Posted on

Interview: Photoshoot Models for The Beytin Agency

It was a Sunday in early March, before “social distancing” was our new normal, that my friends Katie and Jim came over for brunch. Katie Dunn has been performing comedy in exhaustively diverse ways since I met her ten years ago, and I met Jim Bathurst as a student of my beginning improv class. Now the three of us perform together with ComedySportz DC, on this day it was my work with The Beytin Agency that brought us all together.

“Because I’m a comedian and I know lots of actors,” I explained to Katie and Jim, “my coworkers at Beytin often say, ‘Anna, you know someone who will do this job, right?’” This was the case for both of them, before they agreed to participate in a Beytin photo shoot.

For the piece featuring Katie the initial idea came from brainstorming around the concept of “Lady Justice.” Playing off the axiom “Lady Justice is blind,” we wanted to comment on the need for justice reform, showing Justice with a strategically loose blindfold. Searching through numerous stock photos we could not land on the perfect image. “Ideally we would need a model and create the photo ourselves,” Aaron Beytin may say—then we make that happen.

Similar to the “Lady Justice” shoot, our photoshoot with Jim came from a brainstorming session around a concept. Our opposition in a campaign profited from their elected position, much to the detriment of his constituents. We wanted to draw a correlation between lining his pockets with profits to a man stuffing his suite jacket with literal dough. We began to brainstorm and once again concluded an original photoshoot would be the best way to get the exact image we want. It was after I posted on Facebook, “Hey actor friends, who has a business suit you don’t mind ruining?” Jim answered the call.

The three of us laugh between mimosa sips as we joke “I just needed a body” for Jim’s piece. However, this is not really the case with our photoshoots. We spend hours making the subjects feel comfortable, seeing them take directions and adapt. To flippantly say “just a body” ignores the emotion we want to evoke in our pieces. In fact, upon seeing Jim’s reply to my initial post I was very excited. “Jim’s a gymnast!” I retold my friends as I recalled my response, “We can really put him in weird positions if we wanted to!”

Katie and Jim’s past creative experiences factored majorly into my considering them for their respective gigs. Having an “improv comedy” urge within in them, both knew how to be flexible and open during their shoots. “One of my previous experiences,” Katie stated, “was a shoot for marketing purposes for a short film. It’s one frame to try and make people want to see more. It’s about trusting the photographer that they’ll get the shot they want.”

“Trusting the photographer was a key part,” Jim added. “In past things I’ve done, I’d be holding a handstand and I knew that feeling. When the photographer would ask for something different, I knew how it should feel versus the variation. You can feel the difference and while holding a position unnatural to yourself, you trust it’s going to look good on film.” It’s clear Katie and Jim both respect the process of an involved photoshoot just to get that perfect shot.

No detail was spared on either shoot. Jim had homemade dough dripping in viscous blobs out of his pockets, covering sticky fingers holding cash. Using real life items as “props,” such as a steal sword and gold-plated scales of Lady Justice, adds a level of authenticity. Katie described her Lady Justice as “caked” in green and grey paint, “The details in the paint, and then also the detail in the props… we’re not talking Party City.”

Using stock images with obvious props is no comparison to a Beytin Agency photo shoot. We think through every detail in order to capture something special. A personalized to the campaign shoot is designed to capture something authentic and unique. When such a clear vision demands a Beytin original photoshoot, we focus on every detail for the most effective campaign.

We believe that a great image can make or break a mail piece. Which is why we’re willing to do (almost) anything to get that image.

Posted on

Bursting the myth that advertising doesn’t matter in elections

If persuasion advertising works, how did the candidate with the fewest resources win big on Super Tuesday?

After Joe Biden won in states like Virginia, Texas, even Massachusetts many were quick to place the blame on the effectiveness of advertising itself.

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/1235252651626876929

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1235032104137879552?s=20

Money alone cannot buy a presidential nomination. But those who take that a step further and suggest that persuasion advertising doesn’t work get it completely wrong.

The reality is Bloomberg (and Steyer’s) advertising blitzes did move people. In polls conducted through February 18th, Bloomberg went from nowhere to second place based almost entirely on advertising (TV/digital/mail). In states like Virginia, he’d vaulted all the way into first place. (Source: FiveThirtyEight.com)

Everything changed on February 19th. In the most watched moment of the most watched primary debate twenty million people saw Elizabeth Warren eliminate Bloomberg’s viability as a candidate. Voters saw the viral moments millions more times after the debate. Bloomberg’s topline numbers and favorability immediately tanked.

That wasn’t the only reason Bloomberg’s advertising didn’t buy wins on Super Tuesday. The sheer size of Bloomberg’s ad spending itself – more in 100 days than Hillary Clinton’s entire primary and general election campaign combined – highlighted the ridiculous income inequality between Bloomberg and just about everyone else. Bloomberg did his best to inoculate against this reality, but a billionaire buying a Democratic primary was always going to be a tough sell in an election year where income inequality is so top of mind.

