Synch or sink

The folks at Veritas Communications, a media/PR firm which every Friday puts out its Touchdowns & Fumbles, a review of ''the communications plays of the week,'' issued an interesting analysis today of how the Liberals dropped the ball on their most recent ad campaign , no thanks to the controversy around that military spot available here. (Scroll down on the right-hand sidebar.)

The Veritas piece is not yet online so I reproduce it here in full. (I added the links.)

The Fumble here isn’t about the style or content of the Liberals’ attack ads – that’s a whole other subject – but rather how the communications around the ad campaign was mishandled.

We had considerable discussion here at Veritas about what we can only speculate was the Liberal communications strategy, and many of us gave them points for what we believe was a daring game plan – but one which ultimately backfired. Among the suite of attack ads released to media this week (and uploaded to the party’s website) was the one which quickly became the lightning rod – the spot which alleges Stephen Harper wants to put “soldiers with guns” on the streets of Canadian cities.

Here’s our take on the strategy: the Liberals knew the ad would generate a storm of controversy and criticism – but they also knew that it would have the desired effect of scaring some voters who were leaning toward Harper into voting Liberal instead. So they deliberately included it in the packages sent out to media, knowing full well that the controversy would prompt every TV network in the country to play it repeatedly (and for free), and that many of those in the target audience – swing voters – would see it and be scared off the Harper bandwagon. But by claiming that the ad was not actually approved for airing, and therefore released to media by mistake, they were trying to achieve some “plausible deniability” even though it was actually mission accomplished. If that’s not what the Liberals intended, and if the release of the ad really was a mistake, then that’s just plain sloppiness which would warrant a Fumble all by itself.

But assuming that it was deliberately done this way, it’s astonishing that Prime Minister Paul Martin, other candidates and party spinners didn’t have consistent messages as to what the thinking was behind the ad, and why it was produced.

Witness Martin’s baffling appearance on CBC TV last night, during which he told anchor Peter Mansbridge first that he approved all the ads, then that he hadn’t approved the military one, then that he had approved a draft script but not the finished ad itself. Martin’s flailing around, coupled with contradictory messages from various candidates and party members, shows the critical importance for any organization with multiple spokespeople to be on the same page.

Talk about minor league.

UPPITY DATE: Somebody posted this link in the comments to a very funny video (Windows Media Player) of Paul Martin on the National last night. I thought it was worth showcasing it here, even if it's from that ultra-right-wing, Star-hating Proud to be Canadian.

Comments

[gh]

The Liberals get way too much credit for deliberate thought in this version - it assumes some kind of adult supervision, which doesn't really seem to be in evidence.

Their campaign at this point sounds like the thing the Romans used to do, tying a prisoner in a sack with half a dozen snakes and throwing them into a river to drown together.

[Chumpa Whumpa]

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_Self-Satisfied.wmv

ProudtobeCanadian.com has it again...

[Paul O]

Many have skipped over the more subtle message in the Liberal ad: that, unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives would actually equip our soldiers with guns.

[Bill-Muskoka]

I predict that the Martin appearance on CBC's Newsworld increased liquor consumption that evening.

I know it made me reach for the scotch (sorry about that not being beer, but that is for less important events), Cheetos (somehow very fitting to listening to any politician), and being truly amazed!

No, no, not at Martin's comments, but at the genius of two young people's excellent questions. There is hope for the coming generations, and we, the current primo's, need to make sure there is one for them to enjoy!

[Mach Stelmacher]

Thats a astute observation Paul O. I agree with its premise as being solid but differ in that I give more credit to the thinking ability of Canadians.

I also agree that the Liberals knew the ad would generate a storm of controversy and criticism – but disagree with the postulation there was a desired effect of "scaring" some voters who were leaning toward Harper into voting Liberal instead.

The theme has been focused on a lack of trust for his agenda, and in my opinion the ad was in keeping with that theme. But not placed because it would viewed as hypersomething-or-other.

Anything that serves to distract from the
main and important issues is dangerous in my opinion. And hence: scary. I agree with
the mainstay opinion of our CF.

I dont know what PC would offer First Citizens i.e. aboriginal Canadians, in lieu
of Paul Martins plan but I would be interested in finding out. Why has he
not put something solid on the table for
our consideration?

[BCer in Toronto]

If this really was all part of some grand plan then they are even stupider than I already thought they were. Which certaintly is possible.

I would say the incompetent spinning after the fact would be evidence it wasn't a grand plan, but then they are as incompetent as they are stupid, so I don't know.

I guess we'll have to wait for the sequal to Fights of our Lives to find out for sure.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Thanks to Rick Mercer's blog

http://rickmercer.blogspot.com/

We can meet the upcoming Conservative Minister of Holy Wars Rondo Thomas (Ajax-Pickering)

http://www.trailervision.com/trailer.php?id=166

I feel so much better now! Now I know we will solve our energy problems by simply returning to the Dark Ages!

[Kevin Brennan]

I definitely do not agree with this theory. The ad was a serious strategic error--my immediate reaction on seeing it was that it would cost the Liberals the election. Not because it would damage them (they were already losing) but because the military ad would dominate the conversation, and ensure that the other ads in the package were ignored by just about everyone.

If that ad had been excluded, the media would have paid the campaign just as much attention, but everyone would have been talking about an ad the Liberals were willing to defend rather than ones they weren't (most likely, the one about Harper's donors, I suspect).