Variety of encouragements to buy games

Manufacturer’s ultimate purpose is always to sell the products into the consumers’ hands, so the consumers would pay for the goods. In this way, the sellers will try anything to grab the buyers’ eyeballs onto their products. These sly sellers attract their consumers by play with their sense on two different way: the price and the taste and preferences.

For price, a really great example is the Steam discount on video games. No matter it is a national vacation, holiday, or a beginning of Winter, Steam grabs every chance it has to set a discount on games , and because the the prices are lower, more and more players can not hold back their desire when they see the games that their have wanted for a long time are now on a discount, they would buy it as soon as possible. While so much players buy the games that are having the huge discount, the game companies actually does not get hurt by the it, so this discount is actually not a real thing. In supermarkets, while a good is on sale, that means the market got too much of it, which means excess supply, the market tries to sale all the leftover goods in the stock, so they lower the price to try to increase the demand. However, after the discount, the game developers still make profit out of it, it means the original price is actually really high than it should be, so on the discount, the prices seem to become pretty low, but it has become the normal price, however, the buyers still trust the discount and buys more and more games. In this way, the continuously discounts have become a special strategy to attract buyers to buy more game while the game companies make tons of profit.

On the other hand, catch the tastes and preferences of the gamers is definitely a effective way to sell the games. Blizzard is actually an expert on selling games on tastes and preferences. The comment on internet for Blizzard is that it has become a movie company instead of a video game company. Because of its fancy work on the trailers, and game story movie, Blizzard gained a huge amount of players. A good game trailer or movie is not a easy job, although the video might just be at most two, or three minutes, the cost on it is huge. However, Blizzard believe in the fancy trailer can bring them a huge profit since it can bring so much buyer for the game. Blizzard has a group of stuff who only work in creating game trailers, and the trailers are actually really hard to produce, not only the using of money, but also a huge amount of time is used up in the trailers. It worked. The fancy CG and videos grab the player in heart, although the game might not be so fancy as in video, but those games are still strongly developed, so most players would not quit playing. In this way, by putting a lot of effort into  the trailers, Blizzard successfully attracts players by using the tastes and preferences of the players. No player knows what is the game about, how fun is the game, whether it fits one’s TASTE, however, Blizzard makes the worries go away by using their awesome trailers and movies. It successfully attracts players even before the game release, so people would buy it since they believe the fancy trailers that caught their eyeballs are actually what the game looks like, they would like to pay for the game. The fact is, the games are real good. In this way, one of the reasons that Blizzard become one of the largest game companies in the world is because of its brilliant work in trailers.

Producers using different method to sell products, price and tastes and preferences the main part of advertisements, and by using these two ways, buyers would pay a lot for games, while producer make so much profit out of it.

Image Source

The Biased Internet

Born in a free country, everybody here in USA gets an equal opportunity as the person to your left or right, front or back, no matter the prejudices of caste, creed, class, color, sex, or race. But less and less people are using that to their advantages, mainly teenagers, and are losing interest in politics because the ideals of the political party don’t match up with their own individual ideals; they just blindly believing their parents on the issues and take a stance with them without giving a thought of their own. The Internet also plays a huge part in this since, when the teenagers do think and try to debate on the issues they feel aren’t right, most of their point and argument comes from nowhere else but online, a place where anybody could say anything and it could become the new trend of the year. A staggering 88% of American teenagers between the ages of 13 to 17 have an access to a mobile phone of some kind and with 23% of teens who now own a tablet too, more than 90% of the teenagers have stated that they go online at least once a day. With these many users online, we run into a place bias known as “filter bubble.” What’s more is that this number will keep on going higher as new technologies are being released. Since, the internet is surely the fastest and the most efficient way to find any news in almost no time, it could easily deviate us from our thinking of the point to something else.

The Internet that is supposed to connect us to the world, improve the democracy by helping people find the people with same thought-mentality, or let us share our views about something wholly new, it is the very thing that’s blocking our ways and is giving us personalized feeds of our social media accounts which at time is just the thing you want, things at the reach of just one key stroke, but at times this could just be the thing we don’t want to see. When the internet curates the informations that reaches to our eyes, a “filter bubble” is created; an expression brought up by a TED-talker: Eli Pariser. He refers to this bubble as if this is something we live in and is blocking our views to the outside world. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, Twitter and Netflix are some of the few curators of the “personalized” feeds that provides us with informations “it think we want to see but not necessarily what we need to see.” (Eli Pariser) Companies like these uses a combination of complex algorithm to customize the feed page according to the individual’s interest and curates what gets in and whats get edited out. The result is a crunched up summarization of the all the informations we shouldn’t be getting. For example: if you support the Republicans and watch a lot of its video on Youtube, there are high chance that Youtube will filter out the other side of the political spectrum.

Even though, there will always be one video from outside the “filter bubble,” people tend not to choose it because they know it doesn’t matches up to their expectations, ideals, and thinking, therefore, resisting the urge to go out of their comfort zone. To quote Eli Pariser, there is always existing “struggle going on between our aspirational self and our more impulsive present.” (Eli Pariser) We want to watch the new bill release from the Democratic side but we feel more relatable to the Republican side of it. Hence, as a Democratic country, we should press our citizens to follow both sides of the spectrum, no matter in what categories, to level the ground so that we have a fair and an unbiased understanding and thinking towards the topic than being on one side of the see-saw!

Life in the Bubble- How the Filter Bubble influences thinking

Throughout history, man has sought to find others with likemindedness. With the growth of technology and powerful companies such as Google and Amazon, this search for likemindedness has evolved into what is known as the “Filter Bubble”. The filter bubble is coined by internet activist Eli Pariser in his book “The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding  from You”.

The structure of business on the Internet is free of charge, and a person gives his personal information to an Internet company in exchange for its service. By knowing people’s interests, the filter bubble begins its influence on people. As a result of a personalized web account on the internet, the Filter Bubble creates an absolute disadvantage to human technology and a world view. First of all, I don’t think peoplewould like others knowing about their personal information, especially strangers. In this way, putting your personal information while you register for an account is actually disclosing your privacy. Most recently, Experian suffered a security breach when millions of people had their private information exposed, which to me is one of the results of the Filter Bubble.

A second disadvantage of the Filter Bubble is that it creates a limitation of view. By separating people from the news they are not interested in, people will not gain enough information about the world. For example, if a Republican can only see people with the same viewpoint, he cannot have enough information about a Democrat way of thinking on the other side. Therefore, most people may not know the issues in an election and they will not be able to carry out their responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. Technology has provided many benefits, but has also created the potential for people to isolate their thinking, with sometimes surprising results, such as the election of Donald Trump. Furthermore, the Filter Bubble actually reduces people’s creativities because they are not able to see all sorts of views and technology when they are imprisoned by their interests. 

From my perspective, China itself is a Filter Bubble. If I would have any chance to put atag about China, it would be “isolation”. The most recent new I heard about China in the US is  that missiles have been launched from North Korea. However, I did not read any news about it when I logged into my Chinese social media. I found an article about China blocking the news of missile launching written by Neil Conner, which perfectly represents the Filter Bubble. The political cartoon by Paresh Nath shown above portrays China as sleeping and not being aware of the danger of the North Korea Nuclear Program, this supports my view that China isolates itself from troubles in other parts of the world, even a country as near as North Korea.

In general, I don’t think we can completely avoid Filter Bubble in our daily life, but we can reduce Filter Bubble as much as possible such as searching for informations not from social media but on the newspaper. In this way, we can take advantage to improve our country as an american citizen.