Presidential campaigns are terrible places to test the efficacy of persuasion advertising. There’s so much noise around big campaigns and people consume so much information that separating the effect of a single variable is nearly impossible. Major presidential campaigns spend money on TV, digital, mail, and field, they are constantly on TV, written about in major media outlets and discussed heavily on social media. They are the subject of foreign information warfare. With so many different forces acting on individuals, it is impossible to create control groups to test the effects of any single variable.

Here’s the secret: in smaller campaigns we can actually see how individual advertising tactics change a race’s dynamic. We can create control groups that are much more reliable. We can see – thanks to tracking polls – how a race develops when our paid advertising is a much bigger piece of the overall information pie a voter receives.

Here’s what I’ve learned after two decades of testing tactics:

1) The bigger the campaign, the less paid advertising controls the debate. If you’re running in a down-ballot race and you’re not a celebrity, you’re unlikely to win without spending significant money. A few digital ads or an active Facebook page won’t do it. Absent a few exceptions that still may require some luck, the candidate who spends a significant amount on well messaged and targeted advertising will beata candidate who doesn’t spend on persuasion Every. Single. Time.

(The exceptions: an extremely well-known candidate; a large infusion of free media; a huge partisan advantage/climate; a race so small the candidate can deliver the message personally to a critical mass of voter’s multiple times.)

2) Sometimes persuasion is the best use of resources; sometimes it’s turnout. Usually it’s both. Be realistic when you decide where to spend your money. Don’t expect turnout operations to give you a 15-point boost. Don’t try to win 40% of Republicans with persuasion mail.

3) An existing voter you persuade is worth two voters you turn out. It’s true. Here’s the math. In a primary with two evenly matched candidates, Candidate A spends enough money to persuade 5% of the existing electorate of 100 people. Candidate B spends enough money to add 5% of new, friendly voters to the electorate. Candidate A ends up with 55 votes. (50 voters to start plus 5 of the existing electorate) Candidate B ends up with 50 votes. (45 voters after losing 5 to candidate A, plus 5 new voters)

A related point: don’t define your persuasion universe too narrowly. Your most persuadable voters need the most effort, but your base needs to know who you are. The 20-point swing you get from winning your base 90-10 instead of 80-20 matters just as much as a 20-point swing with persuadable voters.

4) Game theory explains most prominent multi-candidate races – especially presidential races. I would argue that Elizabeth Warren didn’tdo so poorly on Super Tuesday because she ran an uninspiring campaign. Instead, I believe many of her voters calculated that either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders would win the nomination and realized a vote for Warren would cost them a chance at affecting the ultimate outcome. Super Tuesday might have looked quite different with ranked choice voting.

This is the same reason that multi-candidate primaries tend to consolidate to one or two serious front runners at the end, even in a race with lots of truly undecided voters. Undecided voters tend to choose between the top two candidates according to conventional wisdom.

We still live in a world where money matters and where advertising moves voters. Ads start conversations and they amplify messages. Campaigns that de-emphasize advertising do so at their own risk.

Daisy

Swift boat

America the Beautiful

Posted on

“Yes, and” Makes Politics Improv

While I have lived in the greater Washington D.C. area for a decade now, I hit my first anniversary of political work in April. This position replaces my freelance daytime hours as a comedian with production deadlines and counting down to election dates.

In Improv Comedy, the “Who’s Line is it Anyway?” style of my specialty, the foundation of the form is “Yes, and…” This concept has tomes written about it; it helps ease one with conversations, lead to better personal relationships, and solidifies team-building in various workplaces.

Comedy is the side effect of first agreeing with an offer by a scene partner (the “yes”) then adding your own context (the “and”).

Imagine a scene where a performer offers another, “Here is a delicious sandwich.”

For the scene moving forward the second performer should agree and add their own context.

“Yes and this will fortify me as I climb Mt. Everest.”

Both performers have made offers and are collaboratively continuing the scene.

Now imagine the same initial offer but the second performer responds with a “no but” attitude:

“Here is a delicious sandwich.”

“Oh my God! He’s got a gun!”

While that abrupt tonal shift may provoke laughter (mostly in homage to Michael Scott), a denial occurred. The second performer ignored what the first offered, stealing the focus, and leaving the first without solid footing. The scene halts and trust is lost.

The problem with a “no, but” is it denies an offer outright. As Democrats we are the “party of ideas.” We bring ideas to the table and making offers as the first step. Within the party we share more similarities than differences. Using “yes” to figure out the point agreement “and” building from there unifies and propels us forward.

In the current political climate, representing oneself as a genuine character outweighs all. Finding what you can agree with and building from there is tantamount to honest representations. That initial point of agreement also fosters an honest conversation, as you can now expand on a shared, common ground.

So, put more “yes, and” into your campaigns and see how much farther the conversation goes.