Daang Matuwid – the Mar Roxas presidential bid killer #2016PHVote

This is a journey that started sometime in October 2015. that was a few weeks when Mar Roxas officially announced his candidacy with a big gathering at the historic Club Pilipino in Greenhills, San Juan City. The LP faithful were all there and President Noynoy Aquino was the main speaker who announced to the country that he was endorsing the candidacy of Mar Roxas for the presidency.

Daang Matuwid was the over-all theme of that launch. Aquino had declared that Mar Roxas was the best among the presidentiables who can continue Daang Matuwid. It worked, Mar Roxas ratings in the polls jumped from an anemic single digit to double digits. Around September 2015, Roxas’ ratings were at a number that made him competitive.

At around October, I sat down and did an analysis of what was happening. There were no data available yet at that time but based on my analysis, I thought Daang Matuwid would eventually hurt Roxas.

At around that time, I started to tweet about my thoughts about the Mar Roxas campaign. I did not exprssly say Daang Matuwid was an error, but I was tweeting about problems on the Mar Roxas campaign. I kept the Daang Matuwid as the problem to myself because I thought the Roxas campaign will eventually get it and change their campaign strategy. I thought it was best to keep it a secret, not revealed publicly as I did not want to give clues to Mar Roxas’ competitors,

 

 

 

The qualitative data are those available in the media – survey results from Pulse Asia, SWS and the Laylo Report.

 

 

 

Daang Matuwid is Mar Roxas’ brand positioning, it is what he wants voters to remember him by and in effect the basis for their support for his candidacy. He used Daang Matuwid in most of his TV ads either as a tagline or in the copy. Based on news reports, he  also mentioned this during his campaign sorties.

 

The power of an advertising positioning which in this case is Daang Matuwid is best measured by results. If this was the advertising positioning of a consumer goods brand, the best measure is market share first and box sales next. When market share and box sales go up or the goals are achieved, the advertising positioning is judged as successful. If it gives the opposite result, then it is a failure.

In this case the presidential surveys results is the best measure of how effective Mar Roxas’ Daang Matuwid brand positioning. The results are bad – after 8 months all that it got Roxas is flat ratings and flat ranking at 4th out of a field of 5 candidates.

There is no better quantitative data that proves Daang Matuwid killed the Mar Roxas presidential bid than the poll results.

 

 

we did an analysis of Mar Roxas’ Daang Matuwid brand positioning and from that analysis, though still not benefitting from data, the conclusion was it is bound to hurt Mar Roxas in this election.

this was posted here : http://wp.me/pnw03-1Z5 why Mar Roxas’ “Daang Matuwid” ad campaign is failing

 

Ads that have elements that are polarizing tend to fail / not do well in the market place. The ideal ad among other things is that it should only contain positive elements in it, and no negative elements.

 

 

Looking at the US elections, even Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders who belong to the same political party as Barack Obama are promising change. This is most obvious with Clinton who is a strong ally of Obama. She has never said she will just continue what Obama has done. In fact Clinton is promising many changes, some of them very major changes.

That is not true with Mar Roxas. Roxas very clearly states, he will just continue Daang Matuwid.

 

 

we have heard Mar Roxas very defensive on Daang Matuwid and the achievements of the Aquino administration. this did not help Roxas as it took away from him telling the people what his plans are for the country.  also, Daang Matuwid is the work and program of Aquino, not his and yet all its failings is being attributed to him too.

in effect, the more Roxas talked of Daang Matuwid either in its defense or to make a promise of continuing it, it is hurting the presidential bid of Roxas.

 

 

After 8 months of Daang Matuwid as Roxas’ brand positioning and spending more than P1 Billion pesos on it and getting only 4th in the ranking at the most, it should have been obvious that changes were needed  for the Mar Roxas campaign.

Being stuck at 4th for 8 months, they should have changed their campaign objective to getting switchers from the supporters of the other candidates. And if they thought of that as a campaign objective, then they would have looked at what needs to be changed in their campaign strategy,  Getting switchers mean attracting them to change sides. And in attracting them, they would have looked at what are the barriers as to why they have not switched to Roxas and/or what they can say to attract them. In political campaigns removing the negatives is as important as offering the positives. The Roxas campaign did not seem to do this.

This data was released sometime in February 2016. That was the first quantitative data that I saw which confirmed my analysis and conclusion on Daang Matuwid. The core of the points I was raising was that Daang Matuwid was hurting the Mar Roxas campaign. That was purely based on analysis using leanings and principles in marketing, advertising and brand positioning. This quantitative data confirmed my analysis.

And that was what led me to publish in my blog my thoughts on the Mar Roxas campaign, I finally had 2 quantitative data – this one and the trend line that was obvious in the Pulse Asia poll results.

 

 

The data speaks of what voters think of Mar Roxas, it tells us specifically why they are not voting Mar Roxas. They were not voting Mar Roxas because he was “masungit”, “elitista” or the allegations of his failures in his previous cabinet member jobs, it was about questions on his leadership qualities, his not having his own views and vision and his relationship with Aquino. They saw Roxas as a puppet of Aquino. And I suppose because of that they saw him unfit to be president.

We think this is the result of Roxas continuously talking about Daang Matuwid, something that everyone knows to be Aquino’s. Aquino per se or his close relationship was not hurting him but it was that he failed to show his own brand of leadership. Contrast that to his opponents, most notable Rody Duterte whose platform was essentially based on bravado and strong leadership. We are sure that if you ask people to compare Roxas to Duterte, they will say Roxas is a wimp compared to Duterte’s super hero status. On the basis of character, Roxas was inferior compared to Duterte.

The second biggest reason they are not voting Roxas is “might just be like Aquino, no change” at 16% directly supports the point I have made – that Daang Matuwid is a platform for the status quo, no change and no improvement.

 

 

–more to follow–

 

 

 

 

 

Duterte’s “bowling ball” TV ad is not a joke, it’s a wawam!

we first saw that ad on the internet. we found it amusing and we thought it was just a joke. a joke as in an ad that some teen-ager made on his computer and posted it on the internet. maybe the teen-ager submitted the “ad” to his high school teacher as a project for his Arts subject. we wondered what grade the highs school teacher gave the project.

we were wrong, it’s a real TV ad as we saw it aired at TV Patrol tonight. it was not a joke.

the ad is very simple, it communicates its message very simply. the analogy of Duterte as a bowling ball rolling over the pins of problems of the country. the visualization is something even young kids will understand. that is a good thing.

that is fine except that the ad has too many pins or problems of the country that as Duterte as the bowling ball rolls and each pin falls, we are unable to read the supers on each of the pins. in other words we could not read what problems Duterte promises to solve.

there are just too many pins or problems of the country that Duterte is promising to topple down. that leads to the biggest weakness on this ad – it is an over-promise. the ad is promising too many things that people might find it unbelievable.

it does not help that the ad does not say how Duterte will topple these problems or what is it in Duterte that will make him solve all the problems. in advertising terms, it does not have a “reason why”.

this is what this ad is all about :

• lists too many problems of the country that Duterte will solve
• too many for us to read what they are
• without telling us how Duterte will solve them
• or what in Duterte will allow him to solve them
• and that high number makes the ad unbelievable

conclusion : it’s a wawam!

 

mon ilagan : how not to be the spokesman of the embattled Jejomar Binay

mon iligan, previously from media who was also a congressman from some district was recently appointed spokesman for presidentiable jejomar binay and as we sometimes read also of UNA. he replaced a long list of previous  spokespersons of binay  – congressman jonvic remulla, congressman toby tango and atty jv bautista.

the way we see it, the previous spokespersons of presidentiable binay screwed up or in the case of remulla, maybe he got tired defending the indefensible  binay. tango appear to have been fired from being binay’s spokesman after the residency issue on grace poe was raised by tiangco which had terribly backfired on binay.

mon ilagan is new to his job. but this early, we think he  committed a grave error in his job as spokesman for the embattled  binay.

this came out on twitter :

that “release” has a few things that are wrong with it.

an important basic in being a spokesperson – you are one for another person. as a spokesperson, you speak for your principal who in this case is presidentiable binay. when ilagan opens his mouth, he is speaking the words of presidentiable binay. it is like binay himself talking.

the twitter release was not about binay talking, it was mon ilagan talking about himself, what he thinks, not what binay wants the voters to know and not what binay thinks. the release even has ilagan’s role “UNA spokesman”.

more than mon ilagan being a spokesman for himself, the bigger issue we have with the twitter release is its content. ilagan’s press release about what he wants voters to know about his thouhgts has two parts – the first part is how he sees binay, “I believe in Binay’s capabilities as a leader” and the second part “despite the allegations and issues against him”.

being the spokesman and his salary being paid for by binay, the first part is not surprising. the surprising part is the second part.

