New Hampshire TV is Secretly Amazing

The good Dr. only wishes to end this policy on the Federal level where we spend over $40BILLION annually for cannabis prohibition. 12 states have already voted to allow for medical use, yet the current policy of the Federal Govt is to go into those states, harass the citizenry and violate their rights... citing such things as RICO statues and compelling federal need. All the while continuing the black market and creating a growth industry for law enforcement and prison industries... yes industries. By allowing states to set their standards and work locally we stop that drain on scarce resources, we respect states rights, and we can also stem the tide of incremental militarization of our police forces. I ask you, how often have you heard of a "drug dealer" that cards or checks for legal ID? Take away the black market, tax it (as repellant as taxation may be) and let the states decide. The drug war is a dismal failure and rife with unintended consequences, we have lost extensive rights to that ridiculous cause over the last 30 years.... If you believe the current hysteria from ONDCP drugs are more plentiful, stronger than before... how can that be? Aren't we making progress?... and by the way look up the LD50 for cannabis, compare that to H20. Then do the same for alcohol or any other state sponsored mind altering substance that you see advertising for on a daily basis.... Think, evaluate, think some more. And then look for the bodies.

He isn't trying to establish a minimum RDA for these substances with these policy changes... he is merely putting the Federal Govt back in the box where it rightfully belongs. It will force new generations of parents to actually be honest with their children and teach them something other than to turn that responsibility over to yet another govt entity. Nothing is preventing you from being against these substances whatever they may be. But Federal intervention isn't working, and is based on lies and fearmongering.

Alex Plewniak
Bonita, CA

...because it ISN'T some glossy show for a "slick" politician. I liked that Ron Paul looked just a bit awkward (the expression "beware the eloquent tongue" comes to mind), and I liked that the ad appeared to use real people instead of polished actors.

It was simple & to the point, throwing in some key position points, just enough to pique curiosity for anyone interested in those issues.

I think Ron Paul looked more like an average American rather than an elitist "holier than thou" type. Some people are drawn to the elitist image, but people support RP so enthusiastically because he is "one of us" (as ALL politicians should be!)

I also observed that he showed different types of people - someone who looked like they live in the country, one a female student, a professional man in a tie, a professionally dressed woman, etc.... showing his appeal to a wide array of people. That was well done.

I showed the ad to someone else who generally supports RP but is not all that enthusiastic (yet), and they thought it was a good ad too.

I guess the only way to know if this ad is successful is if it brings NH residents to register and vote for Ron Paul.

Good point. Starting off with the "i may disagree with him, but I know he's for real" message is something that i've never heard before, and something that I think might really resonate. NH folk, and to a degree Iowans too, want a straight shooter. They want to size'em up like a horse: look'em in the mouth, and see if they pass muster.

I still suggest that more great ads could be produced by the campaign than by the Campaign. Let's keep'em coming!

But the more I watch it, the more I like it...

Do you know why the acting seems bad? Well, beside the fact that it IS bad... :) It's because we are comparing it to thousands of real life testimonials we have all heard.

But real life testimonials are jarring to your average TV watcher.

None of us are marketing experts, but from the few things that I do know... For this type of ad, you need to get attention, that first comment definitely does that... And ads are not meant to get people to think, that is not what they are doing while watching TV. They are meant to put thoughts in a persons head, that hopefully they are unaware of even where they come from when they think back later...

That may sound deceitful, and it is... When most people hear something 3 times, especially from 3 different sources, but even from the same source if it is something like TV, that's when they assimilate it as a part of their knowledge base.

Then later, they will repeat it as fact, further reinforcing it with people that they know.

A simple example and one that I recognize but can't seem to shake. I heard CarMax was honest about their deals both directions. I heard this enough times with cheesy acting on TV that I started repeating it to friends when the subject would come up. A friend took the advice and went to CarMax. And then I sat down and thought, where did I hear that? I didn't know.... Later, watching TV, I saw the commercial and it occured to me. Now, even though I know that has been artificially pumped into my head. I STILL tell me people that... But my friend's good experience with them has confirmed for me that it truly is ok to push them... But I push them because the thought is in my head, not because my friend had a good experience...

And before anyone blasts me for being so stupid as to fall for it... Understand this, we all fall for it, all the time... If it didn't, the advertising industry would die.

Much of the praise connected with this ad reminds me of art patrons who bend over backwards to appreciate obvious junk just because the critics said it was good.

It isn't good. This ad insults everyone who watches it.

Senior citizens are not totally stupid. Many of them fought in Vietnam. We (or better said the campaign staff) should remember the tone and timbre of the Vietnam generation and talk to them because they have now become our senior generation. This ad might work for the people who are now in their nineties.

If the next ad is similar to this then we do have a problem. Let's just wait a bit and see if the "art patrons" are right.

At first I thought the ad fell short. I thought it was tame. Then after some objective thought I looked at it from the perspective of someone that had never been exposed to Ron Paul before. It was perfect. It was exactly the opposite of what the finger pointing and name calling politicians we are all so familiar with would have presented. It was honest, upbeat and free from the tensions of gloom and doom. It was the type of ad that didn't assault your senses. It was proud. It was a neighbor helping a neighbor. It was a Thanksgiving dinner with family. It was what we represent. Be thankful and supportive of this amazing creation. It was a foundation laid to be strong.

Apparently people can be incredibly ingenious in finding reasons why a bad ad is actually a good one. You can have a different kind of ad than Romney ('unslick') and still have a GOOD ad. For the love of god, this isn't about taste or demographics, it's about quality.
Youtube vids are refreshing and honest, this TV ad was supposed to be slick; to target non-Youtubers and to assure them that Ron Paul is in fact a top-tier candidate just like Mitt Romney.

It's blatantly horrible.

At first I was put back by the ad. But I am quite willing to wait and see where the campaign takes it from here before I start bashing it. If it's just an appetizer, I can't wait for the main course, and I'm sure Dr. Paul will pull no punches in N.H.

I've watched the ad at least six times and I still have no idea what was said... nobody watches the conductor when the train is off the tracks, plowing into the dirt, and catching fire. The ad is awful... no way around it.
#RonPaul @ irc.freenode.net

I agree 100%. This is a great ad. It hits a lot of issues in only 30 seconds. National did a great job!

Good post.