10/09/2007
New TV Spot Urges Californians to Support Marriage Equality
Let California Ring, a project of Equality California and a coalition of over 45 national, state and local organizations, has launched a new campaign aimed at educating the public about marriage equality.
It's said to be the first campaign directed at a broad audience that is undecided about same-sex marriage, and the first TV spot (click to play, above) places the issue in the context of a heterosexual wedding.
The spot follows a bride on her wedding day as she prepares to walk down the aisle. Her journey to the altar is obstructed by various obstacles as she struggles to unite with the man she loves. Finally, she is physically stopped from reaching her groom by members of the congregation as the spot asks, "What if you couldn't marry the person you love? Every day, gay and lesbian couples are prevented from marrying. Support the freedom to marry."
The California legislature recently approved a gay marriage bill and a decision from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage is expected in the coming months. Cities across California have also been putting their support behind a resolution urging the Court to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The ads will begin airing on Oct. 11 in Palm Springs, LA, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento.
Let California Ring [official site]
San Diego Mayor Says Daughter is Gay, Reverses Marriage Position [tr]
San Diego City Council Votes to Support Same-Sex Marriage [tr]
Posted 10:45 AM EST by Andy in Advertising, California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Is it possible to get a code to embed this video onto another web page?
Posted by: ruby | Oct 9, 2007 11:27:20 AM
Holy shit! That's an amazing commercial! I almost cried.
Let's hope it galvanizes those idiots out there who voted for Arnold.
Posted by: jeff | Oct 9, 2007 11:36:39 AM
I think this ad will be uneffective in changing the minds of bigots who don't support marriage equality. I believe any advertisements from our side need to point out exactly HOW discrimination affects us. Because we cannot marry, GLBT couples have no legal rights to visit our partners if they are in the hospital. We have no legal right to transfer assets to our partners upon our death without interference from the IRS (which is a right heterosexual couples enjoy). It is difficult, if not impossible, to adopt our partner's children (even if the couple has chosen to have a child through artificial insemination by sperm or egg donor). We have no legal right to our partner's social security benefits. Because GLBT couples cannot marry, we are unable to access our partner's health insurance as every heterosexual, married couple is able to do. I believe ads need to drive *these* points home to help the bigots understand the consequences of their hate in our everyday lives. I do not believe sappy, tug at the heartstrings appeals will work in our favor.
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 9, 2007 12:15:43 PM
That was a beautiful ad.
(If you can do better, just go make your own commercial, PeteParker)
Posted by: SteveH | Oct 9, 2007 12:24:28 PM
Meh. I would've taken that commercial a bit more seriously if people actually had voices and she got to hear people screaming at her, spitting on her and someone bashing the groom in the head with a baseball bat, but perhaps after about 40 years of being desensitized to the nuances of discrimination, I'm not the best judge. While it's a simple task to critique the commercial for its lack of "in-your-face" effectiveness, you have to applaud Jeff Kors and Equality California for getting this far.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Oct 9, 2007 12:24:47 PM
I agree with PeterParker. Sentimentality is not going to sway anyone who's not already on board. In fact, it may piss them off. It'll galvanize them, all right -- to sign petitions to ban anything resembling state-sanctioned same-sex benefits.
Posted by: Frank L | Oct 9, 2007 12:25:22 PM
(And saying "Go make your own commercial, nyaah-nyaah" is kind of beside the point that PeterParker was making.)
Posted by: Frank L | Oct 9, 2007 12:27:27 PM
First, I meant to type 'Ineffective', not 'Uneffective'.
Second, I'm not saying I can do any better, nor do I mean to belittle the efforts of Marriage Equality California or the ad agency that created this ad. I'm simply stating that I think they are going about it in the wrong way. And I think they are.
The average American does not want to be seen as intolerant or participating in discrimination. Polls show that the same people who say they don't agree with gay marriage will also tell you that it isn't right to deny a GLBT person a job simply because of their sexual orientation. An appeal for fairness on legal grounds is what will change hearts and minds...not an emotional appeal.
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 9, 2007 12:40:35 PM
Peterparker makes a good point. There's a whole school of thought that people respond to stories and emotional sentiment more than they do to factual information. I disagree. I think you can employ both the emotional struggle (so effectively utilized in this ad) and still outline the specific injustices that Fizzie described.
For what it was, and for what its intended impression was, it was a very well-done ad. I just think we're at a place where being a little more straightforward (pardon the pun) might get us a little farther.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 9, 2007 12:46:30 PM
For sheer sentimentality and brilliance, I still think the ad, done a few years back, where the man nervous goes to the front door of a home and asks the man who answers if he has his blessing to marry "Sarah" (I don't remember the actual name used). The man gives his blessing and the petitioner's face lights up as we assume that he just got permission from the girl's father to marry his daughter. Then his face turns serious. He runs to the house next door, knocks on the door and once again asks the person at the door (this time of a different race) for their approval of him marrying "Sarah". He does this over and over, going from home to home and even asking people on the street and in parks.
Then the scene pulls back and words on the screen ask, "What if you had to get the person of everyone in America to marry the person you love?"
Now THAT, in my opinion, was an effective ad even if it didn't specifically point out the hardships that gay face from being excluded from marriage.
