Examples from Campaign Ad Project 2006

These are some strong examples of student work from Envision’s first Campaign Ads for Voters project in 2006. All of the ads are based on California ballot measures put to the voters in November, 2006. The students premiered these campaign commercials to the voters of their school community on the Monday night before the election.


No on Prop 87 (Gas Tax)

Produced by Jacob Karinen, Leah Pyron, Zach Vanderbilt, Maya Bernau, and Alessandra Accinelli. 11/06/2006

The final product is expertly crafted, but it took concerted effort to bring the script to its appropriate length. It is instructive to look at the evolution of the script from its first draft.


Yes on Prop 87 (Gas Tax)

Produced by Melanie Keegan, Maya Lukoff, Eric Nazarian, and Ben Silverstein. 11/06/2006

In this ad, the highly sophisticated audio track accentuates the power of the images and timing of the scene cuts.


No on 85 (Parental Notification of Minor's Abortion)

Produced by Caitlyn Dorsey, Craig Digrazia, Robert Koch, and Jessica Kostelic. 11/06/2006

This is ad is elegant in its simplicity: well-chosen images, a tightly written and expertly delivered voice-over, an appropriately somber soundtrack. It proves that you can reach professional quality with good writing and a few good images.


Yes on 85 (Parental Notification of Minor's Abortion)

Produced by Marshall Moses, Jason Heist, and Tim Jones. Acted by Melanie Keegan. 11/06/2006

This team built its ad around the poignant audio track which the members discovered on the Internet. Good filmmaking instincts took it from there. Notice the moment that the film converts from black-and-white to color.


No on Prop 86 (Cigarette Tax)

Produced by Aaron Bardo, Derek Fougere, and Jonathan Killinger. 11/06/2006

With a narrative form, this campaign ad uses metaphor and a surprise ending to question the motives of the ballot initiative.


Yes on 86 (Cigarette Tax)

Produced by Anthony Antonaros, Evie Holt, Aaron Kalb, and Tyler Reich. 11/06/2006

This ad combines a creative storyline, skillful video editing, and great acting by some parents to deliver a memorable message on the costs of smoking.


No on Prop 90 (Eminent Domain)

Produced by John Bjerke, Cesar Hunt, Derek Jepsen, and Noah Nordhoff. Narrated by Jason Murphy. 11/06/2006

Using Photoshop, this group crafted powerful images to appeal to the emotions of its target voter. It is instructive to read this group’s explanation of intent:

“We identified Republican men who are 35 or older as swing voters on Proposition 90. Because this group supports the rights of property owners, they are likely to vote yes. But we also learned in our interviews that Republican men are generally opposed to taxes and government spending, and they are unaware of the hidden costs of this proposition. Our ad portrays Prop 90 as an economic rather than a property rights issue. We highlight that there are hidden dangers with our “taxpayer trap” slogan and image. We appeal to the emotions of Republican voters by warning them of unneeded lawsuits and higher taxes.”


No on 1D (Education Bond)

Produced by Jamie Arrambide, Alex Calkins, and Eric Mandell. 11/06/2006

This team wanted their ad’s narrator to be an on-screen presence. They tapped into a connection made at one of the member’s internships from the year before; the actress from the Marin Theater Company agreed to perform in exchange for the group buying her dinner. Talk about “solving problems resourcefully.”


Yes on 88 (Education Bond)

Produced by Evan Egan, Sean Manning, and Jacob Pernell. 11/06/2006

This team clearly understands the power of pathos. Notice how they highlight the most emotionally persuasive phrases of the narration by pulling the text out on the screen.


Yes on Prop 1A: High Speed Rail

Produced by Mark Alvarado, Ricardo Gutierrez, Timothy Kwan, Roxana Rodriguez, Miguel Serrano

We believe that our targeted audiences are young environmentalists between the ages of 18 and 25. Through various interviews we realized that mostly every single older male or female is already supportive of the proposition due to its economic convenience. But our swing voters are in conflict about what this proposition would do to our environment. Our targeted voter might vote yes on this prop because of the train’s reduction of California’s CO2 emissions and being an overall cleaner method of travel. These voters might vote against this because of the biological impact on California’s environment due to the intensive construction that will take place on the Californian soil. We are trying to appeal to our target voter’s emotions through scenes of green environments. We will also tackle the voter’s emotions through scenes of pollution and traffic/congestion exposing air pollution.


Posted by Justin Wells : 10/22/2008