Leave a Comment Johan
Powerful new video ad against a 2012 constitutional amendment in Minnesota
May 20, 2011
By Adam Bink
It’s an interesting approach as often people gloss over words in speeches. This brings them front and center.
Filed under: Marriage equality
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
30 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
DaveP | May 20, 2011 at 5:20 am
It's a good ad. BUT – refering back to the article yesterday about 'what does it take to reframe NOM' -
We know the other side will be using hard-core attack ads. They do it every time. Our side had damn well better start doing the same. We need ads that call out NOM and the people behind this bill for what this is really all about. Tell the public that this measure is being funded by hateful extremist groups who say things like (then insert a selection of vile hateful quotes from NOM, FRC, etc.). Tell people the true agendas behind this bill. Make it clear that a yes vote is NOT just 'supporting traditional marriage', it is buying into the lies of these hate groups and supporting their agenda of discrimination and bigotry.
2.
Mark | May 20, 2011 at 5:39 am
I agree…time to fight fire with fire.
3.
Felyx | May 20, 2011 at 6:26 am
I disagree… not with becoming loud and clear but in the attack posture attitude.
Instead, we need to tell our stories, show our families, let OUR children speak.
History shows that dirty political ads are only so effective… have we already forgotten what the McCain ads were like? Obama primarily won with Hope and Change… not constant vicious attack ads.
Calling out NOM and FRC just gives them the attention they crave; sharing messages that show raw honesty, heartfelt truth and real people with real stories are what changes hearts and minds.
If you feel like making a change then tell your story.
4.
cr8nguy | May 20, 2011 at 6:27 am
it's decent! but, i hear/read these types of comments all the time….about responding hard-core….fire with fire…and I have to ask…how?
don't get me wrong….i agree, we need to find a more effective approach and much stronger responses. but i have no idea how we do it.
the "people behind this"…well, those are religious folks and it is pretty damn hard to convince irrational fundamentalists that they are wrong. same with catholic bishops. to these people, their beliefs are not lies and they are not hate groups.
how do you reason with the unreasonable??
if we attack the bishops….that could alienate fence-sitting catholics (there are alot of these, by the way)….and what would we say? I'd call them out as the Pedophile Protection Squad…but I'm not sure that would help.
we have to find a way to appeal to lay catholics that will be more effective than what they are hearing from the church leadership. any ideas??
as for the fundies…..nothing will make a dent here. you could find a way to attack their attempt to create a theocracy……but how?
i don't want to make it sound like i think DaveP or Mark or anyone else is wrong….cause I don't think that. But, with all due respect to everyone, we have to get to a point where we stop repeating the same thing and actually CREATE some options to do what we all think needs to be done.
I have undergrad and graduate degrees in theology from a catholic university….I know how to talk to catholics. but i am clueless as to how to make this work…fire with fire. but there MUST be a way…
ideas???
5.
Michelle Evans | May 20, 2011 at 6:39 am
I don't think we need to go on the attack, per se, but maybe just saying the truth about the opposition. How they fly in with the big bucks from unknown sources and spew lies to manipulate people. We fight their lies with truth from both sides. Tell the people to stop being manipulated and think for themselves. Maybe something along those lines.
We let their lies go unchallenged, and that has to stop. All our ads are sweetness and light, while theirs are fire and brimstone. We may have wonderful ads that tell our stories, but they obviously aren't working.
6.
Michelle Evans | May 20, 2011 at 6:42 am
As for this specific ad: I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.
7.
AnonyGrl | May 20, 2011 at 6:44 am
(To preface, I can't watch the ad at work, I will when I get home…)
But how do we fight fire with fire? What is required is educating people. Unfortunately, you can't do that in a 30 second (very expensive) ad. You can't do it in a 60 second (and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE) ad either.
Education requires lots and lots of repeated messages, and coming at different people from different directions.
So I think the "Nom is on the SPLC watch list, FRC is on their hate group list, and here are their lies exposed…" fire with fire idea is a good one to get SOME people. The "this is my family and this is how your vote hurts my children" emotional soft sell works very well for others. "This is the Constitution and this is how it works" factual ads can also be useful.
In all cases, we need to be telling the truth of our story, but I think we should find ways to push ALL the buttons, not narrow our focus too far.
