Official New Ron Paul Ad: Etch A Sketch

[Crystallas]

people--- barack obama's people are buying up etch-a-sketches to the degree that the company
doubled the retail price so as to keep some of 'em on store shelves for their true customers. this
also plays into the groundgame barack obama has for this fall. y'all thought superbrochures were
an expensive way to make a political statement? Democrats are handing out etch-a-sketches!!!

Yeah. Why buy the toy, when all you need is to find an old, stinky pair of flip flops from storage.

 

[jmdrake]

Just like the report pointed out:

The overall effect is to repeat the original charge – that Mr. Romney’s positions are erasable – while simultaneously belittling the political focus on playthings and framing Representative Paul as the responsible adult in the GOP hopeful room. Clever! We’ve said it before: Paul may be losing, but he’s got the best ad people in the race.

Sometimes you can be too clever for your own freaking good! Again, most folks watching that ad won't have a clue as to who the Romney staffer is. I had to Google "Santorum etch-a-sketch to have a clue about the ads message! Okay, maybe I'm stupid. But do you think the average GOP is really that informed? If they were then wouldn't Ron Paul already be in first place? Santorum and Gingrich made the case that Romney's positions are erasable far better than this ad from the Paul campaign. Sorry but that's just the truth.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

i wonder.... does Romney own shares of Etch and Sketch stock? lol

 

[jmdrake]

^^I'll go with this. It's for more constrictive than the response I first had which was more worthy of one of the "condescending Wonka" memes :o

You don't like the ad that's fine, you'd like to present come detailed constructive criticisms even better, you'd like to actually do something about it and make a better one yourself? H@ll at that point link me and I'll spread it around for you. But please spare us more of the "attacks on Romney aren't 'attack-y' enough" one liners. They serve no constructive purpose.

Here's some "detailed" constructive criticism. Tailor the message to the actual voters you're trying to reach and not to some electoral elitist who may know a Mitt Romney staffer by face. The ad sucks. It tries to do to much and it's not effective. This ad is actually worse than the "He's catching on I'm telling ya" ad from 2008 and I didn't think that was possible.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah. Why buy the toy, when all you need is to find an old, stinky pair of flip flops from storage.

Here's a chance for an object lesson in understanding your audience. When you said "flip flop" you probably meant this:

But before carefully reading and seeing the "old stinky pair form storage" reference I was thinking this:

My point? I don't think the average voter is going to immediately tie the Romney staffer to Romney. And if they do and they understand the Santorum/Gingrich point that Romney changes positions like an etch-a-sketch and plans to "shake up and reset" and quit being so conservative after the primary, then why does the ad make them more likely to vote for Paul than Santorum/Gingrich? Santorum/Gingrich wasn't talking about an etch-a-sketch. That was a prop. They were talking about Romney being a flip flopper. The problem is that the flip/flop just as bad. An effective ad to slam all three would have shown Santorum's votes on funding for planned parenthood and Gingrich's commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.

 

[PolicyReader]

Here's some "detailed" constructive criticism. Taylor the message to the actual voters you're trying to reach and not to some electoral elitist who may know a Mitt Romney staffer by face. The ad sucks. It tries to do to much and it's not effective. This ad is actually worse than the "He's catching on I'm telling ya" ad from 2008 and I didn't think that was possible.

Well that's an improvement at least so points there, extra points for keeping it accurate by saying

"detailed"

You don't have to know a Romney staffer on sight to get the reference if you either
A) Watch TV news
B) Watch YouTube

That's a pretty wide audience.

Regarding tailoring the message I think it's more likely to motivate the wishy-washy among Pauls own supporters than to directly convert others per se but not only does it get Pauls name out there which is good, and does it quickly (i.e. release was timely) which is frankly key in this instance, but it doesn't need to carry the torch of the message on it's own, just get people interested in the subject. Santo and Newt have been on this a lot as have media outlets so it's already out there.
Are you really going to advocate that there should be a longer (aka more expensive) ad which re-hashes the messages already put out? That paying more and taking longer to produce that would have been more effective? It doesn't take a "political elite" to know that Willard has the consistency of a weather vein in a wind storm.

So, what's your better idea for an ad on this topic?

