The Upper Division students of Metro are proud to present their political ads for the California propositions of November 2008. These videos are the product of months of researching the ballot, interviewing voters, studying the media, thinking critically about the issues, and spending hours in video production.
Use the table of contents to see an individual ad, or browse through the whole set of ads by scrolling below.
Presented in the order of screening on Exhibition Night.
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.
Produced by Andrew Arnold, Samuel Dobbins, Alex Fugini-Laws, Raymond Lui, Luis Rocha
The most likely swing voter is the middle class woman. At first we were planning on the whole middle class, but eventually realized through a number of interviews that men still have the childhood love of trains. Most middle class voters don’t like the price of gas, as well as traffic slowing their lives down. So our commercial is directed at both men and women of the middle class, reinforcing the men’s love of trains as well as telling women how helpful this would be. We used gas prices as the main point as well as pollution.
Produced by Andrienne Bustos, Kennia Hernandez, Walter Mack, Alexander Melgar, Jose Sanchez
After studying our interviews, we identified parents aged 40-50 as more likely to vote no on this proposition. We figured out that parents think that this proposition is only about animals, but the truth is that it also has to do with peoples’ health who eat products from factory farms. Our commercial is designed to sway our voters because we showcase diseases and the danger our families can be in. We know that no parent wants their kids to be sick and that some of these diseases can even lead to death. Our commercial is informing parents of this.
Produced by Vee Mendoza, Alex Montgomery, William Ross, Marissa Sonkin, Nelson Yang
Through interviews with the general public, we have found that those most concerned with food prices are those that shop for their families: househusbands or housewives, ideally wary of their families eating habits. Statistically speaking, the majority of families are from the middle class and are concerned with prices of groceries, yet are also willing to pay more for the food that influences their families’ health. We decided to reach this group through a health and safety standpoint rather than one of animal rights, because those sympathetic to animals are already supporting Proposition 2. Already counting on the animal sympathy vote, we avoided images of animal cruelty and used images of children to emphasize feelings of family instead.
Produced by Eric DerManouelian, Marti Dulalas, Jose Portillo, Ray Solomon, Jacob Thomas
Clearly parents were not our target voter because of the natural bond and level of emotion they have for children. Instead, we targeted our ad toward young non-parents between the ages of 18 and 25. We chose these voters because they don’t share the same type of attachment to kids as much as a parent would. These voters and children in general are going to be paying taxes for something they might not have to use. Our ad is going to show what it’s going to cost you and what children are going to pay if this prop passes.
Produced by Brittany Burrows, Roberto Ferreira, Sheida Meltone, Abigail Prieto-Valenzuela, Mitzy Velazquez
After hitting the streets and raiding our homes with interview questions, we came to the agreement that men would certainly be our target voter. “Why would men be heavily passionate about an issue that doesn’t even affect their gender?” we thought, and it’s true. Men don’t care much about Prop 4, because they’re unfamiliar with the topic, and that is our goal: to enlighten these men, and bring their vote over to our side. The right side. Doing some market research on men, we realized that a heartbeat during the video would pull a strong pathos. Stating too many facts would confuse some; instead, pictures of abused girls would reveal the effects of voting yes on Prop 4. We made the message quite simple. Vote No on Prop 4.
Produced by Marlena Benavente, Zulma Montesinos, Julie Paulino, Nicholas Porter, Haley Robinson
Our target voters are single men between the ages of 18 and 30. They are far away from the issue and do not plan on having a family soon, making them easy to be convinced. We discovered through our focus group research that they also know little about the initiative. Our commercial was designed to sway its voter with the argument that sexual predators aren’t only “old sick” men that take advantage of young self-conscious girls. These sexual predators are also guys that can be “the guy next door.” Our target voter is meant to feel sympathy for victims of these relationships through our photo choices which explain the situation that girls are in. Our target voters should feel moved to protect the young girls by voting yes on prop 4.
Produced by Kelly King, Isela Mansfield, Jessica Marquez, Angel Santiago, Lydia Young
We identified women who became mothers in their teens as our swing voters for Proposition 4. We learned by interviewing young mothers that they were iffy about the situation. Some said that they would want to know if their daughter was pregnant or not, but all these women understood the young girls who are going through this situation. In our ad we argue that if this proposition were passed, young girls would go to desperate measures to get rid of their babies, whether using drugs, drinking alcohol, or hurting themselves. We are targeting these women with an emotional warning that teens are at risk if Proposition 4 is passed.
Produced by Irene De Leon, Tatiana Henry, Abreeon Lynch, Lizbeth Ortiz, Rachel Schwager-Datz
Some men in their twenties are not politically active and may not show up to the polls. Our approach is to hit them with pathos. Men that have children might vote yes because they want to know what their children are doing, yet some men will vote no because they want their younger siblings to have a choice about a decision that can change their life drastically. We appeal to the men by stressing the safety of their female loved ones. We show still images to reveal the dangerous outcomes that can come from Proposition 4.
