close by like michael mentioned earlier, they run the poll questions bias but it is rare that anyone shows that this is truthful or whatever. by that point we have usually moved on but hopefully it is based on it. we have seen cases where something has gone but we are print journalists by training. when everything has to be distilled to thirty-second sound bites, we always -- there's so much more in context. that is why they don't ask us about the ads. >> let's take a question or two from the audience. >> elizabeth brown, retired. i spent a lot of my life researching for accuracy.

do you have a more? do you use the internet? how many candidates to you work on at once? i am intrigued to that you are doing this stuff. >> we do it ourselves and we enjoy doing that because it allows us -- we start off like everyone else does on the internet and build a foundation against the road map but as you know the internet is notoriously unreliable. we go to where these people are from. we go to our accounts and get the information we need to. the name of the book came from two reasons. every time we goes way courthouse we are raising red flags and going for tax records. of the first question we always get is who do we win?

the answer is not with anybody. we are with us. the second reason is when we are doing this we have to be extremely objective. we can't get caught up in the passion most people get caught up in in politics because the same vigor we are doing, if we are not objective and look at the same scrutiny we end up with the stilted report and it doesn't do our campaign any good. we will do as many in a season. after having done it for eight years we have got it to a science. you don't have to do it. it changes. it is fluid like everything. what are people upset about in the current environment? we look for those things.

a few years ago -- we're looking at campaign contributions and whether an incumbent passed legislation to halt the giant corporations. it depends what people are upset about at the moment. >> what about -- i am curious. you mentioned -- you deal in the issue and you are both not exactly bidder but -- [talking over each other] >> you look at the dark side of every body, the underbelly of the system and i wonder if you see -- is there a connection

between the negative advertising and government being -- government not working for them and you have this 9% congressional approval rating? you see those two connected or connecting the two and get another thing that is separate. >> michael may have nothing to say about that too but there is a connection but is it only between negative advertising and is it increasing knowledge about elected officials whether it is from advertising or news reports or whenever? we just know everything about everybody now. that is never pretty. i don't think you can blame negative advertising alone.

we just know lot more and you can see it being made but everyone's decision is being made and that is part of the reason. >> one last question in the middle. two questions. the two of you. >> a question for mike and alan. you can answer at your own choosing. when you were in the midst of that campaign and had a candidate you were looking for, and he came up with this terrible fanged against him and you had the choice. you could have responded by denying -- proving that it was wrong but pullout the dead

priest instead. i wonder how that comes to be that you don't care about discrediting what was said and did you pull out something dirty air and worse? what concerns me the most, i admire you try to find truth in what you try to put out because that is important but i am concerned in this newt gingrich thing that they said he supported the one child policy of china which was totally untrue. is there no legislation and no board that has to be passed before these come out, no retraction necessary, such a damning statement as that? why does newt gingrich not try to say something? >> i will explain the reality very quickly.

we did challenge it. there was a story in the newspaper. the story was in the newspaper so the guy is sitting on a witness stand and -- even though it is not true, a still had this story in the newspaper. you are not going to get a fraction of the coverage in free media as you are in a television commercial. our fear again was the unknown, what was going to happen with this republican onslaught on its way. at the end of the day we did lose health and the senate so we could have been an lot more trouble. we didn't know what was happening. he want to leave all your cards

on the table, and we will be done that. do it if you can back it up. >> to answer the other question, i thought this might come up in the discussion, the discussion of commercial advertising versus political advertising is they're totally different animals. there is no mechanism for cost or campaign, for uttering an untruth. there is no freedom of speech. where you would get sued for false advertising, you are protected at much greater levels in politics. this is frustrating to us all so because we want everybody to rely on the truth but it doesn't

always happen. the other campaigns are most likely -- nothing else to prevent it. >> last question? >> in terms of saying you are with nobody you are researching for the opposition, aren't you really with somebody? >> our reports go to democrats. we did work for a democrat and we worked in election primaries when there was no democrat. >> how do you wind up with this candidate versus that? are they choosing you? >> it is very small. you tend to work with the same people over and over again, same campaign managers go from campaign to campaign until they reach a certain age.

a lot of word of mouth. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up next another panel discussion from the new america foundation forum on negative political advertising. this will looks at the comparisons between commercial and political advertising. you will hear from two executives with the deutsche and martin advertising agencies. it is about 50 minutes. >> i will talk about the commercial realm.

what mitt romney did to newt gingrich. i am excited for this conversation. the primary chief of new york, not here today due to last-minute situation in new york but we have jamie strait -- i'm very intrigued by that. and advertising firm associated with microsoft and i know both -- and many others. we also have mike hughes of the martin agency. he was hailed as one of the nine best directors in america.

his agency -- and this includes geico and comcast. none of you have seen geico ads recently. if we are ready, it is different from the others we have seen today. >> we have a little network going. >> we speak each other's language and things we do together. >> this is the new digital camera from japan that just came out. >> you speak her language? >> absolutely. >> they get some of those -- >> hello. >> do we have one more.

>> i feel inadequate. pcs get viruses and we can't do as much. >> why don't you say something positive about pcs? >> you are a wizard with numbers and dress like a gentleman. >> you are better at creative stuff. >> maybe you should come in place a week. >> the reason i chose to shows. it will dispel the idea there's no such thing as negative advertising in the business realm as opposed to the political realm because obviously that campaign many of you will be familiar with, was a pretty edgy comparison, negative

take, but it feel different from all the political ads we have seen today. if you just get us going by talking about the extent to which such an advertising exists when one is based on another and why is it we see a lot less than we do in the political sphere? do we see less than we did in the past? >> in our business we tend to say that what we do is over time so we care about building overnight sales and long-term grants so when you come away from those -- kind of like apple. the commercials themselves might be pretty tough on their competition but you come away

liking them, pepsi taking on coke over the years but they do it tongue in cheek and you come away liking them. the difference is political advertising to build a brand overtime. one day of the primary votes and one day of the election and everyone is on their own. so you come away thinking of this helps me with my choice. i know i don't want to vote for that person and makes that immediate connection but after a while you don't feel as good about the people who are doing it. you don't feel as good about our politicians as we do about apple or pepsi. that is an inevitable result of

one timescale at any cost. a wonderful new yorker article, she quotes if you are in this business you have to -- i don't. win this election, i'd die. they rev up the emotion like armageddon. if you vote for the wrong person and they go for that vote. as opposed to building long-term meaningful frame. the exception of in the last 30 years was reagan's morning in america. that helped the long term brand because it was positive. >> the sample during the headline for this segment, i was thinking of the superbowl and, the pepsi ad where they showed

the coke distributor trying to sneak a pepsi in the store and all the cans come down. the cote guy wins a sweepstake and the lot of people come out, is there some kind of unwritten rule that there has to be humorous you're going to go negative? >> the long term branding is really important. negative advertising can bring down the negative. that is what you see the trend for political advertisements. is not attributed to the campaigners. we want a brand to stay likable. so we talk about coke vs. pepsi but i'm as likely to buy gatorade or aaron juice -- orange juice. a different need to keep you liking the brand or the ad. humor is one of the tools we

use. usually to get the message across but keep the brand likable. we talk about the earlier panel leaders and one of the big reasons they are negative. we do it but we use it as a much more controlled thing and a lot through inference. it is the southwest ad. never mentioned the airlines. >> they don't even want to mention one of the delta or american -- >> it makes the point we need to take about your brand but not always -- >> one of the earlier discussions, this has not been the case this cycle but historically more civil particularly when you have five or six candidates that you alluded to, mentioned in 2004 when howard dean and dick

gephardt did good job destroying each other for the benefit of john kerry. that is part of the dynamic you are talking about. other examples of other negative campaigns in the commercial space that might provide good lessons for political candidates. >> a famous case in the 1915s, pressure cooking. there's a case where one of those pressure cookers blew up and the maker of that pressure cooker ran a full-page ad, will not blow up. one of these two cases. can come back and bite you.

>> it is like airlines don't advertise the fact that there were no crashes left which is an astonishing feat. the reason they don't do that and god forbid they -- there is a lot of -- rather than going back and forth they choose not to advertise. what is happening more and more is the comparison going to the extreme. trying to position them as premium choice but doing so through tumor and promoting their friends. not going all the way negative. that argument works better

commercially. >> we are amazed as we watch the commercials that take on geico these days. it is unbelievable that those companies would take a little geico. when they do that, we don't try to respond. i can't believe we are in the same commercial with these people. 15 minute company or something like that. i think that raise the level of humanity in that category. if you love your children. i will get the one that makes the most sense financially. >> the utah clients out of

mixing up? >> we can't believe that this chain is charging $0.25 more for their burger and let's go after them and talked about of it? you have to push them into it? >> we love their brand. they believe fervently they have a better product so often they want to draw out the distinction and make that argument. what will most effectively sell your product and your brand and sell it for the long term. and it gets me to by the second time or the third time. it is important between political advertising and commercial is the time frame. the speed of response and the

speed of advertising feels like there's a rise of this new ad where 40 minutes after it ends i am watching the newstube and add by the campaign, that speed to market relies on what would happen when layers of approval, how long would that cycle be? >> the chairman of a company, it came back to their lawyers. they can't do that. it comes back because we can do things very quickly. you couldn't get it approved. >> as little as ten days, the

approval is like what enforcement. that is the difference. political campaigns by their nature we prefer you can go. the world of brands and commercial advertising. >> we are worried about being taken to court. >> we don't have first amendment protection say anything. when you are representing a brand or private company you have a much greater challenge to a fair standard of what you are saying is true and that level of scrutiny means comparisons are often more foul-up or more clear. >> there was question whether there are checks and balances and remedies in the political sphere and there are. the burden of proof is quite different when talking about public figures and the

comparison earlier where local broadcasters they don't want to get in the business for this reason. that is true. i was wondering, we talked about independent groups and super -- and super pacs. they're always seems to be unaffiliated groups that are a lot nastier for reasons you alluded to. the brand itself is involved in negative messageing. we don't have anything akin to that unaffiliated third party that can go nuclear in the commercial space but i wonder if that might change. you are native lead digital.

are there guerrilla campaigns, not with the superbowl but something happening online that might begin to resemble this notion, that can be negative? >> we talk about branded campaigns. the perspective, the pharmaceutical drug might want you to take interest in a bladder disorder. allows them more latitude in what they could say and that might be followed by a branded advertisements for their bladder solution. there is definitely an analog, i don't think there's a perfect analogue but in many others we will take on a mythical company

or theoretical company. those of the analogs for me. >> there is a sensitivity people feel. our walmart client is very sensitive to the fact that they can't be out there saying this sustainability thing. customers say wal-mart shoppers. and customers get credit because a big company like walmart has to worry about all perception. there are not people who will come to walmart's rescue for that kind of thing. >> different from the advertising world. can't talk about there being --

republicans and democrats. not true of the commercial or many of our categories. there is a distance between the top one or two competitors and everybody else so we don't have the same burden of ask or answer or response and that changes would you are willing to say. often the leader doesn't want to respond even if he makes it and on the other side on the challenger add, many years ago we did some printer work. we talk about printers and getting tech reporters, was the printer better. there is not real parity. it was would you can afford to

send by market share. >> one of the reasons they are heros to everyone in their business is not just what they did -- their agency created humanity for advertising. the agency for the super bowl last year, the great humanity that our clients want to own and it is a tough business. >> have you ever done political ads? >> i have not. back in the 70s a long time ago. we have a call from a billionaire, in the top 150 people a couple months ago, i

want to go after barack obama. took my partner and me a couple minutes to say i won't do that. $2 billion, why don't i do that? it is not the kind of business you feel good about in the morning. >> is that the reason? for you are in one business -- >> both of us -- the parent company doesn't let us do political advertising. >> our clients presumably occupied political points of view. last thing they wanted the agency to represent one point of

view and the commercial world limited clients to the conservative companies or progressive companies. >> we encourage our people to work on our own and give them some time off or what their politics should be. >> if you could point to commercial ad campaigns that politicians can learn from, when you look at political advertising and you have seen a lot, dating back to those incredibly painful eisenhower -- do you see -- do you pick up ideas or trends that might translate or are they so by barry and vicious that you laugh at them?

>> using that instant response, there is a feedback from the commercial side and political side. the lack of branding and commercial advertising so much about building a brand over time and when i look obama's success, part of what you did was build a strong brand through the primary and democratic convention starts to launch the brand and i don't see any consistency. that is an analog that feels to me sorely missing in the political world. >> i think the advertising is the best because he has a consistency about him which i think is crazy. on point, his messages are on

point. you can understand why so many people find that attractive. it is an interesting question. >> there is a reason we don't encourage brands to change their campaigns every six months or every year and tony the tiger is still tony the tiger. and we choose them very carefully because that familiarity builds favorability and that familiarity does not happen to political candidates because they keep changing their mission. i know what i am going to see and what he will pop up and lose his cool and that works and will the voters that will vote for him, some of the others -- really interesting. the rise of social media.

they don't say one thing in kansas and another in florida and a different thing in iowa. that is true in the commercial world because most of the brands, feels relatively new. even presidential politics so easily dispersed. >> in the last debate, ron paul, when the moderator asked each candidate to define themselves with one word the one word ron paul chose was consistent. interesting to hear you in the business of branding and messaging. is there one commercial that you wish you had done that you didn't? not in the political world necessarily. in the commercial space or one commercial you admire the most?

>> a big apple commercial. wouldn't it be nice if a political candidate could find something that inspiring. everybody in our industry loves that and going back a number of years the people who did the commercial for reagan and the article are the same people -- and g e brings good things to life. there were the top professional people. maybe agencies like ours should

be doing that but it is unregulated as it is and encouragement to take these contexts. >> whatever happened to wine coolers? is there something -- >> the business has changed. i am a political junkie. it was such a transcendent moment in political advertising where it all changed and i was struck watching it for the first time in a while the similarity to adding stories to 1984, a fundamentally different message. just the depth of being able to run a commercial to be read aired is not being fought about enough. what are we going to put out versus what is the response of what we put out and what will

that respond? publishers have started to wake up to that game a little bit. more than ever before a commercial need for the 9:00 hour on cable news but there is no more need for that response to these advertisings. don't tell me what you want to tell me but draw my own conclusions. >> takeaway from your conversation is the absence of branding we're seeing in the cycle of advertising in the primary season where it is quick reaction to bring down the latest candidates and i suppose the candidate that gets the nomination it is my hope that there might be a moment between that moment and the general election season to engage in that positive branding. the insight is really helpful.

>> built in to the systemic brand and very consciously after the election when it is over, you do a dramatic inauguration. we the country. the reason is to make the president above a call and day-to-day politics. branding is important for the candidate but equally important to take that step back above the -- and the deliberate choice, the president, not as the candidate. >> increasingly i would argue that is happening and the legitimacy of the president is questions more so than in past. [talking over each other] >> candidates for their whole

lives have to be careful there always against the other side. they don't want anything coming back at them. the commercial with newt gingrich and nancy pelosi. newt gingrich made the biggest mistake of his life. what was our goal at that time -- we wanted all-american this against global warming. [talking over each other] >> al gore's alliance for climate detection and he put together a board that was half republicans and have democrat and we competed for the business. feel like the of the campaign was we were going to bring both sides together on this. it is impossible to separate the

political politics. >> let's open it up. >> what do you know as far as market research, scientific study that is done in your commercial world as compared to the political world and also what influences from other nations and other cultures as far as what works with their advertising how that has not affected political advertising. >> one thing that has happened is the international influence is more visual in their story

telling. articulated position -- for better and for worse. in politics, we know from a lot of research that consumers are overwhelmed by choice. hardline era with down to make a decision so i don't just -- putting an off day after day after day and negative things work better. i would be hard pressed not to tell the person to run the negative ad. that will get him elected faster because it won't eliminate the competition in that choice procedure. >> in the second part of your question, the range of research we do for a particular campaign is pretty in-depth focused group, the rep target either work in progress.

gauge what is going bad and revise those ads or even do more quantitative testing to put in front of hundreds or thousands of people and understand what works and what doesn't. another kind of client will look at an idea and say make me is that and want it on the air in a week or two. the difference is it feels like the political world shifts. your perception of brands is pretty engrained and it will shift but won't shipped overnight. we have a longer time in which to do that research. for politicians look at the world rick santorum is advertising this week versus four weeks ago, the ad campaign changed four times based on who we think we is at that moment and who he needs to project he is going forward. >> you didn't have to explain how the process works because we

all watched -- we know how it works. the think the surge in applications matters? [talking over each other] >> not just the drinking. in the back in a blue shirt? >> retired physicist. there seems to be one analog to the bracket response, the superbowl adds. the minute the superbowl is over there is a lot of response to those ads. how is that changing commercial advertising and our commercial superbowl lands getting better or worse? >> i won't say better or worse but super bowl advertising starts three weeks before the super bowl, not the minute the

super bowl ends. a year ago we released the fourth spot ten days before and it has ten million viewers on youtube before it ever started. they decided they liked a usa today poll one of the big ones -- was influenced by the social media of votes of what was good before. the superbowl is an unusual moment, we don't care or ask about that. we'd tell them it doesn't affect us. we tune in and watch the ads. there has become -- it does change that. the right piece that we should put out. and on network television where you get an audience of a billion

people. it is a moment to breaking news to launch a new product that in general requires more -- >> this is fantastic for all the political advertising junkies. the one thing i was trying to think about with products is boeing and lockheed and the contract happening in town recently. they're willing to go head to head because of the damage that will come from that. if you apply this to a different industry or higher education and one of the things we are facing is for profits which is getting a lot of headway because of the

advertising they are able to spend and because it overwhelms, not unlike state farm but geico, the amount of money being thrown out to advertise, does that change perception and how do you avoid getting blow back as a sector because that is where some of the brands tried to play. we can't do it head to head but if i can do it as a sector for a trade group for issue advocacy group that created the coalition. talk about that. >> you have to be careful when talking about it. it is an interesting dynamic. there is enough money with the raiders on the union side supporting public workers there is the ability to land a perception. ira certainly think something is possible. i also think we are talking

about advertising. that transcends advertising through social media. there are ways to land the message and there's an opportunity to get in front and tell the story little bit. i am a big fan of teachers, lost control of the narrative. then you are left -- why are you getting paid so much. what are you measuring how successful we are, how can we improve it? i will tell you advertising is one way to do that. >> i appreciate the reference to boeing and lockheed martin. >> the campaign -- the commercial strength and political strength where we have fights for government contracts

and some winner-take-all. they are riding the metro, and they have no clue what is being referred to. it is a strange washington phenomenon. >> you turn on the tv at 5:00, as farm chemicals are saying, our competitor doesn't get -- this is what you want to buy and they are pretty competitive. >> right behind you? >> somebody earlier said president obama has a difficult

situation, and negative eds to work, do you have any advice how he should react going forward. >> i was asked in 2008, and chris dodd to work for those campaigns. i thought about this a lot. i think about this lot. if obama is in a good enough position to do some things to lift the america, to be more effective if he wins. if he knows he is going to win. reagan was in a position where it is clear he is going to win

again. that confidence is rare. the long term branding, uplifting, on both sides. >> it gets out of it. >> when you are president obama, all the different unaffiliated groups in this cycle. it is totally positive, a country coming out of a recession. jobs getting better. things are getting better and i tell only that story and leave it for others to do the draw down. i don't think there's any reason

to get his hands dirty and that is the difficulty we had discussed, he may well do that. he may stay positive and that has nothing to do with what the democratic machine will be choosing to say. from a branding perspective on would do the same thing. he started to run and will run this time. he is a second term presidency. tough situations very much analogous, when he entered office and it is turning around. it is a replay of that campaign. the hope and change he ran on to pick that up. interesting to see what he does. he may go negative and that is an impact and the reason we don't do it. >> his favorite is as someone

said earlier, they don't know what they are going to do. it is a temptation to preach to the choir. there is that strong internal feeling of that but if you are only going after that sliver of voters who will make the difference is possible to go along way. >> some good pro bono advice. interesting the extent to which candidates are able to attain the arms length relationship with their unaffiliated supporters. newt gingrich will demand of mitt romney tell your people to

stop and mitt romney said if anything is inaccurate, i will. but i'm not so sure. he went on to say -- this narrative fiction that i can't control -- we have seen in past election cycle too. it would be nice if the candidate can pretend there is no blow back from independent expenditures. an interesting to see going forward if that proves to be a case. >> i ask these guys to be real and honest with us and ask them to pretend their biggest donor their whole career when they are running for the presidency, their back ten cycles and we have to pretend they have no idea what that person is doing, we have -- it is weird that we ask for the most senior

candidate and there left to play the part. he cannot turn -- that would violate the law. a deeper structure -- >> take one more question. >> chuck schroeder, one of the things i was glad to agree guys that they hear you guys say, the research guide. he made a point that advertising would affect the outcome of an election. to frame that from our perspective where we come from the research guys were always people who came in to a meeting with reams of information. always very smart guys and a creative person would take one page out of that massive stack

of information and say i like this. it would infuriate them and the mean them and make them feel as though all the work -- was for naught. i want to make sure we underscore the point that good advertising -- that this sliver you are talking about is persuade a bowl -- persuadeable. if you can elaborate -- >> the challenge to obama will be getting people out to vote who voted last time because now that he is attacked a loss by every part of this spectrum, he has to inspire people that were inspired last time to go out and vote for this different looking different sounding kind of candidate and he is no longer as

unusual. the people on the left have taken some of the luster off. he needs to restore that kind of leicester. nothing will work better for him than the joy in people's hearts. if he can go back to the inauguration speech or the speech he gave in chicago the night he won the election. that is the kind of spirit that will drive people out again. >> a lot of the positive stuff he ran in the 2008 cycle got him to win the presidency. he did an awesome job rebutting republican attempts to make him the other and make him seem something outside or something strange and he ran positive ads that reinforced his family, he has a way of creating a

familiarity and his advertising helps create that familiarity. >> advertising is hugely powerful. i think advertising at its best pushes you the way you were leaning. it reinforces the perception you think to be somewhat true. veterans for truth -- you felt there was something a little wish she washy. should we treat him as a war hero? and they pushed on that point but it was in the public persona. that is where advertising is awesome. it can help cement a perception that lingers in people's mind. the hardest thing to do is to create a brand new perception. but that kind of lean which most political advertising is ready-made for television advertising. >> thank you. we need to wrap up now. [applause] >> i would like to encourage everyone to come to the next

event on tuesday at 5:00. an hour and a half followed by cocktails. it is on the political facts of life. some research papers on fact checking in the media. it will be a good time and thank you both for really broadening the conversation. this was fantastic and thanks to all of you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we got started because there are a lot of conservative think tanks that work across issues but there had been no single

progressive organization, prof. of think tank that works uneconomic policy national-security. >> the president and ceo of american progress on the mission of the washington d.c.-based think tank. >> there's often an ideology behind particular arguments made in washington with very little facts behind them and part of our job is to make the argument and factual arguments and the evidence based arguments behind our own views and i do think sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position we reexamine those positions because believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> look the center for american progress sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. ..