Short and to the Point?

Perhaps Senator George McGovern‘s team felt that a :60 ad highlighting the lowlights of the Nixon Administration would resonate with the public in 1972.  Maybe this ad is a little too long.  Could it have been done better in 30 seconds? When the Presidential Election of 1972 was all said and done, President Richard Nixon (R) soundly defeated his Democratic opponent in a landslide.  McGovern went on to win only one state, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.


19 responses to “Short and to the Point?

  1. Antonio Rubino

    This ad could have been constructed better in 30 seconds. Too many “this is about” after each sentence. The video had to a certain extent a lack of interest.

  2. Derrick lynn

    The article was very informative but it as to long and it seem like it was on repeat which made it dry in the long run. i think he put all his eggs in one basket. He had enough material for about 7 commercials but he put all his eggs in one basket. As crooked as Nixon it was a sad deal that McGovern won one state. His run for president was mismanaging whom ever he had advising him good have well enough been great thinker but not the best strategics or were not the best winners. dnt like em but respect him the Lee Atwaters of the world.

  3. The ad was boring and did not get my attention at all. This is probably the reason why Nixon won anyways, because the ad wasn’t convincing and didn’t stir anything in the audience. The ad would be more appealing if it wasn’t so long and the newspapers made it even more dull.

  4. Islam Kadriii

    This political ad was really distasteful. First, repeating “this is about…” 23 times in under a minute would annoy even the most tolerable, patient person. Second, this ad’s content was lackluster at best. People want to see something that is exciting or scandalous. For example, McGovern should’ve used pictures of Nixon whispering to a person with a sly smile on his face. Having a picture of a suitcase handed to Nixon would’ve visualized the newspaper headline that stated that Nixon had “$700,000 in a suitcase” better. This ad should’ve not only been shorter, but should’ve done a better job in smearing Nixon’s name and campaign.

  5. Jennifer Hendel

    The ad was not very appealing at all. I think that the point could have been made better in 30seconds. The ad was long and not to a specific point. I do not see how McGoverns team thought that this ad would be an effective wayof campaigning.

  6. shannon siaperas

    I think they could have gotten the point across in 30 seconds. There were too many “this is about” sentences. I lost interest in the first 15 seconds. I believe this ad lacked interest in the opponent.

  7. Chris Chaparro

    From the start this video did not have my attention. It dragged on for way too long and it was almost creepy in a way i felt. Lacked personality and did not show any other view points only the wrongs of the president, not how it can be fixed.

  8. Mark d.a.m Hong

    The advertising in this video is too long and the image is not vivid. The repetiton of the word this is about, this is about has been used too many times. Did not leave a big impression and it is painful to watch.

  9. I think this ad was a little too repetitive. It was hard to pay attention and it could of been a lot shorter. In this ad the voice was drowned out and hard to stay focused on. There was nothing interesting in this ad that would capture people’s attention. I felt this add was jumbled and it could have ran better in a smoother way. Watching this ad lost my interest in what was going on.. most people probably wouldn’t have stayed watching the whole ad to hear what was said at the end.

  10. What was this ad about? The tone of the ad seem to me to be like the “daisy” ad. It was too sinister and scary. This is why it turned people off. The “daisy” ad had fear in it but that was done right. This ad was too long. They could have conveyed their message in a 30 second ad. No wonder why he loss.

  11. Muhammad Shukair

    I don’t think the ad was too bad. The way his team ran it was so that there could be no consequences with the media or law(This would be my guess). He literally used past documents and didn’t have to say Nixon’s name once. Personally think the 60 seconds could have been used more effectively, but 30 would have been too short. The ad being 60 seconds in itself should get the point across that Nixon has tons of corruption going on. I would have used more life in the voice and a different script maybe to tell a story with it all. Using a mysterious man that way the viewer is interested and then with the B roll of the the Newspapers in the background people will see Nixon’s name on it. Nixon may have just won simply because of just how corrupt he was. He had alot of bad guys benefiting therefore motivating them to do anything to get votes to keep him in office.

  12. Cristina Calderon

    I don’t think the ad was too long. It definitely could have been done better whether it was a better 60 second ad or a better 30 second ad. By the seventh “This is about” I wanted to scream. Despite the repetition being extremely annoying I thought the 60 seconds went by pretty fast. Probably because my brain was working too hard trying to focus on reading the newspaper ads and listening to non-matching words. For example, one ad title was “House study tells of $700,000 in a suitcase for Nixon” but the voice over was saying, “This is about secrecy. This is about stealing. This is about hidden funds.” I wasn’t convinced of anything with this ad. It was visual and auditory overload.

  13. Aneta Bukowska

    I personally have never seen a political ad this long. I Think it works better when it is presented in a shorter time, it gets right to the point, and keeps the viewer engaged. The message would have been better conveyed if it was a thirty second ad. It was long and boring.

  14. The ad as it is would have been more appealing if it were shorter. It being this long seems to (me at least) drone on about the lowlights of Nixon. If I were watching the TV when that came on I would most likely have changed the channel.

  15. Amber McNamara

    Being so long, this ad looses people’s attention. Unfortunately longer ads contain more content but less people watch them or pay attention because they get distracted or bored. The shorter the ad, the more people will be engaged throughout the entire thing.

  16. This commercial make me feel sick because is like teaching a little child the ABC’s. I think that they wanted to be sure that there is no doubt that we know what they want us to know. The commercial is very repetitive.

  17. Gianna Ranieri

    I feel that this advertisement could have been done better in 30 seconds. Keeps things short and too the point, most people will lose interest and focus 30 seconds into the ad anyways and therefore losing potential voters. The commercial they have now goes on and on explaining the same topic in like three different ways.

  18. The Ad needed to be shorter. It gave us a lot of info as to why we should not vote for Nixon, but it just stated that you approved of it, it did not state any ways or tactics that will be done by the new candidate. It didn’t appeal to me or probably any other voter at that point in time.

  19. Emerald Stanley

    Although the ad gave Mcgovern some kind of leverage in the campaign, the ad should not have been no longer the 15-30 seconds. The ad never discussed why Nixon should not be president, nor did it tell why Mcgovern should be. The ad itself should even have more detail about why we should vote for the other candidate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s