POLITICIANS ARE STUPID. THEY SPOUT SELFISH, STUPID SLOGANS. THE 2016 U.S. POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IS IDIOCY AS USUAL. SO WHAT IS THE SECRET TO A GREAT SLOGAN?

Well, today, we have one year to go until someone gets sworn in as the next POTUS (for more on Obama, check out 365 DAYS TILL OBAMA'S REMOVAL. WHAT HAS OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY MEANT? WHO HAS OBAMA BEEN?)

There has been a scramble by many vying to be nominated as the candidate for the Republican Party while only a few showed up to ask for the Democratic Party nomination.

Always, candidates come forth with their rallying slogan, the words, which they say define them. Let's have a look at each slogan including those who have since dropped out.

First, let's look at the self-centered candidates. These are the it's-all-about-me candidates. These kinds of slogans are horrible.



There is a cardinal rule in advertising. The advertiser must answer WIIFM — what is in it for me. No one buys because a seller brags about himself.

• Hillary for America. ~ Hillary Clinton
• Jeb Can Fix It. ~ Jeb Bush
• Telling It Like It Is. ~ Chris Christie
• Kasich for Us. ~ John Kasich

Hillary Clinton's is inoffensive drivel. Who cares if Hillary is for America? All Americans are for America.

The Chris Christie slogan implies Chris as in Chris Christie is telling it like it is. Who cares what Chris is doing? Chris fails to answer how telling it like it is helps us.

Jeb Bush came out with two slogans. His first one, Jeb! has been mocked as ¡Jeb!. The mockery implied Jeb is for illegal aliens who sneak into the USA "because they love" us as he claimed. 

Jeb's first slogan is so self-absorbed that it it should be clear to all that Jeb lives in a me-bubble. Jeb's other slogan is mere bravado. Jeb fails to ask us what we want fixed.

John Kasich errs much in the same way as Hillary Clinton. However, Kasich presumes that he constitutes the us along with anyone else. 

Here are the self-centered slogans from the dropout candidates:

• Leadership You Can Trust. ~ Jim Webb
• Gilmore for America. ~ Jim Gilmore
• Ready to Be Commander-In-Chief on Day One. ~ Lindsey Graham

Next, there are candidates that preach a message of meaningless abstraction.

• From Hope to Higher Ground. ~ Mike Huckabee
• Reigniting the Promise for America. ~ Ted Cruz
• A New American Century. ~ Marco Rubio
• Heal. Inspire. Revive. ~ Dr. Ben Carson
• Restore the American Dream for Hardworking Families. ~ Rick Santorum

Looking at the publicly-expressed stupidity of these slogans, all should ask themselves these: What is higher ground? What was promised? Isn't a century 100 years? Heal from what? Revive from what? What does the American dream mean? What if someone isn't hardworking?

Here are the meaningless abstraction slogans from the dropout candidates:

• Fresh Ideas for America. ~ Lincoln Chafee
• Rebuild the American Dream. ~ Martin O’Malley
• Believe Again. ~ Bobby Jindal
• Reform. Growth. Safety. ~ Scott Walker

And then there is Carly Fiorina who preaches a hybrid message of meaningless abstraction and her being self-centered. 

• Carly for America. Conservative. Outside. Leader. ~ Carly Fiorina

Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul try to tap into the odiousness of politics. However, such slogans fail to inspire anyone to do the exact act needed — vote. Paul's is especially clumsy because he throws in meaningless abstraction of the American dream.  Worse, Sanders sounds like he wants to to overthrow the USA.

• A Political Revolution Is Coming. ~ Bernie Sanders
• Defeat the Washington Machine. Unleash the American Dream. ~ Rand Paul

Dropout George Pataki also tried the lame attempt at tapping into the ugliness of politics, which few like.

• People Over Politics. ~ George Pataki

One of the strangest and stupidest of all slogans is the one from the earliest dropout Rick Perry. Rick's made it sounds as if you were trouble if you would have voted for him.

• We Must Do Right and Risk the Consequences. ~ Rick Perry

And here is the winning slogan from a slew of stinky ones: 

Make America Great Again. ~ Donald Trump

There is so much wrapped up in Trump's slogan. Trump's slogan lets anyone see what she or he wants to see. Trump can make the USA great. By voting, the voter can make America great. 

Trump taps into the underdog myth that is prevalent in American lore. Being an underdog who prevails is a recurring story of Americans. Such American lore has its roots in the War for Independence, World War 2 and sports.

One way for you to understand slogans is to play a fill-in-the-blank game. The two tools you can use are these:

• If you vote for me, I will ... 
• When you vote for me, we will ...

Why does Trump's slogan trump the others? Play a fill-in-the-blank game. Let's compare Hillary to Trump.

First Hillary:

• If you vote for me, I will [be] Hillary for America.
• When you vote for me, we will [be] Hillary for America.

Next Sanders:

• If you vote for me, I will [be the cause of] a Political Revolution [that] Is Coming. 
• When you vote for me, we will [be the cause of] a Political Revolution [that] Is Coming. 

And now Trump:

• If you vote for me, I will Make America Great Again.
• When you vote for me, we will Make America Great Again.

Of all the slogans, only Trump's implies problem solved, better times ahead.

What politicians are trying to do is change attitudes of would-be voters. Attitude is how anyone leans toward another. Attitude arises from beliefs about the likelihood of winning a wanted payoff by doing something.

Rhetoric is about saying what others need to hear. Good rhetoric will take a performance act and make it seem like merely a descriptive act.

A fight has combatants who are trying to win, to beat each other. An argument is a try to win over others to do what you want, to get them to yield to you, to commit to you, to get your way.

There are three ways to argue:

1. Logos — arguing by arranging facts that imply logic.
2. Ethos — arguing by one's character, one's reputation matching decorum of the group, that is, matching the expectation of others in tone, manners and looks, trying to fit in.
3. Pathos — arguing by what others are feeling by leveraging sympathy" showing the same feeling as others, emoting as they emote.

Time is such an important element in the way one talks. There are three ways to talk:

1. Blame — it's past-tense forensics that tries to hold someone accountable.
2. Morals — it's now-tense that either bonds or cleaves persons in debating the merits of the existence of anything
3. Choice — it's future-tense speak that gives choices and future payoffs.

Only the language of choice, language of the future can motivate anyone to act. What decides between a yes and a no is the interests of someone either as he sees them already or as you play up his interests in your talk.

The true secret to selling is this — the sales pitch must reflect what the plain man or woman believes rather than what you believe. As the smart businessman always aims at sales, the smart politician aims at votes.

Smarter persuaders make those persuaded believe that what they are about to do is by their own decisions. All want to believe they decide without any assistance. Would be customers and would be voters should be made to feel they are not forced to accept ideas. Rather they should be made to feel that in so doing, they act independently and do what it is they wish to do.

Words have no worth whatever except that words represent ideas in the minds of those who hear or see them. Words merely trigger thoughts already present in the minds of others.

The means to anyone's heart is suggestion. There can be no statements of fact. Words must trigger through suggestion. No one was ever reasoned into buying.

Smarter persuaders never sell things. Instead smarter persuaders sells ideas about things. Often, goods do not get delivered until after the sale completes. Politics is like this exactly.


If I were writing slogans, I would write this:

Your vote. And a Better USA Ahead for You.™

In persuading, you can appeal effectively to the vanity of either a woman or a man. With your vote, my slogan appeals by vanity to anyone, making her or him feel important. My slogan acknowledges ownership and power of the voter.

No one ever buys without motive. All must see a gain by their act. My slogan appeals to one one of the strongest motives — personal advantage. A better USA implies a gain to anyone who partakes in a better USA.

My slogan in its entirety is suggestion that leads rather than pushes. It lets voters believe their actions are theirs alone that arise from free thought.

Read more ...

LIKE A BAD ADVERTISER, STATE FARM IS THERE

So last night, during TV coverage of the 2014-15 NFL season Kickoff game between the Seahawks and Packers, NBC aired a State Farm insurance commercial featuring Packers' quarterback Aaron Rodgers.  The ad "creatives" from DDB Chicago dug up from the graveyard of not funny comedy, ex-Saturday Night Live actors Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon portraying their skit-recurring characters Hans and  Franz, who Carvey and Nealon loosely modeled on actor Arnold Schwarzenegger from his Mr. Olympia days.

Everyone sneered in my house while watching this ad, an ad lacking creativity and more importantly, lacking any impetus to buy. The ad continues the bad trend in TV advertising of pseudo-entertainment with failed attempts at comedy.

In authentic comedy, the main story agent must face a struggle, surrounded by amusing, unexpected circumstances, which makes action of the story agent ludicrous. Most importantly, at the end, the story agent must arrive at the same place where he started. There is neither victory nor tragedy in comedy.

As I wrote in GUINNESS AD GETS DRUNK ON PATRIOTISM, a great ad does this and this alone: It puts the one seeing the ad into a wanted future and in so doing, triggers that one to act now in effort to get that future. This State Farm ad fails to lead anyone into belief of a wanted future.

This State Farm ad relies on testimonial through innuendo implying famed NFL QB Aaron Rodgers has his insurance through State Farm, so you should too. The ad fails to paint a mind picture for anyone about their future. Instead, the ad ends with a useless voice-over, punning on the phrase "pump you up."

Such an ad should make anyone wonder if John Maxham, Barry Burdiak, John Hayes, Brian Boord, Andrew Bloom, Chad Broude, and Nathan Monteith — the so-called creatives of DDB Chicago (credits) — understand how effective advertising works.

Watch the ad in all of its fail glory.

Read more ...

GUINNESS AD GETS DRUNK ON PATRIOTISM

So today on Forbes, Will Burns, CEO of a "virtual marketing ideas company pioneering the Expert Sourcing model" (whatever that is) shared his thoughts on a the Guinness "Empty Chair" ad.

The rather bad, sappy ad shows a barmaid pouring Guinness beer into a glass, night after night, setting those beers on a table at which no one sits. At long last, a battledress wearing soldier walks into the bar, the barmaid nods to him and he picks up the glass. Then a few other drinkers hoist their also-filled with Guinness bar glasses in salute to the soldier. The ad ends with a voiceover:

"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."

