why don't the polititians hire an ad agency?
- Thread starter pnj
- Start date
Isn't that basically what they do?
uh...they do hire ad agencies.
pnj said:
...and why isn't there porn on the internet..?
uh...no.
they do hire agencys. but the ads are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being like coke or micky D's or car ads.
politian ads = "he said, she said and it all happened years ago..", "vote for me, because he sucks."
coke ads = lots of young, hip, urban kids doing cool things and getting the bitches while drinking coke.
car ads = cool young hipsters driving around being cool. chasing the ice cream man, doing nothing but being cool, because they just bought a new car.
they do hire agencys. but the ads are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being like coke or micky D's or car ads.
politian ads = "he said, she said and it all happened years ago..", "vote for me, because he sucks."
coke ads = lots of young, hip, urban kids doing cool things and getting the bitches while drinking coke.
car ads = cool young hipsters driving around being cool. chasing the ice cream man, doing nothing but being cool, because they just bought a new car.
Because PnJ, a big part of what an ad agency does is market toward whichever group of people give them the biggest chance of return. For coke, thats urban kids doing cool things. For politics, kids who do cool things dont vote. C'mon dude...
No actually I have years of studying marketing and the ads do sell plenty.pnj said:
we both just said the same thing.BurlySurly said:
me = "ads sell anything"
you = "ads sell plenty"
now listen here.....
who votes? mainly old people. if Kerry wanted to win, he should be targeting minoritys, gays, and anyone who doesn't own a truck. that is a lot of people. and he could win by a landslide if he got those people to register and vote. that won't happen if he cuntinues to use ads like he uses now.
people don't care about foreign policy, some dumb war, taxes, or anything else that those guys talk about. hell, they don't even care if they can spell or not. so, by advertising how cool they would feel by voting for either party, that party would increase the number of voters and win.
it's so easy......
pnj said:
Dude, Kerry targets EXACTLY those people. And YES people DO care about foreign policy and Iraq, or at least they damn well better or we dont WANT them voting now do we?
You arent saying the same thing at all as me. Im saying that the current ads sell plenty and you're saying that cheezy coke ads would do better, but studies have been done and ad agencies are not stupid. In fact, there are alot of brilliant minds in marketing.
If anyone would win because of an increase of voters, it would be GWB IMO, because most that arent hip to politics or are apathetic are conservative by nature, and if brought to vote, would spell doom for Kerry and Co.
The best way to sell something is to scare the **** out of people. Fear makes people do compulsive things (like vote for Bush
).
The reason there's a difference between Coke and Bush ads is that it's pretty hard to come up with any scary reason why you should drink Coke. You DO see a lot of fear tactics in the marketing of "healthy alternatives"...e.g. Cheerios will reduce your risk of heart disease.
Negative and scary ads are used because they work better than anything else. That's why EVERY election cycle, EVERY politician goes back on his/her word NOT to use them as soon as **** hits the fan and it looks like they might lose.
edit: forgot to mention... it is actually true that those ads are less useful for targeting young folks, as they tend to have higher risk tolerances and less perspective/fear on mortality issues. But they don't vote anyway, and ads showing them how fun voting is are NOT going to cut it. This is precisely the reason P-Diddy's new voting push is titled "Vote or Die". Stupid stupid theme in my opinion, but that's what they're having to resort to, to try and stir up interest in young folk. That's also why young folks suddenly start caring about elections when the word "draft" is brought up.
). The reason there's a difference between Coke and Bush ads is that it's pretty hard to come up with any scary reason why you should drink Coke. You DO see a lot of fear tactics in the marketing of "healthy alternatives"...e.g. Cheerios will reduce your risk of heart disease.
Negative and scary ads are used because they work better than anything else. That's why EVERY election cycle, EVERY politician goes back on his/her word NOT to use them as soon as **** hits the fan and it looks like they might lose.
edit: forgot to mention... it is actually true that those ads are less useful for targeting young folks, as they tend to have higher risk tolerances and less perspective/fear on mortality issues. But they don't vote anyway, and ads showing them how fun voting is are NOT going to cut it. This is precisely the reason P-Diddy's new voting push is titled "Vote or Die". Stupid stupid theme in my opinion, but that's what they're having to resort to, to try and stir up interest in young folk. That's also why young folks suddenly start caring about elections when the word "draft" is brought up.
Im no political activist, but ive seen a lot of the the political comercials, Speeches given by GWB, the debates, and so on over the past year or 2, and to be honest, I take the "daily show perspective" its all humourous to me. just surmising what goes on behind the scenes. Im not touting conspiracy, just the way its all played out. Here is your speech Mr President. And your dirty Carhartt jacket, get the dog in the shot..... and ACTION! Clinton is giving Kerry advice on how to win the presidency (wether or not he took it). And GWB should have taken a logical fallacies course in college. And the election itself. I realize the are logistical constraints and such, but its like a twisted hand of blackjack. You can either keep the president you have, or go with the other option we provided for you. And seems to me, both running for office would be like a 15 or 16 at a blackjack table.