 

[specsaregood]

Here's some "detailed" constructive criticism. Taylor the message to the actual voters you're trying to reach and not to some electoral elitist who may know a Mitt Romney staffer by face. The ad sucks. It tries to do to much and it's not effective. This ad is actually worse than the "He's catching on I'm telling ya" ad from 2008 and I didn't think that was possible.

so, what angle should an advertisement take if the goal is to diminish support for Romney? In your opinion?

Also, Tailor.

 

[cstarace]

The ad doesn't mention Romney's name at all and his only appearance in the whole ad is a 100 milisecond clip of him talking. The point of the ad is Gingrich and Santorum's attacks on Romney are trivial and they should be focused on bigger things.

This guy has only three posts and all three were in this thread, providing what I believe to be justified criticism towards the campaign and the new ad. Now he's banned. Great work, moderators.

 

[JJ2]

So, what's your better idea for an ad on this topic?

How about at least mention Mitt Romney's name and identify the staffer with text on the screen?

 

[Aratus]

there is a whole entire state of folks here (we baystaters) who went into apoplexy
when OUR beloved Willard went comservative all of a sudden from his moderate/centrist
stances! i am not reassured to hear that he just might flipflop back. it took me over a half year
to think that maybe he might be half serious. if that staffer was just quoting his own boss
then we all can get even more upset. if he was just giving his opinion out of the blue...

 

[Aratus]

that poor staffer may be unemployed as we speak!

 

[specsaregood]

This guy has only three posts and all three were in this thread, providing what I believe to be justified criticism towards the campaign and the new ad. Now he's banned. Great work, moderators.

uhm, you probably don't recognize the screenname. that is the old screenname from one of the mods of the site who changed to a different name. it was an obvious sockpuppet troll that was obvious.

 

[PolicyReader]

How about at least mention Mitt Romney's name and identify the staffer with text on the screen?

A very valid and easily implemented improvement IMO, point of fact I don't know why that wasn't included in the first draft.

Side note: My point isn't that this ad is pure awesome my point is simply that, This Ad > slow ad or no ad. Also that most of the critical comments in this thread have been a pure waste of time to read. Saying something is "bad" < saying how & why to improve it.

Honestly I think either of the ads in this thread (see quote) are better than the official one

The first one is one I just finished editing together...the second was done by an official PAC:




Any others out there floating around for sharing?

Also, thoughts/feedback on the first one are appreciated...I don't make money on these, and just do them for fun/the cause.

 

[cstarace]

uhm, you probably don't recognize the screenname. that is the old screenname from one of the mods of the site who changed to a different name. it was an obvious sockpuppet troll that was obvious.

Care to share why SCOTUSman was banned?

 

[Kotin]

This guy has only three posts and all three were in this thread, providing what I believe to be justified criticism towards the campaign and the new ad. Now he's banned. Great work, moderators.

you caught us..

or maybe this guy was a member using an alt account.. but you would know that since you are a moderator, so that couldnt be it..

oh wait..

 

[Aratus]

cstarace -- that video is over the top.
could you do a better one in its spot?
this is not the third reich. we were all
having an intelligent conversation here.

 

[socal]

Just like the report pointed out:

The overall effect is to repeat the original charge – that Mr. Romney’s positions are erasable – while simultaneously belittling the political focus on playthings and framing Representative Paul as the responsible adult in the GOP hopeful room. Clever! We’ve said it before: Paul may be losing, but he’s got the best ad people in the race.

The ad fails on making the charge that Romney's positions are erasable because it doesn't identify the staffer, and doesn't say who "it" is, as in the quote from the beginning of the ad,

"It's almost like an etch-a-sketch, you can shake it up and we start all over again."

The ad fails on belittling the focus on playthings because the etch-a-sketch was being used by Gingrich, Santorum, Piers Morgan, and other reporters as a symbol to attack Romney. That attack on Romney was legitimate since what Eric Fehrnstrom basically said was Romney's campaign statements can't be believed.

That's why I initially didn't even get the ad, because I thought the Romney attacks by everyone holding the toy were ok.

 

[specsaregood]

Care to share why SCOTUSman was banned?

dunno, i'm not a mod. i wasn't replying to your comment about that one.

 

[cstarace]

cstarace -- that video is over the top.
could you do a better one in its spot?
this is not the third reich. we were all
having an intelligent conversation here.

The video was intentionally "over the top" to make a point. I don't believe there's a video that makes my point more effectively.

 

[Aratus]

i'd rather spend my time pleasantly asking for clemency and mercy
than indulging in a few whimsical moments of parenthetical hyperbole