In our textbook, the chapter begins discussing the length of product ads compared to the length of campaign ads. On page 285 it states “contenders are announcing their candidacy earlier than they once did, and speculation about likely presidential candidates begins the day after each inauguration.”
Do you feel campaign ads should be ran as long as product ads? Explain why or why not. How are your perceptions of the candidates influenced by these campaign ads? Please remember to relate your answers back to your experiences and the textbook.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The length of the product ads and campaigns ads differ between the lasting periods they are provided. It states in the text on page 284, “As long as the product holds a share of the market the manufacturer considers acceptable, the product will stay on the market.” The example from the text was the soap ads were all-year round, but as for political campaigns it is a seasonal product that doesn’t run all-year, it usually starts in September before the election. I do not feel that campaign ads should run as long as product ads. I do agree with the statement from the text.
ReplyDeleteI think that any political campaigns ads should all have exact set date when they can start siring and the exact date they cannot continue to air. I think that when there are no set guidelines of the period they ads can run, it hurts the opponent. For example, in the text it talked about the Democratic campaign started long before the Republican campaign did. And personally I do not think it is fair because the Democratic started earlier which might influence voter’s mindset before public got the chance to know the Republican ads.
My perceptions of the usually changes depending on the platform of the candidates, once I have chosen my direction it is harder for me to compare different candidates (I know it might not be the best thing but I would have to say I am bias on some opinions). So if the party I chose uses any if the three ad types (attack advocacy and contrast), I would do some research first, but usually the information I find will agree with the ads. Or if the oppose party attacks the party I support, I would still do research and if the information seems to be correct I tend to look more into it, but if the information turns out to be true I will think carefully again.
In Taiwan, our former President was accused in a scandal which turned out to be true. It totally changed my perception on him personally, but as for what he has done for the people I don’t deny the work he has done. He did make many changes and helped the economy.
I do not think campaign ads will ever be ran as long as product ads. Our textbook states on page 284, product advertisements can last for years. Even though campaign ads are being introduced sooner than they used to be and they are running longer now than they used to be, I do not think it will ever get to a point of running a campaign ad for over a year before election.
ReplyDeleteI think campaign ads should be able to start airing when the political parties would like to air them. The textbook mentioned how the Democratic party had chosen Clinton for election and started campaigning months before the Republican party did. This may have hurt the Republican party because they did not have as much time to reach the neutral voters and they may not have had enough time to teach people about the candidate to get more votes. However, just because the Republican candidate was chosen later than the Democratic candidate does not mean the Democratic candidate should have to wait until a certain time to release campaign ads.
As soon a party knows who they would like to run for office and want to run campaign ads the party should be able to. Since America has allows free speech, campaign ads should fall into the same category when dealing with airing time. If the candidate runs the ad too much to where viewers become annoyed, then it is the political party’s fault. A part of running for election is to have advisers to know when the candidate should campaign.
Personally, after a few viewings of a campaign ad, I become annoyed. In other words, I do not want to watch the same campaign ads more years before any election. However, I do not believe we should place such strict rules on campaign ads. If a candidate wants to run an ad way in advance of election, we should let him or her do it at his or her own risk. Therefore, I believe it is ok for campaign ads to run as long as product ads.
As the book mentions, candidates for public office have been declaring for office relative early compared to years past. President Obama declared his candidacy relatively early in November 2008, a couple months short of the first election primary. Immediately there was a barrage of mass media used to spread Obama’s ideas for change. It would definitely be difficult to attempt to count the number of YouTube videos that were created in support of Obama. I do not believe that this type of mass media penetration has ever been attempted. There were blogs, videos, and advertisements of all types. The message of change was over a long period of time, longer than previous election cycles.
ReplyDeleteThis past election was a great example in support of extending the period of advertising for a candidate’s election campaign. Campaign ads should definitely be run as long as political ads. For a candidate to win a political election, the candidate must appeal to undecided voters. As the book mentions, it generally takes an extended period of time for people to make a change. The influence of President Obama’s campaign definitely gained momentum as he took down more experienced candidates throughout his election campaign. This was due to his growing influence across mass media.
