Political ad spending by the presidential candidates during the 2012 election surpassed $2 billion, shattering previous records.
Despite these staggering (if not downright obscene) figures, experts continue to offer data-driven proof that sound-bite driven and largely distorted attacks do little to move the needle in terms of public opinion for large swaths of the population. 
A fascinating read in Rolling Stone offers an opinion from George Washington University’s John Sides that negative advertising campaigns are used by political consultants because: 1. They validate the employment of these advisors and 2. They demonstrate the archaic nature of the tools in this type of job’s toolbox. Ads only work in the smallest percentage of undecided voters in a narrow pool of swing states.
These ads simply don’t have an effect on bigger groups.
Let’s apply that same conclusion to the current effort by the Obama administration to influence public opinion on health care reform. We’re a little more than a month from Oct. 1, when citizens can first start signing up for individual health care insurance on the newly created exchanges. Many speculate that the fate of the law hinges upon how many people enroll (especially young people) and the uninsured, because it’s hard to see how costs could go down if no one pays to join.
So how have the president and his team chosen to educate the population about health care reform? They are spending $684 million in advertising to motivate the roughly seven million who they feel will make the initial roll out a success.
Disclaimer time out: The purpose of this blog is not to advocate for nor condemn the health law. Rather, I’m here to explore why an effort so critical to a presidential administration’s success would be fought with a strategy already shown to be ineffective at influencing large segments of the population. In other words, why primarily use advertising when storytelling – taking a passionate argument to the largest possible segment of the population – has proved to be the best path to success since the heyday of radio?
Starting with FDR’s “fireside chats” in the Depression era 1930s, through Reagan using his communications skills to popularize Saturday morning presidential radio addresses that continue today, every administration has used the power of storytelling to court opinion and push its policies through.
Jimmy Carter’s “crisis of confidence” speech is often derided, but that’s revisionist history, as the Washington Post notes. It was very popular until his actions failed to match the rhetoric. Bush I and II both hammered home the need for military incursions into the Gulf in their speeches, television interviews and media outreach by designated spokespeople. Clinton did the same for his justification of many actions through the years.
With the benefit of history to guide us, we can more easily judge the policy successes or failures for each president. The polls before and after the fact provide the evidence. However, there is no question that the successful use of storytelling sold their respective visions to the public throughout the real-time process of governing. Advertising just can’t provide the level of perspective, nuance, color or shading used by the best storytellers.
And “Story,” as we at WordWrite describe it, has a capital “S.” Your “Story” must start from a place of authenticity. In other words, an organization must make a reasoned, compelling argument for the significance of the message it’s trying to communicate. That message then needs to be shared by those in a company or business who are most fluent in the arguments as to why that particular “Story” matters. Finally, these fluent “storytellers” need to monitor the audience to make sure the “Story” is motivating their targets in the intended ways.
Instead of nearly $700 million in ads promoting health care reform, how about adding more faces to the grass-roots educational efforts in states and among population segments where people theoretically have the most to gain from the ACA’s purported benefits? Designate more fluent spokespeople in cities and towns across America to talk with the media, appear on television or radio programs and meet with editorial boards and station managers to address concerns and confusion surrounding the law.
Unfortunately, these are all tactics that should have been started three-plus years ago when the law passed. The reality is that most of the people who theoretically would benefit most from the law – the uninsured – continue to be least aware of how it might help them. A new poll from the Kaiser Foundation concludes, “Half the public (51%) say they don’t know enough about the ACA to understand how it will impact them and their family, with the share even higher among the uninsured (62%). This share has held fairly steady since 2010.”
At this point, advertising is all the administration has left to share its messages. At a minimum, perhaps the ads can drive the intended audiences from in front of their televisions to resources that better educate them about the ACA. For something as complicated as health care reform, that has to be disheartening for the Obama administration. I’m sure none of the top people tasked with implementing this effort wanted to resign themselves to an approach that’s simply “better than nothing.”
Big problems require more than 30-second sound bites. Whatever the issue, tell your “Story” through the most credible platforms and educated spokespeople. Then let the chips fall where they may. If necessary, use ads to support that larger story, not the other way around.
After all, before we judge a story, we usually watch it all the way through. I can’t tell you the last time I walked out of a movie. On the other hand, I also can’t tell you the last time I paid attention to an entire commercial.
_____
Jeremy Church is an account supervisor for WordWrite Communications. He can be reached at jeremy.church@wordwritepr.com and on Twitter @churchjeremy.
