Complete failure? You don't think that might be a bit much?

If you want to focus on accountability for ads (which I think is a great idea), then you should not just call out the candidate, but the consultant.

I dn't think you're being too harsh at all.  In fact, I wish you had been more specifically harsh at why this ad is so bad:  because it is trying to use the DLC-Clinton 'American Dream' frame.  That's what this is.

If anything, your critique misses the opportunity to show how stupid that DLC frame is.  Every single point you make in this critique could be made stronger by simply adding this phrase after each: "and that's why the DLC 'American Dream' idea will not get one single Democrate elected to the House this fall."

The logic of the American Dream frame is precisely the opposite of what you have advocated in your memo:  It avoids Iraq (assuming that Americans think the Dems are weak on defense), it avoids criticising Bush (assuming that Americans are weary of partisan politics), it avoids talking about accountability for policies, and instead talks about personal responsibility (assumign that Americans are all self-centered individualists who care only about themselves).

And worst of all, the 'American Dream' frame is being pushed on newcommers with a carrot and stick approach--here's some money for your campaign if you use our lame as lame can be 'American dream' frame.    Oh, and here's a McDonald's application when our 'American Dream' frame leaves you without a job next year.

So I'd say hit harder--much harder.  Rear up on those pale, but strong MyDD hind legs and call the DLC PR approach a lame approach for losers.

And one more thing:  The DLC 'American Dream' frame sucks.

I watched the ad without knowing anything about Darcy Burner, and before reading the critique, and came way thinking well of her. So it must be a good ad.

Those who don't know her in her district will probably have the same reaction.

Matt, you've hit upon all the right points of criticism, I think.  

This ad is well produced, and she's got a great bio, which they effectively and repetitively highlight, but it says nothing about her campaign or her beliefs.   It's all positioning.   It's cliched liberal laundry list positioning.

The answer to "Why are you running?" should suffuse all messaging.

Let's see what her next ad, and see if there's more to her/her braintrust's strategic capabilities.

I knew Angelides' campaign was dead when I saw his first ads, and when he later didn't improve them much.

When you see one timid decision made after another, that's a bad omen.

A bit harsh. It's her first ad - she's introducing herselves to the voters. If the second set of ad doesn't start hitting on the accountability themes, then I would get worried.

My initial reaction is that I agree with you, Matt.  But maybe this ad is a fine first ad.  She does need to introduce herself to the District; her opponent is very well known, having caught the Green River killer.  Maybe it is a better time to drop the hammer after she has raised her name ID at bit and given voters some information about her background.  Or maybe I'm completely off base.  I don't know.  

Hi Matt, my first comment here. I've been an ad weasel for over 20 years, and I think you're being a litle harsh on this one. It's an introductory ad-a little soft- but does an okay job of going "this is who I am-this is what I believe in."

A little broad and vague, but not terrible. What we'd call an umbrella ad for a campaign, summing up overarching themes, and setting up a context for more specific messages.

What they need to do now is take that "putting our priorities first" and make it specific and meaningful.

How does getting out of Iraq "put our priorities first"? Protecting social security? Holding Bush accountable?

I'm thinking that just about every issue out there could be put in terms of "putting our priorities first".

If she can do that and move from the general to the specific, that's a pretty good framing device, especially for an "outsider".

I think you've got it! I agree with you. I watched the ad and anyone could have run this or similar ad. Even a Republican. General themes, like motherhood and apple pie, don't make me want to vote for someone, even if he/she appears to be a nice person....

Besides, there's not a good way to know if a person is nice--this alone is not a qualifier to being elected--and, for me, where a candidate stands in regards to important issues is a deal maker/breaker.

Good luck in this campaign. Make sure you capture the anti-Bush anger many Americans have.... This INCOMPETENT regime must go, and the ENABLERS should be the first ones to be kicked out!

NOT have a life story?

I mean, I don't think her life story is that much more intriguing than mine, or my wife's or our neighbors.

We buy into Republican crap when we run these ads.  I can wrap up what Matt thinks we need in one word.

