Producing TV: a survival guide - Going Negative! - Cover Story

Those pattering postulaters of punditry are at it again. They've decided that the incidence of "negative" political advertising on television is on tile rise. They've concluded that the voting public is turning off and tuning out. They've deduced negative ads have wreaked havoc on our nation's psyche and sense of purpose. They've decided it bean responsibility for everything from violence on TV to the decline of our moral fabric.

Want in on a little secret? "They" have no idea what they're talking about. The use of competitive, comparative, compelling ads in political races sports a long and winning legacy at the polls. Why? Because they open up the process; they draw contrasts between competing candidates - or dueling interests on ballot issues; and they provide voters with the mothers milk of political decision-making: information.

Do negative TV acts work? Just ask Pete Wilson, who defined his opponent in California's 1994 gubernatorial race as soft on crime, soft on taxes, and (by extension) unwilling to make the tough choices necessary to pilot a state in distress - all before he seriously set out to remind voters of his own political stripes on the major issues of the day (welfare reform, immigration policy, and the like).

Just ask Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA), who used his opponent's parole of a repeat violent criminal as the signal moment in contrasting the two candidates respective philosophies and records.

Just ask Gov. Lawton Chiles (D-FL), whose once sagging numbers for reelection were bolstered by home-spun allusions to "he-coons". Translation: the wisdom and judgment of age and maturity still count for a helluva lot.

Just ask U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), who contrasted his hard-working, substance-over-glitz style with a charismatic challenger who had an unfortunate tendency to miss important hearings as an elected public official (see "Chair" TV spot, page 23).

The list of satisfied clients is a long one. Yet it's wrong to say that they won because they went negative. In fact, these winners - like so many others before them - created sharp, aggressive messages and campaign commercials to give voters information that was relevant, timely, and well-researched.

Before spelling out a list of do's and don'ts about how, when, and in what form a hard-hitting ad should be pressed into the public campaign, let's first get straight on the key term of' this debate: "negative".

Is an ad negative if it highlights an opponent's public voting record with appropriate and irrefutable citations - or it hits hard at a candidate's lack of experience and qualifications for office - or it contrasts ideas, positions, or attitudes that have been written or publicly proclaimed? Come on.

Arguably, the single most important ingredient that separates a negative ad from a competitive or comparative one is tone. Does it feel like a negative? Is it mean-spirited? Is it crudely produced? Does it go beyond the pale of good taste and appropriate manners?

Cross any of these lines, and you've crossed the viewer.

Seven Commandments

Here are seven commandments for creating, producing, and using hard-hitting campaign ads.

#1: Thou Shalt Impart Important Information

Republican media consultant Greg Stevens says, "If there's something out there that's unfavorable about your opponent, but true, voters want to know about it."

Fellow media guru Alex Castellanos puts it this way: "We don't do negatives. We do hard-hitting issue ads about our opponent's record of shame." Information, new information, can turn even the most hardened perception on its head. He did what!? She voted for that! Wellllll....

The Tarrance Group's Brian Tringali says that voters are motivated by information. He also suggests this information should have a clear and singular focus. "Voters make their decisions on Election Day with one idea in mind about why they're voting for someone," he says. Case in point: New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman's winning and consistent hit on liberal Democrat Jim Florio: "He'll raise your taxes."

#2: Thou Shalt Be Accurate

As Ross Perot said recently, the first rule of war is a simple one: "Don't shoot yourself."

Play fast and loose with the truth and you're one short step (and counter-attack) away from losing ground (if not the race). Fail to document your attack, and the press will be all over you with charges of "deceit", "cheap shot", and "low blow".

In the confessional booth, all consultants will admit to at least one horror story of a campaign gone awry because the information was wrong, the documentation was in error, the data was incomplete. Democratic pollster Ed Lazarus takes this another step, to wit: "A good negative ad is typically a better-researched piece of communications than a positive ad."

Remember, check your facts. Again. And again.

#3: Thou Shalt Be Fair

Borrowing from Republican pollster and strategist, John McLaughlin, "If it's fair and credible, it's a positive ad."

