Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Liberals On Air

After a round of pre-election ads from the Tories, Dippers, and Greens (which you can rate here), the Liberals have released two new ads of their own.


How would you grade this ad?
A
B
C
D
F
See Results



How would you grade this ad?
A
B
C
D
F
See Results



I quite like both these ads but, then again, they already have my vote.

Thoughts?

posted by calgarygrit at 1:20 p.m.

17 Comments:

  • The first one is stronger IMO. The problem is that compared to the rest of the world Cnada is doing rather well.

    The second one only reminds me of Adscam. The Liberals cannot nor should not preach to Canadians about ethics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:35 p.m.  

  • I think they strike the perfect tone. One positive, one negative.

    Ignatieff's biggest weakness is that people only know what the attack ads have said about him. Just by putting his face and voice out there, he's taking a big step towards acceptance by a larger number of voters. Also, nice white background, subconsciously associates the person in the foreground with virtue and purity (impact of any ad is 80% subconscious, 20% consious). I can see that they really know what they're doing with these. Finally some professionals are in charge in the OLO, and it appears that they've hired some talented ad folks. Every reason to be optimistic if we end up in a campaign next week. (and if not, more time to run these ads)

    By Blogger Dan F, at 1:41 p.m.  

  • Anonymous said... The second one only reminds me of Adscam. The Liberals cannot nor should not preach to Canadians about ethics.

    Anon, it's been a long time since the Grits threw lots of money at Quebec to fight the separatist threat via advertising. They ignored precautions built in the system, and they've paid the price. They lost office for over 5 years now, and are polling at their poorest level in history.

    Also, Ignatieff, Rae, Brison, Hall-Finley, Kennedy, etc had as much to do with Adscam; as Harper, MacKay, Flaherty, Day, etc had to do with the Airbus scandal.

    Quite a deal of time has passed, and I think they get it.

    However Harper & Co. seem to not learn from the errors of past governments. They deserve the same fate as the Liberals, especially since they were elected on ethics, transparency and accountability ...not the economy (Paul Martin had them beat there).

    Depends now, do voted want to re-elect a government they know are lying, corrupt, and unaccountable, thinking there is no alternative? Or do they think the Liberals learned any lessons and wish to redeem themselves?

    Next election we'll see the results.

    By Blogger Tof KW, at 1:52 p.m.  

  • Oops, should read...
    "Depends now, do voters want to re-elect a..."

    By Blogger Tof KW, at 1:54 p.m.  

  • KW

    You are wrong (and so are many others who think adscam is over).

    It s not that they threw money at Quebec; They stole it.

    This scandal has destroyed the Liberal brand in Quebec and worse still hurt the reputation of federalists there as well.

    It is a very big deal and will be for a generation. Libs are best to stay away from the ethics issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:01 p.m.  

  • I do think that both ads will be effective in different ways. I would use the first ad in daytime television and the second ad for evening television.

    By Blogger Skinny Dipper, at 2:22 p.m.  

  • Dan F - Good comments. I agree the Liberals need to introduce Ignatieff to voters, and this spot does a good job of that. He's forceful in his attacks, but still offers solutions. I also think that directly talking to Canadians is a good tactic to take for an introduction.

    The second one drives a narrative they're trying to get traction on. The jury's still out on whether it will stick or not, but they need to get ads out there, to try.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 3:33 p.m.  

  • Martin ran an open inquiry on the Adscam (much to chagrin of many) and the LPC was found guilty of illegally diverting 200k.

    Harper refuses and stalls all inquiries and his party received 800K from fraudulent election invoicing. The refund for 1.3 million involved with the illegal in and out con.

    And that was for the first election the won when they were spouting ethics and honesty.

    They say power corrupts, but they were not even power yet.

    The cons are running lower in QC than the Libs and when the voters in the rest country finally figure this out, they will running lower everywhere.

    By Anonymous Anonymous 2, at 4:13 p.m.  

  • Why is Iggy wearing pink lipstick in the first ad?

    By Anonymous Andy G, at 4:42 p.m.  

  • Don't attack Tories on ethics.

