The Effects of Advertising on Young Voters in the 2004 Presidential Election
Political advertising plays a major role in each electoral contest. While the majority of political spots are those sponsored by the primary candidates, some televised commercials evolve from different sources. The 2004 presidential contest was filled with an overwhelming number of attack ads from groups outside the major political parties, as well as an enormous amount of public service announcements prompting citizens to vote. A look at each type of ad within this election can help in an analysis of the media effects that they created.
The country’s various media outlets have recognized the importance of the large group of inactive young voters. As a medium embraced by this demographic, television became the conduit employed by those who sought to reach these young voters. Playing on the commercial nature of the medium, these diverse political groups filled the major stations and prime viewing hours targeted at a young market with advertisements displaying their various causes. This analysis will focus on political ads aimed at young voters using content analysis and ending with a hypothesis of their overall effectiveness.
The popular culture of young citizens has integrated politics into its sphere of reference during the 2004 election, but one question remains: did politics integrate popular culture into its sphere as well? At the beginning of the campaign process, it seemed as though the answer to the question was a strong “yes”. John Kerry began his campaign with a short interview on MTV news, prompting young voters to pay attention to this politician, because he made it clear that he paid attention to this demographic. This push toward the combination of these two very different realms of life came to a screeching halt soon after this interview. George W. Bush refused to talk to the MTV crowd, and soon after, John Kerry began to ignore this enormous group of voters. Political ads produced by the candidates featured issues relevant to every facet of the voting demographic except their young constituents, and the news coverage of the presidential race quickly followed in suit. Soon after the contest began, it became evident that the young voters would be ignored, once again, by the candidates for the duration of the campaign. Unlike prior elections though, this group of the demographic was not ignored completely. Out-group advertising rose to the challenge of educating young people on the importance of voting; although these voters were not (for the most part) instructed to vote for a particular candidate, there were instructed to vote.
Although much of the research conducted regarding political advertising has been directed toward commercials sponsored by the candidates themselves, these examinations can also be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of political advertisements placed by out-groups as well. While the basic message of the two types of groups conducting the advertisement differs to an extent, the inner core of both types of commercials is the same. The influence of out-group advertising in this presidential race brought about a great deal of attention to these commercials. According to Faber, Tims, and Schmitt, there are three types of negative political ads placed by candidates: direct attack (what most people consider when they think of attack ads; more likely to cause backlash effects), implied comparisons (opposing candidate is not specifically mentioned; most effect in creating intended effects), and direct comparison (Faber, et. al., 68). With closer investigation, it becomes apparent that these ad categories can also be applied to commercials placed by political out-groups.
Although some implied comparison and direct comparison advertisements do occur within the realm of out-group ads, the majority of these commercials are that of direct attack, centered on a negative portrayal of the candidate in question. Perhaps that is because “it has been demonstrated that negative information is weighted more heavily than positive information in developing impressions and forming evaluations” (Faber, et. al., 68). Ads from both Moveon.org and the Swiftboat Veterans received considerable press coverage, helping them to spread their message even further. Since “attacks against the opponent’s stand on the issues to be more acceptable than negative ads focusing on ‘personal’ aspects of the target candidate” (Faber, et. al., 68), the Moveon.org ads were seen as a bigger threat to Bush than the Swiftboat ads were to Kerry.
“Unlike commercial advertising, which many consider the most regulated categories of speech, political advertising enjoys full protection under the First Amendment and is excluded from rigorous regulatory surveillance, particularly with respect to its content. Thus, political advertising decision makers are not guided by the formalized ethical criteria imposed by legal restrictions; nor are the self-regulated by the kind of industry codes that do guide commercial advertising practice” (Tinkham and Weaver-Larisey, 43). Through the use of the technique of emotional appeal, the Swiftboat Veterans and Moveon.org made use of their First Amendment freedom to display the negative character (of Kerry in the Swiftboat ads) and political performance (of Bush in the Moveon.org ad). Although various news organizations questioned the authenticity of the Swiftboat Veterans claims, when John Kerry refuted the claims in numerous television spots, the impact of these of the veterans’ ads became diminished. The banning of the Moveon.org ad featuring children performing menial labor due to Bush’s deficit also received a great deal of attention from the press. The fact that this commercial was prohibited, only heightened its impact. The commercial did air during less-than-desirable times, but did not appear during the Superbowl (which the group had planned) because CBS believed it to be too controversial. Although the group’s freedom of speech was squashed by CBS, the fact that the commercial aired on television, as well as the internet, only reinforces the fact that political advertisements, no matter how negative, are not restricted from the viewer’s sight.
