KERRY Making ADS But Not Running Them?

[liberalpragmatist]

Check out this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46233-2004Oct19.html

Some Kerry Spots Never Make the Air
Ads Are Produced to Spur News Articles

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page A06

John F. Kerry's strategists pride themselves on the sheer speed of their advertising effort as they churn out one response after another to President Bush's attack spots.

Now it turns out that some of the Kerry commercials are being written, edited, produced and put on satellites for the purpose of generating news articles. They have not actually aired on any network or local station -- except in reports about the Democrat's campaign.

<snip>

Two of the Kerry ads released last weekend -- one attacking the Bush administration's handling of flu vaccine, the other accusing the president of a plan to slash Social Security benefits -- have not aired.

<snip>

The Kerry campaign has also made small ad buys to draw headlines. On Sept. 25, the Kerry camp released a commercial -- in response to an anti-Kerry ad on terrorism by the independent Progress for America -- that accused Bush of "despicable" and "un-American" politics. It aired only on a Washington cable station.

On Oct. 11, the campaign put out an ad that said: "After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden and the wealthiest are paying less." A Kerry spokesman said it began airing only yesterday, in Minnesota. An ad about Vice President Cheney and Halliburton has run only five times, in Oregon and Harrisburg, Pa.

***

Is this a good idea? I can see the strategy, but some of those were good ads. Wouldn't it be worth actually USING some of them? The flu shot one has excellent potential (even if it's a *BIT* intellectually dishonest - but we're not going to beat the Repubs at their game playing with kid gloves).

[David Dunham]

1. Kerry should run his anti-soc. sec. privatization ad.

[LoZoccolo]

2. They're on the website.

The flu one is, at least. Are they saying that they cease to be ads if they're not on TV?

[Tesibria]

3. smart move, actually...

...because many times, the ads get "free" publicity in the media. So -- they make the ad, the news media shows parts -- and they never have to pay for the air time.

Remember -- the SBV ads actually aired (based on PAID ads) in ONLY THREE states. The national airing was courtesy of the "news" media.

[Johnny 99]

4. Maybe their saving them?

Could be...make them early, create some buzz, roll them out the week before Nov. 2nd. Not a bad idea, frankly.

[batchdem04]

5. great idea

why pay money to air when the media will do it for you? they can go out on a huge blitz these last two weeks...hold nothing back

[high density]

6. The Bush campaign is probably doing the same thing

If it takes a new campaign ad to "spur news articles" about something important, then I'm all for it.

[PATRICK]

7. Using the media screening

They trash through critical screening, employing the same depressing leveling techniques overall in focus groups on these ads. So using them to achieve exposure AND advance press reactions is a wise move. Not surprised the dumbfounded media is a giant step behind. Keep them there, the bland, depressing wrongheaded tools.

I am sure the ads will come out as needed, not helter skelter just because they are there. It costs real money to air them. The free publicity already got something out of the effort.

Not hard to have a good Dem ad, considering the candidates. Shooting fish in a barrel.

[elperromagico]

8. Ehh, it saves up some ads for the final week.

Last I checked, the Kerry campaign had a $13 million advantage over Bush in terms of federal campaign funds. So he's probably holding back for the final week, when Bush will be at a financial disadvantage.

[Radio-Active]

9. the freepers are complaining about this..

as if they didn't get tons of free media publicity with the Swiftliars nonsense.