Election day is quickly approaching, and it is no surprise that the media has been blowing up with political advertisements that seem to serve the sole purpose of abasing the opponent. Polls are springing up everywhere, and accusations are fired at the most inconvenient times. Should we believe everything we hear and see?
On the October 17th Ads & Politics event, Baruch College students, staff and professionals welcomed Allen Rosenshine, Emeritus CEO, BBDO and Keith Reinhard, Chairman Emeritus, DDB Worldwide. Reinhard, author of McDonald’s “You Deserve A Break Today” jingle and Rosenshine, the first chief executive of Omnicom, gave an impressionable lecture on their experience in the ad industry and discussed issues surrounding modern day advertising in the political and commercial spheres.
They begin by listing the key differences between commercial advertising and political advertising. Aside from the obvious one–which is that commercial advertisements aim to get the consumer’s dollar while the political campaign aims to get the vote—the media plays an important role in certain decisions the advertisers must face. For instance, in commercial advertising, “when you attack a competitor, you are also attacking the people who buy [the product]” says Rosenshine. Although businesses must approach negative ads with caution, the creatives are free to use humor. For example, the famous Samsung ads poke fun at people who waited hours in line to get the iPhone 5, but the humor makes it effective, Professor Anthony O’Malley explains in his BUS1000H lecture. On the other hand, the Reinhard and Rosenshine emphasize that there is no restraint on what each candidate can say in political advertising, and it very rare for these ads to contain humor. In fact, 84% of political ads are negative, according to Rosenshine.
The media plays an important role because it replays these negative ads over and over again. “It is much more interesting for the media to talk about those kinds of things than the good news…It is a form of sensationalism,” he states. An example that was mentioned is the headline, “Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney ‘Didn’t Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years’” which appeared in the Huffington Post this summer on July 31st. Reinhard points out that the media is much more interested in what is said in the accusation rather than whether it was true or not. How manipulative is freedom of speech in the media? Is an important question that was raised in the lecture. Political advertising impacts voter psychology “because the issues that it creates becomes part of the news…People will tell you they don’t believe advertising…they don’t want to be seen as a fool…but they do.” Rosenshine says. ‘Why shouldn’t political ads carry a warning?’ He suggested that it would be moral for ads to state, at the end, that the information may or may not be true; it could refer them to a website for more information. The audience smiled at the idea.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the most utilized provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights by journalists, writers, film makers and just about anyone working in communications. Reinhard and Rosenshine present the controversial issue of whether the first amendment should interfere with advertising or not. The first amendment is given great power when the accuracy of a statement or statistic made by a commercial advertisement is in question. In fact, advertisements must pass the standards imposed by the Bureau of Consumer Protection before reaching the public. To find out more about these standards, visit http://business.ftc.gov/advertising-and-marketing. Examples of regulation filters are tests, network clearance, agency clearance, etc. If a claim made in a public commercial ad seems to be false, it will be investigated and may result in it being taken down. Political advertisements in other countries go through even stricter regulations. During the lecture, it was mentioned that in Canada, the government imposes strict limits on the amount of time and money from third parties. Furthermore, one of the men mentioned that only a headshot and a name can be found on all political posters in Germany. Referring to freedom of speech in other countries, Rosenshine states, “They don’t have a constitution that basically says what our country [says].”
Political advertisements in the U.S.do not go through such a process for regulation, but considering the widespread pride in our country’s first amendment, is it really fair—or even possible—to limit what presidential campaigns say? Especially when a candidate broadcasts a prospective solution to an issue, it is impossible to verify it because we have no way of knowing whether or not it will actually follow through.
Allen Rosenshine (Left) and Keith Reinhard (Right)