Short of having the benefit of running an ad or ad concept by a campaign focus group, this standard of measurement is a highly subjective one. Yet, cross this line and suddenly the messenger bears the brunt of an unfavorable public reaction.

Is it fair to talk about a candidate's personal life as it bears on fitness for office, or does that go beyond the bounds? In Mike DeWine's successful run for the U.S. Senate in Ohio last year, he not only debunked misleading information from the opposition camp, but softened the potential blow to himself by using a touch or two of well-timed sarcasm (see "Five Times" spot, this page).

#4: Thou Shalt Be Relevant

Sure, we ought to stockpile oil reserves to forestall a reply of the "gas lines" from the oil embargoed '70s. But does a candidate's opposition to this strike home today? Does it have anything to do with today's concerns with health, job and personal security? Sometimes the best-conceived attack ads fall on deaf ears because the subject matter is past worrying about. That wasn't the case in 1990, when Democrat Jim Moran bested U.S. Rep. Stan Parris in Northern Virginia. Moran's relentless attacks on Parris' abortion position were not only relevant, but proved to be a political terminator (see "Liberty", this page).

#5: Thou Shalt Be Reverent

The tone of an attack ad often determines whether or not it ultimately succeeds. GOP media consultant Bob Goodman: "The tone of the times is reflected in the tone of the spots - political advertising is a mirror of the public mood."

If the look of a spot - the visuals, the music, the sound effects, the inflection and attitude of the announcer - is heavy and harsh, most would judge it to be a negative commercial. Regardless of content, or its veracity.

That's why the best negative ads infuse a tough-hitting message with the power of humor.

#6 Thou Shalt Not Bore

These days, hard-hitting ads are a dime a dozen. As Election Day nears, the typical TV viewer suffers from campaign ad nosebleed. Commercials come at them in four and five-spot spasms, one after another. Charge and counter-charge. Promise and counter-promise.

You may have the facts right, but if the ad doesn't stand out from the pack, it'll end up in the graveyard of ineffective campaign ads. Bringing a message alive was no problem for U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), when he countered his opponent's charge that he had hired a $70,000 a year bodyguard/"chauffeur" at taxpayer's expense. They're still talking about this one from Biloxi to Jackson (see "Detective", this page).

#7 Thou Shalt Choose The Best Medium

The choice of medium often has more to do with the success of an aggressive media message than the attack itself. Textbook campaign gamesmanship dictates that you look for a competitive edge wherever you can find it. Often, this means identifying, and using, alternative media to television that more effectively, and less obviously, mount the attack.

On this score, radio is tailor-made. It's less confrontational in an "in-your-face" kind of way, making it less offensive to voter sensibilities than television. In practice, you can generally produce a harder-hitting message on radio than you can for television, in the sense that radio has less potential for negative voter backlash.

With radio, you can also produce and traffic messages faster, and target more directly. The capper from a strategic standpoint, something any media buyer will tell you, is that competitive radio ads are also much harder to track. As much as television is the table-setter for attack advertising, radio provides the menu items for the meal.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

"If there is a single trend obvious to most American media consultants, it is the increasing proportion of negative political advertising." University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato penned these words 15 years ago in his definitive work on political consultants.

Just as 1994 was considered the year of the negative ad, so was 1992...and 1990...and 1988. From genocidal "Daisies" in the 1964 presidential campaign to Gennifer Flowers, from tax straddles to "no more tax" lips, from today's elections all the way back to Ike, the so-called negative ad has been a fixture in American politics.

Clearly, negative advertising is a misnomer. Campaign commercials today are sharper, more focused, more informational, and more confrontational than ever before. Although there's still plenty of room left for bold creativity in the field, today's political ads positively promote the whole election process with more information, more competitiveness, and with more than a dash of an often-forgotten ingredient: respect for the voters.

Adam Goodman is president of The Goodman Group, media consultants in Lutherville, MD.

COPYRIGHT 1995 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group