Have you yet seen Romney's newest ad aimed at women? I saw it for the first time today, while I was reading this article from the Huffington Post. (Isn't the title perfect? Voting with our hormones, ha!) I'm a Republican, first off, so one might expect me to be sort of gung-ho about Romney and his newest endeavors. But to be frank, I'm not. And this ad, though it was created to make women turn a disapproving eye towards his Democratic competitor, didn't really affect me at all. I'm not a mother, but I want to be one day. So why shouldn't this message alarm me? Well, honestly, I feel like it misses the entire point of what women are fighting for these days.
The ad focuses on unemployment among women. While unemployment is a key issue in the United States, I don't think it's a key issue for women. Not specifically, anyway. Let's face it, the reason women love Obama and dislike Romney is because of the reproductive rights issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does unemployment and poverty among women really have anything to do with it? Probably not so much.
The video also seems to be ineffective because of its contrasting audience targets. The narrator is talking about the rising number of women without jobs. So you'd think that these facts would stand out to a career woman or a woman who is trying to find a job. And yet the only visual we get is of a newborn baby. This kind of confuses me... Is he trying to reach out to mothers or career women? Both, perhaps? I guess I just don't understand why the ad doesn't feature a working woman as well as a mother. Because when you make a baby the center of everything, it really does seem like you are hoping we vote with our hormones.
What a fascinating example of messaging. The visual doesn't seem to fit easily with the narration, as you point out. And as research shows, the visual trumps audio almost every time. So what does this extended visual of an adorable baby REALLY say?
ReplyDelete