Tuesday, November 04, 2008
“The slogan was- “Change you can believe in” which I think was quite good, actually.”
Enitled of course Kensei - it’s in the eye of the beholder but “quite good” for what?
A good slogan stimulates a narrative in your mind. To be effective it needs to stimulate the sameish narrative amongst many. I think the most effective messages provide comfort and substance:
“Come home to a real fire”
Got everything really: “Come home” Very reassuring
“Real” - integrity and substance.
And we all know what a real fire looks like.“Change you can believe in”
“Change” - challenging? dangerous?
“You can believe in” there’s a bit of good in that but not a lot.He won easily enough though…..
Posted by on Nov 06, 2008 @ 10:41 AMDewi @ 11:41 AM:
Gawd ‘elp me! Deconstructionism! Wretch! Wretch! Spew! Erque!
Change: surely the essential, all-purpose come-on for any opposition, with the incumbent Prez down in the sub-30% approval ratings, even more so with the promise of a new social relationship across ethnic divides. It picks up the generational shift as well. No Democrat could have missed that word this time: they’re already commissioning the 2012 word—which will turn this lot on its head and involve stability, steady progress, continuity, safety (so get your draft in quickly).
you as opposed to “them”. Would it be even better with “we can believe in ...”? Perhaps not: this is going to be “your” victory. not just “mine”/“ours”. Equally, Democrats are not being inclusive here: they want to identify a specific enemy, “them”, and Obama spent a lot of time and effort identifying McCain with Bush—probably not entirely fairly.
can: potential, liberation, ambition—the American dream.
believe: faith, religion, an echo of ML King. Also a direct reminder of “their” past broken promises.
Notice, too, that the impersonal “change to believe in” is less street-wise, more abstract.
No, this is one of Madison Avenue’s best: a 24-carat gold-plated slogan, well worth the six figures it cost to mint.
Posted by on Nov 06, 2008 @ 11:19 AM‘a pile of Americans realised that Palin wasn’t capable of being President.’
Obviously Senator McCain did’nt share that view:(
One wonders if McCain was ‘forced ’ to pick Palin because others in the running ‘refused’ to join what they perceived as a losing ticket ?
‘Don’t disagree with your analysis but would have been closer.’Senator Lieberman is now ‘damaged goods’. His support of McCain over Obama was not reflected in the Connecticut voting which Obama won comfortably.
Posted by on Nov 06, 2008 @ 11:22 AMLol Malcolm - Derrida Rules…love this stuff.
Posted by on Nov 06, 2008 @ 11:25 AM
