During that election cycle, a national political ad cost about $1,000. Today it’ll run a candidate about $400,000. But despite the 39,900-percent price leap, and a proliferation of new means of getting ads in front of eyeballs, the basic operating principle has remained remarkably constant since Reeves’s day: keep the message simple and play up the personality. David Schwartz, chief curator of the Museum of the Moving Image in New York, which is hosting an online exhibit of 250 ads spanning 14 presidential campaigns, spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Ramirez about the history of campaign advertising and what to expect in the months ahead. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: In 2004 candidates and advocacy groups spent about $673 million on broadcast commercials. That figure is expected to hit $1 billion this cycle. Why the surge? David Schwartz: The media landscape is much more crowded than it used to be. As a result you have to run an ad more in order to make an impression. A viewer needs to see an ad about 18 times before it sinks in. Plus, it used to be just national advertising, but the spending has gotten more and more targeted. In the last few elections we’ve seen a big percentage of the money being poured into swing states, and in the last election some of those ads were around-the-clock.
If you look at some of the first campaign ads and some of the ads that have run in this election, how do they compare? One of the more effective ads I’ve seen was a [Rudy] Giuliani ad that was an attack against Hillary Clinton. It came out after The New York Times ran that ad regarding [Gen. David] Petraeus. Giuliani used footage of Clinton first supporting the resolution in 2002 for the war. Then they have footage later where she’s against it. They’re sort of posing her as a flip-flopper and not being a strong commander in chief. Nixon also had effective ads against [George] McGovern, saying he’d be a weak commander in chief. So the idea that you take footage of someone and use it against them—that’s an old technique. The famous ad of Michael Dukakis in the tank from 1988—that was a photo opportunity staged by the Dukakis campaign. They were trying to show how impressive he would be as a commander in chief, but he looked kind of ridiculous in this big helmet riding around in a tank. The [George H. W.] Bush camp used the footage to question his ability. That ad was similar to the Giuliani ad against Hillary.
What do you think the ads that have run in this cycle so far tell us about the time we live in? They tell us it’s a scary time. Mitt Romney just released an ad where he’s seen in this pleasant backyard setting in, I think, Iowa, and he’s talking about jihad. That tells you a lot. Interestingly, Republicans have tended to do well in these types of national elections. There was the Korean War, Vietnam and then the Cold War. So there’s been a long history where there’s a threat from outside the country and the Republicans were the ones you could trust to deal with it. For example, Reagan had that famous evocative ad of a bear in the woods representing the Soviet threat. It sent this idea out that we better understand what this danger is all about.
What role do you think TV ads will play in 2008? We’re going to see major attempts to use viral video and Web ads. Just look at the way the “macaca” moment played out. That had nothing to do with an ad, but everyone was looking at it. I think we’ll see a lot of that.
Are we going to hit a new low? We could. Giuliani—his issue is strength against the threat of terrorism. So, naturally, his ads will attack anybody who runs against him by showing that this person is too weak and the times are too dangerous. We’ll certainly see ads that portray serious threats against us.
How have presidential campaign ads changed over the years? They’ve changed with film and television and have gotten more colorful—flashier and more fast-paced. What’s interesting in looking at past and present ads is that, in a lot of ways, the messages and themes haven’t changed that much. There’s been an emphasis on personality from the beginning. The first important ads were Eisenhower’s in 1952, and they were really selling his personality. Eisenhower’s ads were effective because they boiled down to sound bites. They focused on three things: government corruption, getting out of the war in Korea and the high cost of living. The most effective campaigns have always focused on simple messages.
In 1968 Roger Ailes, then a TV producer and Richard Nixon consultant, said, “Nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well” on camera. Do you think presidential campaigns are fought and won on TV? The way you’re going to get an impression of a candidate is on television. There were a lot of focus groups done in 2000 and 2004 where people talked about George Bush. Very often you would see undecided voters who didn’t really agree with his positions on the issues. But they had a sense that they liked him somehow, and that had a lot to do with what he was able to convey in front of a camera. I think ads play to the emotions, and that plays a very strong role in how we feel about a candidate.
So attack ads weren’t really used in the ’50s? The earlier ads were a lot more civil. The Eisenhower ads didn’t even attack [Adlai] Stevenson. There were some attacks done by Stevenson, and they’re sort of saying Eisenhower would be a puppet if he were elected because he didn’t have any political experience. But they were pretty mild. The 1964 election is where you start to see mean ads. The “daisy girl” ad shows a nuclear explosion and implies that Goldwater would get us into nuclear war. Then Goldwater ran ads that said Johnson was corrupt.
Why this shift? They were afraid. Johnson, because of the fact that he passed civil rights legislation, [worried] he would be attacked for being too liberal. Even though [the Johnson campaign] was ahead in the polls, they felt like they had to play on fear. If you have an incumbent president and his popularity is down or the public is worried, he’ll feel compelled to attack the other guy. Look at Bush’s ads in 2004—most of his ads are attacking [John] Kerry, really, because Bush’s numbers were down, his popularity was down. There were a lot of things going against him.
Sounds like a pretty primal response. It is. If you have an incumbent president and a relatively unknown newcomer, you try to portray the newcomer as being the worst thing ever. People didn’t know John Kerry. The reason the attack ads were so successful was because the Bush campaign was able to define Kerry. People felt they knew Bush and could rely on that even if they weren’t crazy about him.
Which ads do you consider the biggest hits? Election: 1964, Johnson/Goldwater Ad: “Peace Little Girl,” a.k.a. “Daisy Girl” (for Johnson) Certainly, the “Daisy Girl” ad you can’t top. That took everything people were afraid of that year and created an incredibly powerful image that is unforgettable. It was also bold, at the time, to use a child in an ad. Now it’s common, but you hardly ever saw it before that ad. But again, it was effective because it played into things that were out there already. Goldwater made this famous statement at the convention in 1964 [“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”]. He also said he might consider tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. So he had said things that suggested he might be dangerous. This ad just tapped into that perfectly.
Election: 1984, Reagan/Mondale Ad: “Prouder, Stronger, Better” (for Reagan) It captured what people were feeling at the time. They wanted to feel that the country had made a comeback from Watergate and all the problems that allowed [Ronald] Reagan to be elected over Jimmy Carter. It was upbeat and moving, and people wanted to believe that. It tied in with what Reagan’s image was.
Election: 1988, Bush/Dukakis Ad: “Revolving Door” (for Bush) It doesn’t mention Willy Horton by name, but it’s invoking him [and the prison-furlough system]. It’s implying that these prisoners are flooding out of the system and created this image of Dukakis as this liberal who’s going to let dangerous criminals out onto the street.
And the biggest misses? Election: 2000, Bush/Gore Ad: “Accountability” (for Gore) This is a classic example of a bad ad. The theme of the ad is education, and Gore starts the ad by saying he agrees with Bush on accountability. That’s crazy. To have an ad where you basically start by saying you agree with your opponent—well, you’re not giving anyone a reason to vote for you. It was very ineffective.
Election: 2004, Bush/Kerry Ad: “Optimists” (for Kerry) There’s just so much going on in this ad. In 30 seconds he talks about lower health-care costs, independence of Middle East oil, a strong military and strong alliances to defeat terror. There’s not one, clear message. When you watch it, it doesn’t seem like a bad ad, but nothing really gets through.
Election: 1960, Kennedy/Nixon Ad: “Civil Rights” (for Nixon) In all of his ads, Nixon’s sort of sitting in his office in a formal setting. He’s trying to come across as professional, experienced and mature. It’s really stiff, whereas the Kennedy ads reflect an energy and spontaneity. It backfired on Nixon.
