September 20, 2004
Why Not 5 Minute Political Ads?
Once in a great while, a 30 second political ad on TV actually informs, or at least says something substantive that needs being said. But way more often, regardless of whether I support the candidate or not, I roll my eyes at the level they stoop to in their attempts to sway a voter, pound a point, or misleadingly smear an opponent.
Remember those program length Ross Perot ads, where Mr Perot talked to the country, pointed to charts, and made his points? They may not have been quality journalism, but at least they attempted to engage the voter at a deeper level than the 30-second pitch.
Why can't we have something in between, lengthwise? It seems the average 30 minute sit-com has at least 5 minutes worth of ads in total - Why couldn't candidates buy the whole block and run a little information piece in a single mid-span interruption in the middle of a show? I suspect the networks wouldn't allow it, for fear that viewers would be lost to a competing show. But think how much more we could learn about the candidates, not just for president but for state and local offices as well. I think this should be a regular practice during election season. The average voter who is unwilling to read in-depth articles or listen to a Ross Perot style program might actually stick around to hear their President, Governor, or Congressperson explain their record, or a challenger explain why they would be a better choice.
Who owns those airwaves anyway? Oh yeah, we do. Wouldn't it be nice if it seemed like we did?
Posted by Walker Willingham at September 20, 2004 12:19 PMQuestion: Why not 5 minute political ads?
Answer: Because they cost a lot more and reach a lot fewer people.
Posted by: Damon Dimmick at September 20, 2004 12:55 PMI say eliminate TV ads altogether or limit them to the month prior to the election and set aside free time as a condition of FCC licensing to candidates who are on every ballot. Imagine forcing voters to read!!! Horrors!!!
Posted by: Greg at September 20, 2004 12:59 PMAnswer: Because they cost a lot more and reach a lot fewer people.I’ll grant that if a campaign had to choose between 1 5-minute ad and 10 30-second spots, there’s no question the latter would be more effective. But if the choice is between 300 5-minute ads plus 7000 30-second spots and 10,000 30-second spots, perhaps the calculus changes. Just the fact that you are doing something different would draw you attention and might force your opponent into doing the same. Posted by: Walker at September 20, 2004 01:14 PM
Walker:
There is a simple reason why 5 minute ads are not aired. THEY DO NOT WORK. If they were effective, both parties would be using them.
Considering that the average viewer watches shows in which characters incur lifechanging problems (like alcoholism or cancer), lose their families, find a cure, regain their families and live happily ever in just 30-60 minutes, do you really see anyone but hard core politicos watching a 5 minute political informercial? I dont see it happening, unless perhaps we get Matt Groening of Simpson’s fame to animate it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 01:27 PMset aside free time as a condition of FCC licensing to candidates who are on every ballotA fine idea. It should be expanded to include local elections as well. Remember, they don’t own the airwaves, we do.
Unfortunately it will never happen as long as Michael Powell and his two minions at the FCC steadfastly refuse to listen to the public and cast their votes instead with the media conglomerates whose lobbyists have bought them out.
The hope that Kerry might appoint another voice of the people like Michael Copps to join him on the FCC is yet another compelling reason to vote for the Democrat. A new FCC might give all kinds of new ideas wings.
Posted by: Walker at September 20, 2004 01:37 PMYou can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. There is no shortage of information about the issues for anyone who cares to find out. Most people don’t care to find out.
If you don’t want people just to change the channels, you have to have the ads on at the same time on ALL stations, including cable. Even if you get everyone watching, what is to force the parties to make the ads issue based? The most effective ads have very little policy in them. Think of “Morning in America”. It was beautiful and lyric, but not factual.
All of us who write on this blog make (or at least believe we make) decisions based on facts and logic. Most people don’t do this and don’t even want to do this. Which better describes a beautiful sunset: a poem or a scientific text? I suggest that politics has more in common with poetry than science.
Besides, just because you are smart (in terms of word and fact knowledge) does not mean your decisions are good about “people matters” including politics. Carter was much smarter than Reagan, yet Reagan was a great president and Carter was only great as an ex-president. John Kennedy had an IQ of 119; Nixon’s brain weighed in at 148. University departments tend to be run by very smart people. If you want an example of truly bad management and leadership, that is where you will find it.