in the second part, ilagan actually admits binay has problems – “allegations and issues” against binay.   ilagan is referring to the corruption and dishonesty allegations and issues that have stuck on binay. ilagan is probably the first spokesperson who admitted his principal, binay has problems. he is admitting that binay is damaged goods.

that is a very unusual and very wrong thing to say about your principal if you are a spokesperson. ilagan is reminding the people the allegations being raised against binay. he casted doubt on his own principal, the person he is supposed to speak for and promote.

it is a very strange sales pitch – buy this product even though something is wrong with it. we do not think a lot of people will want to buy a product like that.

in this one, mon ilagan, a spokesman for binay fails in his job – for talking about himself and his thoughts rather than putting forward the thoughts of his principal and for admitting something is wrong with the very product that he is selling to the voters.

it’s a WAWAM!

senatoriable nancy binay’s TV ad – empty promises glorified

nancy binay, daughter of vice president jejomar binay will run for senator.  she released a tv ad, legally epal, with the tagline “Kay Nancy Binay – mga bata gaganda ang buhay” (With Nancy Binay – children will have a more beautiful life).

the ad positions the senatoriable as pro children with the  specific promises of improving education (“gaganda ang edukasyon”) and improving health (gaganda ang kalusugan”) leading to a more beautiful life (“gaganda ang buhay”) for the children.

it is an interesting positioning as it specifically places nancy on a pro-children promise. we do not remember political candidates having taken this positioning in the past. question is, is this enough to get her elected? is children’s good life a compelling proposition to voters? we assume some research has been done on this one.

while nancy’s advertising positioning and promise  is specific to pro-children, it is not specific on exactly what she plans to do in promoting the “good life” of children through “good education” and “good health”. it does not specifically answer the question – how will she do it?

in advertising, what is missing is called the “reason why” or the support. it tells the audience how will the candidate deliver the promise, what will she do to make it happen.

from an advertising technical standpoint it does have a “reason why” – it uses her dad, vice president binay with copy that says “mana sa kanyang ama” (“takes up [inherit] from her father”)  but does not say any specific action that nancy will take to improve education and health for children. all it does is to ride on the general popularity of her dad. after all, he did get elected vice president in the last presidential elections.

but jejomar is a weak reason why for the promise of children’s welfare – he is not known to be a children’s welfare advocate. in fact his ads during the vice presidential campaign were more on the general progress in the city of makati and the specific benefits residents of makati have gained while he was mayor there, children’s welfare was hardly mentioned.

the reason why, specially in political ads is very important. it gives specific promises as to what plan of action the candidate will do when elected into office. using a reason why that does not connect to the promise is of no help and of no consequence, it is like having none at all.

in this ad, nancy binay gave empty promises that we doubt will get her elected. it’s a WAWAM – what a waste of advertising money.

RAW School 2011 Best Ad, Jovert Bantilan’s RH Now Ad – off strategy is off communication

we don’t exactly know what Raw School 2011 is but the ad above has been going around twitter which is apparently a product of the Raw School 2011 competition. from what we can read from the FB page (http://on.fb.me/niFq2p) , Raw School seem to be a school for advertising students where creative directors from the ad agencies tutor or train students on advertising.

since advertising and reproductive health (RH) are two of our obsessions, we thought we should give our POV on the ad.

• we understand the ad was probably done by a student and was probably done without a strategy and no consumer insight
• not having a strategy and no consumer insight is the biggest and we even think  fatal weaknesses of the ad
• the ad intentionally or unintentionally position RH as anti-sex which RH is not about. not only did the ad position RH incorrectly, the positioning of RH being anti-sex gives anti-RH advocates a good weapon against RH. RH advocates have always said RH is not about sex but about health, responsibility and open and free choice. anti-rh advocates on the other hand play up the sex component like for example the approval of the rh bill will lead to promiscuity
• “pangmadaliang sarap” is the colloquial for sex. to some it means quickie sex. the line in the ad says people should not have sex (or quickie sex) because it leads to long term problems (“pangmatagalang  hirap”) of having a lot of children. the number of children is strongly implied in the number of spoons going after a small amount of rice in the visual
• that leads to a much bigger and problematic  fatal error of the ad that plays exactly to the liking of anti rh advocates – that rh is anti-children. almost all filipinos reject the idea of being anti-children. that is a huge negative to pinoys who are very much into family and yes, people.  our love for children is not just based on religion it is very much a part of our culture.
• it is possible that the creator of the ad wanted to communicate “responsible parenthood” or “responsible sex” where he wants to say that people who engage in sex should be responsible enough to know that their action can lead to pregnancy and that having too many children means parents will not have enough to support all their children. but nowhere in the ad is that directly or indirectly communicated. it is assumed, but it is not communicated.  one of the strongest principles in advertising is this – what you see is what you get. if it is not stated or included in the ad, it is not communicated. the only things the target audience get are the things you include in the ad.

the elements above are the core of what advertising is all about – the strategy and the consumer insight. fail in that and the ad is not worth anything and in this case, it even hurts the product or service you are advertising.

this ad is a WAWAM!

RAW School 2011 Best Ad, Jovert Bantilan’s RH Now Ad – off strategy is off communication

we don’t exactly know what Raw School 2011 is but the ad above has been going around twitter which is apparently a product of the Raw School 2011 competition. from what we can read from the FB page (http://on.fb.me/niFq2p) , Raw School seem to be a school for advertising students where creative directors from the ad agencies tutor or train students on advertising.

since advertising and reproductive health (RH) are two of our obsessions, we thought we should give our POV on the ad.

• we understand the ad was probably done by a student and was probably done without a strategy and no consumer insight
• not having a strategy and no consumer insight is the biggest and we even think fatal weaknesses of the ad
• the ad intentionally or unintentionally position RH as anti-sex which RH is not about. not only did the ad position RH incorrectly, the positioning of RH being anti-sex gives anti-RH advocates a good weapon against RH. RH advocates have always said RH is not about sex but about health, responsibility and open and free choice. anti-rh advocates on the other hand play up the sex component like for example the approval of the rh bill will lead to promiscuity
• “pangmadaliang sarap” is the colloquial for sex. to some it means quickie sex. the line in the ad says people should not have sex (or quickie sex) because it leads to long term problems (“pangmatagalang hirap”) of having a lot of children. the number of children is strongly implied in the number of spoons going after a small amount of rice in the visual
• that leads to a much bigger and problematic fatal error of the ad that plays exactly to the liking of anti rh advocates – that rh is anti-children. almost all filipinos reject the idea of being anti-children. that is a huge negative to pinoys who are very much into family and yes, people. our love for children is not just based on religion it is very much a part of our culture.
• it is possible that the creator of the ad wanted to communicate “responsible parenthood” or “responsible sex” where he wants to say that people who engage in sex should be responsible enough to know that their action can lead to pregnancy and that having too many children means parents will not have enough to support all their children. but nowhere in the ad is that directly or indirectly communicated. it is assumed, but it is not communicated. one of the strongest principles in advertising is this – what you see is what you get. if it is not stated or included in the ad, it is not communicated. the only things the target audience get are the things you include in the ad.

the elements above are the core of what advertising is all about – the strategy and the consumer insight. fail in that and the ad is not worth anything and in this case, it even hurts the product or service you are advertising.

this ad is a WAWAM!

The 2010 Presidentiables Blog set to reach 400,000 hits

we are expecting that this blog will reach a new milestone of 400,000 hits within the week. it now stands at 397,000 hits.

we like to thank all the readers and authors for making this possible.

gilbert teodoro airs an epic fail tv ad, a push against surveys and himself. Teodoro has ADS? Sindrome!

this is supposed to be part of the arsenal to what an analyst calls to be teodoro’s “Battle Of  The Bulge”, a last ditch, huge effort to turn the tide of failure that seem to be the campaign’s destiny.

that is a good objective. but what we do not find good is this tv ad which seem to be not going for anyone or any principle in particular, it is going against surveys.

contrary to pronouncements by teodoro himself that he does not care about surveys, this ad confirms he does care for surveys. he cares for it so much that he feels compelled to put up an ad that goes against it. the way this execution was laid out, you would think teodoro is going against an opponent named “survey”.

well, he is not. he is however suffering in the surveys. his best rating is 7% and his latest ratings at the SWS is 6%. he has been perennially stuck at 4th. that is definitely not a good thing as it shows he in unable to convince and convert voters to his side.

i thought teodoro will climb to a respectable double digit rating by now, but that seems to be expecting too much considering it is just a few weeks till election time.

this ad is a high risk ad for teodoro. this ad actually calls attention to his poor showing in the surveys. ads, specially political ads, are supposed to highlight the good things a candidate has. this one begins the ad with calling attention to a failure of the teodoro campaign – his very poor showings in the surveys.

we do not know exactly how much of the voters are familiar with the survey results but for those who are not, this ad will push them to find what the surveys are saying about teodoro. and when they do, they will see that teodoro is a loser in the surveys. the net effect then of this ad is that more people will now pay attention to survey results and every time the voters see the results, they will see teodoro doing very poorly at them.

i don’t think there is a single tv ad for any mass consumer product where it begins it’s tv commercial telling it’s target market the brand has a very small market share  or that research shows the brand is not being proffered by many consumers or only a few consumers prefer the brand.

the equivalent message of political surveys to mass consumer brands is that a poor showing in political surveys mean the candidate is not preferred by many voters. that kind of message is hardly any positive motivation to convert non-users or non-preferers to your side.

in fact that kind of message may even demoralize or turn off his current supporters. there are not many people who will want to continue to support a loser.

we understand the intent of including surveys at the beginning of the ad. this ad is meant to show that teodoro is gaining support from a growing number of voters. they want a bandwagon effect.

that is a valid advertising idea. but did they have to use teodoro’s poor showing in surveys to set up the message of growing support for teodoro? did they have to use a negative message at the start of the ad to communicate a positive message?

no, they did not have to. there are many other ways of setting up the commercial.  in fact there a lot more positive ways of doing so.  the negative start of the ad with the message of teodoro’s poor showing in the surveys has the effect of teodoro shooting himself in the foot.

the ad also suffers from other fatal errors, to us the most major of which is the obsession of people saying his name over and over again. teodoro’s problem goes beyond name recognition. getting the people to say his name many times over in the ad is not doing anything to help him get elected.

they should have asked the on-cam talent to tell the audience why they are voting for teodoro rather than just saying his name. they had a few of those but we don’t understand why of all attributes they want people to remember about teodoro, it needs to be “batang-bata” or “maka-Diyos”.

while those are positive attributes, they do not give any meaningful  addition or address problems of the teodoro campaign. rather than give these worthless attributes, they could have chosen attributes that are consistent with his platform or those that debunk negative attribute people have of him. in other words, they should have used attributes or messages that will help him get elected.

this is a definite WAWAM! and yes, teodoro has ADS? Sindrome.

gilbert teodoro’s “battle of the bulge” tv ad – “sulong”

this is next at The 2010 Presidentiables Blog.

gilbert teodoro set to do last minute push for a win, here is why it will fail

gilbert teodoro, the standard bearer of the admin/(supposed) dominant political party LAKAS-KAMPI-CMD know that he is losing this election campaign. he has not moved up in any significant way in the polls, being stuck at a very far fourth in the rankings and getting at best 7% while the front runners are at a staggering 36% for aquino and 34% for villar. it is bad enough that the two front runners are way ahead of everybody, on top of teodoro is estrada who is in the range of 15% , showing strength at that level and even gaining slightly.

the question that teodoro’s campaign needs to answer is this – for him to win, where will he get the votes from? the weakest of the three front runners, erap estrada is not exactly weak. among the presidentiables, estrada is the candidate that has the most experience and time as an elected government official not to mention he was actually elected president once before. teodoro compared to erap looks puny.  if teodoro can’t get pat estrada, how does he expect to get past villar and aquino, the two most popular presidentiables in this campaign?

it is interesting that an article appeared at the PDI yesterday where the teodoro campaign seem to be preparing for what the writer calls a “battle of the bulge” – a last minute, well last few weeks campaign to get teodoro elected. in marketing, it is called a marketing blitz. in a political campaign it’s most likely called a “failed election bid”.

we will be using that article as a pick up point for this post.

The ruling coalition, which enjoys a headlock on 70 percent of local government positions, is pinning its hopes on superior resources and widespread party machinery to swing the tide of battle.

Banking on these advantages, it plans to assert its superiority with carefully synchronized offensives timed at the start of the campaign for local positions on March 26.

this is what party officials call the “political machinery”. it’s supposed to be potent that only the admin/ruling party has a monopoly on. all the party officials, including teodoro are saying that is what will make him win this election. they conveniently forget that in the last senatorial elections, they said the same thing about the potency of THE machinery. the results – almost all the admin/ruling party senatorial best lost in that election while almost all the opposition senatorial bets won the election.

the results of that election was so bad for the admin/ruling party that pichay who spent the most in advertising during that time did not get elected while trillanes who was in jail, unable to campaign and practically had zero advertising money won the election.

the opposition won that election mainly on the basis of the people exercising a protest vote where they elected the opponents of arroyo’s candidates. arroyo at that time was very unpopular and the people have had enough of her so much so that they even said they do not want her candidates to win.

after the election, LAKAS party officials admitted the machinery did not deliver. apparently the local candidates and officials of LAKAS abandoned the admin senatorial candidates when they felt the people were going against them.

the situation then compared to now is about the same – arroyo is unpopular and in fact probably even more unpopular than before. everyone knows teodoro is arroyo’s candidate and based on surveys, voters said they will not elect the candidate that arroyo is endorsing.

we think it’s foolish to rely on the “machinery” to get teodoro elected. the machinery is a myth.

The opening salvo of this make-or-break offensive will be new TV commercials targeting the youth on Monday.

Teodoro’s spokesperson, former Press Secretary Mike Toledo, said the commercials would be aired with frequencies rivaling those of the front-runners, Senators Benigno S. Aquino III of the Liberal Party and Manuel Villar of the Nacionalista Party. Between them, they have spent close to P2 billion, dominating the airwaves, according to the media firm AGB Nielsen.

Teodoro’s ads will zero in on the target segment that the coalition hopes will swing the tide of battle to his side, the youth ranging in age from 18 to 39, who constitute 52 percent of the 50 million voters registered, according to Toledo.

Teodoro has been doing well in mock elections in schools recently. Campaign strategists have selected this key segment to focus on, Toledo says.

political campaigns seem to have a love affair with the youth vote. all of them seem to think that is the key to their success. villar, aquino and villanueva aired tv  ads targeting them. but if you look at the movements of villar’s ratings, it is not the ad that targeted the youth that earned him a lot of points, it’s the other ads that he aired.

aquino with his rap tv ad meant for the youth got mixed  reviews with people liking it and others throwing up hearing aquino do a rap in the tv ad. they abruptly pulled off that ad. villanueva aired one too but that did not help him either.

teodoro did not seem to learn the lessons the other presidentiables learned – they will air an ad targeting the “youth” on monday.  we now think this obsession with youth ad is probably the fault of the admen hired by the campaigns for their ad needs. all of them seem to be saying the same mantra.

maybe teodoro will find the secret weapon in ads for the youth and can get him to win the election. it is good in theory, forgetting for the moment the failures of the other presidentiables, but we think teodoro’s thinking is fatally  flawed.

the critical failure in the ad that will be aired on monday for the youth is the demographics definition – “age from 18 to 39“. the age range is too wide and probably covers at least two distinct groups or even three. the psyche, needs and  attitudes of the 18 year old, a first time voter is very different from a 25 year old who probably has a young family already to someone who is 30 years old who has a not so young family. for sure a 37 to 39 year old is extremely different from an 18 year old, to a 23 year old and a 30 year old.

it is hard for us to understand and we think it is not possible to have an ad meant for the “youth” that will be effective in convincing this wide and un-alike age grouping of 18 to 35 years old.

the admen who sold the idea to the teodoro campaign spoke badly in thinking that an age range as wide as that is a proper segmentation of the target audience. we do not think you will find any adman who will agree to that kind of segmentation.

target audience definition is the very first critical step in developing an effective tv ad. get the definition wrong, or even weak and the ad fails. it will confuse the creative team as it gives them too wide a range with very dissimilar traits and characteristics.

we await this new ad of teodoro. it is supposed to be a miracle tv ad for him. given the potential flaw of the thinking, it will either be a miracle ad or a miracle dud.  we will probably see a WAWAM! on monday.

read PDI article here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100322-260115/Lakas-Kampi-coalition-plans-decisive-Battle-of-the-Bulge

~~~mindscape landmark~~~
carlo arvisu

to win, erap estrada should drop his nostalgia campaign and air his old ads instead

~~this is next in The 2010 Presidentiables Blog~~

gilbert teodoro’s cheesy moment in his negative tv ad

teodoro's cheesy moment #1

teodoro's cheesy moment # 2

teodoro's cheesy moment # 3

teodoro's cheesy moment # 4

teodoro's cheesy moment # 5, this time with a smirk

i found this end sequence in that ad really funny. first time i have seen somehting like that done in  a political ad. in fact it is the first time i have seen something like that in any tv ad.

what was the director thinking? hahaha. his way of having a dramatic ending? this kind of ending is okay for a movie or some drama queen but for a presidential candidate? it’s so un-presidential.

~wawam~