I don't suck, but together WE suck

I haven't really taken my crack at the WE campaign yet. Mike skewered Al Gore's latest project a few weeks go. I took my time, thinking that perhaps the media moguls behind this expensive project are just taking their time to build the brand, and perhaps they still are. The WE campaign isn't all that old to be tossed aside like a piece of unrecyclable styrofoam. However, the WE campaign is already falling short for me in a few ways.

First of all, its not yet viral. Nothing about it is. It has a distinctly, Rock the Vote feel to it. Like its something we should all take a look at, but its slightly too establishment to be cool. My fellow blogger Marc made a great point yesterday that Barack Obama's candidacy caught fire among young voters not because he begged them to come out and vote, but initially because he convinced young people, partially with his rhetoric and partially just by the nature of who he is, that change was possible.

The WE campaign, has nothing like that going for it. No spark. I am a card-carrying member of the WE (its even odd to say) and as a blogger, Al and Co, asked me to pass this along to you all.




Now maybe they or WE simply haven't hit their or is it our stride. I WANT to be interested in this campaign, but truth be told I'm just not. Speaking of truth, it amazes me that everyone has seemed to miss the golden quality of An Inconvenient Truth, it was a giant, constant call to action. I need to do more that add my email address to a petition. I want to get called into service. We Can Solve Climate Change. You bet we can.

But maybe we need better inspiration.

We Can Solve It...Tomorrow...

Recently, I criticized Al Gore's "We Can Solve It" campaign's first ad as a weak call to action. Now, it kooks like I've got some support from AdAge's reviewer Bob Garfield.

In Bob's campaign review, he makes a fascinating point. Sure, we came together solved/accomplished all the things the first ad promises...but we did it after years of dilly-dallying. The ad claims, "We Didn't Wait." But, we did! Garfield writes:

"We did wait to invade Europe; we waited five years. We did wait to commence the space program; we waited for the Russians to start first. We did wait to confront racial injustice; we waited 180 years. What is the point of making heroic comparisons if the comparisons don't scan?"

And, if President Bush's speech last week on global warming is any indication, we will continue to wait.

Garfield concludes by applauding the Pelosi/Gingrich spot, but questioning the Sharpton/Robertson spot I just posted. He writes, "polar opposites, yes, but also demagogic scoundrels both." Looks like the "We Can Solve It" campaign needs to solve its messaging if it hopes to have any real impact in solving the bigger problem.

Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Go To The Beach

Here's the first of two posts today on the "We Can Solve It" campaign I've been following (that's the $30 million ad campaign lead by Al Gore to fight climate change). Here, at last, are the two ads featuring political polar opposites: Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, then Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich. My big question is, why are Al and Pat chillin' on the beach? Is that like the Neutral Zone for religious ideologues? If so, sign me up!

Al and Pat at The Beach



Nancy and Newt at The Capital