I don't think we will ever find the magic single ad that accomplishes all of that, we need to keep working ALL those angles.
8.
cr8nguy | May 20, 2011 at 6:54 am
i agree with you AnonyGrk. the more angles we work the better. and i understand the "this is my family" idea and I think it is helpful.
the one area i am confounded by is the "these guys are liars". Of course, they are full of crap liars. but how do you make it into and effective "fire-and-brimstone" type ad?
you are 10000% correct about the education thing. the problem is they have one thing that is instinctively motivating….fear. that's why they can produce those ads, etc. WE don't have that….do we?
is there a way for us to use fear as well? fight fear with fear??
9.
Mackenzie | May 20, 2011 at 6:57 am
This is a beautifully put together ad!
10.
Kathleen | May 20, 2011 at 7:01 am
UPDATE: LCR v. USA (DADT case)
Government's Opposition to lifting the stay
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55916677
11.
JC | May 20, 2011 at 7:13 am
Strong ads need more than quotes. You need to see people's faces up close. You need emotional reactions–anger, sadness, humor.
You need an ad with a closeup of a grandmother asking Minnesotans what right they have to tell her she cannot be at her lesbian granddaughter's wedding.
You need an ad with police dragging one of two mothers out of their house while their reading to their kids, then putting up a tagline like, "would you vote to break apart a family? vote NO on…" (Why do we leave the hyperbole to NOM?)
You need to round up every gay family you can find and stick a hundred quick clips together of each of their kids, standing in front of their gay parents, one by one saying "my family is just like yours," or a bunch of individual gays in different walks of life asking straight to the camera, "am i less than you?"
You need to get Benjamin Jealous and John Lewis and others to make a speech to the camera about why think this matters. The black civil rights movement has more moral credibility than any other movement in modern history, and its leaders are on our side. You could intersperse their speech with video recordings of anti-gay speeches side by side with old clips of racist speeches.
It doesn't matter how you do it, but you can't change minds asking people for something or telling them something. You have to confront them.
12.
Michelle Evans | May 20, 2011 at 7:23 am
JC, I absolutely agree. I think the words in this ad are very effective, but the people actually saying those words on camera would ratchet up the power a thousand fold (picture worth a thousand words, etc.).
We can't fight NOM with just words. Think of the types of ads they use: Little kids and worried mothers scared their kids are learning its okay to be LGBT. Their ads are almost all scare ads, and they have been shown to be very effective.
We should use a scare ad in return: "These people want to vote away some people's rights. Who's to say you're not next on their target list!"
13.
Kathleen | May 20, 2011 at 7:23 am
UPDATE: Mass DOMA Cases
BLAG's's Motion to intervene.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55917824
14.
Joe | May 20, 2011 at 7:26 am
Heres the problem as I see it. Minnesota is in the 8th circuit. In the 8th circuit, there is federal support for state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage.
In the decision of Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (8th circuit, 2006), the 8th circuit explicitly held that state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage do not violate the US constituion.
"As we have explained, Appellees' attempt to isolate § 29 from laws prohibiting same-sex marriage because it is a state constitutional amendment fails. If there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that is, if a statutory prohibition satisfies rational-basis review, then § 29 likewise survives rational-basis review. We hold that § 29 and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
So all of the ads about hate, etc. dont play in Minnesota. You're gonna have to come up with a different way. You cant say bigotry, you cant say homophobe, because the 8th circuit has ruled that it is a legitimate state interest and constitutional.
15.
Maggie4NoH8 | May 20, 2011 at 7:40 am
OT – but WOW…
http://minnesotaindependent.com/81762/gop-invites…
16.
karen in kalifornia | May 20, 2011 at 8:02 am
OT – the list of Republican elected officials in MN who have been divorced and have voted to put the amendment on the ballot so gay couples can NEVER get married even once.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/81166/minnesota-g…
17.
Bob | May 20, 2011 at 8:25 am
there is a very effective way for our side to use FEAR,,,, I'm hearing it on main stream news,,,, (the Ed show, has a great ad where he says this country was built on values enshrined in the constitution,,, it's what made us strong,,,, do we want to keep those values,, and remain the strongest country??????)
