
(Editor’s Note: With political ads flooding the airwaves, we asked Arkansas Business political columnists Robert Coon and Blake Rutherford to offer their critiques of TV spots in the U.S. Senate and governor race. Here’s the ads we chose and what they think of them. Also: You might want to view this article as a single page.)
The U.S. Senate Race
“Listened,” by Tom Cotton
The Setup: After Tom Cotton voted against the farm and nutrition bill in 2013, critics were eager to exploit the issue. That’s where this ad comes in – to blunt that criticism and change the narrative. To that end, Cotton takes the bull by the horns to provide context to his reason for opposing the farm bill, distinguishing between the parts of the bill that deal directly with farmers and another section dealing with food stamp and nutrition programs.
Robert Coon: Proactively addressing the farm bill issue is a wise decision by the Cotton campaign, as the farm bill issue is nagging vulnerability that needed to be addressed head on. Cotton has been clear that his objections to the bill were rooted in the growth in spending on food stamp program (80 percent of the bill’s spending) and not in providing aid to farmers (20 percent of the spending).
But his characterization that the food stamp funding increase was due to President Obama “hijacking” the bill is at best an over-simplification of events – and his campaign has been heavily criticized for that characterization.
Personally, I think the reference to Obama added little value to the ad and that Cotton’s food stamp spending argument was strong enough to stand on its own. Still, I think it was necessary that Cotton address this potential vulnerability, and that the ad does just that, which should help insulate his campaign from charges that he doesn’t care about the needs of farmers.
Blake Rutherford: There’s nothing positive to be said about Cotton’s ad regarding the farm bill, a measure he voted against (and he was the only member of the Arkansas’s congressional delegation to do so). The ad’s claims about Obama are also disingenuous, as multiple fact-checkers have pointed out.
And the ad is desperate. Cotton has struggled mightily with how to rationale this vote with members of the electorate, and it seems that all he has left is conjure a bizarre theory of blame that has no basis in fact. But that’s been Cotton’s M.O. from the beginning. In that vein, the content of this ad isn’t surprising.
“Smaller,” by Mark Pryor
The Setup: The latest ad from the Mark Pryor campaign is one that, like Cotton’s, addresses agricultural issues. But it also delves into spending, jobs and burdensome regulations – a virtual checklist of buzzworthy political topics.
Robert: Generally speaking, I think there’s a lot to like in the ad. The opening features Pryor discussing the EPA’s farm dust regulation, which allows Pryor to demonstrate that he understands specific challenges facing farmers, gives him an opportunity to rail against the EPA and government in general, and demonstrates his bipartisan bona fides. Personally, I think Pryor delivers the “Obviously, Washington knows nothing about farming” line exceptionally well. I think the setting for this portion of the ad suits him, too.
The second half of the ad is less memorable, featuring a diverse group of Pryor backers offering praise and, unfortunately, including hard hat/lab coat footage of Pryor that, unlike the row crop setting, looks unnatural. Making a candidate look good in a production facility or manufacturing setting – especially wearing a hard hat – can be tricky and has the potential of creating a Dukakis tank moment. Overall I think the first half of the ad is strong and solidly positions Pryor with the agricultural crowd. That’s a key constituency in this race that both candidates are still trying to court.
Blake: This particular ad from Pryor personifies his centrist approach to government. Here, he embraces politically popular themes that are attractive to Independents and might appeal to cross-over voters. First, he stakes out the position that the EPA is out of touch — no revelation in Arkansas politics. But Pryor makes that point in the context of agriculture, a key driver of jobs and economic opportunity.
The most significant line, “Washington knows nothing about farming,” is well-delivered and probably should have been the theme for the entire 30 seconds considering the challenges Cotton faces regarding his vote against the farm bill.
The Governor’s Race
“Something Different,” by Asa Hutchinson
The Setup: The goal of this ad is to convey that while others are engaged in negative attacks, Hutchinson is focused on “something different” – his priorities for the moving the state forward as governor. The approach positions Hutchinson above the fray and gives his campaign the opportunity to push Hutchinson’s vision for Arkansas to voters inundated and fatigued by endless negative TV spots.
Robert: To me, this ad reinforces that Hutchinson is the frontrunner in this race. It’s the kind of spot you run when you know you’re ahead and want to set it in stone. Hutchinson, as he has done throughout the campaign, connects well with viewers on the screen, looking composed and self-assured on camera. The ad also rolls out specifics so voters understand Hutchinson’s priorities should he be elected governor: lower income taxes, computer science at every high school, better workforce training and resistance to federal overreach and burdensome regulations.
The only critique I’d offer is the choice of graphics. They’re not your typical supers, and best I can tell they’re designed to resemble iPhone apps. They’re necessarily bad, but they’re definitely different – which might even be the point given the title of the ad.