Posted by: jack at September 20, 2004 02:34 PMWell I won’t pretend to know how the masses feel about political ads, but I suspect that most are pretty skeptical of them. I seriously doubt that any of them really change minds, but that they mostly just affirm what viewers have already decided. If you’re a lefty and watch a moveon.org ad, you still think that Bush is an idiot. If you’re on the right and watch a Swifty ad, you still think Kerry’s an egotistical opportunist whose primary goal has always been to ascend to the crown.
A great philosopher once said that you should never believe anything you hear and only about half of what you see. I recently saw a Saturn commercial where the guy keeps saying to the salesperson, “Okay, what’s the catch?” Now there’s an example of healthy scepticism, and I think that’s where most folks are.
Also, this whole deal about the airwaves being federally owned has always been a little confusing to me, and I suspect that it’s a throwback to a much earlier time. Why should the feds be in control of broadcast frequencies for radio and television, but not control domain names and IP addresses on the internet? Isn’t it basically the same thing?
Yeah, I know that congresscritters sometimes threaten to lift a license if broadcasters aren’t willing to “voluntarily” bow to their wishes because the airwaves belong to the people [def: the feds], but isn’t it basically about controlling specific frequencies so we don’t try to talk over top of one another — sorta like we do here?
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 20, 2004 04:11 PMWhile the idea of lengthy and pithy political ads appeals to me (and probably most of you other bloggers), it’s an ideal that will never be realized. Americans apparently aren’t interested in issues. Just the other day a colleague was asking me who I was voting for, and when I refused to answer (INappropriate work talk!), she told me I had to vote for Bush. Why? Because Kerry is ugly and he never smiles. THAT is the basis many voters use at the ballot box, and that need is well-filled by a commercial that shows the candidate and mentions his name as many times as possible in 15 seconds.
Posted by: Alejo at September 20, 2004 04:40 PM
>I dont see it happening, unless perhaps we get >Matt Groening of Simpson’s fame to animate it.
Well, Joe, I think you’re on to something there. I agree with the majority here that infomercials won’t work for the presidential candidates. However, for local or even statewide candidates - who rely much less on fancy machines and Big Spin - a 2 or 3 minute advertisement on a low-cost station or two might do them a lot of good. Especially if it was animated by Matt Groening.
Posted by: S at September 20, 2004 08:22 PMA 30 second or 5 minute ad is not what is needed for the average citizen to understand the deepth of the issues. However, most Americans don’t have the 1,000’s of hours to spend researching each issue.
In order to solve the problem I have an interesting proposal for bloggers in future elections. The Blog Debate of the Week. Talk about a reality show, each week the bloging community will take a vote on what issue to debate on next week. Teams of bloggers from the Blue, Green, and Red colums than use the week to accumulate the data to back up their points. Keeping it real will be fun as we invite the special interest groups to lay out their case for the need for this and that.
Finally, on the day of the show the panel of political talking heads take their seats to listen to the ground rules. The host will ask them questions based on the blog comments on the issue. As the panel answers the questions to American Public, we bloggers will be the judge of the truth. Talk about real sparks flying over the airwaves. Just think about what would of happened to the ratings of the show after an incident like Dan Rather. Welcome to Political Jepordy! A game for the political junkie.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 20, 2004 08:53 PMHenry,
Something like that would be great. I don’t know which television station would take a chance on that and I can’t imagine any politicians taking the heat directly from the people. I wouldn’t want reps. I would want the real deal.
I would also like the team leaders to ask the questions directly and the host could run it like a debate.
Political Jeopardy. Catchy. Of course you would need permission from Alex for that. Ha Ha.
Posted by: Dawn at September 20, 2004 11:39 PMDawn,
Maybe we could get him to host it? Any one knows if Alex blogs?
TV ads are good and fine, but the true face of reason and statesmanship can be found in contemplating the subtle arguments of our political opponents when they take to the streets!
Posted by: Martin at September 21, 2004 01:31 AMHow about some realism:
Long political ads cost more money. Less people watch them. Only pre-interested persons (ie, people who are going to take the time to learn about the issues anyway) would watch them (like say, the debates). They would not be effective. Voters are turning more media savvy. They don’t buy ads anymore, and 5 minutes over 60 seconds isn’t goint to change that.
How about 1 hour, single issue debates? At least then you’d get some depth and make it hard for candidates to stick to talking points.
Posted by: Damon at September 21, 2004 11:26 AM