Personally I do not think I am influenced as easily as most people. I think that is because the students within the communication department have been diligently taught to view media in a critical light. Every single time that I viewed a political advertisement I forced myself to think about how this advertisement was targeting the audience. This helped me to remove myself from the emotion of the election advertisements.
I don't think campaign ads should run as long as product ads. To be honest, it isn't feasible. The book used the example of how a soap ad can be used for years. Soap as a product doesn't really change a great deal and neither does the concept of soap. Soap will always be used to clean.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, people, especially politicians, change a great deal in a matter of years. The concept of their campaign will most likely change as well. During the coarse of a few years, the issues affecting Americans can change a great deal. This change will change the issues a politician addresses.
There is also the issue of who will be running. In the few years before a campaign, many people think about running for president. A candidate would not want to spend too much on ads before they knew if they even had a chance at the election.
Personally, I think political campaigns are run far too long. I believe that most people who can be persuaded by political ads are most likely going to make a decision toward the end of the election and therefore, the ads that are aired way earlier are useless.
I, along with many other people get extremely annoyed with ads by the time the election rolls around. I will not forget that as the election neared, more people were happy about being able to reclaim their tvs as opposed to being excited about the election results. I almost feel as though there might be better voter turn out if ad campaigning didn't start as early. If they could truly use their money and ads in a more productive way, they wouldn't need to air them as early and votes wouldn't be overloaded by the time the election came around.
There is some argument to be made about creating an image. The book does say that it takes a lot of time to create an image but there is also the argument that it is terribly difficult to "create" an image for a person. A change of clothes doesn't do nearly the same as what a new package does for a product. So the real question would be "Can politicians create an image?"
I do not think that campaign ads should be ran as long as product ads—it just doesn’t make sense to me. As page 284 in our book states, an ad for a product such as Ivory Soap could last for decades, and having a campaign ad run for decades just isn’t plausible. I also think that important issues/candidates’ opinions change too much to have ads run for such a long amount of time.
ReplyDeleteI, like many other people, find these political ads to be quite irritating. The book states that a survey found “…one third of those who said they had seen political ads on television in the previous week tried to avoid them.” I think that this statement alone is evidence of why candidates shouldn’t have their ads running so often or so long because it might actually work against their favor. I might pay attention to an ad if it seems unique in some way, but for the most part, I don’t pay attention to these ads because they are usually just attacking the other candidate and not even stating their stands on issues.
Even though I can understand why some candidates might want to start running their ads earlier, I don’t think campaign ads should be run as long as product ads. Especially with this last election, I know that ads were run earlier for strategic reasons, but I think that candidates need to take a long hard look at their ads and think about how much they are actually helping them, especially with the amount of money being spent.
I don’t expect that campaign ads will run as long as product ads. They cost candidates a lot of money for one thing, and who knows if it will even be worth it in the end. It would be very disappointing to spend a ton of money on advertisements if they didn't win you votes in the end. I agree with the book when they mention on page 385 that “the image for a product can be created more easily than the image for a politician because politicians bring to office a documentable past…The product can be repackaged more easily than the candidate can.” If dirt can be dug up on a candidate, I wouldn’t think candidates would want to start running ads early because their opponents would be more apt to use it against them…which could possible ruin all chances of attracting supporters.
ReplyDeleteAt that same time I can see where candidates would want to campaign earlier. On page 385, the book mentions that “the short duration of the typical political campaign is one of the campaign’s major liabilities, because it is difficult to create or change people’s attitudes in a short period of time.” In that sense it would make sense to run longer campaign ads, but it does have the possibility to back fire. I know during the previous election I was SO sick of the Al Franken/Coleman ads on the television. Towards the end I didn’t even care who won (beings I live in N.D.), and just wanted the ads pulled off the air! All-in-all, I don’t think campaign ads will ever run as long as product ads simply because there are different motives behind these two types of advertising campaigns.
