A Video Producers Take on the Luzerne County Judge Election

As a video dude, I followed certain aspects of the Luzerne County Judge Election closely, since I was hired by Richard Hughes’ campaign to shoot some web videos and set up his YouTube site. Keep in mind that I am not taking into consideration radio, newspaper, billboard, or signage here, just video and internet media. I thought I might share my observations with anyone interested.

Of the top 3 vote getters in the Primary Race for Luzerne County Judge, all used
A. TV commercials
B. Websites with videos on them
C. Social media.

Television, first and foremost, shows people what the candidate looks like, how they speak, and act. No other form of media can tell you more about a person in 30 seconds. Most candidates air their commercials on local newscasts because that is what most voters watch. Spots on WNEP and WBRE run about $1000 a pop. I’m surprised that no candidates ran their ads on lower cost cable outlets like CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows. Spots run only $5 to $15. Granted, the audience is a lot smaller, but if you only have $1000 to spend, it can be aired a lot on cable. Television is essential with this many candidates in a single race.

Websites are essential. They are available for people to get information about the candidate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or for those of you with A.D.D., 24/7. Add the fact that you can now ad video or a link to video, and you have a potent marketing tool. If you have video and don’t put it on your site, shame on you! I told one of the prothonotary candidates that if one of them put a video up on YouTube that explained what a prothonotary did, they would win. Well no one did, and I still don’t know what a prothonotary is. Is it a courthouse pharmacist or something?

Social Media is here to stay. Because Tina Polachek Gartley spent the least out of the three top candidates, it gives me an indication of just how important new technology and the young people using that technology is to the election process. Social Media (FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter) is a cheap form of communication that can bring people together almost instantly.

The most alarming thing I came away with from studying this election is this - The Quality of the Commercial Doesn’t Matter! Yes folks, good production values, finely crafted lighting, modern editing techniques, all the things I’ve been striving to excel at as a video producer don’t mean Jack Squat! If you look at the top two vote getters commercials, you’ll find examples of bad composition, poorly designed uneven graphics, and unflattering lighting. Maybe it’s the message and how the candidates deliver it that is the most important part of video, though it breaks my heart!

Here is a rundown on how I thought the candidates and their teams performed using video and internet marketing. …and remember, hind sight is 20/20.

Bill Amesbury
TV Commercials: 3 commercials. Poor, unflattering lighting on 2 of them. The spots ran early and often.
YouTube: None
Social Media: Good use of FaceBook account
Website: Nice website with videos
Overview: Despite his commercials looking like they were filmed in an Al Qaeda cave, they were effective because there was a variety of them, and he addressed the camera directly, engaging the audience.

Tina Polachek Gartley
TV Commercials: 1 commercial. Lighting was unflattering and the graphics and editing were choppy.
YouTube: 2 Videos, one homemade and one from the Times Leader
Social Media: The most use of Facebook in all the campaigns. Almost too much, I wanted to turn my spam filter on. Tina even Twittered!
Website: Nice Website with videos
Overview: I think the FaceBook activity really elevated this campaign. It got the volunteers organized cheaply and effectively.

Richard Hughes
TV Commercials: 2 spots, decent quality (I didn’t make them) They ran a little late in the campaign.
YouTube: I set up his YouTube Channel. I had all his commercials, the Sam LeSante Show appearance, and an announcement and interview video..
Social Media: Good active use of FaceBook account.
Website: Nice website with video.
Overview: A well rounded campaign. I think Richard should have spent more on TV ads, and a lot earlier that the last week of the election.

Joe Musto
TV Commercials: 2 or 3 spots. Good production.
YouTube: 2 commercials and announcement video
Social Media: Had Facebook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed me, and since he had no friends, I’m guessing the powers that be didn’t think the Facebook was important to maintain.
Website: Nice site with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign

Joe Sklarosky
TV Commercials: 1 TV Spot. Nice production, but everyone looked stiff.
YouTube: None
Social Media: He had a FaceBook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed my request.
Website: Nice website with video
Overview: His TV spot needed to be warmer and friendlier, and Joe needed to talk to the camera instead of the 4 second side angle shot of him with his family. Plus, he needed more Facebook activity.

Mike Blazick
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Nice site, but the video of Mike on his site sputtered, making it difficult to watch. I even emailed his campaign to let them know and the problem was never fixed.
Overview: Signs and billboards are not enough to win a campaign.

Gene Sperazza
TV Commercials: Nicely produced spot but didn’t show the candidates personality
YouTube: None
Social Media: Had a MySpace and FaceBook site but didn’t utilize use them
Website: Nice website with video. An earlier video on the website had him addressing the camera, but he looked stiff.
Overview: Gene spent the most money for the longest period of time. I would have liked to see him do a spot with his family. More attention should have been paid to FaceBook. Why have social media sites if you don’t use them. They’re important.

Daniel Zola
TV Commercials: 3 Spots for cable in Hazleton only. More like Powerpoint presentations, not very engaging.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Simple website, with the TV spots put up late in the campaign.
Overview: I know Dan can fold his arms, because that is the only image I’ve seen of him throughout the entire campaign.

C.J. Bufalino
TV Commercials: 3 TV commercials, good production. They ran often.
YouTube: His ad agency had his commercial on YouTube, but not a specific “Bufalino” channel
Social Media: Little use of FaceBook account.
Website: Good website with videos
Overview: Good, well rounded campaign.

Molly Hanlon Mirabito
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: 3 homemade videos, poor quality
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel with homemade videos. She didn’t even have a professional photograph.
Overview: Low budget, low votes. Unfair, but that’s the way that it is.

