(06/29/09) "Obama Campaign Takes Top Ad Prizes" (ABC News in association with USA Today)

[Spang]

Barack Obama's historical win to become president also made history at the world's biggest ad competition where his election campaign won one of the most coveted Cannes awards.

Obama for America unanimously won two Grand Prix awards — one Titanium and one Integrated in the finales Saturday. The Grand Prix for film went to a dramatic, interactive video by Tribal DDB Amsterdam for Dutch electronics giant Philips and its new $3,999 home-cinema TV. Titanium has become an increasingly prestigious category since it sets a new standard for the industry.

The winners capped the most prevalent theme this week for the thousands of ad makers and clients gathered at the ad fest on the French Riviera: ads today have to operate across multiple mediums, include user involvement and show results.

In this case the results were votes, user involvement spanned events, campaign volunteers, YouTube videos, Twitter, Facebook and media included everything from traditional mass media to social networking.

"They set the framework and let other people contribute to it," said David Droga, jury president and creative chairman, Droga5 in New York. "They turned (political advertising) from being one dimensional to something the whole country could contribute to. It was a fantastic idea. "

Despite representation on the Titanium and Integrated panel by three U.S. judges, not everyone was sold initially on the campaign, the first political campaign to ever win a Grand Prix here.

"I came into this not wanting to vote for the Obama campaign," said Rich Silverstein, co-chairman and creative, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. "But it was effective. You couldn't ignore it. There will never be a political campaign that doesn't uses these tools."

Also a first: a digital agency and video took the top prize in film, a category that traditionally awards the top prize to a TV spot. The video Cinema 21:9 introduced the "world's first cinema proportion TV." Viewers can click hot-spots to make it feel as if they control the film about a botched armed robbery at a hospital. The site (www.philips.com/cinema) has had more than 1 million unique visitors who spend an average of five minutes.

"It has a lot of different elements," said David Lubars, chairman, chief creative officer, BBDO, North America and the jury president for film. "It's an example of showing the way forward."

The ad runs for two minutes and 19 seconds, an intentional length in order to promote the set's 21:9 display proportion. People can toggle between the aspect ratios and activate the set's signature Ambilight feature, backlighting on the set that makes it feel more like a movie theater.

"We wanted people to experience the difference between 16.9 and 21.9 TV and we wanted them to experience between having Ambilight on and Ambilight off," says Gary Raucher, head of integrated marketing communications for Philips consumer lifeystle.

The agency wanted to created something memorable and used a dark setting, eerie music and dead robbers in clown suits to demonstrate the product.

"We wanted to create something cinematic, action packed and heart-stopping that would get the audiences attention," said Chris Baylis, executive creative director, Tribal DDB Amsterdam. We were still discussing the masks two days before the shoot. The crazy evil clown masks are the ones we went for … because it made Ambilight look great. "

More demonstrations of good ads:

• VW revs up the auto industry. A feel good Volkswagen ad for Spacefox vehicle won a gold in film. The ad showed a young man and his fishdog pet. Volkswagen won more than a dozen ads at the festival where it was also named advertiser of the year.

"Volkswagen is an iconic, authentic, soulful brand in all markets, and its advertising is legendary," says Tim Ellis, U.S. marketing chief for Volkswagen, which has won 150 lion awards throughout Cannes' history. "Throughout the world Volkswagen stands for value, respomsibility and innovattion."

• Not politics as usual. Newspaper The Zimbabwean attached dictator Robert Mugabe in a highly-awarded campaign that used valueless currency as billboards and posters. The campaign won a Gold Lion in Integrated.

More Obama campaign wins: The Great Schlep, which featured Sarah Silverman in a video to get Jewish voters in Florida to vote for Obama, won a Titanium Lion. And MTV took a Gold Lion for a register to vote campaign.

• Social strength. Winning campaigns used consumers to help breath life into campaigns. Among the week's big winners were campaigns that were "co-created" by consumers. Burger King took a Titanium for its Whopper Sacrifice program by Crispin Porter + Bogusky that awarded people a free Whopper for de-listing 10 friends from their Facebook page.

The Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=7947528&page=1)

[Laura Cereta]

"They set the framework and let other people contribute to it," said David Droga, jury president and creative chairman, Droga5 in New York. "They turned (political advertising) from being one dimensional to something the whole country could contribute to. It was a fantastic idea. "



Yes, Obama's networking was the best a politician has ever done. That being said, let's not forget that if he hadn't flip-flopped on taking public funding, he never could have afforded all those ads. There were quite a few irregularities in his donation process, as well.

I'm not going to praise the way Obama won this (or any other) election. It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so. This IS the same guy who became a U.S. Senator by having all his opponents removed from the ballot by legal maneuvering.

I know there are some people who are going to want to argue with me about this, but I just don't see how anyone could say with a serious face that caucus fraud, ACORN, disenfranchisement, and paid off Supers qualifies as an honest win.

[westmann13]

Yes, Obama's networking was the best a politician has ever done. That being said, let's not forget that if he hadn't flip-flopped on taking public funding, he never could have afforded all those ads. There were quite a few irregularities in his donation process, as well.

I'm not going to praise the way Obama won this (or any other) election. It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so. This IS the same guy who became a U.S. Senator by having all his opponents removed from the ballot by legal maneuvering.

I know there are some people who are going to want to argue with me about this, but I just don't see how anyone could say with a serious face that caucus fraud, ACORN, disenfranchisement, and paid off Supers qualifies as an honest win.

genericstamp! How do people buy into such bullshit? It's like let's praise the guy who defrauded the democratic process for running a good ad? Give me a break!

[hobbitt]

There will never be a political campaign that doesn't uses these tools."


And we certainly know to whom "these tools" refer.

[Tybee]

And we certainly know to whom "these tools" refer.


:e5:

[PA_Voter]

... It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so.....



I was thinking the same thing! :thumbsup:

[Spang]

It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so.

No. Obama was leading in the polls and also won the election.

[VotingHillary]

No. Obama was leading in the polls and also won the election.

Funny part, though, how many states where Obama was leading in the polls, and the state didn't have a caucus system, Hillary won.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :thinking:

[Spang]

Funny part, though, how many states where Obama was leading in the polls, and the state didn't have a caucus system, Hillary won.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :thinking:

If we're talking about the primaries, I'm out. I didn't follow the primaries.

[VotingHillary]

If we're talking about the primaries, I'm out. I didn't follow the primaries.

And that's why you don't get the anger regarding Obama.

[Spang]

And that's why you don't get the anger regarding Obama.

You'd have to admit, some of the outrage is ridiculous. Using a teleprompter, eating a burger, et cetera.

[Brooke]

If we're talking about the primaries, I'm out. I didn't follow the primaries.

You're kidding? How could you not? It was the most exciting part of the entire election.

Yes, Obama's networking was the best a politician has ever done. That being said, let's not forget that if he hadn't flip-flopped on taking public funding, he never could have afforded all those ads. There were quite a few irregularities in his donation process, as well.

I'm not going to praise the way Obama won this (or any other) election. It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so. This IS the same guy who became a U.S. Senator by having all his opponents removed from the ballot by legal maneuvering.

I know there are some people who are going to want to argue with me about this, but I just don't see how anyone could say with a serious face that caucus fraud, ACORN, disenfranchisement, and paid off Supers qualifies as an honest win.

While I did come around shortly after the election and have let a lot of my anger from last year go and am somewhat satisfied with the job Obama has done, I have to agree with Laura 110% on this statement. Maybe not so much in the GE but in the primaries, it was an unfair fight. Supers were paid off, money was coming in from foreign donors which shouldn't have been allowed, the caucuses were completely fraudulent, the DNC and the media were both in Obama's pockets. It's true, he had brilliant organization and they planned beyond Super Tuesday which the Clinton camp did not. However, it doesn't take away from the bullcrap that went on that while I'm no longer holding a serious grudge about, haven't soon forgotten.

In regards to ACORN, I'm not sure where I stand on that. I was really angry about them around the election but now I haven't seen any solid proof that they really made a significant difference at all.

[Spang]

You're kidding? How could you not? It was the most exciting part of the entire election.

I didn't follow politics until the general election. I'm a n00b.

[Brooke]

I didn't follow politics until the general election. I'm a n00b.

Ahh.. Gotcha. That was kinda where I came in back in 1992, after the primaries.

Speaking of which (and this is off topic, sorry), I just saw Tom Harkin on CSPAN last week and boy did he get OLD! Man, made me feel ancient.

