Why does whomever posted this (or Mapes) not ask how big the buy is? This is nothing more than a video press release.

Kinda like the spot... too bad he can't put any money behind it.

I love this ad. Novick has to take the image issue head on, and doing so through an introductory ad that is both amusing and serious is the right approach.

Good for Steve. I hope he will keep running hard and force the Speaker to fight for the nomination. No person should take nomination or election for granted.

This ad reminds me way too much of that scary candidate in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? Interesting strategy.

It is a witty ad, I will give him that.

I wonder how many young people remember the old show To Tell The Truth.

I remember the show very vaguely, but I think even those who don't at all will still clearly get the message of the ad.

Slick ad -- but "where's the beef"? The speaker of the house is out pounding the pavement grass roots campaigning, conducting meetings with common folks like me and others to listen to his message, engage in dialog, answer questions. He is inspiring us to get involved in change.

Does a desperately shrill implication that releasing a 30-second TV ad and "grassroots" campaigning are mutually exclusive even warrant a serious response?

My apologies, I didnt mean to imply that Steve may not be campaigning. I simply pointed out what I have seen Jeff doing and how I got involved personally, as a response to an earlier comment on the speaker of the house.

That's a clever ad. If I weren't already paying attention to the race, it would encourage me to learn more about Novick.

At this point, I've moved a fair distance into the Merkley camp, but this is definitely a good ad. It manages to turn the appearance aspect into a positive without being gimmicky ("strong left hook," anyone?), and could make anyone like the guy. There was a syndicated remake of "To Tell The Truth" a few years ago, so a younger voter might have some point of reference, but I think most wouldn't. I think the ad's effective regardless.

I am interested, though, how much money Novick has available for TV ads. TV isn't the be-all and end-all that it once was, but it's still very important. Jeff reported $619k for Q4. Right now, I can only compare to Q3, but no other challenger, D or R, raised more than that in Q3 but the three Democratic stars: Franken (MN), Udall (CO), and Warner (VA). Even Gordon Smith raised less than that in Q3 ($529k).

Also, it's interesting that Smith didn't get on the air before the Democrats did. That's unusual for him. He's got plenty of cash ($3.5M COH as of Q3), but I guess he thinks he may need to stockpile it.

I haven't paid attention to this race much so far but I'm glad that Novick is a different kind of politician and isn't going to talk about the traditional political things on the campaign trail that the other three guys in the ad did.

I think the other James missed the point a bit. The "other Novicks" were highlighting the main points of Novick's real bio and positioning. "Graduated Harvard at 21," "sued big polluters," "will fight for real change," "will stand up for everybody," expect to hear those themes a lot in the campaign.

In product marketing we have strategies for ads that basically make "the not looking" to "looking". This ad is perfect for the "not paying attention" to "let me pay attention". Benefits everyone in the game.

To answer the question a few posts up - "To Tell The Truth" (in at least in its last 1960s-70s Garry Moore form) was still in syndication on something like The Gameshow Network as recently as the late nineties, and may still be even now. Apparently there's a huge market for television nostalgia even among people too young to remember the original.

In any event: Steve's spot is brilliant and will work!

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 14, 2008 4:52:00 PM

It would probably behoove Steve Novick to actually have fundraising events then, seeing as Jeff Merkley's $620,000 Q4 haul eclipses Novick's meager $210,000 Q4 collection.

The Democratic nominee needs to be a proven vote-getter and must raise enough, early enough, to compete with Smith. So far, Merkley's far outpaced Novick on the latter front.

Come May 20, Merkley will prove that he best Novick on the former front (by winning the primary, of course).

It's clever and all, but these gimmicky references the Novick campaign keeps using to play off his disabilities are getting really annoying. For somebody who is supposed to outside the box it comes off as overly marketed corniness. Like the "don't change horses in mid-stream" ads in Wag The Dog.

Props to those of you who are Merkley fans and had the class to say that this was a good ad. To those of you who felt that this thread was just another opportunity to say "My guy will win ... your guys will lose ..." grow up.

Novick is a great candidate and a great person. That's not an insult to Merkley or Smith. We should be able to sit back and enjoy a political ad -- one that isn't insulting anyone -- without using it as an opportunity to compare candidates.

Hm, given Mike's response, maybe the ad would seem weird to someone who hasn't seen TTTT. (4T? T^4?)

Also, I wouldn't call $210k/quarter a meager primary haul. It's certianly enough to get ads up and operate a campaign. Props to Novick for a good quarter and a good ad. I hope both candidates can stay positive with their ads. But then again, I've cut back so much on TV, I probably won't have to endure it if they go all "unelectable"/"un-Democratic" on each other.

Great ad. It shows his smart and funny sides. Steve Novick has a history of fighting for what's right, definately worth a second look if you are not familiar with him. Also the best integration of, "I approved this message " I have ever heard. He is setting the bar up high.

There's one other Oregon political connection to "To Tell the Truth."

Go to oregonlive.com. Click on blogs index. Scroll to entertainment. Choose television. Then you get a flip-down archives menu. Choose March 2007 archives. Scroll down to March 1 and 2, 2007.

I am not posting the video - but the next person who contributes $33.34 to Novick gets to see it, privately.

Nice try David, great way to raise money. But just now there was no Television link I could find to 2007 archives.