Although these ads were not focused directly at the large group of young voters, the controversy surrounding each group’s statements made the commercials in question prominent in the minds of voters across the nation, regardless of age. Another reason these commercials were an important influence on young voters is the very fact that there was the controversy around these ads. While not directly aimed toward this demographic, the debate surrounding these commercials struck the young demographic with force due to the inherent interest in controversy within every young person.
Due to the changing social climate, many spheres of life that were once at odds with each other are now intertwined. “Of one aspect of what is sometimes described as the arrival of the ‘postmodern,’ the boundaries between the different social spheres are much more permeable than previously, so politics, work, leisure, personal life, and so on are now in more direct and deep interaction with each other” (Richards, 341). The 2004 presidential election helped bring together the worlds of politics and popular culture. Although these two spheres of life have interacted for many years, the past election helped introduce a new type of popular culture into the sphere of politics. The impact made by groups targeting young voters brought in the more centralized popular culture of the young television demographic. “Since popular culture is substantially about feeling, about the expression and management of emotion, the incursion into political experience of the values of popular culture means that we now seek certain kinds of emotionalized experience from politics that we have not done in the past” (Richards, 340). “Choose or Loose”, “Rock the Vote”, and “Declare Yourself” used this emotional appeal to draw in the young demographic that they sought to target. “Evidence indicates that emotional political ads are better recalled than non-emotional appeals and that negative emotional political ads are better recalled than positive emotional political ads” (Faber, et. al., 68).
Through the use of sex appeal, prominent issues regarding young voters, and celebrities, these non-profit, non-partisan groups stressed the importance of voting, along with appealing to the various emotions felt by the majority of the target audience (the desire to be sexy, fear of the draft, worries about education and the job market, and the overall effect of laughter regarding a somewhat serious matter).
The majority of political ads focused directly toward young voters were public service announcements encouraging citizens to vote. MTV began this phenomenon with their “Choose or Lose” campaign, challenging young Americans to break voting records and bring 20 million young voters to the polls on election day. This operation was set up in contest format. What was the prize? Simply, the chance to choose the President of the United States. Although the “Choose or Lose” campaign did not use advertisements as their main source of promotion, the strength of this group alone was tremendous. It was endorsed on shows like TRL, the MTV music awards, and the power of celebrities’ communication, and its helpful website aided its surfers in researching the issues of the election and registering to vote. “Choose or Lose” began a trend of popularizing the election process, and the fact that it was the main focus of discussion on MTV, a channel made especially for young adults, made it one of the strongest non-profit, non-partisan groups attempting to capture this demographic.
The child of “Choose or Lose” was another non-profit, non-partisan group that was also spawned by MTV entitled “Rock the Vote”. The main strength of this group was their political commercials aimed directly at young America. “Rock the Vote” made two types of public service announcements throughout the time leading up to the election: issue-oriented and motivation from celebrities. These ads were only aired on MTV and VH1, two stations notorious for both targeting a young demographic and promoting a commodity-based culture. “Rock the Vote” used both descriptors to their advantage throughout their ads.
The issue-based ad entitled “Education” used the power of group persuasion and an issue in the minds of all young Americans to invoke a reaction toward the election. The last group shot of the commercial implies that these young men and women are relying on the MTV and VH1 viewers to take action against the rising costs of college tuition. The celebrity-motivated ad, “CafÃ?©”, not only introduces celebrity endorsement, but also sex appeal, into the voting process. With the use of the beautiful woman and Jake Gyllenhaal’s concern for her voting practices, voting is made to look intriguing and sexy. These two commercials exemplify the tactics used by “Rock the Vote” throughout their campaign. Through invoking an emotional reaction toward issues involving today’s young voters, and glamorizing the voting process, this group used the influence of MTV and VH1 to enhance the strength of their message through the stations’ strong ties with the young demographic.
Another group whose target audience was young voters used both Comedy Central and the prime time viewing hours of the major stations to promote their message. “Declare Yourself” employed the skills of two directors famous among young constituents (Kevin Smith and David Lachapelle). Kevin Smith’s ads aired on Comedy Central and featured celebrities performing minute tasks it illustrate the amount of time voting actually takes. These comic demonstrations commented on the excuse of time employed by many young people, using celebrities involved in odd activities (Ben Affleck picking his nose and Jay and Silent Bob downloading porn) to invoke laughter, as well as an initiative to take the time to go to the polls. David Lachapelle used a more serious approach through parodies of commercial advertising. Although these parodies commented on a variety of product advertising, each commercial ended on the same note: the main character of the commercial was keep from speaking through the use of some horrific torture device placed on their mouths. The slogan “Only you can silence yourself” wrapped up each display, prompting young viewers to make their voices heard by voting.
