Super Bowl Commercials are a window into political campaigns.
The hardest things to notice are right before our eyes. We take things for granted when they are openly obvious. Having failed to discover them, we also fail to notice their importance.
 |
| Click: 60 Seconds. |
Watching Super Bowl ads I noticed something. The ads don't force the audience to "figure out" who the characters are. The adults at a soccer game look like, dress like, acts like a "soccer mom" and "soccer dad." We saw a half second of soccer field, then the actors, and we "got it."
We think we know who they are.
We see a teen age boy. One quick glance at this boy and room and we think we know the situation. White, middle class to prosperous, suburban, own room, nice laptop, presumably well behaved, non-criminal, semi-tidy. We take all that in, instantly, without particularly noticing it.
 |
| We cannot help but "profile." |
We "get it" with these characters, having seen them for an instant.. We fill in the backstory. Things make sense.
Candidates for political office are misled by their own direct experience. They are in a cocoon of mental inner space, of family and friends, and people who care about politics and issues. That direct candidate experience is real--but it is very different from the experience of the people whose votes they need. That difference can lead them to shape a campaign based on the wrong things.
They think the details matter, when in fact the appearance and tone matter. They are busy shaping a white paper of policy choices when they should be thinking about how the Super Bowl advertisers do it. Shape an persona and back story that can be understood at a glance. And if you don't do it, your opponent will do it for you.
They think the details matter, when in fact the appearance and tone matter. They are busy shaping a white paper of policy choices when they should be thinking about how the Super Bowl advertisers do it. Shape an persona and back story that can be understood at a glance. And if you don't do it, your opponent will do it for you.
Most voters have little ability or willingness to learn much. Voters will create mental archetypes of the various candidates. Smart woman doctor. Young man on the go. Ashland liberal. Corporate country club guy.
They will use mental shortcuts. "Is he or she a Democrat or a Republican" is a dispositive mental shortcut for the general election.
In a contested primary people will look, get a first impression, and jump to conclusions. It seems so unfair. George Washington served good whisky to win votes.
They will use mental shortcuts. "Is he or she a Democrat or a Republican" is a dispositive mental shortcut for the general election.
In a contested primary people will look, get a first impression, and jump to conclusions. It seems so unfair. George Washington served good whisky to win votes.
Glance again at the photo of the three soccer parents. We assume-guess-profile that they are middle class. They could have arrived in a Bentley, but we assume not. Somehow, we know they aren't Bentley drivers and we fill in that they arrived in a family sedan or SUV. If we were going to learn they were coal miners in West Virginia something would have been different in the costuming. We don't know their occupations, but whatever it is, they aren't coal miners. We work off of clues and make assumptions.
I have been writing about contested Democratic primary elections--a state senate district in mostly urban southern Oregon, and a congressional district in a large rural part of Oregon. In primaries voters do not have the shorthand of voting based on party. They will have to pick someone based on first and second impressions and quick assumptions about what kind of person the candidate "must be." They will profile.
Politically involved people will know a little something and their family and friends will ask, "What do you know about _____?" They will give a five or ten word answer, maybe.
The profile will be about who you are and whose side you are on.
The profile will be about who you are and whose side you are on.
2 comments:
Football is the modern equivalent to the Roman Coliseum, where symbolic fights to the death have replaced real ones. I guess that's progress, though the players may not agree. One easily imagines a dystopian scenario where city/state Philadelphia invades city/state Boston, looting and pillaging, stealing the women and livestock. The halftime entertainer wore a suit made of military camouflage. We watch and snack.
That aside, I do marvel at how so many are easily fooled by appearances. One always should look for underlying motives in a candidate's presentation, with all senses engaged, including a sixth, the BS detector.
It seems this is true for so many things that affect our lives every day. Perceptions are our reality. Think of the financial markets or even the housing market. My financial portfolio is really only “worth” its perceived value by others. The market cap of stocks I hold is mostly unrelated to the actual balance sheet of those firms. And those perceptions are now creating a “correction”. My house is still made of the same 2X4s and Sheetrock that I bought 21 years ago but it’s now “worth” nearly 4 times what I paid for it. I get unsolicited calls from realtors asking if it’s for sale.
The big question I find myself asking is: how long can a democracy survive when it is run by politicians who prevail by selling image over substance; and if you are correct Peter, are voted in by constituents who are disinterested or incapable of making informed, objective and thoughtful choices about the necessary details of effective governance. Ah clickbaitocracy ?
Posted for: John David Coster, who was having technical problems posting.
Post a Comment