Ad Hominem

Well, here’s the headline you don’t want to see if you are Karl Rove: “Bush Campaign Defends Use of 9/11 in TV Ads.” That translates into: There’s $5 million to $10 million of the President’s dubious “primary” campaign war chest wasted.

Why do I say that? Because, already, the series of advertisements splattered across the airwaves, and due to be running for that amount of media time, have created controversy with their unintended message. Republican surrogates and strategists, like Karen Hughes, have already been forced from their secure positions behind the media front into the talk show breeches. The ads’ images of the wreckage of the World Trade Center have provoked the ire of firemen and families of victims. Certainly not the intended consequence of the ad campaign.

That’s important because an ad campaign has to have a laser-focused clarity of message. Otherwise the message is lost in the noise and resistance.

It’s pretty surprising, at first glance, that Karl Rove’s well-oiled machine would stumble right out of the gate. They’ll survive, but barely. The law of advertising states that if you have to explain the commercial, it, and you, have not only failed, but the whole shebang has backfired. It damages your brand.

In this case, these ads damage Bush. I am not passing judgment on the actual intended message (that Bush is tough on terrorists, has turned the economy around for the better after it got all fouled up by Clinton and that Kerry would welcome terrorists with open arms and destroy our robust growth). Merely that the ads have failed when you find yourself fighting about whether they cynically use the tragedy of the Trade Centers and the bravery of firemen to partisan ends. After all, that was not the intended message. Not the questions or debate that the ads were supposed to provoke. Not the picture they were trying to paint. But that’s all we’ll take away from them.

And if the “I have a scream” showed anything, it was that you get about two nanoseconds in the hot light of the public forum when it comes to mistakes. And that most, even minor, ones that you would have gotten away with even four short years ago or so are now indelible, fatal and impossible to fix.

Welcome to the new Internet instant-on age. My guess? The blogosphere will demolish TV advertising this Presidential Election cycle. Just as TV advertising revolutionized politics when it first appeared on the political scene in the 50s, it’s about to be wiped out as the center of decision gravity shifts to the Web.

Beyond that, I would be shocked, shocked not to see recut, humorous or vicious (depending on your viewpoint) versions of these ads circulating to the High Speed crowd in a matter of weeks. After all, these days “sampling” is common enough. With a grand worth of computer any kid can remix the ads and send them forth, uncontrollable by the bigwig political advisors.

Equally surprising, in a way, is this blunder, this off-key decision from an all-star crew that started off so sure-footed and confident. The list includes: the aftermath of the Iraq war. The ongoing mess in Afghanistan. The bungled handling of Haiti (no one even claims to have been doing any advance planning on that one) with the crude extraction of loudmouthed Aristede (crazy as he most certainly is). The grassroots “tea-party” rebellion of gays marrying all over the country. And the logic-defying response to joblessness that claims the U.S. economy is stronger than ever.

As this list of bad PR days grows comes a sense of an Administration no longer with a finger on the pulse of the country, but rather with a clumsy hand trying to grip the wrist and drag the electorate along with it. And no, this is not anyone else’s doing. The fault of blowing the PR lies not with the Democrats or the “media”, but with the Republicans themselves. ¶ 10:25 AM