This week, I've noticed a few slight differences in attack ads by Whitman and Brown, but differences that matter, at least visually. Whitman has aired numerous attack ads against Brown from the very beginning of her campaigning. But recently, I can't say hers are as effective as the ads that Brown put through the media. Here's one:
It is dramatic. The letters are bold and big. Second, they are RED, implying danger, behind a watermark of Whitman's smiling face in the background. The music is intense and the voiceover is stern. And as I mentioned, Whitman is SMILING. That deserves to be emphasized. It's ridicules Whitman's claim/intent to do the best for the state when they assertively talk about all the wrong she's done, and slaps a smiling face on the TV screen.
And here we have this ad by Whitman attacking Brown:
The music is more light. The dialogue is more subtle and personal. This kind of attack ad in comparison to the one attacking Whitman doesn't resonate as an attack as well. It seems a little too bright. And I understand it's the personal-sense is supposed to bring a feeling to the audience that they can relate to Whitman, but I find it ridiculous. It sways the actual message meant to be conveyed, from seriously attacking Brown to a tranquil little ad. It doesn't seem as stern enough to convince. Assertion is key, bright and bubbly won't cut it.
No comments:
Post a Comment