Comments on: Creativity: The Stuff of Advertising

By: Kimberly Finnie

Kimberly Finnie — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:38:05 +0000

While I agree that using the stock footage wasn’t the most “creative” approach the Clinton campaign could have used to sell their point, I believe it wasn’t as big of a scandal as posed. Using stock footage is not a crime nor is it anything new. It saves a lot of money. Ask any candidate that when you run for ANY public office- it cost A LOT of money. The longer you’re in the race (Obama, Clinton, McCain) the less you have to work with. The contributions start getting thinner and the campaigns start running on fumes. Hiring professional writers, producers,editors, and actors to do one campaign piece is going to drain anyone’s funds.
Not to mention the girl that later talks against her footage being used- she was paid as a model to make the stock images. The ad never at any point says that she endorses Hilary Clinton. After signing the release for her image to be used, she would more than definitely be considered unprofessional for taking back what she earlier agreed to.

By: Rachel Espinoza

Rachel Espinoza — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:26:50 +0000

Advertising is about how a product or someone can appeal to people like us. We are easily tricked and believe anything. We like when something looks good and advertisers know that so they will do whatever it takes to make sure something looks good.

By: Niccollo Lopez

Niccollo Lopez — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:28:58 +0000

After doing some research about stock footage, I learned that it is a cost-effective way to add production values to television and when it is done right, it is indistinguishable from the body of the work. However, I was surprised to find out that commercials that use stock footage are more often then not political ads. This was obviously bad for the Clinton campaign. As stated in the video, stock footage can be used for any number of advertisements. So what gets me is why they would use stock footage when the message they are trying to get through it so important. One would think that the ad would be tailor made for him purposes. Especially since you never know when something like this could happen. The use of scare tactics is another issue. When and if people find out that scare tactics are being used, there is a sense of betrayal. It’s almost like “oh they tried to pull a fast one by me.”

By: ryro

ryro — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:27:34 +0000

This is really good advertising for Obama against Clinton. Coming from someone who is claiming to have mistakenly been an advocate for Clinton but is now saying she was tricked. She is now “setting the record straight” by saying she really supports Obama. This cannot really be questioned or fought back because now Clinton looks like an idiot straight from the horses mouth.

By: Joseph Puskedra

Joseph Puskedra — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:20:51 +0000

I agree that shockvalue advertising is usually cheaply done and works very rarely for the mass population. In this video I admire how this young girl stands up for what she believes and regonizes her views and beliefs on politics. At such a young age I have a lot respect for people who get involved with politics, I personally am intrested in whats going on in government and someday would like to be a supported and maybe a memeber of a presidential campaigning. But back to the shock advertising.. I think if a presidental canidade is going to make any type of advertisment it should be well presented, factual, classy, and properly put together, if you wanted shockvalue advertising stick with fear factor or dramas on prime time.

By: Thomas Johnson

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:46:09 +0000

I’m against most political attacks so as for the attack as a whole I disagree with. But as for the stock video, it’s a common practice in advertising. In order to save money advertisers buy an already shot scene so they don’t have to make their own. As for the girl who grew up to be an Obama supporter, the image is meant to relate to the viewers children, not that individual girl. At no point did the commercial say who the little girl was so it was just a general representation of a sleeping child.