Tom Marsilio
TV Commercials: Ran in Hazleton Only. Didn’t get to see them.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel, no video. At least post the commercials that only the Hazlton people saw.
Overview: Not enough effort as needed to win a campaign

Tony Lumbis
TV Commercials: One or two low budget chroma key spots.
YouTube: Yes, the two commercials
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Nice website with video. It was even available in Spanish!
Overview: Too little, too late. He did make sense in his TV spots.

Joe Terrana
TV Commercials: 3 spots. The best production value of all the candidates.
YouTube: Yes. All the commercials are there.
Social Media: None
Website: Nice Website with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign. The TV spots had some thought behind them. Should have done FaceBook.

Jennifer Rogers
TV Commercials: She made 2 decent TV spots but I didn’t see any airing, and I’ve looked.
YouTube: 2 videos, the above, aforementioned TV spots.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Homemade looking site. I couldn’t get the videos to play
Overview: She has the warmest personality of any of the candidates, but without TV commercials airing, she didn’t use that to her advantage.

Thomas O'Connor
TV Commercials: 2 spots. Tom’s image didn’t come off as flattering as it could have been. He should wear his glasses in commercials.
YouTube: One Poor quality announcement video pittstonpolitics.com., not his own channel.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook.
Website: Nice website, but put up too late.

Steve Menn
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: One of two candidates to not have a professionally shot picture of himself/herself. That is at least the minimum requirement. Should have stayed home. My wife thought he was cute though, that’s gotta count for something!

Michael Pendolphi
TV Commercials: 1 or 2 low budget chromakey spots. The kind TV stations will give you free if you spend a certain amount on air time. It's just like buying 4 new tires and getting a car free!
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: Pretty much drove that car off the map. Seemed like a nice guy though.

Why do some political commercials look better?

With 17 candidates running for judge this election, most of them have television commercials airing, and most have some sort of video on You Tube or on their website. But why is it that some look good, and some look cheesy? Let's take a closer look, shall we?

The Message: "You know me, you trust me." was quoted in one spot. Well, what if I don't know you? Now what? Sounds like you're trying to coerce me into something I'm not comfortable with. The message should be clear: Who are you and what are you going to do that's better than the last person who did the job. There are a lot of neat, clever tricks you can do with a script, but few know how to pull them off without looking corny.

Talent: Talent are the people you see in the commercials, the politicians, the friends and family who give testimonials etc. They can be confident and relaxed, or stiff and forced. Let's face it, not all people are comfortable when you stick a camera in someones face. It is the job of the person who is directing the commercial to know how to get the best performance out of these people, and not leave until they get a good, honest take that will set off a spark in the minds of the viewers.

Technical: This means lighting. audio, graphics, and editing. I shake my head every time I see one of the judge spots. The candidate looks like he was filmed in Norman Bates' basement. You know, that one bulb hanging light that revealed Norman's dead mother? I actually takes a lot of time and effort to do good lighting. The reason it doesn't always happen is that the person doing the lighting does not know how to do it or does not take the time involved.

There are some good commercials out there, and there are some stinkers. One thing I noticed is that candidates do not shop around to get the best quality at the best price. They pick a company or someone by word of a buddy, or they hire a high priced advertising agency, when doing a simple Google search will net them 10 phone numbers and websites they could call to get a quote and a better commercial. But were not electing thifty, economical thinkers here, we're electing politicians!

Local Political Commercials 101 - Your Good Image

What is the main reason for a local candidate to run TV commercial? Is it to express a certain issue? Is it to point out flaws in a competitor? Maybe, but the main reason to do local TV is about image. You are introducing yourself to people you don’t know and the best way to do that besides showing up at all the meet and greet events and shaking hands is a finely crafted TV commercial. I use the words finely crafted, because it takes a lot of skill from a TV commercial producer to make a good, effective commercial, where the candidate comes across as professional, caring, and knowledgeable about the position they’re running for. It’s easy to throw something together for a few hundred bucks, but if it doesn’t make the candidate look good, it’s a waste of money. It only takes one badly light scene to tarnish a good image.

Cost of Production

The cost a producing a good TV commercial has come down in price drastically over the past 10 years. I used to work on political spots in the 80’s and 90’s that cost upwards of $6,000 for a 30 second commercial. The same commercials today cost around $1,000, mostly because of the technology coming down in price. I shoot all of my spots in HD (High Definition) to give even more bang for the buck.

Beware of the free commercial giveaway! Some stations and cable outlets will offer you free commercial production if you spent over a certain amount on placement. I look at your commercial as a vehicle (It’s you and your messege, image, ideas, etc.) and the placement is the tires, the things that get your message out there and seen. So imagine going to a tire store and the salesman says, “If you buy 4 tires, we’ll throw in a car for free!”. Well tell me, just how good is that car going to be? It will most likely fail after a few miles on the road.

Cost of Placement

Placement is actually buying time to run the commercials on TV. There are only 2 outlets you can go to. Local network affiliates (WNEP, WBRE, FOX), and a cable insertion company, The latter can place the commercials in specific regions on cable networks like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Spots that air on the local news can cost around a $1,000 dollars, and can reach lots of people throughout the entire county, while the cable insertion rates are only 5-10 dollars a pop, so $1000 and get you about 150 airs in a specific region of the county.

One service that Video Innovations offers to all clients free of charge is that we upload the all of our clients commercials to our YouTube Channel so people can see the spots at their convenience, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We also give them an unloadable copy of the video so they can send it to their FaceBook, MySpace, and other social media accounts.

I wish all the local candidates well, and regardless of what common sense may tell us, image can be everything!