Which Ad is More Effective?

Everyone is talking about the new GWB ad Wolves although I can't see what all the fuss is about myself. Maybe it works better on a bigger screen? Perhaps I'm totally blind, but Brooke's Story: He Just Doesn't Get It seems waaay more effective to me.

This entry was posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Which Ad is More Effective?

  1. DrBB says:

    It looked like a Nature Conservancy ad to me, and many others seem underwhelmed as well.

    The Crossfire audience’s reaction would seem to be typical. Crossfire aired the thing earlier today, with much doomladen fanfare about how awesomely it focus-grouped and how devastating it was. When they came back from the clip, the audience–to the evident dismay of the host–was, well, er, not to put too fine a point on it…

    LAUGHING.

    I think it’s got a good chance of going down as the greatest boondoggle in political advertising history.

    “Bush cries wolf!”

    I thought Rove was supposed to be good at this kind of thing.

  2. Chris says:

    DrBB’s point is dead on–rather than putting Kerry supporters on the defensive, the reaction so far seems to be one of contemptuous mockery (“Bush cries wolf, again!” or “Ooooh, such cuuute puppies!” or even “WMD: Wolves of Mass Destruction [Bush will rid us of the wolf threat and burn down that scaaary forest, too]). From what I understand, the Democrats came back right away with an eagle/osterich ad (guess which one Bush is).

    So besides being lame, Bush’s wolf ad didn’t even catch the Democrats by surprise.

    This was the October surprise?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *