Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Thanks a lot, Carrie and Fred.
And practically speaking, not actually mentioning what an ad is for until the last 5 seconds of the ad seems like a bad move, but maybe they've got market research to back up the assertion that people watch commercials all the way to the end.
Lastly, if the goal is to get people who believe that healthcare for all isn't some kind of socialist plot into the healthcare system, I don't know that promoting a bunch of young progressives from the city is the right move. If I'm sitting in my living room in Scio or Redmond or Medford or Pendleton and one of these ads come on, they're validating every preconceived notion I have about "liberal elites" and how they live in a fantasy world where everyone retires at 30.
And if the intent is (also) to convince naysayers that it's not all "OMG, Socialism!! The sky is falling!! Agghhh!!", this campaign is still a waste of money. Who cares about smoothing it over with the reactionary alarmists? It's done. They can cry all they want. There's no need to spend extra money to try to pacify anyone -- it's proceeding regardless.
But, yes, the spots are well done.
Yeah, fucking Lost Lander and Laura Gibson are what's bad for Oregon. Go fuck yourself, Spindles.
Comment of the week! Month? Year?
I am now going to use that phrase to describe half of what happens in Portland.
I'd say, on that score, well done!
1) Yes, there are 20- and 30-somethings in Portland who are uninsured, but these ads in no way represent some of the highest demographic categories of uninsured Oregonians: people living in rural areas; minorities; poorly educated; economically disadvantaged; large families; etc. Why would anyone from those demographics think these ads were meant for them?
2) These ads in no way inform people who are uninsured about what the program is and how they can take part. Not only is there no information in the ads about what Cover Oregon actually does, if an uninsured person who lives in, say, Pendleton who didn't graduate high school saw one of these ads on TV, would they have any idea whatsoever what it was about?
3) These ads are reported to have cost nearly $10 million to produce and subsequently air. That is some serious money for an ad campaign, and - especially since it's for a state-run program - there *should* be an expectation that the money is efficiently spent. So why are these ads appealing to the very people that are LEAST likely to need health insurance (well-educated Portlanders with jobs that provide health care) rather than those that are MOST likely to need it?
I'm sure everyone who had lunch at Little Bird today and had dinner at Ox will love these. Too bad people who had lunch at Subway and dinner at McDonald's won't.
The point is to create a good feeling around the program - not to inform people about the program. So when that person in Pendleton gets an email or pamphlet or someone knocking on their door in October, they'll say, "Oh! Is that the thing with the singing lady? Yeah, what was that?" and they'll engage in a conversation. These ads are a confidence booster and door opener, separating the brand from the national debate.
But then, with a name like Strunk & White, I would expect you to take things a bit too literally.
But instead these ads rely on producing a "good feeling around the program." We're not selling Pepsi here; we're selling the ability for all Oregonians to pay for prescriptions, preventive medicine, and health emergencies without going bankrupt.
Never posted on here - but am impressed with the conversation. I also noticed that these ads were clearly produced by a non native Oregonian someone deep in the heart of stereotypical Portland. They obviously don't realize that the rest of the State (save Eugina) hates Portland. I'll just stay out in Oswego with my BMW SUV and right wing family.