This is the latest Labour campaign advert.
Now of course, people will say I am biased in thinking the Tory advert is more effective than the Labour one. However, I'm interested to know what others think. For me the Labour one is pushing a concept and theme that is not as easy to plug-in to as the Tory one.
The latter requires the viewer to actually spend time and read it, the former has a message that simply speaks for itself.
34 comments:
The Tory one gets the message across in a glance, unlike the other one.
In response to the Labour one I'd ask for my paper to be re-marked. As we know labour's record on edukashun isn't the best and I think that the passage of time may well give Cameroon's paper an A grade.
Economics 101 catch up paper - sounds just the sort of curriculum subject we have come to expect under NuLabor.
But under NuLabor the candidate can't be failed. so lets give him an A+, and wave him off to university.
No you're right dizzy, NuLabor are trying to be too clever, short & simple hits the mark everytime.
Under Labour's education policy wouldn't half a mark out of two, plus bonus for actually reading the question equate to an A+ ? (or would he have needed to add a couple of swear words to achieve top grade)
Sack the advertising agency. NuLabrador's "advert" is woeful.
The Labour one is too clever by half, is removed from reality, and lays bare their "bossy teacher" mode of communication. Just like their economic policy, if you can call it that. As for the Tory one in that it states the xyzabc obvious it is effective.
Over the course of the tax cycle, its a tax rise.
Cut now, big rises later.
Even having read it carefully I still can't quite make out what the Labour ad. is trying to say. Very opaque.
Labour's advert is too busy - I had to read it twice and I already knew what it is talking about.
The Tory one is simple and easy to understand and harks back to that very famous one from 1992.
The Tory ad is wrong. The people getting the Christmas present aren't the same people who will get the bomb.
The Labour ad is about an argument about a politician changing his mind on something - so what.
to support spending levels which have no bounds set to them would be as bloody silly as the labour ad..... as silly as Cameron was to play ball with their policies in the first place.
As my chauffeur pilots the Bentley past the graffiti plastered hoardings it's really too much effort to attempt to read scrawly handwriting from some bossy schoolmarm on a mock exam paper. Then again, aren't all exams a bit of a mockery these days? Who is responsible for State Education now? Is it that Testicles fellow?
Not being pedantic (well actually, yes, being pedantic) shouldn't it be 'Whose' advert is most effective?
Short / simple is always the first rule in advertising
The Labour one is too long / convoluted ... if most people saw that in a tube station, they would get bored before they finish reading it.
The Con Bomb, instantly effective. The Labour scrap of paper, as well thought out as all their other utter tripe.
As for political adverts,far be it from me to comment on how the Labour Party likes to desport itself on its days off....however..I cant but feel a little taken aback to learn that exposing oneself in the pub is considered acceptable.I refer,ofcourse,to Mr Malcolm Powers who I am led to believe,takes great delight in displaying his nipples to all and sundry down the pub!Powers area organiser in the South and-well he would be wouldn't he-essex boy apparently thinks it acceptable to exhibit his deformity in the belief that it is a sign of raw sexual power..I wonder if Mr Stringfellow who appears before a select committee tomorrow will be able to keep a straight face as he is quized on sexual displaysby left labour members....?
The Labour one is dire - a throw back to the same idea on toffs in Crewe and Nantwich.
The Tory one is much clearer, but I don't think the message will quite 'hit the spot'. They should have put 22.5% VAT on the side, or had it about to land on a house.
On the front of the Sunday Times is a picture for a David Cameron feature. It says something along the lines of 'Gordon thinks you are all stupied'. Now there is a good hard hitting message, to follow this up with. And it gets to the heart of Labour's chief weapon - spin and the fibbing media.
I'm surprised the Labour ad made it to print. Especially as the government's record on marking and losing exam results speaks for itself
To the NuLab Head of Marketing:
2/10 See Me!
>> @ Paul Pinfield:
No!!! Don't sack the agency - we want the NuLieBore ads to be as woeful as possible.
WV: puloph. Hmmm.... are you sure?
I'd have to agree...
Labour's advert would be marked as an Advertising 101 fail! It's dull, sneary and misses its audience (seems more to be aimed at their own activists than the public).
By the way, the Tories have missed a trick with their Ad too. The image is perfect but needs to be labeled simply:
"Merry Xmas - Love Gordon".
In fact, they could run a whole series of these using the same words but with different images - a UB40 document, a boarded up house, the price ticket on a loaf of bread, etc etc
Who is doing the Conservative's advertising? I want a job - will work for food.
The Labour one is hopeless. Far too many words, the kind of people it's aimed at (one must presume) are used to reading at the level of the Sun or the Record - or maybe Metro on their more intellectual days.
You have to read it twice before the meaning even starts to become clear, and even then there is a vague "is this sarcasm or not" flavour to it.
If this is the best they can do, we can relax.
Is '101' in common usage among normal people?
As a side note, my sources tell me that in some circles red ink for marking is frowned upon as it intimidates / scares etc pupils. I am *not* making this up.
Ha ha, is that the best Labour can come up with, it's shite!
Unwrap the tax giveaway with care; before long we'll need an International Independent Commission on Tax bombshell Decommissioning.
"Whose" advert, please!
A tax bomb in Christmas wrapping paper. A picture paints a thousand words.
Any teacher could have told NuLabour that 64% of the populace simply switch off when confronted with an exam question - and as for the implied double negative...don't even go there.
The Labour advert is the worst advert I have seen for any political campaign in my entire life. And I am 178 years old.
The Conservative one is liable to be seen as an exaggeration, althopugh the message is clear. The "boomerang budget" meme is likely to be more effective.
The Labour ad is just laboured, poorly laid out, hard to take in, patronising and spiteful.
Apart from anything else "economics 101" is an Americanism. A British university course would be "basic economics".
Too much West Wing probably...
The only pledge Gordon keeps is his polish. Do we have 'subject 101'isms in our schooling today?
I'd like to see a Conservative campaign featuring BrownBrown satnav. Every few miles do a u-turn.
Actually, it should be Whose Advert is More Effective.
(The answer, by the way, is not Labour's – which, among much else it gets wrong, presumes that all teachers are automatically Labour supporters).
Worth pointing out that the Labour one is not designed to be a poster. It's a web-based interactive thingy, so you're not really comparing like with like. For the whole thing, see here.
Yeah, Dizzy, this is apples and oranges. There's no way the Labour one will ever be shown on the tube or the side of a bus. It's for people to explore on the Labour website (it's like an exercise book, you can turn the pages). It's a totally different thing from the Tory one, so of course it fails as a poster - it isn't a poster. Looks like you've just cut and pasted from ConHome instead of going to the source.
Post a Comment