Is the MoveOn Superbowl ad even a good idea?

[Alex146]

$1.6 mil is alot of money, couldn't it be better spent?

Also, I don't really want to find out what happens when we get into spending wars with the GOP. They've got the money, if we run a superbowl ad I wouldn't be suprised if they ran three.

[Momof1]

1. Don't you think they are all ready planning on having commercials?

Wasn't that ad, about drugs funding terrorism, on the Superbowl?

[Alex146]

2. I guess so...

but it wasn't a stright "vote (or do not vote) for so-and-so from such-and-such a party" type ad.

[bluestateguy]

3. I think it a good ad

Dramatic and thought provoking. I don't really care if white male conservatives are offended. If they are offended we should take it as a sign that we are doing something right.

[Cocoa]

9. it's a conservative message

I think it would be perfect for the Super Bowl.

I don't think it will offend them as much as confuse them, I think the cognitive dissonance could paralyze them and keep them from voting.

[BigDaddyLove]

12. I agree with you about the message.....

which is why I wish the ad with the kids at the podium would have won...it covered a lot more ground and was more powerful in my opinion.

The ad that won is great and all, but you have to think about it for a minute; most people need to be hit over the head with things, not given something to think about.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. It seems to me so incredible that people do not know if or what is

a good idea!!

I would think by this time, surely those who are aware of Bush's abosolute tyranny should know what a good idea is to defeat him in the next election.

I am not criticizing anyone personally. but getting fed up with the pink tu tu worn by everyone.

Fear will never triumph over this bully boy. Never. Exhibit fear and trepidation and he will walk all over us.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Yes it is important and an excellent idea

Dissent is EXTREMELY valuable.

[Terwilliger]

8. even when 1.6 million could buy 30 nightly news ads?

I think getting the commercial broadcast during the SB is about visibility, which is muted by the fact that most of the morans watching the game probably won't vote anyway.

[BigDaddyLove]

10. I would personally like to see the ad (or ads).......

more than once and all over the place, rather than just once or twice.

[Terwilliger]

14. maybe Barb Streisand could contribute some big bucks

to make the cost/benefit of running the ad during the SB lean toward the positive

[BigDaddyLove]

20. Either Babs or Soros........

Wouldn't it be a grand world if the left had the financial power that the right has?

How I long for a level playing field.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. If it gets on once during the SB, it will reach more people

The precedent of dissent needs to be reset..once CBS does it and makes money, more stations will follow suit..they are in business to make money.

[BigDaddyLove]

24. Fantastic point.........

the bottom line is all that matters.

Though I would argue that to reach the largest audience the ad should be placed during one of those Bachelor or Survivor type 'reality' shows.

[Bluzmann57]

19. Ok here's the deal...

Just because a person watches football or any other sport, that does not make them a "moran", as you say. Quite frankly, people like you are the types that give liberalism a bad name. I WATCH FOOTBALL AND AM A LIBERAL! I also work in a blue collar job, live in a modest, yet comfortable home, and (gasp!) I drink beer too! So please don't categorize people by what they watch, or how they look, or how much education they may have, or anything else like that. I vote and think that it is a good idea to air this ad during the Superbowl. In fact, I gave money to help it happen. Did you?

[Terwilliger]

22. I watch football and I'm a liberal too

which is why I can tell you that most people who tune in to the freakin' SuperBowl could give TWO SHITS about politics, and a subtle political ad from a left-wing organization will probably be pre and post SB marginalized anyway.

Maybe it is a good idea...but when MoveOn supporters have just spent 1.6 million for 30 seconds of airtime, I hope they won't need more money in a short period of time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. But would that 1.6 mil

buy this much free publicity about the ad? Apparently, Viacom is not sure whether or not they will even run the ad. If they don't, the brouhaha that will ensue, will be worth millions more in free advertising than the $1.6 that they might not even be allowed to spend.

[Terwilliger]

25. oh, that's just overestimating the response

Look at O'Neill for cripes sake...NOBODY CARES!

[sasquatch]

6. Yes it's a good idea

This is what everyone will be watching. The commercials are what some of the viewers actually look forward too. I on the other hand am a football fan so I won't be rally watching the commercials.

[Terwilliger]

15. will it have more impact than the lingerie bowl?

:shrug:

[POed_Ex_Repub]

7. At some point we've got to get our message out..

And I can't think of a better venue. And yes, the GOP is going to run lots of ads, and they have more money... But we have TRUTH!

[texas is the reason]

11. not the ad that won

that ad really doesn't do much for me- i liked the one with the kids speaking from the podium with what they learned from bush alot better. hell, i would rather they spent the 1.6 million and just showed bush stumbling through "fool me once, shame on me..nagga, naggana get fooled again" or just 30 seconds of that clip of bush picking his nose at that rangers game over and over again.

[Captain Sunshine]

16. Will we have an audience that's open to the message?

I wish I could remember the blog I read this on (anybody else remember?), but a writer made the point that SuperBowl watchers don't want to think about anything except the game. Maybe we'd earn a backlash in opinion just because of that. Besides, there's usually nothing serious run during the 'Bowl anyway - even the commercials are overhyped anymore. Running any ad may be more jarring then we think.

A couple of people have mentioned the drugs=terrorism ads, and I don't think they are the same kind of ad. They are not endorsing one candidate or decrying another, as political as they are. They were, in essence, public service announcements (even if they were crap) from the government, and most watchers then probably blew them off.

I don't know what the effect will be, but I would guess the ad will reach some viewers, and as the first "issue" ad during the SuperBowl, will generate a lot of pundit comments and be tossed about as "bad taste" for days afterwards, if the above hypothesis is correct. I don't know which will be heard more - the ad or the "analysis" of it.

For $1.6 million I'd rather see the ad run simultaneously on the 6-or 10-o-clock news on all four major networks. Let people TRY and change the channel...

My two cents.

And a question - if the ad is not "allowed" by CBS in the first place, when else could it be run for maximum effect?

CS

[Monte Carlo]

17. On a show when certain people tune in just for the commercials?...

... I'd say yes. People always give extra attention to Super Bowl ads. I'd say its money well spent.

[JohnKleeb]

18. Yeah thats a lot of money

I am no marketer or marketing student even but I think its good marketing, lots of people, especially regular ol people who dont have a clue to whats going on, if we air this during the super bowl people will see it and be intrigued.

[eissa]

21. Yes, and here's why

A Marketing professor I work for thinks it's a great idea because we are reaching a large audience with many that are apolitical or on the other side. Airing it during the State of the Union, where the audience consists of political junkies on both sides, wouldn't do any good (we've already made up our minds). These are the people we need to sway over to our side. It's a lot of money, but it will help us reap the reward in November.