Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising

by Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Packaging the Presidency, Third Edition , is now completely updated to offer the only comprehensive study of the history and effects of political advertising in the United States. Noted political critic Kathleen Hall Jamieson traces the development of presidential campaigning from early political songs and slogans through newsprint and radio, and up to the inevitable history of presidential campaigning on television from Eisenhower to Clinton. The book also covers important issues in the debate about political advertising by touching on the development of laws governing political advertising, as well as how such advertising reflects, and at the same time helps to create, the nature of the American political office. Finally, current public concerns about political advertising are addressed as Jamieson raises the topic of ads dealing mainly in images rather than issues, and of political aspirations becoming increasingly only for the rich, who can afford the enormous cost of
television advertising.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

608 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

Reviews

[Giovanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive review of presidential campaigns dating back from the early years of our nation through the 1992 general election, "Packaging the Presidency" offers a balanced critique of political advertising in the United States. Kathleen Hall Jamieson exposes the often overlooked processes and strategies driving successful (and unsuccessful) campaigns—absolutely no part of the process is incidental. Jamieson explores the extent to which political advertising shapes public opinion and influences elections, arguing the importance of a well-crafted strategy.

I found this book to be incredible informative, both as an advertising professional and a citizen.

As an advertising professional, I was fascinated to learn how political advertising implements an incredibly basic form of our industry's principles of persuasion, perhaps more effectively than many contemporary ad teams. I was especially intrigued by Jamieson's analyses of campaign and communication strategies. A hallmark of great advertising in the consumer space is not only defining a problem, but framing a problem in such a way that the solution is uniquely ownable by the advertiser. Similarly, great political advertising not only identifies key issues of the targeted electorate, but also reframes, exaggerates, downplays the issue such that arguments (solutions) must be made in the terms of the way the issue is presented. This, in turn, allows campaigns to control not only what messages are being delivered, but how those messages are interpreted. Rooted in these communication strategies are brilliant insights into the American experience; great strategists understand the pain points of their targeted electorate and know how to extract the human truth at the heart of the problem. What arises are frequent appeals to pathos rather than to logos. Winning candidates, then, successfully transform a national issue into a personable problem the electorate identifies with and takes action on. From my perspective, all together, the classic problem/insight/solution framework plays as powerful a role in political advertising as it does in strategic planning departments inside advertising agencies across the world. Presidential campaigns offer a sprint-like case study in how important it is to get each component of this framework right.

It's always a little startling to see familiar names like DDB, BBD&O, Leo Burnett, Ogilvy & Mather, and Young & Rubicam in the litany of advertising professionals assisting in presidential campaigns. But, it comes as no surprise that the involvement of Madison Avenue firms drastically changed the efficacy of political advertising. Drawing from their experiences in selling products and services direct to consumers, these ad men tapped into the very same emotional appeals that drove successful campaigns, such as DDB's Volkswagen spots.

Further, in Jamieson's recounting of the history of presidential campaigns, an important theme emerges: campaign messages do not exist in a vacuum. Many of the key talking points & issues made today were also made in the 60s... and the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s. Things have not changed, despite promise after promise of the opposite. When we study great art, films, books, and poetry, we see how the artist often puts their work in conversation with other great works. There's references, allusions, even reinterpretations of works of the past. Similarly, many advertising campaigns drew inspiration, themes, and even messages from other campaigns. Nixon, for example, drew from Eisenhower's campaigns in his unsuccessful 1960 run. Today, I see similarities between Trump's messaging on law & order (reminiscent of Nixon's 1968 campaign and Bush's 1988 campaign), as well as very, very clear parallels between both of Reagan's campaign runs in 1980 and 1984—Reagan's campaign coined the slogan "Make America Great Again." Even Trump's decision to move the inauguration into the Capitol Rotunda follows in the footsteps of Reagan--a decision certainly made to reinforce the Trump = Reagan imagery. In a party that immortalized Reagan, it is apparent the Republican campaign strategy is to cast Trump as a type of Reagan-reincarnated, an archetype bound to awaken latent feelings of patriotism in a majority of the electorate.

As a citizen, I found this book to be eye-opening in that it showcased just how coordinated the presidential campaign process is. It is not just a bunch of sleazy spot ads and a catchy slogan. Rather, it is a series of carefully planned, single-minded messaging foreshadowed at the nomination acceptance speech and weaved through every single ad launched through November. With the exception of some ads financed by rogue PACs, most ads deviate very little from the internal campaign strategy. Some ads are on the offensive: raising issues before the other candidate raises it. Some are on the defensive: reactions and responses to attack ads. Some are positive or biographical in nature. Some pieces act as reinforcement to the main messaging. Regardless of the type of ad, the messaging is cohesive across each iteration of the campaign, from the primaries to the convention to election eve.

I was surprised to read about the volley of attack/defense ads produced in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis race. As governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis had provided furloughs to first-degree murderers sentenced to life in prison; the program was marred by the actions of escaped convict Willie Horton. Bush's campaign locked into the Willie Horton case, as it played into the broader Republican platform of being tough on crime (a staple of the "law & order" party). Bush ran the infamous "revolving door" ad, claiming that 268 first-degree murderers escaped prison on their furlough and went on to commit horrible crimes (this number was falsely inferred from the way the copy was written—of those receiving furloughs, only 4 escaped, and only 1—Willie Horton—committed a crime). Additionally, his team mailed out yellow "get-out-of-jail-free" cards, in the style of the boardgame Monopoly, to residents in Massachusetts—the card outlined Dukakis' seemingly feeble stance on crime. Dukakis, in response, showcased how Bush himself issued furloughs to criminals. Bush won the election.

Perhaps even more surprising is the literal chess being played between opposing campaign teams. In the 1992 Clinton-Bush race, campaign teams intercepted and recorded opposing ads via satellite broadcasts. To mess with the Bush team, Clinton's media team placed ads on satellites with no intention to air them. According to Clinton's campaign manager, the hope was for the Bush team to intercept the ad, produce a responsive ad, and then buy time to run against an ad that never actually aired—thus depleting campaign funds and scattering the campaign strategy. Political advertising, then, is a game of attacks, retreats, and distractions.

Overall, I was thoroughly impressed by Jamieson's balanced, unbiased analysis of presidential advertising. I would have liked to see greater discussion on the development of the insights and strategies that drove these campaigns, as well as more granular critiques of each campaign's most important ads. However, this seems to be out of scope for the goal of this book—I think I'm just too entrenched in the advertising professional mindset with this one. I'd love to see Jamieson's opinion on the 2024 race (I'd like an entire case study on Kamala is brat)—I hope she considers penning a fourth edition to this book. Nonetheless, Jamieson's book provides a fantastic overview of political advertising—and is a great jumping-off point for those looking to do further research on the subject.

As our nation prepares to inaugurate its 47th president today, it is paramount to the preservation of democracy that all citizens understand political advertising as it is: sophisticated brand strategies applied to a living, breathing person. Just as not all advertising is entirely truthful, so too is the branding—the packaging—of the president. Jamieson's critique of presidential advertising gives readers the tools necessary to cut through the spin of the ads to see the candidate and the party for who and what they really are. This book is not just an essential for political scientists and advertising professionals, it is also an essential for us, the electorate, who are on the receiving end of these campaigns.

[Maria · Rating 2 out of 5]

Solo me intereso y leí la parte final. Sirve si estuviera haciendo una investigación o algo pero la verdad q a mí me resultó al pedo leerlo.