Link to Campaign Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk0qlbhm5Kg
Campaign ads have been a function
of American political candidates since the beginning of America as a way to
demonstrate why the public should vote for the specific candidate that creates
and distributes the ad. Furthermore, ads using television have become extremely
popular over the past few decades and still dominate today according to a New
York Times story stating 82% of campaign money designated for advertising has
been used for television ads[1].
Another notable characteristic of campaign ads is that they either come across
as negative or positive, negative if it puts down their opponent’s record and
positive if it flaunts their own. Due to their popularity, I examined a television
campaign ad put out by Republican Congressman Leonard Lance to examine if the
ad he put out was negative or positive, and why his campaign would feel it was
necessary to put that type of ad out at this point in the election.
The ad
Leonard Lance released was mostly positive in order to demonstrate his
conservative positions on many issues affecting Americans, but a point can be
made that initial part of the ad was an attack on not his actual opponent,
Janice Kovach, but the Democratic Party of which she is a member. As stated,
the opening of the ad uses strong visual images (such as military footage and
people rioting) as well as images to provoke pity using a clip of a somber
middle class family. These images are used to display three main issues
affecting Americans today: unrest overseas, the crisis at the border, and
continued stagnation of the economy. These are all issues that according to a
majority of Americans in a recent Wall Street Journal poll are problems created
and/or continued by Democrats[2].
Thus, Lance may be sending a message to his constituents that electing Kovach
will lead to more of this in Washington, scaring his constituents to vote for
him to prevent continued policy failures, which is a true negative ad. However,
this part is about one-fifth of the entire thirty second ad, while the rest
focuses positively on how Lance is fighting for the little people through his
fiscally conservative principles. The ad lists several ways he lived up to
these values including voting for: a
strong national defense, a secure border, American made energy, and job
creation policies to stimulate the economy. These are the core values of a very
conservative, pro-business district that Lance represents and by appealing to
these aspects of his constituents needs through his congressional voting
record, he helps insure his victory. Furthermore, by using his voting record,
it makes this ad positive by highlighting Lance’s beliefs and accomplishments. A
more appropriate title for this ad might be “mixed” both positive and negative,
but the fact that such a large part of the ad was dedicated to Lance’s personal
accomplishments, one can safely call it a positive ad.
When the
candidate like Lance is significantly ahead in the polls, he has no reason to
employ attack ads on his opponent. According to Sadie Dingfelder in an article
in Monitor on Psychology candidates
would be smart to use positive ads when they are in front and only resort to
negative ads when they are trailing in the polls[3].
Dingfelder references studies that have found negative ads serve to raise
people’s attentiveness and question the choice they have made on who to vote
for, which would a help a trailing candidate to sway voters if candidates are
able to find some negative aspects of their opponents records. However, this
could harm the political candidate who put out the negative ad because the
constituents might start to see them in a more undesirable light. On the other
hand, positive ads like the one Lance used affect people by reassuring them
that their decision to vote for that candidate is the right one. Lance is clearly
playing to this here, by referencing the fiscal conservative values of the
majority of his constituents in this positive ad, he is able to reassure people
that he the right person to represent his district in the United States House
of Representatives.
Campaign
ads on television are telltale sign of election season and by the beginning of
November, they are the bane of many American’s existence. Though, they do play
a role in how a candidate is viewed by the people in his district, and as
psychological studies have shown whether the ad is negative or positive also
plays a role. Thus, candidates have to employ the correct ads at the right time
in order to insure that people react favorably towards them. Furthermore,
candidates like Lance did in his ad, also have to play to the strengths (or
worries in a negative ad) of their record in order to insure their reelection.
Lance’s ad is nothing special in the scheme of television advertising for a
political campaign, but what is does accomplish is what it needs to do,
convince the voters of his district that he is still the right choice as their
congress person.
[1] Willis,
Derek. "Senate Races: Where Outside Groups Spend Their Money."
Nytimes.com. October 15, 2014. Accessed October 16, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/upshot/senate-races-where-outside-groups-spend-their-money.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0.
[2] Seib,
Gerald F. "2014 Made Simple: Democrats Lose Edge on Economic, Foreign
Policy." The Wall Street Journal. October 13, 2014. Accessed October 16,
2014.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/democrats-lose-edge-on-economic-foreign-policy-1413215363.
[3] Dingfelder,
Sadie. "The Science of Political Advertising." American Psychological
Association. April 1, 2012. Accessed October 16, 2014.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/advertising.aspx.
No comments:
Post a Comment