Hillary Clinton's First Campaign Ad

rusvik said:
Getting Started - YouTube

Could you as marketers give your input here.
Click to expand...

It's okay, but sorely lacking. Six on a 10 scale.

Thoughts:

The target audience is too broad. I'm seeing female retirees, homosexuals, ESL business owners, young multi-race families, etc. The breadth of the target audience dilutes the messaging.

Having said that, it's an announcement ad. Its purpose is to let people know she's running. Refined targeting may not be important. In fact, it's probably cost-prohibitive at this point. You can bet her people are testing response by demographics, which will inform her ads down the road.

The presentation was good. The music was uplifting and the sound bytes give the viewer the "feel-goods." Plus, the quick cuts (2 to 3 seconds per shot) give the impression that her campaign is engaged, fast-moving and proficient.

The ad isn't designed for people like us, of course. Nor is it designed to pull in folks on the far right or left. The former won't vote for her. The latter are already inclined to do so.

She's (smartly) trying to get the attention of the middle. To that end, her ad is okay.

Last thought: she needs to display more energy. She comes across as unexcited, which may be perceived by some as entitled (i.e. "This is my time to be POTUS.")

Question for you marketers: If you were running Clinton's campaign, how would you design her ads?
 


Well tbh the republicans aren't much better. This just highlights how shitty or political system is that we LITERALLY have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. No matter what we lose in the end. Personally I take this as sign to GTFO and get as far away from the parasitic government as much as possible.
 
JakeStratham said:
It's okay, but sorely lacking. Six on a 10 scale.

Thoughts:

The target audience is too broad. I'm seeing female retirees, homosexuals, ESL business owners, young multi-race families, etc. The breadth of the target audience dilutes the messaging.

Having said that, it's an announcement ad. Its purpose is to let people know she's running. Refined targeting may not be important. In fact, it's probably cost-prohibitive at this point. You can bet her people are testing response by demographics, which will inform her ads down the road.

The presentation was good. The music was uplifting and the sound bytes give the viewer the "feel-goods." Plus, the quick cuts (2 to 3 seconds per shot) give the impression that her campaign is engaged, fast-moving and proficient.

The ad isn't designed for people like us, of course. Nor is it designed to pull in folks on the far right or left. The former won't vote for her. The latter are already inclined to do so.

She's (smartly) trying to get the attention of the middle. To that end, her ad is okay.

Last thought: she needs to display more energy. She comes across as unexcited, which may be perceived by some as entitled (i.e. "This is my time to be POTUS.")

Question for you marketers: If you were running Clinton's campaign, how would you design her ads?
Click to expand...

Great analysis.

I'd try to put in a little more excitement into it.

That is what got Obama elected. His ability get people excited.

I'd probably focus on issues that the vast majority of Americans can agree on, rather than touch subjects that can isolate any group.

I have never seen a marketing machine as powerful or efficient as Obama's campaigns.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJ9hE7z9oo[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdJ7Ad15WCA[/ame]

lol at marketeers talking about their feelings toward marketing campaigns.
 
Obama was just a commie with charisma who managed to not get the media to ask him any though questions.

Anyone who read his mission statement could see it was more of the same old socialism.

Hillary is also just more of the same neo-con bs.

I do not think its a good ad, but that is because I am seeing it from a European perspective, where such an ad would be viciously mocked and laughed at for taking the voters as moronic simpletons.

I realize that US advertising does operate on that very premise - the average person being incredibly stupid.
 
rusvik said:
Obama was just a commie with charisma who managed to not get the media to ask him any though questions.

Anyone who read his mission statement could see it was more of the same old socialism.

Hillary is also just more of the same neo-con bs.

I do not think its a good ad, but that is because I am seeing it from a European perspective, where such an ad would be viciously mocked and laughed at for taking the voters as moronic simpletons.

I realize that US advertising does operate on that very premise - the average person being incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

There are several right wing neo-natzies being elected in Europe...

Calling any of these shit heads a capitalist or a communist simply shows an ignorance of what those terms mean. It also shows an emotional engagement in the ads. Which makes it hard to analyse and think clearly about. Stop getting so emotional. That is a female trait.
 
None of this matters. It's all going to devolve into a situation where if you don't support her it's because you're a sexist who doesn't think women are capable of anything other than sex & sammiches.

Anyone that's been paying attention has probably noticed the groundwork that's been being laid for the last couple years by constantly driving a wedge between men and women, and we're all going to see the payoff during the 2016 election season. In other words, same playbook that got Obama elected, just swap out race for gender.
 
Here's another reason Clinton's ad falls flat (for me). It lacks a USP.

Listen to her remarks. None of them are unique to her campaign. Any of her opponents could say the same things.