The book discusses how campaign ads are being run earlier in recent years. The book used the Clinton campaign as an example of this. In reading others' responses to the post, there seemed to be an agreement that campaign ads would not be run as long as product ads. While I will agree that what we have traditionally seen as campaign ads will never run all year long, I do think there is the potential to have political ads that will run as long as product ads.
ReplyDeleteThe book discusses the limitations of campaign ads because of the limited amount of time that those ads have to influence voters. However, on larger issues that the federal government would like to gain national support, long-term ads have the potential to be used for public relations. Think about how often Presidential approval ratings are discussed by political pundits during a President's term in office. By using political ads similar to product ads, a President could bolster support for their position on an issue and therefore, increase their approval rating. A President with a high approval rating would be more likely to win re-election which would make this strategy very appealing for a political candidate.
While I will agree with everyone and with what the book says about people paying little attention to campaign ads, they obviously serve a purpose or they wouldn't be used. The average person is too busy to read every article and watch every debate during a campaign. So most people rely on sources that are quick and straightforward when it comes to getting their information. Even if a person only pays enough attention to a campaign ad to hear the candidate's name, that recognition could be what gets the person to vote for that candidate. Imagine how Bush could have used political ads to bolster support for the war in Iraq. Or how Obama could use long term ads to maintain support for the bailout.
I hope that political ads do not become something that we see everyday. But if you look at the trend of how campaign ads are being run earlier with each election I think it is only a matter of time before we start seeing long term political ads as public relations tools.
The text says that political ads are being shown for less time than the ads we see for products and I can’t believe this is becoming a common occurrence. In the middle of fighting to be elected I would hope that the messages used to persuade undecided audiences would be at the length of product ads if not longer. These political ads are what some will decide their choice on so if these messages are shortened for more product ads then it could impact those people’s decision.
ReplyDeleteOur book mentions it generally takes an extended period of time for people to make a change. I think I am influences by many factors during political elections and what is hard for campaign creators is what will reach the broadest audience. I basically compile all the messages I collected over time and make a judgment on the car ride to the booth for elections. This is why the advertising should be equal between the campaign and the product ads as well to sway voters like me who could see something last second to change my mind.
The longer I see ads for campaigns the more it solidifies in my head because it is so similar in context and overall message. This is what the politicians want is there beliefs to be known and the longer you have the ads shown the more people out there will be changed by them because they might not have seen much of any before.
lthough campaign ads are similar to product ads. Page 284 of the textbook states many similarities between the two, such as:
ReplyDelete-Both persuade us to act as they wish
-Both seek to create name recognition and employ differentiation, association, audience participation, and repetition to communicate their message
-Both rely on campaigns that are centrally coordinated by people issuing many messages
These things combine to show that the political name is the equivalent to the commercial brand. I believe political ads should be ran in the same amount of time as they are, because like a product ad, they are in the media for the duration of their need. Mountain Dew will have ads running as long as the beverage is on the market, sometimes they will have special addition sodas whose ads will run as long as they are on the market, even if that means for only a summer. Political ads do the same thing, they run as long as their product is on the market (i.e. running for office).
The importance of having ads begin so early is very simple, there isn't a great deal of time for politicians to sway voters, and there is definitely a lot of interference during that time (pundits, attack ads, etc) and so the earlier campaigning can begin, the better.
When it comes to politicians, I try to avoid paying attention to the advertisements because the content is obviously edited to make that politician appealing (the basic purpose for an ad). Instead I look online for information regarding their previous experience, such as details on what policies they've aided in creating and what they tend to vote for.
I am sure I am not the only one with these sentiments. A big problem people have with political advertisements is that they are becoming more and more obnoxious. During election time they seem to be everywhere and the prevalence of negative ads is making it harder for me (and many others) to take them seriously anymore. And so now the question is no longer should they be running for such great time periods, but is the quality equal to the quantity?
