Imagine you have your hands out to either side, like you’re T-posing, with your palms turned up.
Then imagine someone places a nice, fluffy, cute and lovable kitten (or animal of your choice, or equivalently positive sentiment) in one of your hands. Something gentle and precious and adorable that makes you feel good.
And in your other hand, approximately 6 feet away or so, now imagine someone drives a nail through that hand. Like a Jesus-to-the-cross spike. Right through the center of your palm.
Which of your two hands are you going to focus on?
Negative gets more attention because our brains are
Imagine you have your hands out to either side, like you’re T-posing, with your palms turned up.
Then imagine someone places a nice, fluffy, cute and lovable kitten (or animal of your choice, or equivalently positive sentiment) in one of your hands. Something gentle and precious and adorable that makes you feel good.
And in your other hand, approximately 6 feet away or so, now imagine someone drives a nail through that hand. Like a Jesus-to-the-cross spike. Right through the center of your palm.
Which of your two hands are you going to focus on?
Negative gets more attention because our brains are wired to fix problems before we can enjoy the positives in our life.
Do you think political attack ads are effective?
Oh, there has never been any doubt that they are effective.
The valid question is - effective at what?
They are effective at:
- supplying mainstream media outlets with millions of dumbfounded viewers on a daily basis
- supplying mainstream media with billions of dollars in ad-revenue to pay their plastic-surgery victim presenters with hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries
- supplying corporate advertisers with millions of dumbfounded viewers to sell their products to
- telling the millions of dumbfounded viewers what’s wrong with the other guy, and avoid
Do you think political attack ads are effective?
Oh, there has never been any doubt that they are effective.
The valid question is - effective at what?
They are effective at:
- supplying mainstream media outlets with millions of dumbfounded viewers on a daily basis
- supplying mainstream media with billions of dollars in ad-revenue to pay their plastic-surgery victim presenters with hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries
- supplying corporate advertisers with millions of dumbfounded viewers to sell their products to
- telling the millions of dumbfounded viewers what’s wrong with the other guy, and avoiding telling the dumbfounded viewers what’s RIGHT about themselves
- fomenting conflict amongst the population so the population is never looking at what all the politicians are doing to hurt every one of us.
- distinguishing the intelligent people from the dumbfounded mainstream media viewers
When I see/hear a politician telling me what’s wrong with the other guy, I have lost all interest in that politician from that day forward.
He/she doesn’t have any good qualities, so they’re relying on highlighting the other guy’s bad qualities to get elected.
I staffed both of MN Democrat Al Franken’s campaigns that elected him US Senator for the state of Minnesota in 2009 and 2014. Al was then and is today someone who loves and reveres the US Senate as an institution in a deeply serious way.
How serious? When he was an Upper Schooler at the Blake School in Minneapolis, he didn’t dream of becoming a comedian, comedy writer or actor. He knew as a kid that someday he would become a United States Senator. (Hand to God, true.)
This reverence for the Senate is what I think led Al to insist from Day One of his 2008 run that under no circumstances would the
I staffed both of MN Democrat Al Franken’s campaigns that elected him US Senator for the state of Minnesota in 2009 and 2014. Al was then and is today someone who loves and reveres the US Senate as an institution in a deeply serious way.
How serious? When he was an Upper Schooler at the Blake School in Minneapolis, he didn’t dream of becoming a comedian, comedy writer or actor. He knew as a kid that someday he would become a United States Senator. (Hand to God, true.)
This reverence for the Senate is what I think led Al to insist from Day One of his 2008 run that under no circumstances would the campaign ever, ever “go negative” or run attack ads against his Republican (huge asshole) opponent, Norm Coleman.
When Al’s 2014 reelect effort got underway, Al’s delightful wife of 49 years, Franni—who is noooooo shrinking violet—told campaign staff that even though we were running against the slightly less-asshole-y Republican Mike McFadden, the directive remained the same:
No. Going. Negative. Ever.