Will seems to believe such an ad makes Guinness "the icon of great branding." Will views this 1:30 spot as mini-movie because of the editing techniques which give a sense of time passage.

Fair enough. Almost all ads are in short-story format, happening in one place, at one time, with one protagonist. Few ads try to suggest the passage of time spanning days or weeks.

Will believes all viewers get hooked straight away on this ad because the barmaid places beers on a table seemingly for no one. Will sees the barmaid as the hero who never gives up hope on the returning soldier.

And then Will jumps to wild conclusion. First Will claims, "The beer itself was a glass full of hope," and then Will doubles down with,

"... that glass of Guinness is made of much more. It is a symbol of the bartender’s hope. It’s the very manifestation of the choice she made. It’s a liquid representative of her character."

Anyone who believes that Guinness ad is good advertising simply doesn't understand advertising and beliefs manipulation that leads to action. The ad agency and the execs of Guinness simply do not understand advertising at all.

The ad relies upon indirect suggestion to support a well-known technique known as testimonial: "An unknown bartender serves Guinness". That is one step worse than an ad featuring a celebrity doing the same, "Kim Kardashian drinks Guinness." Implied in both is suggestion that because one does it, you should too.

Against what Will believes, watchers don’t give a flip about the barmaid and her character. No one watching the ad says to himself, Wow. I want to be like the barmaid. I want a job like a barmaid. I want to serve Guinness. So I should go out and buy Guinness so I can be like the barmaid.

If anything, anyone watching the ad might think, Wow. I need a friend like the barmaid. What am I doing with the friends I have? I should go find new friends. But how? 

"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character" slogan could be the slogan against drinking or against drugging. It is not befitting for any alcohol product.

Everyone knows that anyone drinks alcohol for its mind altering effects. There isn't anything character building about altering one's mind.

As well, any beer could have been placed on that table and nothing would change for that ad, even a generic, no brand beer. There isn't anything to connect the brand with the act of putting out a beer upon an empty table night after night.

Where does the ad show the reward to the watchers? What do watchers get for switching brands and buying Guinness or for taking up drinking beer?

The Guinness ad does nothing to suggest a future for the individual watching it. The ad fails to show watchers they will gain any of the key drivers of behavior by buying Guinness — praise, sex, love, respect, power — or suffer personal disadvantage through lack while others are getting and thus getting ahead.

The barmaid fails to get rewarded by her peers for being loyal to the soldier. If the Guinness ad were structured right, it is the barmaid and not the soldier who should have received glasses-raised toasts from the other drinkers.

If anything, the ad suggests that if you join the military and return home, your reward shall be one glass of Guinness that your local haunt barmaid buys for you. Your pub peers will not even bother to throw you a homecoming party.

The ad is a rather clumsy application of an appeal to patriotism. In effect, having the patrons raise their glasses to the soldier is a visual salute by the execs of Guinness to soldiers. The act implies having said We salute you for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The timing of such an ad could not be worse. Anti-war sentiment is near a high in America. People have grown war-weary over Afghanistan and Iraq.

Though some might get touched by the sappy sentimentality, that ad isn't going to sell anyone. The ad violates core understanding of how true advertising works. The ad fails thoroughly at selling Guinness but might sell many on friendship seeking services, might get some into Alcoholics Anonymous or might get some to join the military.

A great ad does this and this alone: It puts the one seeing the ad into a wanted future and in so doing, triggers that one to act now in effort to get that future.

People seek status among their peers by wowing them with their purchases and in so doing demonstrating their superiority. Nothing in that ad says any of these:

• Gain status tomorrow by buying Guinness right now. 
• Get sex tonight from your partner by buying Guinness right now. 
• Catch up with everyone by buying Guinness right now otherwise you are going to be cast away as an outsider.

A better ad would have featured a homecoming party for the soldier with a loser, who, when it his turn to buy the soldier a beer, orders a cheap beer, but with everyone else shouting at him, saying in unison, "What are you doing? Buy him a Guinness!"

And entire campaign could be built on the slogan, What are you doing? Buy him a Guinness! It is easy to see future scenarios of persons about to make the mistake of buying another beer only to be rescued at last second with someone's suggestion to buy a Guinness. I bought him a Guinness would make for a fine extension of the theme.

Businessmen spend on advertising to increase sales because it takes too long to wait for word of mouth to take hold. Advertisers don’t exist for advertising agencies. Ad spending does not exist for ad agencies.

The secret to all good ads is this: any ad must reflect what the plain man or woman believes rather than what the advertising agency execs believe. Yet, all kinds of ad creatives believe good advertising is what they desire to make.

For many years running, businessmen as advertisers have been swindled by agency execs into making one-off ads, ads often filled with mixed messages that neither inspire watchers to act nor establish mnemonic for would-be shoppers.

Contemporary television advertising idles in such a sorry state. Every ad is either a Clydesdale tear-jerker, like the lame Guinness ad or a build-up to a corny, sappy one-liner bad joke.

Here is the ad in all of its glorious fail.

Read more ...