I don't believe political ads should run as long as product ads. There is a time and a season for everything, and political ads should not be run in excess. As the text points out, political ads are "seasonal" and just as it would seem strange to see a Christmas ad around Easter, it would seem strange to see a political ad when elections are not near. Also, I think that when political ads are run too far from an election it makes people suspicious and curious if a candidate is trying to overcompensate for something.
ReplyDeleteI know that my perceptions of the candidates are influenced by their advertisements. However, I think my perceptions are only enforced by what I see. If I am already partial to a candidate, I see the ads as supporting my opinion; however, if I were to see an ad by a candidate I opposed, I doubt it would change my mind. Political ads are designed to showcase the best of a politician and often seem "fake." I find it hard to trust political ads, because I wonder what a candidate is like without all the fancy editing and footage taken to make the candidate appear polished.
Additionally, negative ads such as those run by Al Franken or Norm Coleman in the 2008 elections made me dislike both candidates more. It seemed that the only type of ads I saw for either candidate simply bashed the other. I began to not trust anything either one said, because I had such a negative view of both.
I think that campaign ads are annoying and but since they work, candidates would benefit from having longer campaign ads. I think that having longer ad time might help start the election hype earlier which may get more votes. Also, the public might be more informed on certain issues if they are exposed to them earlier.
ReplyDeleteOn the down side, candidates with more money would greatly profit from campaigns being longer. The book states “conventional wisdom says that candidates for political office are now sold to the electorate like cigarettes or soap.” I agree with this because if you look at the race between Obama and Clinton, Clinton had to step down because she ran out of money long before Obama did.
Candidates can buy their way into office, which is a good thing for them (if they have money), but a bad thing for the American public because their votes are for sale to the highest bidder.
Because contenders are announcing their candidacy earlier they are able to get more media attention, which could be good or it could be bad. It would be good because it gives the public a better chance to learn more about the candidate and make them able to cast an educated vote. However, it could be bad because by election time the public may already be tired of hearing about the candidates.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that campaign ads should be run as long as a product ad. The book states, “A political campaign is more akin to an ad campaign for a seasonal product , such as a brand of Christmas tree ornaments” and that they are “more short-lived and more intense than a campaign on behalf of a product.” After only a couple weeks of seeing intense campaigning for someone running for an office, I am already tired of seeing them. I think it’s smart for a candidate to get into the news media as often as they can to allow the public to “get to know them,” but I think the actual advertisement part of it could be put off by a few weeks.
I don't think that political campaign ads should be run as long as product ads. General product advertisements get annoying after seeing the same one more than a few times. As the book mentions on page 284, new technologies such as DVRs (TiVo) are allowing people to forward through ads. Nearly 3 million households currently have DVRs and this number is likely to increase in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think candidate campaigns are interesting at first, but seeing them more than a few times irritates me. This is especially true for negative ads. If I continually see a candidate "supporting" negative ads against another candidate rather then running positive ads about their own campaign, then I'll look at that candidate as a shady person. I would rather vote for a candidate that displays confident ads about their own platform, instead of attacking their competition.
I think campaign ads should only be run within a few months of an election in order to be effective. Otherwise, the information provided in them will just become senseless information and the ad will be nothing more than noise.
I do not think that political ads should run as long as regular product ads. I strongly dislike political ads, and having to watch them every four years is painful enough for me. If political ads started to run as often as product ads I think my television viewing would go down. I think product ads get irritating to me after a few times of seeing each one. I'm always waiting to see a new one, and if I see the same one over and over I stop paying attention.
ReplyDeleteAs page 284 in our book states, an ad for a product could last for decades, and having a campaign ad run for decades just isn’t plausible. I think if political ads started running as often as regular ads, the topics would get boring to the audience, and people would stop paying attention to the candidates.
My perceptions of the political candidates are shaped by these ads because I usually listen the first time I see the ad, and after that it goes in one ear and out the other. Overall, I think campaign ads should be run shortly before the election, otherwise they will not be very effective.