So we ran positive, non-attack ads like this across MN for Al Franken during the campaigns
…While Al’s Republican opponents in the Senate races—generously funded by supporters like Koch Brothers and AAN (the far-right American Action Network)—decided that ‘going negative’ and running demonstrably fact-deficient attack ads was their preferred strategy out the gate for this race:
Oh, the NRA ran some ads for Al’s opponent, too:
We ran ads for Al in 2008 that (factually & clearly) described his GOP opponent Norm Coleman’s pro-business, anti-worker, pro-secretly-receiving-dozens-of-designer-suits-from-a-Coleman-crony positions. If the ads we ran were negative, it was only because the stated positions and priorities from Coleman himself we put in the ads…reflected negatively on Coleman. Because they did reflect negatively on Coleman:
But our ads (and PAC/DCCC issue ads during the Senate campaigns) told the truth. So I kinda feel we didn’t violate Franni or Al’s Day One Rule Against Going Negative.
A few weeks before Election Day 2008, internal and public polling showed Al Franken (and his non-attacking ads) suddenly way up, with Norm Coleman (and his negative, misleading attack ads) falling behind.
Which led Norm Coleman to panic and suddenly announce that his campaign would not run any negative or attack ads for the rest of the campaign:
Which led us to craft this response:
So far, so good!
Now this is where it gets a little murky, in terms of the final ads we ran after Al Franken won the MN Senate election.
Al Franken won. But his opponent, Norm (asshole) Coleman, refused to concede.
In fact, Coleman refused to concede for a full EIGHT MONTHS after the election results were in. Coleman filed multiple lawsuits all the way up to the MN Supreme Court:
Eight months.
Next question: Did we go negative by running ads that trolled Coleman for not conceding for nearly a year?
Was the ‘Norm Coleman Won’t Concede’ ad below from a Franken-friendly PAC (with which we on the Franken campaign had no involvement) negative? Was it an attack?
I’ll leave it to you folks to decide, since I’m clearly biased:
Ultimately, Norm Coleman did eventually concede to Al Franken eight months after voters went to the polls.
Which wasn’t just inconvenient: Coleman’s refusal to concede deprived President Obama of a key Dem-held vote in the Senate for a big chunk of Obama’s first year in office.
That’s why we gave Norm Coleman the salty middle name you read above.
As nice as it sounds, I think that is a terrible idea. It removes reality and accountability from the campaign. Anyone can say that they they care and will do something to fix a problem. But can they? What have they done? Did ti actually affect the problem or is it an empty claim? Have they come up with a workable solution to any issue?, or is it just party line? The world is full of politcians with empty promises and no insightful analysis. Why make it worse?
In a two-horse race, they work.
In an electoral system where there is a binary choice (assuming voluntary voting) then all one has to do to win is to make sure that your opponent gets fewer votes than you. A candidate/party can concentrate on demotivating softer supporters of their opponent, so they won’t vote at all. In the USA, where there are only two parties, voluntary voting and a fptp electoral system, then a negative election campaign is very effective. In a mostly two-party FPTP system such as the UK, then negative campaigning has to be very specific and strategically used.
In an elector
In a two-horse race, they work.
In an electoral system where there is a binary choice (assuming voluntary voting) then all one has to do to win is to make sure that your opponent gets fewer votes than you. A candidate/party can concentrate on demotivating softer supporters of their opponent, so they won’t vote at all. In the USA, where there are only two parties, voluntary voting and a fptp electoral system, then a negative election campaign is very effective. In a mostly two-party FPTP system such as the UK, then negative campaigning has to be very specific and strategically used.
In an electoral system where voters have a genuine choice of parties, then negative campaigning can be counter-productive to your own campaign.
Of course it can happen in multi-party democracies (this example is from Ireland) but they tend to make some voters choose parties other than yours or the one you’re attacking.
In election season it’s the part of the campaign that lots of people complain about: The onslaught of campaign ads.
A number of them are really going after fellow candidates but are those ads effective? It turns out their impact is increasing.
On TV or online it’s hard to miss the political ads these days. Whether you’re seeing more or less depends on what you remember.
“I can’t say that it’s particu
In election season it’s the part of the campaign that lots of people complain about: The onslaught of campaign ads.
A number of them are really going after fellow candidates but are those ads effective? It turns out their impact is increasing.
On TV or online it’s hard to miss the political ads these days. Whether you’re seeing more or less depends on what you remember.
“I can’t say that it’s particularly worse, I think we just have short memories,” said Melissa Miller, Ph.D. of Bowling Green State University.
Doctor Miller says the attack ads have always been a favorite for campaigns but political scientists have doubted them until recently.
“We’ve become so much more polarized than we were in the ‘80s and ‘90s when a lot of those kinds of study were being done. We have a different political context now,” said Dr. Miller.
Doctor Miller says new research shows the attack ad is effective and lasts with the viewer.
“The candidate who’s out there attacking an opponent, there’s a small positive effect in terms of their vote share. It’s a little but it’s significant,” said Dr. Miller.
Which could go a long way, especially in that very tight US Senate primary race in Ohio. A race in which most of the candidate share similar views. An attack on the actual person is the typical route.
“You can’t really ...
Not necessarily offensive, per se, but Lyndon B. Johnson's "Daisy" ad is an example of fear-mongering at it's finest - by which I mean, stupidest.
It plays off of legitimate fears of Goldwater's war-mongering tendencies, but it goes well beyond the already loose boundaries of taste in politics. You've already killed enough kids today, LBJ - no need to blow up one more.
It is more when your choice of politician is attacked personally instead of the ideas and ideology of the person. That person usually represents your ideas how to guide the country toward solutions.
This is the biggest change I have seen. It isn't the ideology of pro choice for women, its they want to kill babies. Its not prolife, its controlling women. It's not taxes are unnecessary but what is most important to pay for.
It isn't about the second amendment and control but he wants to take your guns.
Instead of politicians, and yes, you and me, talking about the problem of undocumented aliens com
It is more when your choice of politician is attacked personally instead of the ideas and ideology of the person. That person usually represents your ideas how to guide the country toward solutions.
This is the biggest change I have seen. It isn't the ideology of pro choice for women, its they want to kill babies. Its not prolife, its controlling women. It's not taxes are unnecessary but what is most important to pay for.
It isn't about the second amendment and control but he wants to take your guns.
Instead of politicians, and yes, you and me, talking about the problem of undocumented aliens coming or some people getting guns just to do mass killing, or women having their lives disrupted by an unplanned pregnancy or even same sex people wanting same rights as other couples or even taking a simple vaccine.
We no longer discuss the issues like adults and work to solve them even if imperfectly; instead we say the other person is evil and want to do we and our families personal harm. And it is said that is the sole purpose of them wanting to take us over.
Politicians now use these arguments to make sure you are angry enough to vote for them but the fallout is hate and division. I will not vote for anyone who calls someone with a different ideology un-American because the most American thing we do is speak our ideas.
We don't bother to even find out why someone else might feel differently about an issue. Instead we just want to outshout him.
So anger feeds on feeling there are no solutions except complete defeat of the other whom we now label enemy instead of friends with different ideas how to solve the same problem.
THE SAME PROBLEMS FACED BY ALL OF US except perhaps the rich. How to earn a living, have a home, and stay healthy. That's all most people want.
But just like a road trip can be taken backroads, simple highways,or super highway, each will get us to our destination, we forget the mutual destination and fight over the how to do it. A system that gives each as much freedom as possible to choose their own way works best.
That's democracy. DEMOCRACY.
That's what the Myers Briggs exercise is all about. How each of us view the world and what we do to get to our destination to our individual satisfaction. You don't have to be wrong for me to be right. That's a better premise than you are my enemy.
This is a subject for a book better than here but this is my idea of a short answer.
This is because leaders die. We do as well. Replaced by new leaders and people; But 100 years from now the same ideology fights will continue because people will always be born to be human and so they will forget everyone may not take the same path,, taking the same road, but we're all together in our destination.
Will we ever evolve beyond this?
It all starts with a well toned and a macho man spraying something below his armpits and on chest …
Something Just like this…
And by the smell..!
Far away Women react quickly to this smell caused be the spray by an expression ..
Something just like this..
And after their, this kind of expression they start running behind that man..
Like this…!
And they have him, with a Playboy kinda look
Something like this..
And after watching this ad..
My reaction was something like this….
WTF…
Donno wht to say abt these kind of ads..
Supportment of strong nudity in these kind of ads and lack of proper common sense..wht
It all starts with a well toned and a macho man spraying something below his armpits and on chest …
Something Just like this…
And by the smell..!
Far away Women react quickly to this smell caused be the spray by an expression ..
Something just like this..
And after their, this kind of expression they start running behind that man..
Like this…!
And they have him, with a Playboy kinda look
Something like this..
And after watching this ad..
My reaction was something like this….
WTF…
Donno wht to say abt these kind of ads..
Supportment of strong nudity in these kind of ads and lack of proper common sense..wht to say…bugh
Just smelling a pint of spray and then start running like cowards to have him..lmao
Btw
That too..that deo effects only women and not men..xdXD
Source: Google and shutterstock images
*This answer will be more appropriate in case of funniest ads rather than worts ones..xd
We can be motivated by love (or compassion, or altruistically or whatever you want to call it) or by fear. Negative ads attempt to motivate you by fear.
Rick Perry's "Strong" ad
The Harold Ford... Call Me ad
The "This is Alabama, we speak English" ad
Tom Tancredo's "Tough on Terror" ad
Rick Perry's "Strong" ad
The Harold Ford... Call Me ad
The "This is Alabama, we speak English" ad
Tom Tancredo's "Tough on Terror" ad
Are you serious..? All politicians do is look for dirt, negative views and scandal on the opposition party in order to damage reputation and pollute the public opinion of the governing elected politicians.. how much more negative can it possibly get from how it already is…
In the UK, whilst theres a war going on in Europe, a global economic crisis, an immigrant/ refugee crisis, the covid pandemic, global warming and still integration and teething problems from Brexit to contend with, rather embarrassingly the Government, media and public were obsessed with ‘partygate’ at Downing Street two year
Are you serious..? All politicians do is look for dirt, negative views and scandal on the opposition party in order to damage reputation and pollute the public opinion of the governing elected politicians.. how much more negative can it possibly get from how it already is…
In the UK, whilst theres a war going on in Europe, a global economic crisis, an immigrant/ refugee crisis, the covid pandemic, global warming and still integration and teething problems from Brexit to contend with, rather embarrassingly the Government, media and public were obsessed with ‘partygate’ at Downing Street two years ago during lockdown and whether it was technically a party or a business meeting because they had cheese and wine and birthday cake on Boris Johnsons birthday… who gives a shit!! Even now that the opposition party leader throwing the shit around, it seems was having beers with friends and colleagues in his home too.. ffs, it wasn't even illegal but a penalty fine for those who breached lockdown rules… the cost to the country and financially investigating and defending this shit has cost millions and the fines paid were £100… it's an absolute disgrace!!!
Personally I would love to see a political party broadcast and campaign that focused solely on its own merits and future goals without needing to vilify or having to blow out the candle of the opposition to make themselves shine brighter and win on merit and positivity, optimisism and by keeping it real, fair and relatively honest…
Now that would be refreshing!! A political party who could just get on and do the job we pay them to do!!
Here are two I liked at the time:
Donald Trump 2016
Stephen Harper 2011
Aspirational ads which give you something to vote for.
That’s what political ads should be
One of the more infamous was the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” series of attack ads directed against the presidential candidacy of John Kerry in 2004.
A group of Vietnam vets put out (with backing….) a series of ads accusing Kerry of all sorts of misconduct during the war.
Although this group was widely discredited (none of them had ever served with Kerry and those GIs who had were universal in their praise for him…)
It had a definite effect on the election and Kerry’s popularity.
This followed the playbook of certain Republican operatives (some of whom are still around) who maintained that atta
One of the more infamous was the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” series of attack ads directed against the presidential candidacy of John Kerry in 2004.
A group of Vietnam vets put out (with backing….) a series of ads accusing Kerry of all sorts of misconduct during the war.
Although this group was widely discredited (none of them had ever served with Kerry and those GIs who had were universal in their praise for him…)
It had a definite effect on the election and Kerry’s popularity.
This followed the playbook of certain Republican operatives (some of whom are still around) who maintained that attacks should be directed at the candidate’s strengths… In this case, Kerry’s war service.
I detest ALL political ads and tune them out regardless of the content and the party. I kinda think most people do also and that they have little to no effect on voters choices.
Remember, Hillary spent about twice as much as Trump in a losing campaign. People simply do not trust or pay any attention to political advertising. They think is all distortions and lies. And it is.
I agree with the concept, except - who’s going to be the gate-keeper? Sounds like another layer of bureaucracy to me.
As an aside, intended to be just an honest observation and trying not to be antagonistic.
I live in Ohio - a traditional swing state - heavy TV ads near the end of the election.
During the last Presidential election, I noticed Trump’s face was on my TV screen nearly 100% of the time. The fact was - the Democratic ads all showed Trump doing or saying something Democrats thought stupid (things his base liked), while the Trump ads all showed him doing or saying other things his base
I agree with the concept, except - who’s going to be the gate-keeper? Sounds like another layer of bureaucracy to me.
As an aside, intended to be just an honest observation and trying not to be antagonistic.
I live in Ohio - a traditional swing state - heavy TV ads near the end of the election.
During the last Presidential election, I noticed Trump’s face was on my TV screen nearly 100% of the time. The fact was - the Democratic ads all showed Trump doing or saying something Democrats thought stupid (things his base liked), while the Trump ads all showed him doing or saying other things his base liked.
I remember, a short period of of positive Clinton ads (something to do with your daughters?); but after a day or two, they went back to the same clips of Trump flailing his arms.
Yes I exspect so, like most advertising it works by changing how people feel about things not how they think about things that becomes latter. Most people think advertising dose not work on them but if that was true advertising would not exist.
ABSOLUTELY! for this voter, they remind me that tv simply isn't that important in my life. And it may be time to turn it off and get back into the real world where words have actual meanings!
Sometimes, when they pop up on you tube, they remind me that the video I was about to watch really wasn't important enough to sit through the BS add to get to watch it, and that maybe its time to fix my storm door instead of watching minutes of complete lies and half truths with veiled hints at a coming apocalypse if one person is elected….
On the whole, i think political adds are a great way of telling peo
ABSOLUTELY! for this voter, they remind me that tv simply isn't that important in my life. And it may be time to turn it off and get back into the real world where words have actual meanings!
Sometimes, when they pop up on you tube, they remind me that the video I was about to watch really wasn't important enough to sit through the BS add to get to watch it, and that maybe its time to fix my storm door instead of watching minutes of complete lies and half truths with veiled hints at a coming apocalypse if one person is elected….
On the whole, i think political adds are a great way of telling people that they are spending too much time on this crap, and its time to do something that actually matters!
There’s lots of them but the all time worst, most disgusting one that Republicans are slinging around these days is the pathetic “groomer” one they’ve resorted to. The very same folks who cry crocodile tears over books that so much as reference anything concerning sex are blasting out the term “groomer” so adults on both sides get to explain it to their kids after they’ve seen it, heard it or read it. Excellent well thought out strategy.
I find them annoying, and frequently misleading. That’s A Bad Thing.
They’re ALSO a simple way to “get the message out.” That’s A Good Thing.
The real world isn’t black and white. It’s endless shades of gray.
Using “advertising” as an excuse for not “doing your homework” is idiotic.
Since it takes money to run an ad, whoever is paying for the ad, whether it’s positive or negative, thinks it works. otherwise, they wouldn’t run it
One attitude is “ if I see a negative ad about someone, I assume that it’s made up or at least exaggerated, so it makes me want to know more actual correct information about that person”
Political ads are part of a campaign to adjust your point of view. The advertisement itself may not overtly affect your thinking but the campaign will.
Think about your opinion of specific politicians. What are those opinions based upon? Do you know their accomplishments? Do you know what those accomplishments mean to your jurisdiction?
The answer is probably not. It is easy to see on Quora as people often write incorrect answers that sound like political advertisements. Few people take the time to investigate facts. They rather follow impressions and that is where the political ads really pay o
Political ads are part of a campaign to adjust your point of view. The advertisement itself may not overtly affect your thinking but the campaign will.
Think about your opinion of specific politicians. What are those opinions based upon? Do you know their accomplishments? Do you know what those accomplishments mean to your jurisdiction?
The answer is probably not. It is easy to see on Quora as people often write incorrect answers that sound like political advertisements. Few people take the time to investigate facts. They rather follow impressions and that is where the political ads really pay off. Voters have heard so and so is dishonest, honest, caring, uncaring etc.
Even those, like the other 2 responders, who claim to ignore the ads are susceptible to their effects because people they know and respect watch them and state them as fact. That is why everybody spend big bucks on advertisements.
