The Washington Post article “Direct Mail Ads Have Become Mostly Negative, Experts Say” caught my eye, what with me being in marketing. I must say I was disappointed when I read the article and it was all about political direct mail ads. No mention of politics in the headline, just something interesting that marketers and advertisers would all want to read. If I would have seen the word “political” somewhere in the article’s title, I would have thought, “yeah, what’s new?” Which I’m sure is precisely why the newspaper left it out.
But, hey, it’s still interesting to me even though I feel bamboozled thinking it was an industry-wide theme.
A review of 24 direct-mail ads sent from Obama’s campaign and McCain’s campaign shows a “below-the-radar battle in which the public message of the candidates becomes something more spiteful, more exaggerated and often more ominous.” The candidates are trying to get the swing states on their side, obviously. That’s where all of these direct-mail ads were sent to. The Democratic Party warned voters that McCain is “hiding something he doesn’t want us to know.” The Republican National Committee sent the message “Barack Obama: Not who you think he is” to 6 swing states.
Both candidates say the other is being unfair with all of the lies in the mailings, even as they approve their own direct mail attacks. Direct mail has a 30-year history of swaying voters late in elections, so it’s not likely that they are going to slow down in the next few days.
Direct-mail ads can be more alarmist, more negative because they aren’t produced for the masses. Direct mail is more focused, you know the neighborhoods and the way certain counties have voted in the past, so the direct mailers can choose a well-placed negative ad to give that county or that city the slightest push it needed to vote red or blue.
Direct mail has been used in campaigns since the late ’60s. And now it’s becoming more influential. Candidates feel like they can be more candid in direct mail because it’s proven to be less damaging to their image to attack through mail than on TV or radio.
The North Carolina Republican State Executive Committee sent out a picture of Obama next to the quote “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Most people would assume that Obama said that, but in fact it was Bill Ayers, a ’60s radical whom Obama later met in Chicago. Of course, the brochure didn’t attribute the quote. That’s just plain out lying if you ask me.
But, unfortunately, some court decided long ago that political ads were part of political speech. And political speech is covered under the First Amendment, so it’s okay to have lies in political ads. Is that ridiculous or what?
Obama’s camp has sent out flyers saying McCain’s campaign is run by “seven Washington lobbyists.”
The Wisconsin Advertising Project conducted a study that found that McCain’s ads are 74 percent negative while 60 percent of Obama’s ads are negative. (These numbers are for all ads, not just direct mail.)
And the reason they keep sending out the negativity? Because that’s what people remember. They don’t remember the good deeds. People don’t even want to hear about the good stuff; they just want to hear the bad. That’s why newspaper headlines are always negative; people complain, but negative headlines are what sell newspapers and are what people respond to.
How can we break this negativity cycle if that’s what the people want?
