A lot of people reading here have probably seen the Greens ad from the “Pitch” section of Gruen Nation last night:
And even more people would have seen it last night on the show itself, which we know from ABC Managing Director Mark Scott’s tweet today was watched by 1.57 million viewers, compared to 95 000 viewers for Sky’s Rooty Hill “town hall” event.
The ad has an after life too, all over Twitter, the blogosphere, and the online versions of newspapers.
The ABC says its editorial policy precludes allowing The Greens themselves to run the ad, but it’s already paid big dividends for the third party, I’d suggest.
(And no doubt, it’s all good promo for the makers of the ad, Republic of Everyone too.)
Gruen Nation has really seen the show’s format come into its own: after 2 seasons of educating the audience to view advertising with a certain critical stance, taking on claims that matter more than just the normal ad’s consumerist agenda has been a real pleasure to watch.
It’s also huge fun to see John Hewson unleashed from most party political restraints.
This week’s The Pitch rivals seemed to take it a little more seriously than other weeks’ agencies have done. The attack ad was also pretty slick, but it’s not going to get the views that this one will.
Agree with all of that, tigtog, and I actually thought the attack ad was a bit more effective.
I watched the program, and while the anti-Green ad was more than competent, the pro-Green blew me away. Best political ad I have ever seen, hands down. It puts the stilted, boring, crap-tastic ads of the LibLabs to shame.
@3 – I guess what made me think the anti-Green ad was good was that it wasn’t the usual shock! horror! injecting rooms! type crud.
I agree with the comment that this ad contrasts with the cheap negative attack ads we’ve seen from the major parties.
The Gruen transfer is one of the only shows that treats advertising as a craft one at shaping people’s views. While the industry, social media and people on side with this ads messages may like the ad. I think the show itself has made people more likely to consider the impact of advertising on other people, and maybe overlook themselves. I would be interested to know what people thought about it’s wider impact on the election.
et moi, tigtog – loving Gruen Nation
I liked both ads. The second made sense to the considered thinking bit of the mind. The other produced a big emotional response in me at least.
Enjoying Hewson. It’s funny how you can really dislike a political persona, then they retire, and you think – “I quite like that bloke”. He has been funny and self-effacing.
They just showed it on The Drum, and Julian Morrow made the point made in my post – that the biggest possible audience has already seen it on Gruen Nation.
Why is it that the political ads made for the gruen nation are so much better than the real ones? The Greens one was way better than anything the Greens have produced and the pro abbott one in an earlier show was also very well done.
Chris@7 – Perhaps the client’s input impedes the message?
Paul wins the meat tray. Less information makes for a cleaner message sometimes.
Also, don’t forget anyone on this blog is a sliver-thin demographic – copywriters on Gruen know they can use a sniper rifle not a shotgun.
@9 – That’s pretty much what I was going to say, patrickg.
Indeed, my concern about the Greens’ ads (not the Gruen one, their actual ads) was that they were narrowcasting to a demographic they already have a lot of support in. But perhaps they’re mainly trying to shore up that 12-13%.
Btw, Gruen Nation’s being repeated in a second (if you’re in the AEST time zone) on ABC2 if anyone missed it last night.
Love the ad. Political ads that speak to the sentiments of the core supporters are very important, especially if the party is a minority? party. The ad should instill a sense of mission. One should be proud to be defined by the ad and this does that. It says: we’re better than the other crowd, and that is key. This ad carries the footsoldiers out to spread the word and letterbox the districts.
Attack ads are important too, but in this election, this one is likely to be very effective, in part because with social networking, everyone likely to be influenced positively by it will see it.
That it costs the Greens nothing is a bonus.
The Greens may need to consider shoring up against informal votes. I’m wondering how many green voters won’t feel able to preference a major party – not sure if anyone has considered this as a hypothesis for green opinion polls not translating into votes at elections.
Hearing Nick Sherry on the radio Monday re not letting the teaching unions get in the way of their anti aboriginal policies had me on the edge of voting informal, fortunately I got over it
The ad didn’t say a thing about education, about training, about health, about the economy.
Still stuck in the ghetto I’m afraid. Appeals to greens voters – erm, is that the point of advertising?
Kim @ 9 – I don’t think the Green ad would have that narrow an effect. People would just have to relate to one of those things mentioned.
And the pro Abbott advert I thought was very effective in humanising him and giving people an excuse to vote for him because “he has good intents” even if the disagree with him on some points. Pushes the whole “I have lots of women in my life” and family thing in as well which they have been trying to push.
