Like Spam, Political Attack Ads Work

Ask anyone and they are almost certain to tell you they dislike or hate attack ads. There have been plenty of those lately in our federal election. I commented on this an earlier post, to give a different take on them, in the style of a satire.

Similarly, everybody it seems hates email spam and telemarketers. Yet email, telemarketing (despite DNC lists) and attack ads continue and are even increasing in volume. All of this is costing someone money so why does it continue? Of course it's because it works. Email spam has the lowest "hit rate" (ratio of messages sent to revenue and orders), while attack ads, though difficult to gauge their effectiveness, seem to be the most productive of this loathsome trio. That's good for the financiers of the ads since they are quite a bit more expensive than spam and telemarketing.

If you are reading this (and I can't except even myself), you are very likely to be swayed by attack ads, while simultaneously claiming and even believing that you dislike them. And so they continue.

Listening to the reports of the French leaders' debate Wednesday night it was also evident that Harper knows where to draw the line. If he were to mouth the words or even just the tone of voice used in their attack ads on Dion it would surely backfire. The marketing strategy is good - the public face of the party looks and sounds reasonable, while the viciousness is mouthed by others. That way, should an ad or spokesperson cross the line in the public's opinion the ad or person can be rapidly, and publicly, retracted or rebuked with minimum damage. Which they've already done at least once so far.

We'll likely see the same softly-peddled attack strategy in the English debate. But you never know. Speaking in his native tongue it is possible Harper will let his words run ahead of his brain, since he does have a temper. Maybe that's what to watch for - one of the other leaders to provoke him to make a newsworthy outburst.