I'll post a link to the clip if I can find it. If anyone else finds it, please post it here.
I think the ad in California will be effective. I hope they follow it up with one that addresses the valid concerns of Peter Parker. It seems that the combination of the two kinds of ads would make a very effective one-two punch.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 1:16:16 PM
Here's the clip I was referring to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vu5YZLa09wU
I wish someone would use this brilliant clip in an ad campaign.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 1:19:09 PM
Make that, "What if you had to get the PERMISSION of everyone in America to marry the person you love."
Or something like that.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 1:21:09 PM
I'm kinda split on this one. On the one hand, the ad is ultra sentimental with its sepia tones and gauzy lens. So I could see how it could be viewed as "toothless". HOWEVER, women view these images much differently than men. It strikes an emotional chord in them that sails right over men's heads, gay or straight. I bet that's why men find the other ad (that Zeke posted) to be stronger, i.e. more relatable. So don't be too quick to judge. This ad could be more powerful than you think.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Oct 9, 2007 1:57:18 PM
Hello! Soulbrotha has it right. It's not one or the other. We need these kinds of ads and the "factual" logical ads.
Posted by: Jason | Oct 9, 2007 2:19:23 PM
I thought it was beautiful.
However, the text at the end...not so great.
It could have used some stats or said something more like, "What if obstacles stood in the way of your marriage?"
The text seemed non-sequitur.
Still beautiful.
Posted by: Oklahomo | Oct 9, 2007 3:52:53 PM
I thought it was beautiful.
However, the text at the end...not so great.
It could have used some stats or said something more like, "What if obstacles stood in the way of your marriage?"
The text seemed non-sequitur.
Still beautiful.
Posted by: Oklahomo | Oct 9, 2007 3:53:29 PM
I thought it was beautiful.
However, the text at the end...not so great.
It could have used some stats or said something more like, "What if obstacles stood in the way of your marriage?"
The text seemed non-sequitur.
Still beautiful.
Posted by: Oklahomo | Oct 9, 2007 3:53:43 PM
Soulbrotha, I am a straight woman, part of the demographic you seem to think this ad was targeted to, and I disagree with your assertion that "women view these images much differently than men" and "it strikes an emotional chord in them that sails right over men's heads, gay or straight…that's why men find the other ad (that Zeke posted) to be stronger, i.e. more relatable." I prefer the ad that Zeke posted because it is a better ad, not because it is somehow "stronger" or "more male". I applaud the purpose behind the Let California Ring/Equality California ad, but its point is really undermined by its sloppy execution and faulty logic. The "blocking" metaphors they used to keep the ad bride away from the ad groom made it seem like the barriers to gays getting married are little more than trivial annoyances at worst—the legislative equivalent to having to walk around a car or duck under a tree—when obviously, they are much more insurmountable than anything that bride faced. It's insulting to gay people fighting for their marriage rights to make their struggle seem so insignificant.
Posted by: Thomasina | Oct 9, 2007 4:54:07 PM
especially considering how costly it was, the ad is a pretty big disappointment. as thomasina points out, it makes the denial of our equal rights out to be trivial annoyances. i've seen worse predicaments on 'bridezillas' or 'america's favorite home videos'. the door-to-door 'sarah' ad was FAR more effective. hate to go all negative on this, but how much good does it really do to show this ad in already gay-friendly markets anyway ?
Posted by: el polacko | Oct 9, 2007 5:59:14 PM
THOMASINA, I couldn't put my finger on why the ad seemed to fall short for me but you really NAILED it. I think between what you said and what FIZZIEKRUNTNT said earlier it really gets at where the ad is lacking. It really does seem to trivialize the struggle and the obstacles that gay men and lesbians face in getting to the alter. It doesn't show the hatefulness and the viciousness of those who oppose, not only our right to marry, but even our right to EXIST.
I have a great idea for an ad but I don't know where one sends ideas for consideration.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 7:02:08 PM
Thomasina, I understand your point completely. But I wasn't implying that ALL women would be moved by the ad. That would be ridiculous. Nor was I arguing which was the better ad. But when it comes to advertising, there is a relatability factor, whether it's the message, the visuals or both. And as such, the ad could prove to be more influential than people think. You dissected the ad's shortcomings quite nicely. But the truth of the matter is, there are many Americans who just aren't that sophisticated. You, Thomasina, are clearly concerned about how the message is presented, but there are those who wouldn't give it a second thought. Yet because this commercial is visually different and has a nostalgic quality, it may strike a chord. And women are moved by certain sentimental images that men are not. And just maybe that's part of their strategy. And THAT was my point.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Oct 9, 2007 9:03:42 PM
Certainly this is the first of a series of ads.
I think it's a good start.
Hopefully future ads will delve a bit deeper.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 10:09:01 PM
The ad Zeke pointed to is more on point although MTV's "Choose Or Lose" has never done much in the way of inspiring youth voting.
I agree with others this CA ad is aimed more at women than men but it isn't very effective by itself. It only works as an ice breaker on the topic. How well it works depends upon follow ads.
Posted by: queendru | Oct 10, 2007 6:02:57 AM