Yes, that is a good one too, I think. Considering the circumstances, I think using humor is much better. Humor is positive. It provides people moments of fun and entertainment. Laughing is relaxing. More importantly, treating things with humor disarm the opponent and does not leave him much way for effective answer. It is much harder for the target to catch up from ridicule than from anything else.

However, on the one hand, I still find texts on screen are sometimes long and don’t stay long enough for everyone. On the other, it will compel some viewers to keep attentive when viewing it again. Contrary to the “Taxman” add, this one is heavily loaded with information, and so it asks for much more efforts and attention. Viewers may miss some parts because their minds will still be kept busy with some others. What I mean is that they will say something as “oh, sorry, what did he say then. I was still laughing at the previous one with Kennedy.”

As advertiser, I would have cut it in two or three shorter ads broadcasted along a higher frequency, so as to overwhelm media with a general trend of humor and derision, and so as to rise memorization and content awareness.

Too often, people and companies using advertising have a natural self-centered tendency to convince themselves with arguments to which they are receptive and with which they sincerely agree, and not enough with arguments likely to convince people they want to seduce. In politics, as in marketing, the goal is not to convince one’s loyal customers and/or the opponent’s loyal customers. Those ones are already convinced. The goal is to convince all those numerous ones in between who, truly, will tip the scales in favor of one side or another.

That’s why I think this ad and the Taxman ad are good and effective stuffs.