How does this political ad compare to that Nike ad?
The recent Nike ad featuring Paralympian basketball player Matt Scott generated lots of discussion here recently. Here's a political ad (link leads to YouTube video which is also described and embedded below) for an Oregonian candidate for Senate that has some things in common with the Nike ad: Both ads feature disabled men, both ads use disability and stereotypes of it to sell their message, both feature camera angles that highlight physical difference. Both use humor. Both feature the disability as a visual surprise at each ad's conclusion.
What do you think? Apart from what I would expect is a general preference for basketball over politics, do you like one ad more than the other? And why?
Here's an article in The Oregonian about Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick, his campaign and how it demonstrates progress for the electability of disabled political candidates.
Description of the video from the article:
The Novick ad is a takeoff on the old TV game show "To Tell the Truth" in which three people all claim to be the same person, and it's up to a panel of celebrities to figure out who's the real one. In the ad, three tallish, handsome, buttoned-down actors claim to be Novick, then the camera pans to Novick himself -- or the tip of his head.
"I don't look like the typical politician, but I won't act like one, either," Novick says in the ad. "I will fight for the little guy."
13 comments:
I think it's OK. Yeah it uses stereotypes and it's not exactly the least offensive, but I think it's good to see more of these ads out there.
The Nike ad didn't have the "'difference' is my goal, not my problem" message that the Novick ad does. And the top-of-the-head shot is a visual version of the "thinking outside the box" cliche so popular in political pitches--his head is literally outside the frame of the camera's expectations.
I must confess I am a bigot. I have never met a politician I like or respect. These men and women are too self centered and will do anything to get or retain their elected position. Novick is no different. The ad in question is not bad or good. It is a ploy to get votes and Novick like all his peers will do anything to sway voters. Gosh, this is such a jaundiced view I almost regret writing it. I will still post this because I think it is unusual for a disabled person to run for office. I for one look forward to a day when physical differences are no longer relevant.
Um...didn't I see this in a movie? Or a cartoon? Seems really, really familiar.
If it isn't a rip-off of someone else's idea (a practice I hate), I have to say I like it, or rather that I don't object to it. Besides what Penny said, there's nothing here relating his size to his ability. It could be the oft-employed practice of mentioning the elephant in the room and spinning its presence before the other guys start ridiculing it. It is also, as William notes, just pure political salesmanship. As with any product you might propose to put out in any market, how do you get people to remember your brand? Memorable packaging, and a catchy slogan.
IMO, this is a more effective ad for the product Steve Novick than the Nike ad is for the product of shoes and sportswear. My feelings on that are still too conflicted for me to sort into coherent speech, but that ad is more for the brand Nike than for a specific product, and yet it attempts to coopt or perhaps to lease and package as its own the fine attributes perceivable in Matt Scott rather than put forth the quality of its products or its company practices in support of its brand (and hmm, I wonder why -- snark, snark). Here, Novick first describes himself and what he stands for, and then uses his unique physical attributes to make a memorable impression. So not only does it make more sense, but I can't help but find it less offensive.
Penny: True, and in fairness, that would probably be a basic difference between most every political ad versus most every sportswear ad. Nice point about the camera angle: Though it's similar in both ads, it means something different in each.
Sara: I'm with you -- I don't object to the political ad in any way. The politician's website url is votehook.com in reference to his prosthetic arm, and I wonder if I wouldn't feel his appeal to his physical difference signifying change wouldn't bug me if I were in his district seeing all the publicity he has to offer. If the reference is everywhere in his speeches, ads and literature, as his opponent sort of indicates in the article, that would be too much for me.
Novick can't afford to not sell himself directly, and I believe Nike has the selling power to be less direct. Well, and Novick IS the product where Scott is a spokesperson or role model for the product.
As a non-American who has no experience of this sort of television advertising (we have party-politcal broadcasts, nothing candidate-specific), I have to say I really liked it. I thought Sara's "elephant in the room" comment was spot-on; I imagine for many people, if he hadn't mentioned it, it would have been a distraction.
Like the Goldfish, I'm not used to these types of ads but I've got to say that I had to read all of your comments and then rewatch the ad because I couldn't work out what his disability was.
I like the ad.
votehook? REALLY?
i don't know how i feel about the ad, to be honest.
but the votehook websites and the hooked on novick tshirts... is that promoting disability pride or visibility or exploiting it as a freak show item to pull attention?
or do i just not have a sense of humor? i dunno...
I think it's friendly, memorable, and makes his difference into something good. This as opposed to how I remember the Greg Abbott ads in Texas, when he first ran for AG, as being the typical pity and overcoming fest.
For me, the two ads parallel the difference between me or one of my friends making a blind joke and a complete stranger making a blind joke upon first meeting me.
There are things that I can say, that my friends can say, that are not at all offensive because they are merely an "inside joke" usually with a bit of mocking the expectations or beliefs of the general public about blindness, or laughter at my quirks at the same level we tease and laugh about their quirks with the backgrond of actually appreciating the whole person. There is no shame or exploitation in the laughter, just acceptance.
While the Nike ad did actually demonstrate more than one aspect of Matt Scott, all the power of the ad was behind the shock value and the shame values.
In this political ad, we have a recognition of difference, but it's placed in the context of the claims of the earlier "Novak's" and the variety and positive contributions this politician is claiming to support. (I don't know anything about the guy, so I'm not at all qualified to offer opinions on his actual candidacy.)
He's not using pity or shame or high drama to "sell" his "product." The tone of the ad is much lighter than that of the Nike ad.
I do have a new question about the Nike ad, though. Would it have been better if it had been an ad for Wheaties? And why or why not? How does the context of the athlete on the Wheaties box change the message? Or the idea of selling "healthy cereal" rather than shoes?
--Shelob
http://caution-blind-driver.blogspot.com
Shelob: I'm not sure your question has much meaning to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. I don't feel like the product itself has anything to do with my feelings about the ad -- though I do have my opinions about Nike, they're separate from my look at this specific ad of theirs. Nor does my opinion of the ad have much to do with Matt Scott. I don't think the ad reveals enough about Scott for me to really have an opinion of him other than that he's handsome, agile, and apparently skilled enough for Nike to use him. I reject the emotional response the ad tries to make me have about him since I find it based on stereotype. I really wish the ad revealed more about him.
I don't think you've misunderstood the question -- it's just more of something that's in my head than something tangible.
Your response helped me figure it out. When a new olympian makes the front of the Wheaties box, that product is part of a much larger media barrage, with interviews, stories, biographies, etc. So I think the whole media blitz, including getting to know at least a bit more about the athlete is all tied together in my mind. But you are correct, the Wheaties commercials and the box itself aren't really any different from the Nike ad. And it's not the product, but the media blitz and the chance to know more about the person that makes the difference.
This is a bit late, but to saraarts: You're likely remembering the opening to the movie "Catch Me If You Can".
Post a Comment