Advertising Misstep: MoveOn

The best advertising tends to be the perfect balance of art and science. You can usually spot which campaigns lean too far one way or another by the quality of the message, not the production.

Too much science and the message becomes an exercise in bullet points. Too much art and the ad will become the subject of debate rather than the issue.

MoveOn might know what I’m talking about. For all their clever (not really) shock value in attempting to denounce Gen. David Petraeus, they have only succeeded in shifting the debate from whether or not we need to be in Iraq to whether or not their message is fair and their organization credible. Enough so, even Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had to put the usual polarized politics aside.

"The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned,” Reid said in a letter. “No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of Gen. Petraeus' long and distinguished record of service to our country."

As brands are fragile things; not all publicity is good publicity.

Relatively few people can look at the MoveOn ad like Jane Hamsher did in her article in The Huffington Post: “To join with the right and start firing arrows into their backs is both destructive from a movement perspective and displays tremendous naiveté about what it's going to take to end this war.”

She does, and in doing so, demonstrates the true weakness of the MoveOn ad: in or out, black or white, for us or against us. Stand by your “progressive fighters” at all costs. Tow the line. Or, in other words, let’s make a case for polarization.

Around almost every corner, polarization remains a front runner in creating miscommunication. In our country, it continues to distract from solutions because it creates a political environment of distrust and suspicion while offering public spectacle that can be likened to high school debate teams. One team picks “pro” and other team picks “con” (nowadays both sides generally pick “pro” and change the noun).

From a communication standpoint, only one Democratic team seems to have made the mistake of choosing sides as outlined by MoveOn. Hillary Clinton embraced the message as a blunt speaking point for the following day, opening it up for Rudy Giuliani’s team to ask a pointed question: “Who should America listen to … A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org.”

This copy line above is part of a rebuttal advertisement that Giuliani’s team wants to raise money for in order to rebut MoveOn and Clinton. You can see the ad by clicking the copy line on a fundraising page here. It’s not the best ad in terms of political copywriting, but it gets the job done.

Regardless of the issue, the communication lesson is objective: although there are some exceptions, the best messages are those that focus less on polarizing the messengers and more on the issues being discussed. By shifting the message off our presence in Iraq and onto the credibility of someone who was recognized as one of America’s 25 best leaders by U.S. News and World Report, MoveOn buried its anti-war message, made the issue about them, forced would-be allies to distance themselves, and drew at least one candidate into controversy.

If we apply this study to our Fragile Brand Theory, it becomes even clearer where MoveOn went wrong. Rather than stick to the issues, they asked the country to denounce a four-star general or denounce a political action group. The law of gravity, as it applies to our brand theory, suggests that when two brands go head to head (as opposed to point for point), then the one with its collective impressions closest to the middle has more pull and will prevail.

Clinton’s team seems to have missed it. Giuliani’s team seems intent on letting them know it.

Playing Politics: Everyone Under The Sun

While most political coverage has shifted to the bathroom habits and hypocrisy of Sen. Larry Craig (reality check: no amount of spin can save this), there is a largely unreported political story taking place that may be more concerning to some and much more far reaching in considering topics such as transparency.

In May, director Oliver Stone, filmmaker behind “JFK” and “Born on the Fourth of July” has produced a television spot ad for MoveOn.org, which featured Iraq war veteran John Bruhns calling on the government to bring U.S. troops home. You can see the spot, along with how the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents responded to the ad in real time at Slate.

ABC News reported on the advertisement throughout the production. It also covered a rebuttal advertisement produced by Freedom Watch. When you compare the two stories, the coverage seems as polar opposite as the advertisements.

Similar to the Stone-produced ads, Freedom Watch produced testimonials of Iraq war veteran John Kriesel, who lost both of his legs but still supports the actions abroad. You can view this advertisement here. CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air the ads outright, which seems contrary to their decision to run a poignant Associated Press story on the indifference to the First Amendment.

You know, there always seems to be ample pressure placed on social media and bloggers to practice full disclosure, but the reality is full disclosure is not a prerequisite to objectivity in the world in which we live. Perhaps Copyblogger is right (which is good, because I've said the same before). We don’t really want it and even if we had it, we most certainly wouldn’t like it. The best we can do is attempt to guide it from time to time.

So, when you look at advertisements like those produced by MoveOn and FreedomWatch, there are a few truths to be found: military personnel are as conflicted about Iraq as the country; the media is only obligated to run and protect the stories it wants to protect and run; tragedy and conflict sell better in the news than charity and camaraderie; and regardless of how we feel about Iraq, our troops deserve better than being paraded around for the purposes of political gain.

Every year, I tell public relations students the same thing: when it comes to existing in the public eye as an individual, as a company, or as a community, perception is reality. And while that might be, please try to remember that it isn’t.