Yes, there is. Let me spell it out step by step. Go to www.oregonlive.com Scroll down to a mustard-colored box marked blogs. In the upper right hand corner of this box it says BLOGS INDEX. Click that. Now scroll down the column marked THE OREGONIAN to a section with ENTERTAINMENT in bold letters beneath which there is the word Television and the name Peter Ames Carlin. Click again. Then scroll down and on the left side find ARCHIVED POSTS. Use flip-down menu to find March 2007 then find March 1-2. It is there. To Tell The Truth.

Nifty idea, Novick's ad, but a graduate of Harvard law should know that...

"I don't look like the typical politician, but I won't act like one either."

...is improper structure. The "but" should be "and".

torridjoe,

Here's a list of conjunctive meanings of "but" from an online dictionary. Do you see see one that fits Steve's usage?

1. On the contrary: the plan caused not prosperity but ruin.
2. Contrary to expectation; yet: She organized her work but accomplished very little. He is tired but happy.
3. Usage Problem Used to indicate an exception: No one but she saw the prowler.
4. With the exception that; except that. Often used with that: would have joined the band but he couldn't spare the time; would have resisted but that they lacked courage.
5. Informal Without the result that: It never rains but it pours.
6. Informal That. Often used after a negative: There is no doubt but right will prevail.
7. That . . . not. Used after a negative or question: There never is a tax law presented but someone will oppose it.
8. If not; unless: "Ten to one but the police have got them" Charlotte M. Yonge.
9. Informal Than: They had no sooner arrived but they turned around and left.

Perhaps I'm one on of few remaining Americans who likes the English language to make sense, but my ears starting burning when I heard that "but". Mathematically speaking, "and" is a plus, while "but" is a minus. They cannot be used interchangeably.

"I don't look like the typical politician, and I won't act like one either" makes perfect sense; so "I don't look like the typical politician, but I won't act like one either" is nonsense.

I promise to be equally nit-picking with Merkley's ads.

Ha, ha. Great fun. Chris, I use verbal colloquialisms myself. "They're" is difficult to say without generating a spitball, so I say "there's" as you do. It is improper grammar, true. On the other hand, using "but" instead of "and" is a mistake of meaning and much more serious - but not serious enough to get our panties is wad over it.

As to Torridjoe's comment, I would be on Steve's bandwagon if he were LESS like a traditional politician than he is. Since Jeff is no better in this regard, I will keep my trap shut, since I believe that criticizing Democrats in primary campaigns should only be done when it matters. I wish supporters of both candidates would follow suit and sound a little less like fifth-graders at recess.

the internet makes things easy for us if we try...

"Metro President David Bragdon: A TV Legacy of Lies".

has anyone donated $33.34 and one the prize yet?

torridjoe,

I overstated when I wrote that "but" is illogical. The mistake is one of meaning. "But" implies that the second half of the statement is surprising, given the first half of the statement. In...

"I don't look like the typical politician, but I won't act like one either."

...there is no reason that the first half should create surprise at the second half, so "and" would have been more meaningful than "but".

I doubt this gaff will cost Steve the election, BUT it may cost him the votes of a few language teachers.

Politics is not often about meaning, AND Steve's ad is not about meaning either.

I do not find this topic important, BUT I will continue to persist as long as you do.

I do not like Gordon Smith, AND I will support his opponent.

Get the idea?

I agree with Tom Civiletti. I also noticed the "but v. and" issue, and thought it should have been "and."

I also agree that it matters not one iota. Normal people (the target audience for this ad) aren't going to parse the words like we do. Certainly, "jarring" is a little overwrought.

On a more important note: I think we should call this episode "But-gate". Any takers?

Stephanie V,

Now, your statement makes sense. It is, however, a completely different construction than Steve's. "But" is the conjunction applied to "that's OK", and "because" is the conjunction applied to "I won't act like one either"

darrelplant,

I'll make sure to keep away from that guide, then.

I've moved a fair distance into the Merkley camp

Life's not fair - Merkley's too tall, and he lacks a hard left hook.

Way to go, Steve. I am old enough to remember "What's my line?" and I'm glad to see Steve using "the tall guys" so well. So what about the but v and? At least you were listening and caught it. How many others will even hear that? I'm hoping that Steve,Jeff & the Independent candidate will make it to Central Oregon before May! None were able to make it to Bend last week. Deschutes, Jefferson & Crook Counties need to see them so we can choose for ourselves!

Before the commentary lost its way in the and-or-but fog, DW waved a red flag:

This ad reminds me way too much of that scary candidate in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou?

In the movie, the Little Guy waves a broom to show that Homer Stokes is going to make a clean sweep, when in fact Homer is the Grand Wizard of the Mississippi KKK.

As a retired 35-year professional in public relations, advertising and politics, I say thumbs-down on this spot.

Without O Brother, it might have worked, at least among us old farts who remember To Tell the Truth.

David Hedges,

Most voters may not have the specificity of memory that you have. On the other hand, they may make some ambiguous connection to that scene in O Brother..., which may make them more likely to remember the ad and Steve. In our input saturated world, that could be a plus.

<h2>In order for an opponent, primary or general, to take advantage of the negative connection, he would need to make direct reference to the movie character. That could very likely backfire, especially in a state with a high niceness factor like Oregon.</h2>