Blake: I have to admit the only thing I kept seeing in this spot were the little icons that popped up over and over. I had to watch the ad a few times just to hear what Hutchinson was saying. I don’t see icons’ utility; to me, they diminished the ad.
But if you’re able to ignore them, the message is core to Hutchinson’s platform. If there was anything else that struck me, it was how comfortable Hutchinson appeared speaking directly to the camera. He has a natural demeanor and cadence that Ross simply does not have. I actually think it helps Hutchinson a great deal.
“An Even Better Place to Call Home,” by Mike Ross
The Setup: The latest ad from the Ross campaign leads with the negative and closes with the positive, almost as if it were two 15-second ads rather than one 30-second spot. Out of the gate, Ross comes out swinging at “DC Lobbyist Asa Hutchinson,” then highlights a handful of Congressional votes that Hutchinson cast that the Ross campaign contends cut Medicare, attempted to privatize Social Security, cut education funding and provided tax breaks for millionaires.
Robert: Just as the positive focus of Hutchinson’s “Something Different” ad demonstrates he’s leading, the direct negative attack from the Ross campaign in this ad signifies to me that they know they’re behind and are trying to gain ground. Following a barrage of negative attacks, the ad transitions to a positive spot where Ross lays out his vision for the state: to grow the middle class, increase educational opportunities, cut taxes and create jobs.
Ross generally presents well on camera but particularly in two scenes featuring school children, where he comes across as down to earth, caring and likeable. The ad ends with Ross speaking directly to the camera, delivering a closing line about making Arkansas “an even better place to call home.” For me, Ross’ delivery seems a little forced, and the subtle wink and contented smile at the end don’t help.
Blake: The first half of the ad is standard attack fare, and it’s smartly conceived. But for an attack ad, it seems rather upbeat. Perhaps it was the choice in music.
Unfortunately, the ad’s second half really doesn’t work. My takeaway was that Ross appeared uncomfortable and his facial expressions forced, as if he recorded the ad at the end of a long, difficult day. The script is also filled with too many awkward, jumbled phrases compressed into a short time: “increased educational opportunities,” “lower and fairer taxes” and “more and better paying jobs.”
But the oddest part of the ad is the closing: “I’ll work with anyone who’ll work with me . . .” Honestly, I’m still not sure what he’s trying to say, but when I considered it in the alternative — “I won’t work with anyone who won’t work with me” — well, it doesn’t exactly inspire.
Bonus Ad!
“Say Yes To Asa Hutchinson,” by the College Republican National Committee
The Setup: The spot, part of a $1 million online buy from the CRNC, is a parody of sorts on the popular TLC show “Say Yes To The Dress.” The dress, in this case, is symbolic of the two candidates for governor. In the ad the “Asa Hutchinson” dress is presented as a “trusted brand” that’s good for the budget and will lead to a better future. The “Mike Ross” gown is over-priced, outdated and comes with billions in taxes and debt and increased spending. In the end, the young woman – who decides to make her own choice and not the choice her mother would make – picks the “Asa Hutchinson” dress.
Robert: I might be in the minority on this one. While this ad has certainly seen more than its fair share of criticism, I think there’s some upside.
Many have been quick to pan the ad as insensitive, dumbed down and even sexist. But what they’re missing is that this ad is narrowly targeted to a specific demographic: younger, female voters. Yes, it’s risky. But it’s different, cuts through the clutter and is far more likely to get the attention of younger, independent female voters who are disengaged from the political process and don’t watch the nightly news.
Critics aside, what matters here is what independent women aged 18-29 think about the ad because that’s who it’s for. If they like it and it resonates, then it will prove to be effective. But that’s a question that only that targeted group can answer.
Blake: Well, we officially have the most bizarre ad of the election cycle. Girls in wedding dresses named for two Arkansas gubernatorial candidates, one much more expensive than the other. It’s paid for by the College Republicans, so you can probably determine which is which. It’s whimsical, which can be an effective technique. Just not in this case.
(Next time: Robert and Blake review ads in the races for attorney general and Congress.)
(Robert Coon is a partner at Impact Management Group, a public relations, public opinion and public affairs firm in Little Rock and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. You can follow him on Twitter at RobertWCoon. His opinion column appears every other Wednesday in the weekly Government & Politics e-newsletter. You can subscribe for free here.)
(Blake Rutherford is vice president of The McLarty Companies and previously was chief of staff to the Arkansas attorney general. You can follow him on Twitter at BlakeRutherford. His opinion column appears every other Wednesday in the weekly Government & Politics e-newsletter. You can subscribe for free here.)