Thursday, August 10, 2006
truth in advertising
There's been quite a little dustup recently over Gabrielle Giffords' latest campaign ad about turning on lights or some-such. Apparently the Daily Star political reporter (a former College Republican partisan, no less) uncovered a perceived distortion in the content of her ad.
As I continue to say, I have no horse in this race and probably won't decide who I'm voting for until much closer to the primary. The race is more or less down to Jeff Latas and Gabby for me. Patty Weiss just hasn't impressed me and, as someone with a background in the entertainment industry (of sorts) myself, I don't see how she's qualified to represent me in Congress. But I digress. Back to the ad in question.
There has been a LOT of quibbling over whether or not Gabby lied in her new ad or whether she was stretching the truth or whether any of that actually matters. I'm of the school of thought that it doesn't matter all that much. Her opponents are trying to make hay out of the perceived truthiness, but I think it's splitting hairs.
Take this quote from Dr. Samuel Johnson (18th century English poet and philosopher):
I keep this quote on my dry erase board in my office. To me, Dr. Johnson is saying that you need to be creative with your message if you want to get your point across. It's not about dishonesty or misleading your audience, it's about getting your audience to pay attention in the first place.
Gabby was trying to get a point across and had 30 seconds in which to do it. When those are the parameters, you need to be creative. I happen to think the ad is brilliant for the succint way it gets her point across. I don't think the dustup will hurt her and, in fact, I think the ad will help far more than the non-controversy will hurt. Voters (and consumers) don't care about process, they care about results. The vast majority of people in CD8 don't care if a quorum call is technically a vote or not; they do, by and large, care about the impact of that action, which was to slow down the legislative leadership's unwise budgetary juggernaut.
This is not an endorsement of Gabby or her campaign. It's just an honest interpretation of what I think is an overreaction. Not that I blame the Weiss campaign; they might as well try to get some traction out of this if they can. I just don't think there's much to it.
And as a side note, the results vs. process dynamic is one of the reasons I started m2powered communications solutions in the first place. I was sick and tired of watching non-profit organizations whose missions I believed in deeply keep coming out with atrociously long and boring messages that appealed to their core constituencies but not many others beyond that. We are not our intended audiences. It's as simple as that. The messages that we respond best to are not the messages that will most actively and effectively engage those who most need to hear what we have to say. The same can be said for candidates. A candidate who is long-winded and boring on the stump is not likely to expand his or her supporter base.
So flame away if you must. But do try to keep it short and sweet.
As I continue to say, I have no horse in this race and probably won't decide who I'm voting for until much closer to the primary. The race is more or less down to Jeff Latas and Gabby for me. Patty Weiss just hasn't impressed me and, as someone with a background in the entertainment industry (of sorts) myself, I don't see how she's qualified to represent me in Congress. But I digress. Back to the ad in question.
There has been a LOT of quibbling over whether or not Gabby lied in her new ad or whether she was stretching the truth or whether any of that actually matters. I'm of the school of thought that it doesn't matter all that much. Her opponents are trying to make hay out of the perceived truthiness, but I think it's splitting hairs.
Take this quote from Dr. Samuel Johnson (18th century English poet and philosopher):
In all pointed sentences, some degree of accuracy must be sacrificed to conciseness.
I keep this quote on my dry erase board in my office. To me, Dr. Johnson is saying that you need to be creative with your message if you want to get your point across. It's not about dishonesty or misleading your audience, it's about getting your audience to pay attention in the first place.
Gabby was trying to get a point across and had 30 seconds in which to do it. When those are the parameters, you need to be creative. I happen to think the ad is brilliant for the succint way it gets her point across. I don't think the dustup will hurt her and, in fact, I think the ad will help far more than the non-controversy will hurt. Voters (and consumers) don't care about process, they care about results. The vast majority of people in CD8 don't care if a quorum call is technically a vote or not; they do, by and large, care about the impact of that action, which was to slow down the legislative leadership's unwise budgetary juggernaut.
This is not an endorsement of Gabby or her campaign. It's just an honest interpretation of what I think is an overreaction. Not that I blame the Weiss campaign; they might as well try to get some traction out of this if they can. I just don't think there's much to it.
And as a side note, the results vs. process dynamic is one of the reasons I started m2powered communications solutions in the first place. I was sick and tired of watching non-profit organizations whose missions I believed in deeply keep coming out with atrociously long and boring messages that appealed to their core constituencies but not many others beyond that. We are not our intended audiences. It's as simple as that. The messages that we respond best to are not the messages that will most actively and effectively engage those who most need to hear what we have to say. The same can be said for candidates. A candidate who is long-winded and boring on the stump is not likely to expand his or her supporter base.
So flame away if you must. But do try to keep it short and sweet.
