Politics may divide opinion, but it certainly attracts it. Some agencies deliberately avoid party clients, which is understandable, but where to draw the line? Would personal or corporate ethics prevent an agency advertising Burger King? Nestlé? Range Rover?
That’s an open question, but it’s interesting to see Campaign’s vox pops on Euro RSCG’s Conservative Party ads (TV ad here). One or two of the respondents distinguished betwen the quality of the ad and the merit of the message itself. Not exactly unheard of, but pleasing that the British population retains a healthy cynicism as regards political messaging.
The ads are impactful, and certainly play on an emotional area, but they actually rile me slightly. How was this debt figure calculated? What’s its relevance to the normal state of affairs, given that most adults owe mortgage repayments etc even in a healthy economy? Surely no child is actually liable for payment? Wasn’t the extra tax burden necessary to keep the nation’s economy afloat? I’m no political expert, but even I question the political currency of such a message.
So what of the ad? I do feel they elicit and good deal of emotion, resentment at Labour for the current state of the economy, desire for change (hello Barack), but surely a child-debt message puts the core of the problem far in the future at a time when large swathes of the population are worried about paying bills tomorrow or next month? The vox pops show that it doesn’t necessarily change voting patterns. So is this poltics or is this advertising?