Obama makes mention of equality for all under the constitution
if you can use that fear, which I think is already happening,,,, i.e. republicans destroying medicare, etc… America is strong and proud and was built that way on the pinciples and values handed down through generations,,, who upheld those values,,,, Americans have more to FEAR from losing sight of that,,,,
Fear used by the religious right is aimed at us,,, teh gayz,,,, really how wierd is that,,,,, what's more scary,,,, and use images,,,, The only country owned by the Catholic Church,,, The Vatican,,,, show alll those priests and bishops and the pope,, in all their robes gowns and crowns,,,, men only,,, surrounded by all their treasures,,, and dictating how the world should live,,,,, or US, people forming families, and loving each other,,,,,, ordinary people , tax paying citizens,,,, contributing to and helping society,,,,,,, show ordinary citizens in America,,, vs life in the Vatican,,,,,, what's more scary,,,,, should we give up our values, and rights and freedoms,,,,, for what?????? freak em out it's only a small group of mysogenistic, patriarchs who want the Pope to own America….
18.
Adam Bink | May 20, 2011 at 8:25 am
Interesting comments. I will say that I often find the best ad campaigns try many different styles. Some include faces, some just images, some hit you over the head with "danger lurking" voiceovers, some soft touch like this. It is a long way until next November and this is one approach to try. I will also say that I found a lot of attacks on ads in various campaigns that focus grouped incredibly well with locals in the state. Some of it is gut and some is science.
That said, we all have to be careful to spend our money on ads that work.
19.
Bob | May 20, 2011 at 8:30 am
By the way, I do like this ad very much,,, words are meaningful,,,,, consider marriage,,, for example,,,,,,
I like watching these words stroll across the screen,,, it's different, edgy,,,,, and very personal,,,, in the sense that if it were a real person saying those things,,,, I then have a tendency to look at the person and get lost on thoughts about how they look,,, etc, etc…
this ad is me alone contemplating words,,,, very well done
20.
Nicole | May 20, 2011 at 9:04 am
@JC
I have to say that I completely disagree on a few of the points that you brought up. While I agree that we need to put a human face on the issue, I think we need to keep perspective here.
I honestly don't believe that people vote on behalf of these amendments because they think that we're bad people. There are a lot of people out there that will also say that marriage for same sex couples will compromise their own marriage. For the sake of perspective, no one has ever divorced over gay marriage. At best, this is more like rhetorical hot air thrown around in the media. It doesn't hit the core of why the average person votes for an anti-gay amendment, and I fear it's most effective as an unfortunate distraction.
What we do know is that parents of children respond strongly to anti-gay rhetoric. We know that there is a lot of fear that civil liberties will be compromised. The average voter isn't homophobic. They're afraid that marriage equality is about something much bigger than marriage equality. Gallagher constantly states that her goal is to make us "Admit that marriage equality is about taking away liberties from religious communities."
I have a theory that if we are going to combat this, we're going to have to do something similar. What they have done is give themselves the rhetorical home advantage by changing the platform entirely and making a vote against same sex marriage a vote for parental rights and religious rights. We must acknowledge that this is much bigger than marriage. It is part of a much larger anti-gay agenda. What this allows us to do is open up a huge can of worms, and acknowledge that groups like NOM and FRC go well beyond marriage and often fight against just about all rights for gay people in general.
A vote for marriage equality is a vote against the forces that cause young teens to suffer from bullying, and it's a vote against the same forces that support the Uganda Bill which sanctions the murder of gay people. We need to change the platform on our terms and let this be a much larger statement against institutionalized bigotry of any kind.
21.
grod | May 20, 2011 at 10:02 am
@cr8nguy
Your observation that the next generation of promotional ads could be more effective by remaining positive but targets to particular groups is insightful in my opinion. Gallop’s recent survey may supports your contention that religious folk are one group that remain resistance. . The less regularly attending churchgoers are among those who have been described as the influence-able middle – who you less charitably describe as fence sitters. Gallop does not support you view that catholics vs protestants are more resistant. Which goes to show you that in crafting promotional messages you need to know well whom you are seeking to reach. There has been no shift among those who identify with the Republican party. Adam reminds us that another consideration in planning promotional material is that resources are limited. Gallop does not get a handle on all the factors that brought about have been in play in the shift but does say that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was identified as one of them. For me, it suggests that the LGBT community needs to work with pollsters to better understand the dynamics that are influencing the shift in public opinion. Not said is the related news article is how this shift is reflected by state, or regions within a state. Perhaps CC should seek the details without paying big bucks.