[Laura Cereta]

You'd have to admit, some of the outrage is ridiculous. Using a teleprompter, eating a burger, et cetera.

I'm not sure if "outrage" over a burger is really what the outrage is about. Now the teleprompter is getting ridiculous, but again, outrage over that isn't really about a teleprompter, it's about feeling that the POTUS was not the most qualified person for the job. A lot of times anger comes out sideways at the most convenient target. I doubt most people care about Obama eating a burger; it's just an outlet for other concerns.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Funny part, though, how many states where Obama was leading in the polls, and the state didn't have a caucus system, Hillary won.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :thinking:

Hillary only won 3 more primary states than Obama. You can't blame Obama's success on the caucus system because quite frankly he did well in the primaries as well. And had the caucus states been primaries he still would have won because a majority of them had him favored in the polls. Perhaps he wouldn't have won by as great of a margin but he would have won by enough to secure a victory.

Here is an excellent analysis written last year.

http://www.observer.com/2008/where-would-obama-have-been-without-caucuses

This suggests that Obama still probably would have won primaries in the states where he racked up giant caucus routs. The spread, though, would have been closer. (Another factor to consider is the calendar: perhaps Obama’s performance in Nebraska would have been better had the state held its non-binding primary back in early February, when he was on a roll and winning everywhere.)

Anyway, with all of this in mind, here is a speculative look at how primaries in the caucus states might have looked. For turnout, we are simply tripling each state’s caucus turnout, based on the turnout in the Washington and Nebraska turnouts. Note that Obama’s overall plurality in most of these states isn’t really affected, even though his margin of victory is slashed, thanks to the higher turnout. In fact, in some states his plurality actually expands slightly. (Remember, we are excluding Iowa, Nevada and Hawaii from this exercise.)



SUPER TUESDAY CAUCUS STATES (FEB. 5)



Kansas

Caucus result: Obama, 74-26 percent

Caucus plurality: 17,700 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 58-42 percent

Primary plurality: 17,580 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 120

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 5



Colorado

Caucus result: Obama, 67-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 40,757 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 56-44 percent

Primary plurality: 42,455

Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 1,658

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 6



Idaho

Caucus result: Obama, 79-17 percent

Caucus plurality: 13,225 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 57-39 percent

Primary plurality: 11,089

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,136

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4



Alaska

Caucus result: Obama, 75-25 percent

Caucus plurality: 4,480 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 60-40 percent

Primary plurality: 5,320

Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 840

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1



North Dakota

Caucus result: Obama, 61-37 percent

Caucus plurality: 4,677 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 51-47 percent

Primary plurality: 2,219

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,448

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1



Minnesota

Caucus result: Obama, 66-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 73,188 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 54-44 percent

Primary plurality: 63,100 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 10,018

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 8



FEB. 9-10 CAUCUS STATES



Washington

Caucus result: Obama, 68-31 percent

Caucus plurality (estimate – no official tally kept): 88,812

Non-binding 2/19 primary result: Obama, 50-47 percent

Primary plurality: 38,386 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 50,426

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 12



Nebraska

Caucus result: Obama, 68-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 13,681

Non-binding 5/13 primary result: Obama, 49-47 percent

Primary plurality: 2,665

Net Clinton vote gain: 11,016

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4



Maine

Caucus result: Obama, 59-40 percent

Caucus plurality: 8,813 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 52-47 percent

Primary plurality: 6,594 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,219

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 2



MARCH 8 CAUCUS STATES



Wyoming

Caucus result: Obama, 61-39 percent

Caucus plurality: 2,067 votes

Projected primary result: 50-50

Primary plurality: Clinton by 1 vote

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,069

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1



Add all of these together and we find that, based on our projections, had the caucus states been converted to Clinton-friendly primaries, Clinton would have made the following gains:



Net plurality: 77,954 votes

Net delegate gain: 44



Practically speaking, this would do little to change Clinton’s current predicament.

After West Virginia this week, she still trails Obama by 153 pledged delegates and about 562,000 popular votes.

However, when you factor in generally accepted estimates from the four caucus states where no popular vote tallies were kept (Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington), Obama’s popular vote edge rises to about 672,000. And since we’re using two of those caucus states in our exercise, we need to include this data. So when the numbers from our caucus-to-primary conversions are factored in, Obama still leads by 109 pledged delegates and about 594,000 popular votes.