Produced by Simone Evans, Christina Jimenez, Eduardo Martinez, Tyler Montobbio, Henna Sawhney
The target voters for our commercial are young people aged 18 to 25, primarily males. When interviewing this group, we found that they were quick to judge and vote no on the proposition without sufficient knowledge. Our commercial is designed to sway these swing voters by providing them facts that nullify biased assumptions they may already have. We appeal to both pathos and logos by providing facts and statistics about abortions as well as showing images of girls that seem depressed, as well as morose footage of a girl in a high school setting, insinuating that she is someone who will be affected by this prop.
Produced by Aaron Karnatz-Breaux, Jovante Mirabella, Angelica Padilla, Cristina Wong
The target voters for our campaign ad are mothers of any age who were once teenage mothers, and who now have teenage daughters themselves. We found that they are undecided when it comes to Proposition 4. We focus on this demographic because they understand how it feels to be pregnant and not know how to tell their parents. They understand that you don’t always have that connection with your parents and that forcing that connection will only make the issue harder to deal with. We are showing that the daughter-parent connection isn’t always there and that it can be scary to come to a parent when dealing with an issue such as pregnancy. On the other hand, our target voter group also understands that being a parent, you always want to know what you child is doing and keep them safe. We use black and white photos to make the ad more sad and serious. We also include a video of a mother and teen daughter to reflect what they have in their lives and feel connected to our viewpoint. We use a clip of a doctor to make the information given more believable. The music is slow and sad to target our voters’ emotions.
Produced by Iris Gil, Orion Heinz, Angel Hinojosa, Maria Simmons
Our target voters are parents. We want to let them know that Prop 4 will have a bad impact on their daughters. We chose parents to be our target because parents are the ones that are voting. Parents may think about compromising with their daughters. Without ads like this, many parents automatically think that Prop 4 is a great idea because parents usually want to know about everything going on with their child. The narration in our commercial hits our target voters because it’s realistic and gets people to think twice about their decision. The pictures and videos show what things will be like if Prop 4 does pass. By showing this scenario, we hope to target our swing voter’s pathos.
Produced by Nazan Aktas, Maria Arteaga, William Gordon, Canique Moody
Our target voters are parents because parents are really confused about what Prop 5 is going to do if passed. They have to see and know facts and understand what this proposition is going to do to their children if these children get arrested for possession of marijuana. We use pathos in our commercial because our ad was designed to hit parents’ emotions, to force them to think about what can happen to their kids if they are sent to jail for drug related crimes and don’t get the help they need. We use images of a boy growing up into a drug addict, then a dealer who goes in and out of jail, and eventually dies, showing parents that if he had gone to rehab instead of jail he may not have gotten back into drugs and wouldn’t have died because of them. We are hoping that they will feel bad for the boy in the video and think of what they would rather have their kids do: go to rehab.
Produced by Daniel Bass, Walter Calixto, Christopher Rodriguez, Emerson Snyder, Max Stein
Our target voters are elderly people. This is because they are not affected by drug problems nearly as much as younger people. We decided to sway our voters by showing that any family can be affected by drug abuse. We also want to help our target voters understand why kids develop drug addictions, and show how they can help our youth in an effective manner, by voting yes on Proposition 5.
Produced by Jennifer Escobar, Karl Force, Jack Henderson, Matthew Marcant, Yessenia Paredes
Our target voters are parents between 40 and 60 who have children who are on their own. Our target voters would vote no because they might think that the proposition will not affect them; they might also believe that the prop will cost California a lot of money. Our target voters might vote yes because they will feel sympathetic for the people who are put in jail and realize they would not want their children to be put into jail. Some noticeable features in our ad are the images of the prisoner with a cigarette and the graduation ceremony.
Produced by Carlos Aguilar, Brittany Emeonye, Konrad Herler, Jesus Sicairos, Brian Stegner
The target voter that we identified for our commercial is an upper middle class parent over the age of 35. Because she is concerned with her safety, this swing voter is likely to vote for more law enforcement on our streets; on the other hand she thinks money could be better spent in other places. Also she does not agree with teenagers as young as 14 being charged as adults and being imprisoned with them. Our NO ON PROP 6 ad brings the hidden financial dangers of this prop to the light. By rejecting this prop she will be surer that her money is spent on more important priorities during this financial crisis.
Produced by Thalia de Leon, Ish Escobedo, Scott Gowin, Jahlil Mitchell, Jonathan Sarceno
The target voters for our campaign ad are young people between the ages of 18 and 30. These people are swing voters because they are young and newer voters and tend to be less informed. They also tend to get in trouble with the police more than other age groups. The rhetorical device we are going to use is logos because in our commercial we tell voters that if this prop passes more money is given to police, but they are not given any guidelines as to how to use the new funds. We believe our commercial is going to motivate our target voters to vote because it shows how the police are benefiting from this prop, yet nothing will change. Also, this commercial will have a little humor so these voters will pay close attention to the commercial and learn what prop 6 is really about.
Produced by Iranesha Hilman, Gregory Intermaggio, Ren Plesa, Immer Rivera, Nathaniel Smith-Banks
Proposition 7 directly affects the lives of the general public as it will likely change the cost of utilities. Prop 7 creates a requirement that by 2025, 50% of California’s power comes from renewable energy sources, which will create new competition in the field of alternative energy.
