|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 | ||||
|
Geoffrey Roche Chief Creative Officer, Lowe Roche ad agency, Toronto Rating: 0 Assessment: This spot suffers from a lot of things. First it is trying to say way too much, particularly at this point in the campaign. Second I don’t think anyone should be trying to be third choice. (Third Man on the Moon? Anyone?) They should be the smart choice at the very least. A truly single-minded, smart, positive reason Why-I-Should-Vote-For-Jack ad would do a lot more for them. And not be like this spot, which sounds like it was done by a committee. And unfortunately, they’ll be the only ones who will pay attention. | ||||
|
Stuart Soroka Political Science Professor, McGill University, Montreal
Rating: Assessment: There are three strategies here: Capture voters concerned with both major parties; remind NDPers not to shift their vote; push health care and education as priorities. The first two are likely good for the NDP; the last one is an uphill battle, as we’ve seen so little discussion of health care and education thus far. Parts of this ad seem too contrived. The speaker says “Conservative agenda” with the same snarl she uses for Liberal “corruption.” And the thoughtful piano mostly reminds me of the soap opera The Young and the Restless. (Though young and/or restless voters are an NDP target audience.) | ||||
|
Libby Lucas Vice-president, Creative Services Adculture Group ad agency, Mississauga
Rating: Assessment:That’s not an ad. That’s a shopping list. They didn’t need to list why many Liberals cannot bear to vote either Liberal or Conservative -- and the list of NDP priorities just adds to the clutter. The “third option” strategy is sound but ill-executed: 1. They’ve tried to cram too much in. 2. It looks too much like a Liberal ad. 3. The end line doesn’t work: “working” sounds like a verb, and “Working families first” sounds like they’re strictly for “working class” voters -- i.e., the working poor. |
||||
|
Richard Johnston Political Science professor, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Rating: Assessment:This ad comes right to the point. The fact that it is visually simple may mean that it does not stimulate secondary buzz, so this is a minus. But it does state the essential NDP case unambiguously, and this time the case is plausible. Whether it works will depend on background strategic circumstances: It is most relevant in B.C. Unfortunately for the NDP, the case also constitutes a frank admission of third-party status, a place to park by way of protest. |
||||
