded by our somewhat liberal Conservative government, a belly-button gazing Province who can nevery be happy in Quebec, all line up against a Conservative win next election.

But, all that being said, the polls are basically neck and neck. So, guess it couldn't get a lot worse for the PM, and with a few breaks and some more beating on Ignatieff.. who knows?