If I recall correctly, Obama's first campaign focused on spurring radical change (complete transparency, etc.). People identified with that message, which ultimately became his USP. It became his brand.

Clinton's "So you can do more than just get by - you can get ahead. And stay ahead. Because when families are strong, America is strong." is very general. It sounds good, but doesn't distinguish her from the pack.

If she has a good team around her, they'll focus on her brand and come up with a riveting USP. Until then, I think her messaging is going to be perceived by her target audience as "ho-hum."
 
JakeStratham said:
Here's another reason Clinton's ad falls flat (for me). It lacks a USP.

Listen to her remarks. None of them are unique to her campaign. Any of her opponents could say the same things.

If I recall correctly, Obama's first campaign focused on spurring radical change (complete transparency, etc.). People identified with that message, which ultimately became his USP. It became his brand.

Clinton's "So you can do more than just get by - you can get ahead. And stay ahead. Because when families are strong, America is strong." is very general. It sounds good, but doesn't distinguish her from the pack.

If she has a good team around her, they'll focus on her brand and come up with a riveting USP. Until then, I think her messaging is going to be perceived by her target audience as "ho-hum."
Click to expand...

in 2008, Obama had to differentiate himself from Hillary though. He was a relatively unknown upstart who could play up the outsider role, whereas Hillary represented the establishment. In 2016, Hillary has no competition from her party so she just needs to run as "not a Republican".
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
in 2008, Obama had to differentiate himself from Hillary though. He was a relatively unknown upstart who could play up the outsider role, whereas Hillary represented the establishment. In 2016, Hillary has no competition from her party so she just needs to run as "not a Republican".
Click to expand...

That's a great point.

I remember the primaries. Clinton's camp thought she was a shoo-in. And then the tide shifted, causing them to have a "WTF?!" moment.

Brilliant branding/marketing from David Axelrod.

But as you said, it's a much different game this time.
 
rusvik said:
I realize that US advertising does operate on that very premise - the average person being incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

Because it's true.

The white man has little say in the democratic party today. After all, we're the ones holding minorities down. We're the problem. So it's no surprise the straight white guys in the video were most worried about keeping their dog out of the trash (ie, white guy is a big goof) and worried about how long a company has been in business (ie a laborer, likely union). Not one had any dreams of innovation in that video. Of course not.

But we're still the ones employing and voting for these assholes.
 
FillWerrell said:
Because it's true.

The white man has little say in the democratic party today. After all, we're the ones holding minorities down. We're the problem. So it's no surprise the straight white guys in the video were most worried about keeping their dog out of the trash (ie, white guy is a big goof) and worried about how long a company has been in business (ie a laborer, likely union). Not one had any dreams of innovation in that video. Of course not.

But we're still the ones employing and not voting for these assholes.
Click to expand...

Added to your post in the bold (not that I disagree with your original statement) just to raise awareness that women vote about 15 percent more than men.
 
Also:

maghillarybazaar.jpg
 
KennyPowers said:
I thought the ad was pretty good.

It doesn't appeal to me as a white male, but I can see women and minorities going for it.

With that said, I'm betting on a Republican winning. There's no way in hell that Hilary can steal conservative votes, so unless another strong Democratic candidate emerges, I believe that someone like Jeb Bush will win it all.
Click to expand...

There is no fucking way a Republican can win another presidential election as long as the party doesn't change its stance, or the way its stance is perceived, towards minorities.

Nearly no black person is going to vote Republican - you just lost 13% of the vote (and probably more because blacks have higher turnout than whites). The vast majority of Hispanics are going to vote Democrat. That's another 17% of the population you aren't even remotely competitive in.

Now of course Obama is a minority magnet. With Hillary the Democratic dominance of minorities (read: turnout) is not going to be as overwhelming, but it's going to be there nonetheless.

Hispanics are key today and even more tomorrow. Their percentages are ever increasing. Right now they're lost to the right.

But to Republicans' fortune, it'll be much easier to sway Hispanics than to sway Blacks. Hispanics are simply more important with their hugely growing numbers. They are also religious, yeah it's Catholic but actually has similar JESUS + STRONG FAMILY values that the religious right has.

The GOP, once it understands the predicament it's in (doesn't look like they're aware yet), will take steps to stop alienating Hispanics, and then the presidential elections will become competitive again. Marco Rubio would be a good start.

I give Hillary 90% chance of becoming the President. It's not because she's awesome and everybody loves her. It's because she's a Democrat and Democrats will win the next presidential election.
 
Rotalihinna said:
There is no fucking way a Republican can win another presidential election as long as the party doesn't change its stance, or the way its stance is perceived, towards minorities.