The Anti green was true but boring. I would have shown the Melbourne bushfires, then flicked up Canberra, Sydney, then a question mark. Then for contrast, I would show a paddock of waving wheat and say, real care from real people.
Similar show people dying from cold with the carbon tax greens flying first class to yet another summit, then contrast with a family at Christmas warm/ cool.
Lastly,I would show people dying from malaria/starvation as the greens proudly ban DDT and stop dams being built as they have cocktails in Rio, then contrast with happy families sharing a drink at the end of the day harvesting with the mosquitos shut outside.
Green is about self promoted elites feeling good and doing bad.
Jack offered this lame debunked troll:
You left out slipping in a bonehead from The Blot.
Nice try at a thread hijack though.
Gah. Are the reasons given here valid? Or is it just the dead hand of the ABC Board?
I reckon it’s boilerplate that precedes this particular episode of the show, and I can understand why. Gruen Nation probably would never have got approval to go to air at all without it.
In one way, for the Greens, this is actually better – you want your ad to become a news story, so that it gets aired for free on the news networks (and when it’s not actually “your” ad, in that you never paid for it, even better). It is normal for the ABC to provide footage from its shows for news commentary on other channels – let’s watch and see what happens with that.
P.S. of course, the more outrage there is online about the ad not being able to be used officially by the Greens, the better the chances of making it a news story that the MSM feels obliged to cover, so perhaps flying monkey impressions should be the order of the day.
I loved the ad too.
Did you notice the little pause at the end, between the word “vote” and the Greens symbol. When I first saw the ad I’d missed the lead up so didn’t know it was a Greens ad. In that moment when the word “vote” appeared I took the suugestion to be to vote the message. ie. my vote should be directed to a party that offers those policies. When the Green symbol appears it’s a suggestion (if you didn’t already know that of course) that here is a party that fits the bill. Nice touch.
Hmmm, I actually thought both advertisments were terrible.
Bland and unoriginal reiterations of talking points made a 1000 times before.
I still reckon the most original, interesting and effective ad in years was Christine Milne’s polar bears
Oh and am loving Gruen Nation, but am still kinda wished the ABC had let the Hungry Beast team have a crack at an election before getting axed.
Political ad of the campaign for me.
Ticked all the boxes I’m interested in.
All of my friends have seen it.
And the Greens didn’t have to pay a cent for it.
Unlike the new official Coalition advert that repeated ‘the boats’ so many times that my partner and I were singing ‘spam spam spam spam’ by the end of it.
As a Greens voter I am certainly biased but this is the best political ad i have seen. it brought tears to my eyes. The best thing is the format is flexible enough for the Greens to use it by just changing the subjects, like public education, environment, international aid. so on and on.
Great ad. My own view is the greens next term should go mass appeal by arguing only thru can conserve our way of life. Redefine the while debate: doing nothing on climate us the dangerous and radical political stance.
@Paul of Albury, According to the email I got from the Greens Party this morning: “Roy Morgan said: “In previous elections…the Morgan Poll has overstated the Greens vote achieved on election day – a major reason for this is because the Greens have not been able to be…handing out ‘how-to-vote Greens’ cards at all polling places.”
Stupid iPhone ! “only they can conserve our way of life” , redefine the whole debate
I still say that it’s hardly remarkable that a Greens ad appeals to greens voters. The ad is supposed to appeal more broadly. They’re agreeing with the general principle that they’re a niche party, which is a problem.
I don’t know why Gruen Nation is so much better than The Gruen Transfer, but it sure isn’t the addition of Annabel Crabb.
John Hewson makes you realise that politics just brings out the worst in some people.
Wilful said:
Yes and no. Ads are supposed to do a range of things:
1. Motivate the committed
2. Wedge opposition so as to create uncommitteds
3. Win over uncommitteds
Not all ads can do all things. While it achieves the first most strongly, I see this ad as doing all three. It also sits nicely with the general desire for this election to be about big picture things and about positive stuiff rather than negativity and sledging. The appeal should reach well beyond the Greens core and with preferential voting, one has to think it would be effective.
i.e. they admit reality. Nobody imagines the Greens are going to sweep to power any time soon. The Greens accept this and can thus trade on the idea of “sending a message to the majors”. That’s why it works. Ssaying: A green government will … would just sound silly.
Fran, this wasn’t an ad with a general purpose, it was commissioned to win over new voters, that was the brief.
I agree taht it’s best at point 1 – I think it’s a good ad, it would keep waverers, and would make already Green voters smug about their choice, but I don’t think it would grab terribly many Labor or Liberal voters, because it doesn’t talk about the economy, or health, or education. So according to the brief given, it’s not the best ad that can be made.
