YouTube Ad Roundup

(Just to clarify; BNF did not do the Schwarzenegger clip, it was a group of CA bloggers. And I think the idea is to depress fundraising for signature gathering by suggesting that the measure has no hope of winning. Arnold's already trashed the idea but is hiding behind saying "I haven't read it." I think it's also as much about lowing ARNOLD'S favorables by highlighting this weasel technique. Given all that, I think your analysis still stands. -dday)

I've had my doubts about some of the efficacy of the citizen viral video campaigns. The Brave New Films YouTube ad asking Schwarzenegger to weigh in on the Republican electoral vote grabbing initiative is a case in point.

First, the ad:



Having a Simpsons clip to illustrate your point is a polemicist's dream. But the music (which sounds familiar from other Greenwald productions) is odd and poorly looped over the material.

But more importantly, the concept itself is of questionable value. First, the ad focuses on the fact that Schwarzenegger hasn't yet commented upon Republican efforts to reconfigure California's electoral college allotment system. Schwarzenegger is stalling for time, saying he can't comment because he hasn't read the initiative. The ad shows an insert with a picture of file boxes containing copies of the bill sent by individual Californians asking Schwarzenegger to read the initiative, and collected by the Courage Campaign.

First: this is not a bill Schwarzenegger will have to sign into law or veto. This is an initiative for Californians to vote for or against.

Which introduces the question: who cares what Schwarzenegger thinks?

Clearly it would help foes of the initiative for a (supposedly) moderate Republican to say bad things about it. Those who hope to defeat this effort to redraw the entire country's electoral college map and hand the 2008 Presidential campaign to the Republican candidate should seize any tools to hand.

But is this a good one? Is Schwarzenegger (a) a uniquely important lever in the debate, who is (b) likely to say something useful to the cause? I'd say the answers are probably: (a) Yes; (b) No.

But even if it is worth the effort to try to extract a comment from Schwarzenegger in the hopes he'll say something that will help paint this initiative as too viciously partisan for Schwarzenegger to endorse, is this the right means to that end?

If your goal was to stage a media event highlighting the fact that Schwarzenegger was slow in reading a bill, why deliver boxes filled with thousands of copies of the same bill? Wouldn't it be better to rent a billboard with the text of the bill (prohibitively expensive) or make a giant banner with the text of the ad and hang it near the capitol?

Now for some praise.

Brave New Films's The Real Rudy project has produced the best citizen advocacy ad to date.

This latest in a series is a master class on how it's done:






Note first the quiet, unobtrusive music opening onto the now-iconic images of Rudy, covered in soot, walking through the streets of New York City after the collapse of the World Trade Center.

And then the various talking heads take us into the entire reason Rudy was left to stride the streets of New York in the first place that fateful day: he had located the command center in WTC 7. He was on the streets with his aides because his choice to site the command center - destroyed in the attacks - left him with no office.

The hits keep coming: how many lives could have been saved had firemen and police officers had effective communication from a central clearinghouse. How many advisers Rudy overruled in siting the center within walking distance of City Hall.

Such images of soot-covered Rudy should become as toxic to the campaign as the air at Ground Zero turned out to be.

This video goes a long way toward its goal - which is to undermine a candidate's best iconographic material such that he hesitates to use it.

Bravo.