BALLS.

Or, NUTS!

I don't know the demo of her district. Maybe this is their cup of tea, but even as an introduction it lacks the energy that would accompany a mention of the issues you cited. Seeing the way they are highlighted on her web site, it's almost as though she has one message for people who are seeking out info online, and another for the general population. Not good, that.

[Preface I've worked in advertising in NYC and elsewhere (as and AE and as a planner). I've gotten to work with some of the better creative agencies.  My ad worldview is based on reality that we live in a world of clutter]

I think this ad is a failure because it looks like a paint by the numbers political ad.  The format, the message, the imagery have been done a thousand times (in Washington State and elsewhere).

So, the problem is that -- in this age of clutter -- no one will pay attention to this ad who already doesn't like Darcy. Their brains will read: "boring political ad" and move on to another thought. The only way to make this ad cut through the clutter and communicate these boring ass messages will be by increasing frequency up beyond something like 8X and then people will notice it but also likely be annoyed by this boring ad (and not any more likely to vote for Darcy).

I don't think the focus on the "lower standard of living" meme is necessarily bad.  It's a great, real and resonant point to make (pisses me off) but it is not made well in this ad -- just lots of cliches.  And, in this age of clutter and consumer cynicism, no one is going to buy it.

I think, for that reason, this ad even fails in terms of communicating the "OK we can trust Darcy" message (which I think was their main goal, based on the structure of the spot).  The imagery and language is so cliched that it'll make the tyically very cynical consumer say "this is BS" and cause them to view her as just another Politician.

Iraq could work if it is executed right.  It is a hot button issue so you could have a lousy boring ad and it might work because Darcy says something that breaks through the clutter and resonates.  But, I wouldn't trust whoever made this ad to make it well.  My guess is that they ran groups and gave into the "popularity trap" where the researchers and client mistake the most popular messages as being the most resonant when in reality they are just the most acceptable, not the most motivating.  Political consultants love focus group testing and are more often than not snared by the popularity trap (which is why their spots all look alike).  They also assume that people read and listen to complicated phrases and thoughts (they don't).  And, they also assume that people view political ads as special information (they don't) as opposed to yet another ad (they do).

BTW, I like Bill Hilsman/Northwoods ads for Lamont but don't think he's what we should be looking towards as our standard.  His work is spotty  Check out their corporate work (North Woods) really hit or miss.  The folks we want to get working for us are creatives from Fallon (think Citibank ads), Arnold Worldwide (think Truth campaign, Volkswagen), Crispin Porter (think Truth, Mini, Burger King), Martin Agency or some of the bigger New York Ad networks (like McCann, etc.) guys.

Start by understanding that the AD is not the CAMPAIGN. It's A part of AN ad series that's PART of a political campaign.

This ad is an intro -- a primer coat -- for a candidate who has not previously stood before the voters and is not well known in or out of politics, challenging a well-known incumbent.

Voters want to know who the candidate is ... or at least think they know who the candidate is. Anything else they learn about her, they'll attach to that identification. Job 1: "Who is Darcy Burner?"

If adwatch ignores context and purpose, it's just dogs watching tennis.

And Feldman has a bug up his ass about the American Dream? Really? What else is new?

Matt, I think you have to put this ad in context.  As good a candidate as Darcy is, and for all the success she has had in transforming this race into a toss-up, she still has relatively little name ID in her district compared to the incumbent Dave Reichert. So while I generally agree with your specific, individual criticisms, I do not agree that this ad, as an introduction to voters, is a total failure.

This is a swing district with a fairly large contingent of independents and soft partisans who will not cast their vote based on the letter next to the candidate's name.  These voters are generally unhappy with the President and the Republican leadership, and they would like to see the Democrats take control so there can be some checks and balances... but for the most part, they don't yet know that Reichert is part of the problem.  What Darcy needs to do first and foremost is set herself up as a reasonable, likable alternative -- before the R's attempt to define her with negative ads.  This is something that John Kerry, for example, miserably failed to do.

This is also the first ad of many, produced with a specific strategy in mind.  I'm told they went with a 60-second ad because they play better with women, and I was assured that future ads would strongly play up party identification.  She also speaks quite eloquently on the Iraq war, and features it in her stump, and I expect that issue to be highlighted in future ads.

So I'm hoping, that when the campaign is over, and this ad is viewed within the context of the entire ad campaign, you might not be so disappointed.

I have a bug somewhere? This is what Stoller wrote:

the use of horrifically vague and loose DLC-phrases like 'make health care affordable' and 'improving education to create opportunity' (what does that even mean?)

I'm just pushing that point harder.  No bug up nowhere.  The DLC 'American Dream' initiative is bland, bland, bland and bland.

I've no professional expertise in the area. But this strikes me as pretty dire.

(I'm certainly open to evidence of counterintuitive effects - I dismissed the Swift Boat stuff at the time...)

Firstly, I agree with Matt that not working Iraq into the ad, and appearing to run from the Dem brand, were not good.

But my queries were rather broader:

Everything seemed so damned rushed: since time was obviously the limiting factor, the problem was that they decided to cram in all bar the kitchen sink. And Iraq and the Dem party...

We guys viewing the spot on Youtube are not a fair test: we're informed, motivated, concentrating, partisan (up to a point).

And - speaking personally - despite all that, the ad made my brain hurt.

Firstly, it suffered from a terminal form of Powerpoint Disease: so much copy on the screen fighting the VO (and with Darcy's pieces to camera), like two people speaking (loudly!) at once.

To add to the problem, the text WAS ALL IN ALL CAPS. Mary, mother of Jesus! The reason why bloggers and message boards hate ALL CAPS is because they're so fucking hard to read!

When you've got all-caps copy appearing suddenly on, and swooping around, the screen, competing with the VO, that's a recipe for mass channel flipping.

Furthermore, the VO did nothing to sell the product: I've heard PA announcements in airports given with more passion and commitment!

But, with the best will in the world, with so many words to lever in, I'm not surprised.

(And I agree with Matt, BTW, about the quality of the prose: this seemed like bleeding chunks of New Direction (or is it Six for 06 now?) in their insipidness.)

A big disappointment was with Darcy herself. She does this annoying thing of letting her voice tail off in pitch and volume at the end of sentences - lack of breath control, I think that is. (The American dream line; and the putting our priorities first tagline, for crying out loud!)

Which not only sounds limp, unprofessional, uncommitted - but also stops the audience getting some of her most important points!

She needs training, clearly.

The whole thing was one big muddle. Nothing much of Darcy comes across the screen - nothing much of her policies (if she has any).

I can't imagine a decent ad agency daring to put up something as weak to one of its clients.

Yet I assume the consultants and hangers-on will be handsomely paid for it.

It's a poor ad. The bio stuff is boring and irrelevant- it is a waste of time and money. The issues discussion at the end is better but short on specifics- it is better to hammer one issue than repeat the mantra for several- did she say she is for the minimum wage? Production values are average. One thing does come through, she is a very politically attractive candidate: well spoken, comes across as likeable and smart.

The ad struck me as too soft.  She never asked people to vote for her or even talk with her or her campaign.  I'm no advertising pro, but this just did not stand out at all.

I am glad- and I am not being snarky- that y'all are focused on the form rather than solely on the substance. I think one of the issues with the left is that it forgets form is as important as substance when it comes to communicating to people. I have nothing to add other than I agree with a lot of what's been said a long this thread about the stylistic failures. The worst thing you can have is not a 'bad ad,' but one that is forgettable. With limited resources, you had better make sure you aren't putting  out forgettable ones.

Matt makes much of hte lack of mention of her party affiliation (or mention of Bush and Reichart's).

What is the party affil. of viewers in the markets where this ad will air?   You don't want your first ad to start driving a wedge, do you?

"Changing the direction" in the last frame seems to hint at where she's heading.

It is bland, though.

But we do see that the gimmick that a advertising guy from outside the beltway used in CT is now gonna be a standard coda......

I wonder who is her "CONSULTANT". This ad appears to be put together by a DLC committee. Apparently some one has convinced her to try and offend NO ONE. I felt like I was going back to the 2002 Kerry campaign only he was in drag! Some one has to shake Darcy by the shoulders and scream "NED! NED! LAMONT! - It's the WAR STUPID!" JEESE

As someone who has been considering volunteering for the campaign, I was really disappointed when I first saw this ad. It just seems particularly unmemorable. I don't care whether this ad is the first in a series. There's no point in spending a lot of money on an ad that no one will remember.

There's simply no excuse for not identifying herself as a Democrat, especially in King County, and especially especially during this election cycle.

That is, outside of the politico-sphere, anyway.  Talk to Joe Random anywhere in the WA-08, and they've never heard of her.

Job One right now is to change that.  She's doing it now, while ad time is cheap, to paint a positive message of herself before Reichert introduces her to the district with a negative message.

I'm not surprised at all by this ad.  It correlates 100% with her district polling, which says that in an "if the election were held today" question, when all people know about her is that basic biographical sketch information, she beats Reichert hands-down.

People in this district are really unhappy with Reichert and with the Republicans in general.  I don't know if that ad is the same one I would have made if I were in her shoes, but I can see why she did it.  She has good reasons for it, and I'm sure the issue ads will come later.

I agree with most above: this ad is vague and so slickly made it defeats itself. Political ads should be as simply made as possible, with only one definite point to make.

Here's an ad made by the campaign I'm working with (Bob Johnson in NY-23):

YouTube

It's not the slickest ad; it cost next-to-nothing to produce. But it's only message is to create one feeling (unease) and ask one question (what is John McHugh doing?). And then to introduce our candidate in a highly contrasting setting. It's only real purpose is to associate McHugh with a feeling of unease and inaction, and Bob with a feeling of relief and action. That's it. And the audio is quiet because quiet can often be the only thing that gets people to pay attention.

Where was John McHugh? It's accountability at its simplest. Simple messages about a small number of themes ... it's the only way to cut through, imo. And, for my money, doing simpler ads that look different from the usual political ad is an end in and of itself.

Since when is your PERSONAL reaction the final analysis? Do you know her district as intimately as her? Do you know what HER constituents react to as directly as did the people in ONE District with an entirely different social structure and economic reality reacted to?

Damn I'm tired of YOU trying to be the only one with any knowledge on MyDD. Jesus, your posts are overwhelmingly judgmental..

The reader would think, if they hadn't substantial political experience that makes yours look like a teacup in a hurricane, that politics truly is black and white instead of being a game of compromise and grays.

The name of the game is getting elected!

And each district is different and many times completely different.

Do I think this is as effective a commercial as it could have been? Hell no. But is it a failure by her standards...obviously not.

I lean more to the Bill Hillsman school of commercials.

But if she does not, she doesn't need a front-pager on MyDD telling her district and campaign what failures they are because he didn't like or because it didn't follow ONE poll in ONE district in an unlike kind area.

Is this an open seat or an attempt to overcome the incumbent?  

If the latter, then I think the crucial point is to get in on the national campaign -- Iraq, Bush, accountability in Washington for the last 6 years.  That's what's going to ovecome an incumbent's advantage.  And if she's not long on money (which Democratic challegers are not, by definition), she probably shouldn't be wasting it with ads that don't nationalize her race.

I've had direct inside experience with political advertising in five political campaigns, and my first reaction is:
Don't shoot your own soldiers!

My second reaction is that nothing's simple and there's almost never a single ad that wins it for anyone: you know, different strokes for different folks, that kind of thing.  

Third, I take it that a decision was made to build her positives some more before presenting the incumbent's negatives.  The old story is that voters won't listen to the negative ads unless they have some level of trust in the one making them, hence the rule that positive ads come first.  This old story may not be universally applicable, but there is some logic to it. (As an aside, this predicts that, since Bush has become explicitly not trusted, the usual round of swiftboating negative ads from the Republicans may be less effective this time around.)

Now, this much is also clear: positive ads alone can't win elections against an incumbent.  NOT GONNA DO IT!  So I have to hope the negative ads are on the way, once they are confident that her positives are strong enough.  

Having read further comments- i think of you confuse style with substance. Matt, kind of does that, by mixing one with the other. Even if some of you think that the ad should have been light as it is- light should not, and can not equal staid and boring if the goal as you say is to attracted name recognition. can you honestly say that you would remember this person if you werent already into politics? that's the real honest broker here: Memorability.

We don't know what other ads they have planned.  You can't comment on everything or the viewer can't focus on your message.  Take Nike for example.  Nike ads focus on 1 of 3 things; the brand, the product or the messenger.  See enough commercials and all 3 are tied together permantly in the consumer's mind.

Since this was her first ad, I viewed this as an introduction to Darcy and first impressions need to be comfortable and personal and I think she succeeded quite well in introducing herself through this ad.  The real test will be in the follow up ads.  If she does another ad very similar to this leaving out the 3 items Matt noted then yes, I would say the ads are a failure.  But if her next ad is about national security and Iraq and the one after that is about republican corruption and failed republican policy then she's doing great with these.

Okay, I just read the info about Steve McMahon, which is damned troubling . . . but I'm gonna give you my rxn to the ad as if I didn't know who made it.

First, I live in WA08, and I'm in what I bet is the target demographic:  female, parent, employed, in the shaky middle class.  

And my takeaway was:  "Hey, a woman.  Microsoft = smart.  Military family = good.  Not born to wealth = she gets it."  I turn away willing to hear more--not blown away, not cheering, but ready to give her a chance.  I'm a Democrat, of course, but I think that the purpose of this spot was to set that up: woman, smart, good, gets it.  Done.

All caps, fuzzy language, voice-overs . . . dunno. That's just insider stuff to the average viewer, though you're correct in saying that the rest of the ads will have to be a lot spicier.

The key to winning this race, imo, is to get Darcy in a debate with Dave.  She will kick his ass--in the 2004 campaign he actually left the stage when things got difficult.  

Also, he gave an interview in which he said that when the "leadership" (Delay) tells him what to do, he generally does it.  You can anticipate a sparkling ad with that bit prominently featured, I am sure.

I would just remind everybody that normal people are finishing their vacations and thinking about school clothes--the election is just barely on the radar.  

This is one ad in a series that will create an overall narrative for the race.

It's an intro ad. Contrast and attack ads have to be a part of the campaign, but you don't need to do everything in the first ad.

If anything good ad campaigns lay out key points, then, in the final ads, make them all tie together in a strong cohesive message.

It is not a horrible ad for an introductory one but it could have been stronger.  I agree the two big mistakes were not mentioning that she is a Democrat (in a Democratic year, wtf) or mentioning holding Bush accountable on Iraq or anything else.  She could have tied her husband being a military veteran very neatly into accountability in Iraq.

Having watched how the Repubs morphed Dems all over the country into Clinton in 1994, if the Dems don't do something similar with Bush considering he is much more unpopular than Clinton in 1994, they are nuts.  Bush is an albatros around the Repubs neck and we should use him to sink them.

I have experience in marketing and advertising. Granted it is more product-based or even issue-based than political-candidate-based.

Those caveats aside, I echo Matt's concerns that this ad is counter-productive. The one thing I know for sure about placing TV ads is that it is very expensive. For a primary candidate, no dollar should be wasted. It is cheaper to change the ad before it runs on TV than to run it and have to change when it makes no dent for her in the polls. By then, her opponent will have had a chance to run his ads and she may already be playing catch up.

This ads lacks basics as Matt and others have pointed out. Frankly, I come away from this ad thinking that my own mother would be as qualified to run for Congress if someone nice and mom-like is what's required.

We are facing unprecendented threats as a nation. What does she plan to do about that? Her ad is like being softly caressed with baby powdery cottony bullsh*t. We are getting enough platitudes from the Republicans in Congress, thanks.

I think part of the challenge here is that no one has put up an example of an effective ad of the type that hits the important points that people care about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ_S0dBHw 9c

There are more of Rales' ads here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Rale sForSenate

Is there an efficient way within MyDD (or some other site) to create easy to navigate web pages with links to the ads of key campaigns, accompanied by some history of the campaign (candidate, spending, consultants, issues, opponents, districts, polling, web sites, blog threads, etc.)?  This could be used to promote candidates, but the purpose I have in mind is to efficiently synthesize the lessons of campaigns around the country so they can benefit other campaigns...and create a highly efficient virtuous cycle of developing winning strategies.

This is off topic, but threads like this remind me of the limits of blogs and the need for more web-based tools and formats for harnessing the energy, info and insights of the netroots, which are all evident in this thread, which encompasses a wide range of views and backgrounds.  

One simple and labor intensive idea is to have someone review threads like this and distill the key points of information, agreement, disagreement, etc.  That could become part of the content on this particular campaign's "ad page."  And it would be tagged in a way that someone looking for generic ad-strategy insights could easily find it and quickly digest the key points raised in this "ad evaluation" thread.

I'd volunteer to do this, but don't have time right now.  But as someone who synthesizes information and insights from multiple sources into strategic intelligence and market projections for a living, I can't help but feel that a meaty blog like MyDD is a source that cries out for more tools for distilling, synthesizing and generalizing the collective netroots experience and wisdom.  And I'm pretty sure the same would apply to the broader blogosphere.

The ad is a failure. I've seen Darcy Burner speak twice and her story is powerful and her delivery is compelling, and serious. A much better ad would just point the camera.

One of the most charismatic photos is Darcy holding her child, tucked into her neck. Every mom knows that hold. I would like an ad that shows the photo with Darcy telling her story of getting into politics because of her son. Another ad could tell her story of friends and relatives in the servic and why it is personal with her. Show photos of Ft. Lewis and McChord AFB, the Va Hospital here.

Always the voice should be Darcy's. Talking about The Danger. The Accountability. Her voice is unique.

Yes, you're being too harsh.

Why?  Three reasons:

1) Because applying the message lessons learned in a special election in a Republican-leaning seat in California to a general election in the Seattle suburbs is comparing apples to oranges.  

In the absence of knowing what messages work in Burner's specific district, calling this ad a failure because of what polled well on the other end of the West Coast makes no sense.

Every district is different.  What might play well in California might not play the same in Seattle.  

The CA-50 stuff was great.  Everyone who was involved deserves a pat on the back.  

But you can't assume that what was or would have been effective in CA-50 will automatically be effective somewhere else.  

Making that assumption is dangerous, and encouraging candidates to follow the lessons of CA-50 and then bashing their ads as failures if they don't is irresponsible and naive.  

2) This is one of what will likely be many communications from the campaign on TV, in the mail, via phonebanks, via e-mail, via her web site, etc.  You can't cram every single message into one ad.  

This ad introduces the candidate as a person.  It's now August.  There will be lots of opportunities for her to talk about issues as the campaign progresses.

3) Given that this is one of a series of commercials, what this ad does is not only introduce herself and her priorities, but set up direct contrasts with her opponent that can be discussed in later communications.  

In essence, it's moving one piece on a chess board in order to set the stage for future moves.

Is it a great spot?  No.  But it does what it needs to do:  introduce her, and lay the groundwork for future communications and contrasts with her opponent.

Ad guy here.  Five years newspaper, several political campaigns etc.

It doesn't matter what medium you use, but what I learned is one-third to one-half of the space is the dominant theme.  Why should you use something you are not using right now?  Advertising is about new customers.  If you are going to swipe somebody elses customers, you better give them a damn good reason for doing so.

Try this:  Spring and summer sale.  Come see us.

Vote for me because I'm rilly sweet.  

Both are fragile budget breakers.

I have done some marketing work in the past. (I'm not in marketing now, just to be clear hehe)

There's a lot of good stuff in that ad. But there are some problems.

1. It's Dull! Total yawner.

2. As Matt pointed out, it ignores the big Dem issues of this cycle, ie Iraq, BushCo, extra-constitutional govt actions, etc.

3. Definitely needs more energetic music.

Think about your tv watching. You're sitting down to watch programming. Commercials come on and most people leave the room, change the channel, or sit staring at the screen zoned out. You need content and presentation that will seize someone's attention and get them to actually watch the spot, instead of doing something else.

Which commercials are more memorable to you? Those Geico commercials, or something else? She doesn't need talking geckos, or a heavy metal soundtrack, or lots of seizure-inducing strobe lights, but just about anything would liven that up.

Politicians are all the same. Don't believe it? Tell me what's different about her from watching this ad.

That's the problem with the ad. The candidate's name and message are introduced through a cloud of white noise, and we're expecting the public to later "sharpen its focus" on who she is?

She's driving her father's Oldsmobile to the barricades with this snoozer.

I've read all the comments and many say "this is to introduce her," or "this is to tell people who she is."  Well, I don't know her and the ad told me very little--and I only watched it because the thread interested me.  If it had been on my tv, it would have made no impression at all.

It looks like an ad for someone running for school board or county commissioner.  In fact, I volunteered for the campaign of a woman running for county commissioner in '04 and her ads were better (and she won).

And the comments about this district being "different," etc. don't convince me.  Everybody, even if they don't seem to be paying much attention, wants real leadership.  Real strength.  Real convictions.  Hope the next ad does a whole lot better.

Go see Darcy Burner's 9 minute speech to the DNC summer meeting on YouTube. Link is on DNC blog, the review of the meeting. Dean's speech (great!) is there, too.

You don't have to be in the ad biz for more than three decades, like I've been, to see that this ad is crap. The theme's weak, the message is muddled. This very forgetable commercial doesn't excite, inspire or project a real difference--what ad people call a KBB (key brand benefit). Anyone who believes the country is headed in the wrong direction would come away either disappointed or, best case, unimpressed. Key problem? There's no edge to this gauzy, soft-focus "bio." No reason to believe the candidate would be anything more than a same-old same-old.

Burner is dishing up pablum. Voters demand steak.

My email to the campaign:
============== ===
Hi Darcy et alia;

I have been a contributor to the campaign.

I was concerned about the company used for your campaign ad. It generated a lot of negative buzz in the netroots.

I am no media critic but the word of the `heavy hitters' in the blogosphere carry some weight with me. And they were critical of the message and the media company.

I listened to the podcast on Doublespeak and it seemed a lot sharper than the ad.

It is my hope that your ads will be somewhat less mushy and maybe consider a different media agency in the future.
============== ==

The response:
============== ===
As I told Matt Stoller, I would ask everyone to have patience.  This ad is just one piece of a much broader communications strategy.  We have been very aggressive in our communications strategy -- and you can find many examples of Darcy going right at Reichert and the Bush Administration on his failed leadership.  We intend to have a heavy emphasis on accountability in our subsequent advertising.

Zach Silk
Campaign Manager
============== ====

I would think that Matt Stroller who has a good amount of political knowledge and understanding, would realize that name recgonition must be first and foremost for a new canididate.  Thats exactly what this TV add did- it gave her name recgonition connected to a good personality/character. If it was just about the Iraq war and generally topic heavy rather than personality focused, Darcy would have been lost in the issues.  People have to identify with a candidate not just issues if they are going to vote for them.

The ad is actually spot-on.  Burner is aspirational - that's a huge part of her appeal.  Check out Twenty-First Century Democrats at www.21stdems.org - they've endorsed Burner exactly for that reason!

It's time for big ideas - it's time to get out of the Dem vs. Rep rut we're in.  We need leaders just like Burner to move us forward in huge leaps, and we need to get back to our progressive roots.

It's about big-time leadership, not bashing the other guy.  Darcy's got the bold ideas and the experience to spark a movement.

This is a great first ad that will help with name awareness!