Barry Richards believes that “there is an emotional deficit in contemporary political communications, a lack of crafted, sustained attention to the emotional needs of the audience” (Richards, 342), but I believe this to be far from the truth. Although the communications of the candidates in the 2004 presidential election demonstrated a large amount of unconvincing emotion, the various other facets of political communication throughout this election played on every facet of human emotion they could assemble. With the inclusion of politics into the sphere of popular culture, the advertising out-groups concocted an emotional basis on which to construct a campaign encouraging young people to vote. While candidate participation on this issue was minimal, the overwhelming number of youth-oriented groups permeating young people’s television screens compensated for the candidates’ lacks. The fact that MTV’s “Choose or Lose” website boasts a record turnout of young voters between the ages of 18 and 30, could cause one to conclude that the tactics of these out-groups was effective. Although it is difficult to deduce exactly how much influence the television ads of these groups had on the number of youth voters, the connection between the two is extremely strong. Through the commercial-oriented methods used by these groups, the number of young voters reached was very large and the emotional undercurrent of many of these ads was also likely to invade the minds of young television viewers. All in all, it would suffice to say that the goals of these various out-groups were reached in overwhelming proportions and although it is difficult to determine whether the ads placed by these groups were the cause of this phenomenon or other factors influenced young voters, the fact that the activity of young voters in the 2004 election was so strong only strengthens the institutions who promoted these youths in return.
Descriptions of Ads Discussed in Paper
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
Medals
Close-up of a flag blowing in the wind with impositions of monuments in Washington D.C..
Voice-over: “Symbols. They represent the best things about America. Freedom. Valor. Sacrifice.”
Soldiers walking down the street.
“Symbols, like the heroes they represent, are meant to be respected.”
Black and white footage of Vietnam protestors.
“Some didn’t share that respect and turned their backs on their brothers.”
News footage of John Kerry saying that he gave back the medals he earned in Vietnam from 1971. “Trust?” appears on the bottom of the screen.
“How can the man who renounced his country’s symbols now be trusted?”
Moveon.org
Child’s Play
Young boy washing dishes in restaurant kitchen; young girl vacuuming hotel carpet; young girl in factory production line; young boy collecting garbage; young boy making a tire in a factory.
Black screen with white lettering says: “Guess who’s going to pay off President Bush’s $1 trillion deficit?”
Young girl scanning groceries in store.
Rock the Vote
Education
Young man enters restaurant kitchen and says:
“Check it out. I just got accepted to state!”
Group in the kitchen cheers and pats him on the back.
Another young man turns toward him and says:
“Wow. Books, room and board, tuitionâÂ?¦how can you pay for that?”
The entire group stops and toward the camera.
The words: “Its up to you” appear on the bottom of the screen.
Voiceover: Education. One of the many issues being decided this election. Remember to vote on November 2nd.”
Caf�©
Jake Gyllenhaal sits with friend in a caf�© drinking coffee and telling a story. Suddenly the story stops and the two young men turn to stare at a beautiful blonde girl walking by the window of the restaurant. Jake says:
“I wonder if she votes.”
His friend replies: “I hope so.”
Cut to white screen that has the Rock the Vote logo and says: “Vote on November 2.”
Declare Yourself
Ben Affleck
“In the amount of time it takes Ben Affleck to pick his nose”
“You could help decide the future of our country”
“Long story shortâÂ?¦remember to vote on November 2.”
(Ben Afflek standing on right side of screen against a white background. Each statement appears on the left side of the screen in red and blue lettering.)
*Aired on Comedy Central
Dog Food
Shot of dog sitting and rolling on the floor.
Voice Over: “He’s like a member of the family. Not a care in the world. Doesn’t have to think or decide.”
Girl petting dog. Dog sitting.
“His biggest problem is one more ear scratch or another tummy rub.”
Can opener opening a can of dog food labeled “Apathy”.
“That’s why I choose apathy.”
Girl laying on floor with dog.
“For the life of a dog.”
Girl rolling on floor with dog.
“So some day I can be just like him. And maybe he’ll take care of me.”
Room darkens with a close-up of the girl with a metal restraining mask around her mouth.
Black screen with white lettering says: “Only you can silence yourself.”
Next black screen says: “Register to vote now. Declareyourself.com”