Mike
The ads could be defamatory if they were selling cars. We may see ads in 2024 that would be considered slander, if they were spoken in public by a regular guy. However no one will sue the candidate that airs such an ad. They most certainly will be considered free speech and a political statement, thus protected by the Supreme Court. Thus you can make baseless charges by the day, spread slander all night, with pretty much no worries. Examples are the Willie Horton ad by H.W. Bush, the Swiftboat ads by W. Bush. The first toxic as was the LBJ ad implying Goldwater was very likely to use nukes and
The ads could be defamatory if they were selling cars. We may see ads in 2024 that would be considered slander, if they were spoken in public by a regular guy. However no one will sue the candidate that airs such an ad. They most certainly will be considered free speech and a political statement, thus protected by the Supreme Court. Thus you can make baseless charges by the day, spread slander all night, with pretty much no worries. Examples are the Willie Horton ad by H.W. Bush, the Swiftboat ads by W. Bush. The first toxic as was the LBJ ad implying Goldwater was very likely to use nukes and destroy the world.. I am sure you will see some ad that features Hunter Biden that will be 100% pure bullshit, and no one will be surprised.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lbjs-1964-attack-ad-daisy-leaves-a-legacy-for-modern-campaigns/2014/09/05/d00e66b0-33b4-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.htmlTo a certain extent in today’s polarized world, political advertising is less about conversion and more about encouragement to get the people who already support you to actually express that support in the form of a vote rather than abstaining from the election.
Here's the notorious "Willie Horton" ad Lee Atwater created in 1988 for George H. W. Bush.
By how truthful they sound, and by who made them. There are filthy lying people/organizations who immediately merit my extreme doubt of anything I hear from them. I try to keep a relatively open mind , so I listen to what even these known liars say and compare it to what I know is true, very, very, very rarely does what I hear from these known liars sound true so I reject it. On those occaisions when it seems that it might be true, it is virtually always connected to a bigger lie, so I reject it too. If the claims come from people who I have found, over years, to be at all trustworthy I decide
By how truthful they sound, and by who made them. There are filthy lying people/organizations who immediately merit my extreme doubt of anything I hear from them. I try to keep a relatively open mind , so I listen to what even these known liars say and compare it to what I know is true, very, very, very rarely does what I hear from these known liars sound true so I reject it. On those occaisions when it seems that it might be true, it is virtually always connected to a bigger lie, so I reject it too. If the claims come from people who I have found, over years, to be at all trustworthy I decide what level of reasonability they have, and reject or provisionally accept them on that basis.
The “Strawman Fallacy” gets widespread usage. It works well in a polarised society like the USA where each side listens only to their “own” news sources and never that of the other side. The only information they ever receive about the other side comes from their own thought directors, bloviators and pundits. We see this all the time on Quora where some stooge will ask “What do the dirty leftists think about transgendered bathroom peepers?” and then a chorus of right wing “experts” will bombard the audience with all the examples of left wing depravity they can imagine.
Here is a hint: do not pa
The “Strawman Fallacy” gets widespread usage. It works well in a polarised society like the USA where each side listens only to their “own” news sources and never that of the other side. The only information they ever receive about the other side comes from their own thought directors, bloviators and pundits. We see this all the time on Quora where some stooge will ask “What do the dirty leftists think about transgendered bathroom peepers?” and then a chorus of right wing “experts” will bombard the audience with all the examples of left wing depravity they can imagine.
Here is a hint: do not pay much attention when an individual from one side tells you what the opposite side thinks and feels. They are probably wrong or lying or both. Remember the ambidextrous people are the ones who are REALLY destroying America.
Some people are against political ads on social media due to concerns about misinformation, manipulation, privacy violations, and the influence of money in politics, which can undermine trust and fairness in democratic processes.
I would like to see all political ads banned. Positive and negative ones can be misleading and usually appeal to emotion, such as anger, resentment, wishful thinking. We need to replace slogans and sound bites with information and candidates’ realistic proposals and ideas.
There are a countless number of ad campaigns and marketing strategies that can backfire. However, some of the more infamous examples include the Volkswagen "Dieselgate" campaign, which was designed to improve the company's reputation, but instead led to widespread public anger and emissions tests. Also Pepsi's "Pepsi Max" campaign, which was supposed to appeal to athletes and partygoers who were looking for a energy drink that would help them stay up late, but ended up backfiring by making people obese.
The takeaway here is that it's important to be careful with how you execute your campaigns -
There are a countless number of ad campaigns and marketing strategies that can backfire. However, some of the more infamous examples include the Volkswagen "Dieselgate" campaign, which was designed to improve the company's reputation, but instead led to widespread public anger and emissions tests. Also Pepsi's "Pepsi Max" campaign, which was supposed to appeal to athletes and partygoers who were looking for a energy drink that would help them stay up late, but ended up backfiring by making people obese.
The takeaway here is that it's important to be careful with how you execute your campaigns - if you're not 100% sure how they'll turn out, it may be best to hold off on launching them until you're more confident. And always make sure to test your marketing strategies before you go live - even small changes can have a big impact!