22.
mike | May 20, 2011 at 11:03 am
EXCELLENT AD
Simple Words with a soft, yet dramatic music and melodramatic entrances and exits…..
Makes you THINK !
It has tremendous impact.
BRAVO !
23.
David | May 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I think the single most effective thing we can do is try to get others to imagine being in our shoes. The switch in their heads will be flipped then. Second to that, we need to get people to become aware of their unfounded biases so they can start to process them.
With that said, I think the video is still effective and very well done.
24.
Martin the Brit | May 20, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I have to say I don't care for the melodramatic music at all. I actually think it cheapens the message. This isn't an epic Hollywood showdwon; these are real people's lives. The words should speak for themselves. You shouldn't need music to invoke an emotional response.
25.
Don in Texas | May 21, 2011 at 1:00 am
It's interesting to read the ideas of the people here about different approaches. There are some very good ideas and some that are …
It seems to me that basic principles of advertising should apply to our efforts:
1. Identify the target audience. (RESEARCH-RESEARCH-RESEARCH)
2. Select the medium or media that best reach that target audience. (RESEARCH-RESEARCH-RESEARCH)
3. Craft a message that addresses the needs, desires and mindset of the target audience. (RESEARCH-RESEARCH-RESEARCH)
4. Build financial support to fund our efforts so they are fully effective. (WORK-WORK-WORK)
5. Evaluate the results and repeat.
Summary:
1. Market
2. Media
3. Message
4. Money
5. Measure
26.
Don in Texas | May 21, 2011 at 1:04 am
In my experience, one of the best techniques is the CONTRAST approach. For example, those who are old enough might recall the comparison of the favored product with "Brand X."
I see no reason why this approach would be ineffective in posing an "Us versus Them" campaign. Many of those who wrote above have offered this idea.
27.
Dave in CA | May 21, 2011 at 7:04 am
NOM will be using primarily one tactic: SCARE YOU that your children will be harmed.
If Marriage Equality passes, THEN YOUR CHILDREN WILL BECOME GAY. They have used some variation of that over and over and over, because it seems to work. (Teaching "gay" in schools; taking away your right to teach your religion to your children; confusing children about gender roles; won't somebody please think of the children; kids need one man / one woman to role model for them; etc.).
That, or some new variation on it, is what they will bring to Minnesota. GAY MARRIAGE WILL DAMAGE YOUR CHILDREN.
Until the Marriage Equality think-tanks address that very emotional, gut-level kind of scare tactic, all of our messaging goes down to a losing battle.
28.
grod | May 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm
@Dave in CA
I agree with your observation that Until Civil Marriage Equality think-tanks address NOM et al’s very emotional, gut-level kind of scare tactic of children being ‘harmed’ or ‘becoming gay’, all of our messaging goes down to a losing battle. So does Don in Texas' excellent set of possible steps and approaches.
A review of the above comments in this blog suggest meaningful suggestions to message making: I assume that children could be of any age including young adults.
Felyx (3) says let the children speak.
AnonyGrl (7) says one approach would be to say "this is my family and this is how your vote (against equality) hurts my children”
JC (11) says one apprach may be to round up every gay family you can find and stick a hundred quick clips together of each of their kids, standing in front of their gay parents, one by one saying “my family is just like yours”.
Nicole (20) suggests the message should say: A vote for marriage equality is a vote against the forces that cause young teens to suffer from bullying.
Not doubt this listing of ideas will suggest others…. The Equality think tank has been given a number of suggestions to address Dave in CA’s call for messages that inoculated the public against NOM usual message about vulnerable children. I agree with Don in Texas that research is key. In an earlier blog on a related topic, I encouraged analysis of pollster’s findings.
29.
BK | May 22, 2011 at 1:36 am
Great video. I loved hearing the voices of young people in the video.
30.
ghd plattång | May 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm
I'm just looking, it is this information, the entire World Wide Web. I thank you for the article search is over, and now you. You write in a very comprehensive post. So I say thanks and add your blog to myfavorite was. Enjoy the day.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.