Neither of those leads will be threatened by the remaining five primaries, or even – most likely – by the inclusion of Florida and Michigan (assuming Obama is at least credited with the “uncommitted” vote from Michigan). In other words, the caucuses helped Obama greatly, but they’re not the reason he’s the nominee.

Caucus states or not Obama was the better politician and polls show he would have done just as well without caucuses.

[Spang]

I'm not sure if "outrage" over a burger is really what the outrage is about. Now the teleprompter is getting ridiculous, but again, outrage over that isn't really about a teleprompter, it's about feeling that the POTUS was not the most qualified person for the job. A lot of times anger comes out sideways at the most convenient target. I doubt most people care about Obama eating a burger; it's just an outlet for other concerns.

I find the outrage ridiculous. George W. Bush started an unjust war that has killed 4,317 Americans to date. (http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx)

Barack Obama ate a burger.

[Brooke]

I find the outrage ridiculous. George W. Bush started an unjust war that has killed 4,317 Americans to date. (http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx)

Barack Obama ate a burger.

So? This past week's events showed that there's still outrage over Bill Clinton getting a blowjob and lying about it and that was 11 years ago. Excuse me, it was actually 14 years ago. Yet that outrage hasn't bothered anyone (other than me it seems).

[Spang]

So? This past week's events showed that there's still outrage over Bill Clinton getting a blowjob...

That outrage is ridiculous, too.

[VotingHillary]

Add all of these together and we find that, based on our projections, had the caucus states been converted to Clinton-friendly primaries

That's one hell of a qualifier. Oh, and one other thing....

Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2008

Barack Obama

The New York Observer newspaper in New York City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid ential_primaries,_2008

Good to see you quoting an unbiased source. :rotfl:

[Laura Cereta]

Kansas

Caucus result: Obama, 74-26 percent

Caucus plurality: 17,700 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 58-42 percent

Primary plurality: 17,580 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 120

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 5



Colorado

Caucus result: Obama, 67-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 40,757 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 56-44 percent

Primary plurality: 42,455

Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 1,658

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 6



Idaho

Caucus result: Obama, 79-17 percent

Caucus plurality: 13,225 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 57-39 percent

Primary plurality: 11,089

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,136

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4



Alaska

Caucus result: Obama, 75-25 percent

Caucus plurality: 4,480 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 60-40 percent

Primary plurality: 5,320

Net Clinton vote gain: NEGATIVE 840

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1



North Dakota

Caucus result: Obama, 61-37 percent

Caucus plurality: 4,677 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 51-47 percent

Primary plurality: 2,219

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,448

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1



Minnesota

Caucus result: Obama, 66-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 73,188 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 54-44 percent

Primary plurality: 63,100 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 10,018

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 8



FEB. 9-10 CAUCUS STATES



Washington

Caucus result: Obama, 68-31 percent

Caucus plurality (estimate – no official tally kept): 88,812

Non-binding 2/19 primary result: Obama, 50-47 percent

Primary plurality: 38,386 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 50,426

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 12



Nebraska

Caucus result: Obama, 68-32 percent

Caucus plurality: 13,681

Non-binding 5/13 primary result: Obama, 49-47 percent

Primary plurality: 2,665

Net Clinton vote gain: 11,016

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 4



Maine

Caucus result: Obama, 59-40 percent

Caucus plurality: 8,813 votes

Projected primary result: Obama, 52-47 percent

Primary plurality: 6,594 votes

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,219

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 2



MARCH 8 CAUCUS STATES



Wyoming

Caucus result: Obama, 61-39 percent

Caucus plurality: 2,067 votes

Projected primary result: 50-50

Primary plurality: Clinton by 1 vote

Net Clinton vote gain: 2,069

Estimated Clinton delegate gain: 1

Constituents being locked out of caucuses; Obots hijacking sign-in sheets and filling them out themselves; moving caucus locations at the last minute; younger voters intentionally and maliciously intimidating older ones; staff trained in Alinsky manipulation tactics; caucus schedules that disenfranchised night workers and the elderly; final vote tally being forged.

You can talk about numbers all day long. They probably aren't the right numbers to begin with and if they are they were reached through illegal means. This is not speculation. I heard many personal stories of blatant caucus fraud and I worked the TX caucus and saw it with my own eyes.

[Brooke]

VH, you crack me up! :laughing:

[Spang]

Oh, and one other thing....