Unfortunately, the fiscal impact of the proposition is somewhat unknown, and so we chose to target our ad on those who will be most impacted by utility cost changes if the proposition passes. The reasoning behind our decision is that utility bill payers are concerned about whether their bills will go up or down based on the effects of Prop 7. Our ad attempts to stir the logos and ethos in the narrative by talking about how it will positively impact the economy. We also work our viewers’ pathos through imagery, by showing vivid images connected to strong emotions, such as coal factories, open fields, and family.
Produced by Gale Bergeman, Matthew Centeno, Ja'Na Nunley, Gabriel Prentice, Daniel Schreil
We decided that our target voters are middle class taxpayers who are supporters of the environment. We came to this conclusion after doing research and a series of interviews that showed that people were generally interested in doing something positive for the environment but weren’t in favor of raising any taxes. Our commercial’s objective is to show voters that Prop 7 is a scheme that appears to be helping the environment but is such a flawed and costly measure that is actually anti-green. Our commercial uses pathos and ethos in order to sway our target voter. The images we chose appealed to our voter’s feelings as caregivers, drawing a comparison between the environment and one’s children, especially with the image of the green Earth being held in someone’s hands. This is also reinforced by the bandaged-Earth, likening it to a child scraping her knee.
Produced by Ashley Archie, Erick Colmenares, Juan Lopez, Albert Quezada, Elizabeth Rodriguez
Our target voter is minority groups. The reason why we chose this specific target voter group is because we feel minorities have been the most affected when it comes to their human rights. We feel that they are the largest group that can relate to Proposition 8. By giving the examples of civil rights movements, how African-Americans were discriminated against for so many years for who they are for example, we show voters how they can overcome this civil rights violation. In our commercial we show powerful images that will hopefully change thoughts and ideas about Proposition 8. In using these images we employ pathos, making our target voter feel the injustice towards gay people by passing Proposition 8.
Produced by Katrina Cubilo, Jessica Hernandez, Erick Lopez, Kevin Ruiz, Osiris Walls
The target voters, the single driving force behind our entire campaign project, are young independent-minded Christians. The reason this target demographic is the swing voter is because of the two conflicting sides within them. On one hand, they have a deep-held faith that they were brought up with, but on the other hand they have a free mindedness about them. They hold these two ideas in their minds but, with enough influence, we can sway them our way. Using images of the church, traditional and wholesome American values, and the voice of a potential peer, our commercial will swing our target voter in our favor. Finding the swing voters on this issue was not an easy task. Most voters already had their minds made up, but because of a chance encounter with one young potential voter, we were able to pinpoint our swing voter.
Produced by Carmen Alvarado, Kai Cobbins, Gabriella Miranda, Rachel Steinwand, Ati Thamok
Straight and married couples between the ages of 40 and 60 are our target voters. Most straight parents don’t want their kids to grow up thinking that it’s okay to be gay. The reason why married or straight couples could vote “yes” on Prop 8 is because it would protect the definition of “marriage.” The way that we plan to sway them to vote “no” on Prop 8 is to show them that everyone deserves full, American rights and equality under all circumstances. We believe that if we can sway the minds of these swing voters, then they can change the minds of their children. Voters between the ages of 40 and 60 were born in a certain generation, in which we believe that they may know more of American history and our struggle for all equal rights, such as Martin Luther King Jr., the women’s rights movement, and Harvey Milk.
Produced by Sheronda Caldwell, Alejandro Castro, Ronnie Freeman, Araceli Leon, Axel Melgoza
Our target voters are men and women between ages 25-35 in the lower middle class. We believe that they should be targeted because they are the ones who do not have the substantial amount of money to bail loved ones out of jail and would have to rely on the results of court hearings. What the target voters will see is that Proposition 9 will not benefit everyone. It threatens people’s rights to equality and justice. Our group is using rhetorical devices such as logos and pathos. Our attempts at logos show many facts about the ill effects of the proposition’s passing. We use pathos with some pictures and scenes that reflect on what will happen if Prop 9 does pass and how it will affect people’s lives. Our ad is a mixture of pictures, text, and narration. We are presenting the prop by “selling” it to the capitalist society in which everybody buys products. We show voters they should not buy this “product” because it will hurt you in the end and you will not be happy with the results.
Produced by Alexander Gurdal, Zach Macias, Angie Paulino, Raul Valle, Isis Walls
Many voters are unfamiliar with Proposition 11. The number of undecided voters is well over 50%, so our target voter is more general than specific. We chose people 35 and up. Because many people are skeptical of the government, they are likely to vote yes on Prop 11, for it seems to give more power to Californians. We show voters the other side of the argument by emphasizing the possibility of corruption and bureaucratic decision-making if Prop 11 were to pass. We appeal to voters’ insecurities while shattering the belief that Proposition 11 gives California citizens more power in Sacramento.
Posted by Justin Wells : 11/20/2008