Nearly no black person is going to vote Republican - you just lost 13% of the vote (and probably more because blacks have higher turnout than whites). The vast majority of Hispanics are going to vote Democrat. That's another 17% of the population you aren't even remotely competitive in.

Now of course Obama is a minority magnet. With Hillary the Democratic dominance of minorities (read: turnout) is not going to be as overwhelming, but it's going to be there nonetheless.

Hispanics are key today and even more tomorrow. Their percentages are ever increasing. Right now they're lost to the right.

But to Republicans' fortune, it'll be much easier to sway Hispanics than to sway Blacks. Hispanics are simply more important with their hugely growing numbers. They are also religious, yeah it's Catholic but actually has similar JESUS + STRONG FAMILY values that the religious right has.

The GOP, once it understands the predicament it's in (doesn't look like they're aware yet), will take steps to stop alienating Hispanics, and then the presidential elections will become competitive again. Marco Rubio would be a good start.

I give Hillary 90% chance of becoming the President. It's not because she's awesome and everybody loves her. It's because she's a Democrat and Democrats will win the next presidential election.
Click to expand...

I would think most men wouldn't vote for her due to the fact that she's a woman and even a good amount of women won't vote for another woman to take office.

I see a lot of these people not voting at all this year.
 
Rotalihinna said:
There is no fucking way a Republican can win another presidential election as long as the party doesn't change its stance, or the way its stance is perceived, towards minorities.

Nearly no black person is going to vote Republican - you just lost 13% of the vote (and probably more because blacks have higher turnout than whites). The vast majority of Hispanics are going to vote Democrat. That's another 17% of the population you aren't even remotely competitive in.

Now of course Obama is a minority magnet. With Hillary the Democratic dominance of minorities (read: turnout) is not going to be as overwhelming, but it's going to be there nonetheless.

Hispanics are key today and even more tomorrow. Their percentages are ever increasing. Right now they're lost to the right.

But to Republicans' fortune, it'll be much easier to sway Hispanics than to sway Blacks. Hispanics are simply more important with their hugely growing numbers. They are also religious, yeah it's Catholic but actually has similar JESUS + STRONG FAMILY values that the religious right has.

The GOP, once it understands the predicament it's in (doesn't look like they're aware yet), will take steps to stop alienating Hispanics, and then the presidential elections will become competitive again. Marco Rubio would be a good start.

I give Hillary 90% chance of becoming the President. It's not because she's awesome and everybody loves her. It's because she's a Democrat and Democrats will win the next presidential election.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, especially when you consider the original position of the Democrats back when they were slave masters, which was essentially that black people need to be kept on plantations because they're not capable of taking care of themselves without outside help. When the Democratic party formed the KKK, they did so with the argument that blacks needed to essentially be treated like children and kept in their place for their own good.

Republicans fought against slavery with the argument that blacks would be capable of taking care of themselves as long as they were freed from the reliance on the plantation owners and allowed to sink or swim on their own. Some would struggle and some would achieve great things, but by keeping them hamstrung and reliant upon the plantation system for their well being they would never be able to achieve much as a race.

Replace the plantation with the federal government and not much has changed. LBJ pulled a fast one and the Democrats have been able to keep blacks on the plantation ever since. Perception is everything though, so if you're not offering a handout its cause you're racist. Fascinating.
 
AngryFiver said:
I would think most men wouldn't vote for her due to the fact that she's a woman and even a good amount of women won't vote for another woman to take office.

I see a lot of these people not voting at all this year.
Click to expand...

I think women will turn out in record numbers and vote for Hillary.

Turnout from minorities however will decrease (definitely Black turnout will, at least). All in all though the Democrats will, in my opinion, have an easy victory in 2016.

The key, really, is turnout. The country is so polarized that there's no way someone who voted Obama will vote Republican this time (or someone who voted Romney will vote Democrat). It's all a matter of which party can bring more of its voters to the polls.

Apart from the very fundamental advantages the Democrats have now (minorities), their campaigns were superbly run both in 2008 and 2012 and worked to bring people to vote.

In 2012 both Romney and Obama's campaigns knew this turnout concept and were practically doing nothing to "sway" voters from one camp to the other. What they were doing was paint the other as so terrifying that you had to vote just so that he wouldn't be president.

Obama's ads were NEVER calling to Romney supporters. They were only calling to Obama supporters who might not turn out, saying "Romney's going to come and take your candies away from you, you better vote". Same from Romney.

Hillary Clinton is a woman, so again she will have a very energized base of supporters. The only possible candidates to match this energized base are the "radical" ones - Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren etc. and in their case it really doesn't matter how energized your base is because it's very small.
 
Hillary's running is going to spark a full-on gender war.

Time to pull in those female offended-at-reality dollars, gentlemen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom