The Goodly, Silverstein and Partners ad agency from San Francisco has launched and campaign "The Future Children Project" to re-elect President Barack Obama. The public relations positioning claims: Re-electing President Obama is a momentous decision that will require every single voter. What would the children of the future say if we let them down this November?
Considering the aforementioned objective, one wonders why Goodly, Silverstein & Partners would release a starkly filmed, épater la bourgeoisie ad out of the mouths of babes at this time.
The lyrics of this somber song sung by kids are both trite and trying:
We don’t have to pay for freeways!Imagine an America Where strip mines are fun and free Where gays can be fixed And sick people just die And oil fills the sea.
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff.
We're the children of the future.
American through and through.But something happened to our country.And we're kinda blaming you.
We haven’t killed all the polar bears But it’s not for lack of trying Big Bird is sacked The Earth is cracked And the atmosphere is frying
Congress went home early They did their best we know You can’t cut spending With elections pending Unless it’s welfare dough.
We’re the children of the future American through and through But something happened to our country And we’re kinda blaming you.
Find a park that is still open And take a breath of poison air They foreclosed your place To build a weapon in space But you can write off your au pair.
It’s a little awkward to tell you But you left us holding the bag When we look around The place is all dumbed down And the long term’s kind of a drag.
We’re the children of the future American through and through But something happened to our country And yeah, we’re blaming you.
You did your best You failed the test.
Mom and Dad We’re blaming you!
Some have liked "The Future Children Project" to be the Obama equivalent of President Lyndon Johnson's Daisy ad.
There are three problems with that interpretation. Firstly, the Daisy ad had shock value in 1964 and President Johnson asked for it be withdrawn. So much so, it only ran once. The Children of the Future seems internet oriented so it reflects the Obama weltanschaaung and can spread virally.
Secondly, Johnson's Daisy ad plays off the innocence of a child while juxtaposing it to the horrible possibility of thermonuclear war. The "Children of the Future" inserts invectives about things which have already occurred from clueless kids. It is disgusting to exploit children by putting pernicious phrases in their mouths. But Lena Dunham's recent "First Time" ad for Obama was more shocking and revolting.
Thirdly, the Daisy ad ran on September 7th, 1964, which was then the kick off time for campaigning. The Children of the Future is entering the political fray in the last ten days of a campaign, when candidates typically are making their closing arguments. Clearly, it is an attack ad against GOP Presidential nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Republicans without highlighting any Obama virtues.
Some casual political observers are put off by negative advertising, even though such comparative appeals can be effective in shaping public opinion. But this is the re-election of an incumbent, which is a referendum. In the end, people want to vote for someone. If an incumbent has not made the sale in nearly four years, trying to scare undecided voters with airy-fairy agi-prop does not seem very effective.
Goodly, Silverstein and Partners is an award winning agency that conceived both the "Got Milk" campaign as well as the Budweiser frogs, so they have strong commercial credits. Why would they embark on this negative campaign now? Perhaps they are true believers who are making a last ditch, last minute effort. Information that is not readily available are the costs associated with the "Future Children Project".
Recently, I heard Democrat pollster Pat Caddell being interviewed by Jay Severin on Blaze Radio railing against Washington insiders who offer ill advice to campaigns and then pocket the profits. Caddell was indicting Republican strategists, but this might be a similar situation for liberals. The Obama campaign has been obsessed with ad hominem attacks against Romney and negative campaigning rather than running on his own record. By feeding the beast with "The Children of the Future", the client is pleased, the agency attracts attention for an edgy ad and the agency pockets the profits.
During the summer, Obama 2012 spent $100 million in negative ads against Mitt Romney. All of those efforts were obviated by Romney's stellar first debate performance. Between the 3.2 million glossy color magazines pitching Obama's alleged second term agenda, the "First Time" ad and the "Children of the Future" ad, others are profiting from the campaign stupidity Obama 2012 other than GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
h/t: Daily Caller
h/t: Newsbusters
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment