I realize this ad has political overtones, but I’m asking for that to be put aside and judge it on it’s effectiveness.
The font, the colors and style just seem SO outdated. Especially for asking that something old be repealed. The whole idea of that is jarring to me. It’s almost like something you would see in the back of an 80’s magazine or an old comic book.
Your thoughts?
It resembles late 1990s or early 2000s website design. Additionally, it has too many words and things clustered together. Spreading them out would have been a more eye-friendly ad.
Right?
I would scan right by that and not even notice.
Bad design, all around.
I don’t care about the visual design. Hardly any newspaper ads are still effective, but in the medium’s heyday, a one-column 2” ad for hernia trusses could work with nothing but a 12 pt head and some 8 pt body.
If the seed falls on the right soil (a reader who feels deeply about reproductive rights and is looking for an outlet) any ad with readable fonts could work fine. But the ad in question doesn’t offer a strong message.
The organization sounds small and amateurish. The web link is tiny and goofy. The initial call to action, Tell Republican Lawmakers, is odd. How about all lawmakers? The good guys/gals need reinforcement and encouragement.
So… ineffective ad, but not because of the look. They aren’t selling iPhones.
I’m guessing that this was a web banner ad?
Speaking as an ad guy: there’s way too much going on in that ad, and banner ads need to be pretty succinct, as there’s not much real estate, and few people are going to stop and look closely at a busy ad.
I’m guessing that the band at the top, and the little disclaimer in the lower left corner, are mandated because it’s a political ad. Even discounting those, you’ve got 21 words, plus a cumbersome URL, plus a logo for the sponsoring organization in the lower right-hand corner.
You shouldn’t need a URL, much less one that long, in a banner ad; it should be set up to click through directly to that URL anyway.
It’s also using two different fonts, which just makes things busier.
Honestly, what I would have recommended is a couple of different ads, in rotation, carrying the three different messages that are baked in here:
I’d wager that 95+% of Democratic lawmakers, especially at the state and national level, are already on board with the message of the ad, and are already actively supporting those rights.
I showed the ad to my gf, who works in advertising, and she said the fonts, the colors and style are outdated.
If one goes to the website in the URL, the organization’s website uses the same color palette and curvy font. One person’s “outdated” is another person’s “retro,” I suppose.
Hi kenob. It’s a small point and not something I have evidence for, but… IMO it’s more effective to encourage an ally to take action than to ask an enemy to change their principles (or to anger their base supporters).
Of course. But the purpose of ads are to promote and encourage. You have to know you’re audience. Retro isn’t always appropriate.
My gf did some pro bono work for a drive-in theater. She designed and produced cardboard windshield sun shades with humorous call backs to old time movies. They were extremely retro, but that was the idea.
Why would a for-profit ad agency do pro bono work like this? Well, it was relatively cheap to produce the product, and my gf had lots of ideas that her coworkers all joined in on. It was a fun project. Plus, it won awards and lured paying customers (which was the real reason she did it).
I think you’re missing the point of the ad.
In this case, the “allies” (i.e., Democratic lawmakers) are already actively supporting these things. Wring a letter to your Democratic representative about abortion rights and reproductive rights is preaching to the choir.
But, the vast majority of Republican lawmakers are on the record as supporting near or total bans on abortion, to the point that such a stance has effectively become a litmus test for Republican lawmakers; their support for more restrictive laws on access to reproductive care is nearly as high.
This is despite the fact that such laws are only actually supported by a minority of voters – and even only by a bare majority of Republican voters. This Pew Research study from this year shows that only 57% of people who self-identify as Republicans believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases; 41% of Republicans actually believe that it should be legal in most/all cases.
The point of this ad is to get people to get in contact with their Republican lawmakers (i.e., the ones who are pursuing such restrictive laws), and make it clear to them that such laws are not supported by the majority of their constituents.
It doesn’t just look outdated, it actually looks aged. As if white was one of the original colors and it yellowed and the other primary colors faded. Makes me wonder how old it is.
For anybody not seeing it, this is on the main page and some other threads on the SDMB right now. It’s one of only 2 ads I’m seeing here, the other being for Uber.
Just for the record, not everyone who visits a website, even at the same time, sees the same ads. The SDMB has ad spaces on its pages; it’s up to the ad provider with which the SDMB contracts to serve up the actual ads (presumably, Sun-Times Media, the owner of the SD, makes some non-zero amount of money from selling ad space on the board).
That provider’s algorithm will pick ads from their current inventory based on various bits of information they may have about that particular user (location, demographics, other websites visited, etc.). SDMB and STM management have essentially zero control over the specific ads that are served up.
tl;dr: Even if you see an ad, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us see the same ad.
I know that, I was just giving context to the OP that those who don’t see the ad might have missed.
It’s also certainly not targeted towards me, a banner ad to call your representative is pretty pointless to someone an ocean away.
Considering I know where he found it, you’ve probably already done exactly that! 
I see the point of the ad, and think it’s poorly thought out. It’s great to preach to the skeptical, the apathetic, and SDMB denizen (who probably aren’t in the congregation) but if you want someone to actually take action then Preach to the Choir. The choir will respond to the pastor’s priorities and find even more motivation to do good works.
The message would be particularly apt for Dem lawmakers in contested districts who might be keeping their heads down on abortion issues.
A few thousand letters that seem to be from an organized campaign won’t convince MAGA congress critters to betray their base. But thousands of MAGAers can put the fear of Don into a Republican lawmaker. Again, IMO, lawmakers respond to their base. If there’s a bipartisan wave of anger then things will get done.
I’m not saying ‘don’t contact Republicans’, just don’t think the Dems are already giving it their all and making it the highest priority. Contact everyone.(But expect little from the opposition, and if you’re not a constituent expect nothing.)
(Done with hijack.)
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Fighting for reproductive rights and abortion rights was one of the main messaging points throughout this week’s DNC, and is clearly already a major priority for Democratic leadership and Democratic lawmakers.
Where I think there might be leverage to be had is among Republican lawmakers who aren’t in deep-red districts or states, or who have only been listening to the loud, anti-abortion voices. Bear in mind that, in recent years, voters in a couple of “red states” (Kansas and Ohio) voted to protect abortion rights, despite strong campaigning and pressure from opponents.
