25 posts tagged “campaign”
Carrying on from a post that Jaklumen made on his blog, I went to look for the Lucy Lawless-headed Greenpeace campaign to reduce emissions. This is Lucy Lawless as Lucy Lawless, and her accent has changed a great deal since I saw her in the Shark in the Park episode ‘Double or Quits’. It has Americanized slightly, which is no surprise since she is married to an American and has a home in LA.
A few nights ago, Jon Stewart cheekily edited various George W. Bush speeches, following them with words from the President’s inauguration speech. The implication: the two men are saying the same thing. Or that President Obama is a political kleptomaniac. Remember that the cornerstone of his campaign was also borrowed, from children’s show Bob the Builder:
The weeks after the US presidential election have been interesting.
First, certain Republicans wanted to make Gov. Sarah Palin the fall girl of their campaign. They failed. Bill O’Reilly tore in to her pretty quickly but faced a backlash from Republicans who saw the Governor as a heroine of their cause. Sen. John McCain took an entire week to respond, by which time it was “safe” for him to have done so, when the political meter had swung to Gov. Palin’s favour. We have Joe the Plumber now coming out and saying that he wasn’t that impressed with the Senator, but he was impressed by his running-mate.
Then, we have a shrewd President-elect who has sought to distance himself from the radical elements, the corruption in the Illinois governor’s office, kept in touch with American people via YouTube, and attempted to go forth with a transparent transition process.
I am not going to get into politics deeply here. My point is that the behaviour of the two candidates speaks volumes toward the way they brand themselves, their notions of leadership and their motives.
I do not feel then-Sen. Obama’s campaign was the most transparent. There were questions to be answered, as I have stated on this blog. Vagueness is not a way to earn votes—but history has always shown that a campaign on change after years of one president in office works: Clinton 1992, Blair 1997 and Clark 1999 are good examples.
I did feel Sen. McCain attempted to be more candid. I was unimpressed, however, by points he flip-flopped on—when first faced with the mortgage crisis, his first words were in fact about letting laissez-faire economics have their way. Within weeks he spoke of nationalizing mortgages.
So much for the maverick who took a position.
Now elected, President-elect Obama has done right by his YouTube addresses, understanding that he needs to set a vision as well as a strategy and getting people on the ground early. This is not a cynical exercise in PR. Any leader knows that the most effective way to get an organization moving—and in this case a country—is to get stake-holders in on the act early, rather than impose a strategy on to them. I have said the same in any branding job for our clients.
Sen. McCain’s failure to defend his running-mate rates down there alongside Al Gore’s failure to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman, as tradition might have suggested he should have done, going for Gov. Howard Dean instead. Gov. Palin was fine at defending herself ultimately, but not before more damage was done to the Republican Party.
Whether one agrees with his Cabinet choices, Barack Obama’s moves in his transition have been pretty good, and among the most open I have witnessed since I began watching American presidential campaigns. He is using the playbook of modern communications to ensure that the office of the President will continue to deserve respect. While in some respects he has gone against the ‘Change’ cry of his campaign by rewarding Clinton-era loyalists for the Cabinet positions announced so far, it’s another shrewd move to ensure stability from his party. With enough in place, let’s hope that he can get on with the real serious issues.
Am I going to give Barack Obama five out of five? No. I still hold some concerns over his ideas. But those who questioned his experience—as those who questioned Gov. Palin’s—might be revising their thoughts today. For the most part, these transitional weeks have been well played by Illinois’ rising star.
[Cross-posted from Lucire] We’ve put up some extra images from behind the scenes of the Lancôme Magnifique TV commercial, starring Anne Hathaway and directed by Peter Lindbergh, this week. A video showing the making of the commercial was shown on the Lucire TV site last month.
I am being fair and balanced here by airing one video that attempts to paint Republican supporters in a poor light after the previous video that did the same to Democrats. This was from al-Jazeera English and the network itself critiqued it on Listening Post after there were complaints and accusations of bias. Please note that the n word is used.
I was totally stoked when Dan Gordon took a comment I made and turned it into a fictional election billboard on his blog. (Dan, please let me know if you prefer just the link and not the image.)
Maybe I should note ‘Authorized by Tom Dowie, 18 Walton Street, Christchurch’ even though it’s not an ad from the party, just to be on the safe side. (US readers: this is our equivalent of ‘I am … and I approve this message.’)
[Cross-posted] I was reading Karl Rove’s commentary on Sarah Palin today and he hit upon a few things I agree with (you read that correctly).
McCain–Palin must deepen those doubts by pounding away on questions about Obama’s character, judgment and values. Drawing on Obama’s own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he’s never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues. But the duo must also give voters reasons to support them. They must crystallize a positive, forward-looking vision so people who see Obama as unqualified have something to hang on to. It can’t be a laundry list of positions. McCain–Palin must offer a narrative about what they will do to help America see better days, especially on kitchen-table concerns.
This is a lesson that comes up in branding, a lot.
One of the necessary things we branding consultants always talk about
is story-telling. There have to be legends in the company, things that
become company folklore. The Murdoch Press has plenty of stories to
tell, for example, about how one of its newspapers ran a piece about
Elvis, coincidentally on the story of the King’s death. I still talk
about the way the Lucire
name came up, which probably paints to the way serendipity works inside
an organization. TV3 probably has one on John Campbell’s tie.
Stories unite people, and Rove’s belief that the McCain campaign must give a ‘forward-looking vision’ and a ‘narrative’ come straight out of a branding book. Maybe one of mine.
Vision
is important, and there have been other posts on that. But an easily
grasped narrative goes beyond slogans. While the stories I refer to
above come from the past, in an election
campaign, candidates need to paint one about the future. We know the
McCain legend of being a POW; we know Palin paints herself as a hockey
mom. These form the background, but people need to buy into the sequel.
Especially when one campaign is less well off than another. The Republicans are being outspent by the Democrats,
so a consistent, continuous story about how the McCain–Palin principles
will, in short soundbites, rescue America can have a great effect
against their opponents.
Big spending allows for promotions around the cult of personality; small spending needs cleverer ideas and stories are one of the better techniques open to supporting a brand.
Just after I commented on another blog that Republicans were generally more civilized when arguing for their candidate, I hear that some have chanted death threats against Sen. Obama. Way to go. (I am being sarcastic.)
And now, there’s news from The Times—from the same owner as Fox News—that indicates a philosophical split inside the campaign.
Paikea, who is a Vox friend of mine here and who is a Democratic supporter, blogged a reference to an article that painted Gov. Palin as narcissistic. And that, I have to concur, summarizes some of the more disturbing elements about her that I could not identify.
It appears, according to The Times, that John McCain is merely an inconvenience in the presidential run of Sarah Palin.
Rallies now have gone from something resembling a tiny senatorial
race for Sen. McCain to mass crowds after Gov. Palin’s arrival. And she
knows that that’s her contribution, using it to her advantage. She knows that there were many holding back from supporting Sen. McCain because of his RINO image.
Even when there are divisions among the Democrats, as there is today between Sens. Obama and the Clinton family, they aren’t stupid enough to air their dirty laundry in front of the world.
I have expressed my doubts about Sen. Joe Biden, believing that he is a typical Beltway type who is not going to listen to a black senator. Sen. Obama might be labelled a visionary by his allies—so does that mean that Sen. Biden is going to be the details man, in which case it’s going to be more of the same politicking? His record indicates yes, and I think there’s going to be a power-play if the Democrats get in.
But the Democrats successfully hid their rifts in 2004, with their whole party behind Sen. John Kerry, never mind what was there behind the scenes.
I know the Governor’s words excite a group of Republicans, but for all the criticisms of militant Democrats, the parties are looking more and more similar in the behaviours these candidates are eliciting among their audiences.
I am not sure if this could be called inspirational.
While there is nothing technically wrong with a vice-presidential nominee overshadowing a presidential one, the presidency, if the Republicans took the White House, is John McCain’s, not Sarah Palin’s—and as a former navy captain I am sure he would not desire insubordination.
In the Republicans’ defence, one could argue that Gov. Palin had to get tough in opposing the Democrats for the easy ride Sen. Obama has been getting in the media.
While another Democratic friend of mine says the ACORN furore is a horrid smear campaign, I cannot imagine a Republican candidate getting off fairly scot free on issues like that of the Tony Retzko connection or Sen. Obama’s nationality whilst in Indonesia. (The media were, as I have once said, quick to endorse the Killian memoranda against President George W. Bush, even if it was remarkably easy for a professional like me to pinpoint the cut of the Times typeface and what laser printer they came off.)
I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is not American, that his middle name is Mohammed, or that possible dual nationality prevents his run under Art. II, s. 1 of the US Constitution. However, the secrecy surrounding a possible Indonesian nationality (still not answered, from what I can tell) and his 1961 birth certificate (versus a certification) should concern the fourth estate as well as US voters.
Since Sen. McCain was unwilling to conduct a dishonourable campaign, or so he claims (does he truly ‘approve this message’?), he might be unwilling to throw accusations that are not fully checked. Gov. Palin may well have taken the initiative with attacks, using less evidence than the Senator would find comfortable.
And since the Republicans themselves have had their share of attacks without much of a defence in the media, the Governor may well think she needs to get headlines if she’s going to get the GOP POV in the news.
Conclusion: both sides are split, one more openly than the other.
As a foreign observer, the campaign has arrived at a new low, not because of any one side, but because no matter who Americans vote I am not certain there will be much real change. (I feel the same, incidentally, about Labour–National in New Zealand, hence my third-party run.)
Attitudes on both sides do not set a presidential example for Americans internally, or inspire confidence in allies and observers externally.
It’s hardly up to McCain and Obama. I think their number twos are calling the shots in a very unwarranted way—one after the election if the Democrats get in; the other before the election, acting as though it were her campaign and John McCain is her vice-presidential running-mate. Neither is ideal, and both are worrisome.
This is no surprise given the promotions that Sen. Obama has been getting in the media: ‘Obama elicits more excitement than McCain’, according to USA Today.
I want to be the voice of reason but 21 years in communications tell me that this is important. If your brand, personal or organizational, elicits excitement among its constituents, then you have a greater chance of mobilizing those people when you need them.
Even when it comes to politics, to get messages across to voters, one has to resort to the tried and trusted techniques of branding and marketing.
There are few in the present generations who will, as many bloggers do, investigate someone’s voting record or dig deeply into their histories. It would be nice to say that presidents are not elected based on how much excitement they can generate. Or that we should place greater emphasis on other qualities like honour and sincerity.
While some might point to exceptions, such as the Tory victory in the UK of 1992, I beg to differ. That campaign was hard fought by the Conservatives and depended on party unity—which was sorely lacking in 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. The National victory in New Zealand of 1990 was a result of the cry for change and the belief that Labour was leaderless.
And the cry for change is such a powerful message in politics, because politicians understand our nature: even the vaguest change is better than the strongest, best defined policies if a party has been in power for too long.
Labour in the UK in 1997, National in New Zealand in 1990, Labour in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton in 1992—all these are examples of that message. And that, too, “excites”.
Sen. McCain should not pursue an excitement route himself, but he should capitalize on mistakes that the Obama campaign is making with greater regularity. The New Yorker gaffe—where Sen. Obama felt the need to comment rather than appear presidential and above satire—was an opportunity missed. Meanwhile, I wonder if people appreciate the maverick, go-it-alone style of John McCain, which plays well in the Senate, but could be symptomatic of future Cabinet divisiveness under his administration.
A winner is by no means clear, and a week remains a long time in politics. Months, as Sen. Clinton will attest as she went from dead cert to second-best, are an eternity.
I thought this was awesome news in that the photographer, Giuliano Bekor, shot regularly for Lucire. From the Lucire ‘Insider’ section.

Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include numerous Lucire shoots, photographed Hayden Panettiere for her 2008 Candie’s print campaign.
Hayden Panettiere will star in Candie’s back to school 2008 television, print and online advertising campaign, according to the company. Hayden, who is known as an award-winning actress, activist and star of NBC’s hit television series Heroes can now add recording artist to her résumé.
Following last year’s marketing campaign with Grammy-award winning artist Fergie, the new fall TV commercial will be a direct lift from Panettiere’s first music video, ‘Wake Up Call’, which was styled using Candie’s apparel, footwear and accessories.
This is Panettiere’s second season with the brand.
To coincide with TV, a print campaign will feature Panettiere in a variety of sexy and sweet vignettes as she playfully poses with a piano, behind a beaded curtain and in a club-like setting among others. The ‘Wake Up Call’ video and the Candie’s commercial were shot in Los Angeles by famed music video director Chris Applebaum and the print campaign was shot by fashion photographer Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include Lucire, and created by the Iconix in-house marketing team.
Fans can listen to ‘Wake Up Call’ exclusively at www.candies.com and www.kohls.com/inspire (streaming only) beginning today. The single will be available for download on iTunes beginning August 5. The single is being released by Hollywood Records.
