Official New Ron Paul Ad: Etch A Sketch

[cstarace]

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..

Alternate account, as in secondary account on the same IP address?

 

[JJ2]

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

I agree. And that's because those ads actually attack Romney. The official ad seems like it is mostly attacking Newt and Santorum, which is what the media has already been attacking the Paul campaign for doing--not going strongly after Romney.

 

[PolicyReader]

Care to share why SCOTUSman was banned?

Not a mod, won't speak for them but I'm not surprised considering the average tone/quality of his posts I've seen lately.
If the sampling of actions I've seen are in fact representative of 'his' overall posting trends lately a temp ban isn't a shock to me.
But as I say I'm not a mod/don't have all the modding guidelines memorized etc. so that's just my conjecture.

 

[Aratus]

jimmy kimmel has a clever onrunning segment about unnecessary censorship (hint!)

 

[Aratus]

dude... there are many alternatives

the dated 1930s viceral is visually too

much to take. it is jarringly abrupt...

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I view the ad to be good, but still lackluster in regards to connecting to U.S. voters, in a highly needed way (especially with time running out). We need someone close to the campaign to consider promoting video contests on a weekly basis, which is made by the grassroots movement (and RP supporters), in order to be used by the official campaign.

 

[jmdrake]

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

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?

Well I watch TV news (admittedly not much since it's all biased and I'd rather get my news on the net from original sources). I definitely watch a lot of YouTube. I didn't know who the staffer was. I bet you 8 out of 10 GOP voters have no idea who the various campaign staffers are. Just because somebody may see someone on TV on occasion doesn't mean that person has necessarily registered.

A better ad? Well for starters put the initial quote in context. Make sure the viewer isn't guessing about what this etch-a-sketch crap is about. Or better yet, have a graphic of an etch-a-sketch where you start off with Romney, erase then draw Santorum, erase then draw Gingrich, erase then draw Obama. Then have a bulldog chomp up the etch-a-sketch. Tie it in to the very effective "big dogs". Then end with "Vote Ron Paul if you're serious about destroying the debt. The rest are just toys".

 

[Aratus]

jimdrake --- your ad idea is effective and on the money

 

[jmdrake]

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.

+rep! Folks if even Ron Paul supporters are confused by what the ad is actually saying what do you think average Joe six-pack is going to think? It's not an effective ad. Sorry. That's just the truth.

 

[jmdrake]

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

Also, Tailor.

My spelling sucks as bad as the ad.

Anyway, my idea: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tch-A-Sketch&p=4304695&viewfull=1#post4304695

 

[PolicyReader]

I agree. And that's because those ads actually attack Romney. The official ad seems like it is mostly attacking Newt and Santorum, which is what the media has already been attacking the Paul campaign for doing--not going strongly after Romney.

I really didn't get the impression that it was going after Newt and Rick more, angle of perspective perhaps? I do think that a harder hitting ad would be better, but I like this one better than not having one out.

In any event differing read or no I'm not opposed to criticisms of the Official Campaign or it's actions, I'm just opposed to functionless criticisms in GRC threads.
In part because they draw attention away from valid useful critiques like the one you made earlier. Saying "the ad is weak here and should have done X, Y, Z, better" that's useful even if the campaign never hears about it because there are video folks and PAC folks in GRC who can read it and refine their work. The comments like "this is horrible and just proves Romney/Paul" are a waste of space and factually inaccurate thus I take exception to them, rather vehemently.

btw, thanks for having a constructive dialogue on this

 

[PolicyReader]

Well I watch TV news (admittedly not much since it's all biased and I'd rather get my news on the net from original sources). I definitely watch a lot of YouTube. I didn't know who the staffer was. I bet you 8 out of 10 GOP voters have no idea who the various campaign staffers are. Just because somebody may see someone on TV on occasion doesn't mean that person has necessarily registered.

I had no idea who the guy was until yesterday when in the space of watching part of one news segment and a few YouTubes I ran into him something like 5 times (note I wasn't looking for anything related to the Etch A Sketch or his statements). Point in fact I still couldn't quote you his name only that he's a communications director for Romney. It seemed, and honestly still seems, somewhat reasonable to me that if I could run into him by accident so much in the space of a few hours then with this issue being made so much of by political and news types that he'd be a high exposure individual at the present time. Perhaps his exposure is lower than I thought and higher than you did? I'm not sure we'll ever know for certain.

A better ad? Well for starters put the initial quote in context. Make sure the viewer isn't guessing about what this etch-a-sketch crap is about. Or better yet, have a graphic of an etch-a-sketch where you start off with Romney, erase then draw Santorum, erase then draw Gingrich, erase then draw Obama. Then have a bulldog chomp up the etch-a-sketch. Tie it in to the very effective "big dogs". Then end with "Vote Ron Paul if you're serious about destroying the debt. The rest are just toys".

See, now this I would have responded too very differently than the comments that elicited my first reaction.
My response to your quote is as it would have been if that's what you'd started out with.

I agree that's an improvement, +rep

Just to be clear, my issue hasn't been with there being criticism, just the quality of the criticisms as presented. It really is a relevant distinction IMO

 

[laststand]

Such a ridiculous ban.

 

[Aratus]

admin has had their reasons for this.
i'm hoping the temp bans are short...

 

[laststand]

Nope. Until after the convention.....

 

[jemuf]

I'm not an idiot, but initially the point of the ad was lost on me. I thought it was supposed to be slamming Romney; that's my fault for thinking that.

When I was done watching it I thought "Hmm that wasn't a very good ad."

Truthfully I didn't know that I didn't know what the ad was about until I started reading this thread.

 

[Aratus]

i admit the point flies by one if one is half asleep or distracted
and it is a topical ad drawing strength from the media cycle of
the past 24 to 72 hours. someone up in the rockies for a week
would be asking why people are waving etch-asketches around.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm still wondering why the campaign just didn't put ads from Ron's speeches and writings over the last 40 years, put them in thirty second or minute long videos, and end them with "see more at ______.com," where tons more information would be present, full speech included.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Although I think this is a good ad,

why are they wasting their money on ads now?

What isn't a waste of money in the eyes of the RPF grassroots nowadays?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ads come out and everyone on RPF is a professional PR person. Go figure.

Obviously, the aim may not be to get raw votes anymore, but it seems like most RPFers are looking at it through those glasses, wondering what the "average voter" might think.