Helen @ 18 – I don’t think its a precedent the ABC want to set. As soon as they allow for ads to be bought/donated from the Gruen Nation then there will be pressure for them to make ads for *all* parties. Eg why isn’t there a pro family first or One Nation one made – do we really want to go there?
What is to stop the Greens tweaking or changing the ad and then using it?
That’s true, Chris – no, I wouldn’t!
silkworm @ 34 – probably nothing stopping them from refilming something similar but not too close except for time and money and they’d have little of either.
Nothing to stop the Greens looking up Republic of Everyone in the phone book, more to the point.
Not sure (and don’t really care) who owns the IP.
Wilful said:
We have a preferential system and two-party governance. The Greens only have to get enough primaries to determine which of the major parties wins.
Loved the ad, but I am biased. To work (politically) it needs only to be attractive to the 15% of the population who might realistically vote greens. Critically, a pro greens ad needs to appeal to the 5-8% of voters who tell pollsters (midterm) that they will vote greens, but drift back to the main parties at election time. That consistent ebb and flow of potential votes implies that the greens have a body of poorly tapped community goodwill, which, if bolstered, might convert to votes. By the same logic, both the Liberal and Labor parties have a goodwill deficit. For them, it is pointless asking us to like them (because we won’t, even if we vote for them). It is (sadly) rational that Liberal and Labor will concentrate on asking voters to hate the other party more, but the greens would get good mileage out of precisely this type of generic positive message.
Well Fran Barlow, have not got a clue what ” the Blot” is so you are completely wrong about being a lame debunked troll. Typical reply from an idiot green who can’t answer the points because they hate facts. Only the fantasy world of Gaia appears to post modernists berks like you.
Not much of a one for providing context, are you Jack? It might help when replying to a comment made 2 days ago to link to it so that other readers can work out what on earth you are banging on about.
The myth about environmental activists banning DDT for use in malarial pest control has been well and truly debunked many, many times. You are either horrendously gullible or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding the ban on the agricultural use of DDT.
So Fran you are a well known flamer, who refuses to answers facts with facts.
This thread was about what type of ad you would run. Mine was an ad showing contrast between what is spin and what is real.
Where is your suggestion?
Never mind, apparently you never have a clue what you are talking about nor offer an alternative. My understanding of the left has always been that it challenges authority, not that it succumbs to the opinion of blusterers and fantasists.
Is she? To whom?
You are personalising the debate, imputing base motives to others, and attempting to revive a derail that didn’t work 2 days ago, with no consideration for how the thread has moved on.
Read the Comments Policy and abide by it, or have your comments binned.
Fran Barlow?
She’s probably laughing fit to burst at Jack’s nonsense- but only lest she weep.
@silkworm says:
“What is to stop the Greens tweaking or changing the ad and then using it?”
Pesky little thing called copyright, perhaps?
Ah, Rebekka.
Loved your lolpolz on Abbott and Red Kezza, with resulting Red Kezza meltdown.
wilful@33, which part of “if you think dental care should be part of Medicare” is NOT about health?
You may be right that an even more perfect ad is out there waiting to be made for the Greens, but I’ve never seen an election ad do what this ad is doing – for the supporters who volunteer time and now feel better about themselves and are more willing to pitch in, to the MSM talking about the Greens’ positive message (and range of issues beyond the environment) and showing the ad in the process, to speaking to ‘broadly progressive but not necessarily Greens voting’ (think swing voters in the seat of Melbourne) friends who all seem to have posted it as a Facebook status update. Election ads are ‘meant’ to be a turn off, not something that has everyone buzzing.
So if this isn’t the perfect Greens ad, please let me see one that is!
Yes, Josh, it’s always been my view that my teeth are part of my body. Wild, irresponsible talk, I know. I’ve heard that Dentistry’s exclusion from Medicare was due to intensive lobbying by dentists (?) but perhaps it was helped along by Australia being a bit more Anglo back then – after all in the olden days it was a proud tradition among people from the UK that you got all your teeth out at 21 (sometimes a present from a loving parent, much as US parents get their daughters nose jobs as a Sweet Sixteen present!) Perhaps that’ll return under Abbott as a no frills solution. A one-off, baby bonus style payment to get all your choppers out and replaced with wooden ones.
Should have read, SOME US parents.
Helen @ 49 – do dentists have a lot to fear from medicare covering payment for their services? Wouldn’t it be a huge injection of funds into their industry?
Or would medicare coverage also prohibit private health funds covering the gap between what medicare pays and what dentists want to charge?