Did you ever compare Obama endorsements to McCain endorsements? It was like Tyson vs. Spinks, totally unfair. But is it really Obama's fault that people like him?

[Brooke]

Did you ever compare Obama endorsements to McCain endorsements? It was like Tyson vs. Spinks, totally unfair. But is it really Obama's fault that people like him?

First of all, McCain raised a ton of money too, in comparison to other GE candidates in the past. It just didn't look like much in comparison to Obama.

Second of all, sure people like him. But nobody did any research as to where a lot of that money was coming from. And it was coming from overseas. So all this b.s. about how the US shouldn't get involved in other countries elections but it's okay for foreigners to get involved in ours? It was okay for Palestinian kids on the West Bank to be making phone calls in the US for the Obama campaign? I really don't think so.

[Lealy]

Yes, Obama's networking was the best a politician has ever done. That being said, let's not forget that if he hadn't flip-flopped on taking public funding, he never could have afforded all those ads. There were quite a few irregularities in his donation process, as well.

I'm not going to praise the way Obama won this (or any other) election. It was as fraudulent as Ahmadinejad's win; just not as obviously so. This IS the same guy who became a U.S. Senator by having all his opponents removed from the ballot by legal maneuvering.

I know there are some people who are going to want to argue with me about this, but I just don't see how anyone could say with a serious face that caucus fraud, ACORN, disenfranchisement, and paid off Supers qualifies as an honest win.


What is bad is that the primaries will continue the same way again the next time around guaranteeing the people don't matter, cheating is acceptable, caucuses are somehow fair and super delegates are all that matter. I will never look at an election the same way again. But just like the Bush/Gore election they talk about fixing the way things are done and they do nothing. Yes I voted for the dope Gore wish I did not, I also think there were problems all around but found it ridiculous that no one really changed anything. No I would never have voted for him if I had been educated on real life.

All the problems during the election have been completely swept under the rug making sure it can be done again.

Way to much money the ads were just a part of the scam.

[Laura Cereta]

Did you ever compare Obama endorsements to McCain endorsements? It was like Tyson vs. Spinks, totally unfair. But is it really Obama's fault that people like him?

When he donated large amounts of money to the PACs of representatives whose districts Hillary overwhelmingly won (or had Pelosi do it), then yeah, I'd say he bares some responsibility in their "liking" of him. They are responsible, as well, Instead of honoring the voice of their constituents, they allowed themselves to be bought off. :-bd

[Spang]

First of all, McCain raised a ton of money too, in comparison to other GE candidates in the past. It just didn't look like much in comparison to Obama.

Second of all, sure people like him. But nobody did any research as to where a lot of that money was coming from. And it was coming from overseas. So all this b.s. about how the US shouldn't get involved in other countries elections but it's okay for foreigners to get involved in ours? It was okay for Palestinian kids on the West Bank to be making phone calls in the US for the Obama campaign? I really don't think so.

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the celebrity, athlete, military, politician and newspaper endorsements. And several other kinds of American endorsements like college professors and scientists and such. The list for Obama was huge compared to McCain's.

[VotingHillary]

VH, you crack me up! :laughing:

It's called doing your homework....something sadly lacking with too many voters.

[TheTaoOfBill]

That's one hell of a qualifier. Oh, and one other thing....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presid ential_primaries,_2008

Good to see you quoting an unbiased source. :rotfl:

Did the article lie? The fact is the polls were very accurate in determining the winner and with the exception of a few surprises most states turned out as expected. And had the caucus states been primaries Obama would have still won more delegates. Obama's delegate lead was too great to blame on caucuses.

[VotingHillary]

Did the article lie? The fact is the polls were very accurate in determining the winner and with the exception of a few surprises most states turned out as expected. And had the caucus states been primaries Obama would have still won more delegates. Obama's delegate lead was too great to blame on caucuses.

Figures don't lie....but liars figure.

[Brooke]

Figures don't lie....but liars figure.

LOL. Good one.

[BillDemo]

If we're talking about the primaries, I'm out. I didn't follow the primaries.

That's Spang... Lots of opinions about a topic but a lack of knowledge about the topic. You and Obama must be twins :p

[Spang]

That's Spang... Lots of opinions about a topic but a lack of knowledge about the topic.

I have no opinion on the primaries.