    1. Waste of money. NDP/Green/Bloc/Media will already have it covered, probably to excess.

    2. Doesn't exactly play to a Liberal strength. Voters equally likely to stay home or vote NDP/Green/Bloc than Liberal.

    3. Makes the Liberals look like an opposition party.

    Effective ads have to both hit a chord, and create a distinction.

    Answer: Remind us how well the Liberals have governed this nation.

    NDP/Bloc/Green can't govern.
    Tories can't govern well.

    Ask Canadians if they want to stick with what they have, or if they'd like all the great things Liberal governments have brought in the past, and can again. Right away, right now.

    Simple.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 5:06 p.m.  

  • I'll have to disagree, Robert. It is important for any party to create doubt about other parties--particularly the governing party. By attacking the Conservatives' lack of ethics, the Liberals create a narrative or a frame about why voters should not support the Conservatives in the next election. This frame means that the Liberals can attack the Conservatives on their economic decisions through this frame such as "Do you trust the Conservatives with their economic figures when they refuse to divulge all the details to the Canadian people?" (I'm paraphrasing.)

    If the Liberals just went after the Harper and the Conservatives on their economic decision, there would be no debate about not trusting the Conservatives. There would only be a debate about the Conservatives' economic choices. In this scenario, the Conservatives would likely win the debate, and possibly win a majority of the seats in the next election. Why would the Liberals choose this tactic for the upcoming election? I wouldn't if I were them.

    By Blogger Skinny Dipper, at 6:37 p.m.  

  • The Liberals cannot nor should not preach to Canadians about ethics.

    I guess I have to agree with an Anonymous poster.

    they've paid the price. They lost office for over 5 years now

    I don't think losing office for 5 years is "paying the price" for theft of large stacks of money.

    I'm not saying "all Liberals were involved/are thieves", I just don't see how being "unelected" amounts to rectifying a wrong done.

    So we ground politcians for theft? Meh.

    2. Doesn't exactly play to a Liberal strength.
    I think Robert Vollman hits it here -- a non-cynical, friendly way of re-phrasing Anonymous. Well said.

    Don't lecture on ethics. It has nothing to do with "the Tories". It has to do with "not playing to your strength".

    ("Your" meaning the LPC, not Dan)

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:27 p.m.  

  • I like the 2nd one better. As a business Liberal, I just cringe every time Iggy wants to go after "big bad corporations." What about small corporations? Hasn't Iggy figured out that if he isn't nice to the people with money, he won't get any.

    On to the 2nd ad, its better ... but I hate the tag line. Its so wimpy! Is this Harper's Canada or Your's? Come on! Slam it home!

    Its like saying "Choose Your Canada" all over again ...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 p.m.  

  • I like the second ad - it makes a very strong case about why the Tories are corrupt and unprincipled....and says nothing about why the Liberals would be any better - and with memories of the sponsorship scandal etc...the more talk there is about ethics and who to trust - the better it is for the NDP (and to a lesser extent the BQ and Greens)

    By Blogger DL, at 9:36 p.m.  

  • If the Liberals just went after the Harper and the Conservatives on their economic decision, there would be no debate about not trusting the Conservatives

    Really?

    The debate will be brought up, if not by the NDP, then then Bloc, the Green and especially the media.

    Save your money. And while that debate will keep voters from voting Tory, it will do nothing to get them voting Liberal.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:11 a.m.  

  • Actually Calgary Ad Scam is from the same time as the In and Out scheme, 5 years ago. the Liberals are walking into a cesspool on this one.

    The pink lipstick and eyeshadow just make the first ad creepy and distracting. The last thing Iggy needs is Canadians thinking he is even more effete.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 p.m.  

  • The first ad had little content, altho Ignatieff looks confident and not likely to drink my blood (or call Transylvania 'his homeland')... Seriously, they are both solid but i give the 2nd ad a higher score for impact. That kind of ad -- and it relates to the tactic Harper is using re. negative branding of his opponents -- doesn't need to bore into my brain to make me feel something. I immediately feel irked and cheated by Harper.
    As Skinny Dip said, the importance of a 'go-at Harper' ad is really about setting a foundation for better ads, more policy and positive ads if done right. Find the nerve that makes people want to change their government, then show them how.

    By Blogger rockfish, at 3:21 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home