The Traps of Filter Bubbles

According to Eli Praiser’s Filter Bubble theory, the social medias itselves selects the categories of information on the internet for the viewers, and create an environment on what the viewers more interested in. However, Eli does not agree with the these personalising on the internet, since the internet only gives what it thinks we want to see, but not necessary what we need to see. I agree with this point of view.
Internet is a way for people to explore and find out the information all over the world. This ability gives people different points of view from all around the world, which put different contexts into the discussion. During this process, it helps people to have more and more details about the informations, and can reach the news with more comprehensive opinions. The environment with the conflict between opinions can help to develop the insight of the problems, which help to create more suggestions that helps to solve, or say, balance, the social problems we are now facing, such as conflict between politics and different foreign policy. However, when the internet closes down the options for us, we got only the information that we view more, and we can not realize it, since we can not tell what actually changed in the web. Although we are still viewing the same social medias, what we are viewing changed already, and this can cause a large problem. For example, a viewer is usually in the middle between democrats and republicans, he views balancedly between the information and news between these two groups. However, one day he found a really interesting democratic article, so he used a lot of time on reading it, and opened several more pages about the article. Then the internet records that he used more time on democrats than on republican that day, so they change his viewing information to more democratic information. In the end, this viewer becomes a democratic because the change in content of what he is viewing by the internet. This example shows that the internet-create filter bubbles are not available for people, since a lot of people who have neutral opinion can be lead to one side of the opinion.
On the other hand, the filter bubble created by internet can influence people’s life by blocking them from what they are not agree with. Imagine there is only a web page that contains all the opinions and comments that the viewer agrees to, the viewer can not know what others opinions are, then, within an environment with just agreements, the viewer can become more and more close to oneself’s opinion, and become aggressive towards other kinds of opinion that are not in the same route with the viewer. This can be a huge problem for online discussions, that it may become quarrels because people would not accept other opinions.
Finally, Eli raised a great opinion that internet helps to build democracy. However, I do not think the personalized website should be apart of it; In fact, it is the opposite of democracy. People got “blocked” from the information they actually need, instead, they got what they are “interested” in, but in the end, nothing necessary. In this way, people actually can not connect themselves to the world.
What people need are not design-for-one-only web page, they need to know all the information to have comparison, which makes it more easier to view the world and build self opinions. The filter bubbles are not helping people in viewing internet, since people can not get informations when they actually want to see things with details. Internet can never predict what a viewer really want to view, because occasion happens, and then people start to getting things from the filter bubbles from internet. People should have their own filter bubbles, created one will never meet the requirements of changing opinions of people surfing on internet.

On The Filter Bubble

Now that we have viewed Eli Pariser’s TED Talk (from March, 2011) and discussed its implications in class, please comment on one of the following questions:

1) Is it okay if you are only seeing search results (articles, ads, etc.) that mirror your political beliefs? <or>
2) Do we need a policy? Should government set guidelines for filtering algorithms on the Internet?

To satisfy the requirements for this assignment, you must either: 1) post your opinion – thoughtfully; and/or 2) respond to one of your classmates’ posts – in the spirit of deliberative dialogue.

IMPORTANT NOTES

1. Consider saving your very first comment (!!) in Word or Google docs and using copy-and-paste to upload… at least until you are comfortable using our blog.
2. Remember to ‘sign’ your post with first name and last initial ONLY – to earn full credit.
3. Still curious? Eli Pariser updated his thinking in a 2015 essay for Wired Magazine. Check it out HERE.

 

Campaigning: A Race to See Who Is…. Not the Worst?

As we wrap up the year in our government class, we aim to apply the things we have learned to real life situations. One topic we studied as campaigning and campaign strategies. One could look at Reagan, Bush, JFK, or any of our former presidents for that matter, and he or she could see the use of campaign ads or anything to push his campaign over another’s. The presidential elections are getting nearer and nearer which means that more and more campaign ads and other pushes to get a vote are being used. Recently, President Obama released a short clip

slamming Mitt Romney in regard to job losses in the past and Romney’s “plan” for the future. As I talked about (as well as many others) in my last blog post, media has a tremendous effect on the presidential race today because of how many people see it. This ad portrays a dark and solemn tone to represent a not-so-bright future under Romney. Because of what we have studied in our class time, I now have a more solid viewpoint on what this ad really means and what it actually does in regard to President Obama’s campaign. Honestly, if I was to be watching TV in the past and this clip came on, I probably would have done one of two things: either change the channel or just zone out completely for a little bit until it was over. Now, I can actually watch it, know what they’re talking about, and form my own opinion about it, which in this case, I see that President Obama is right when criticizing Romney.

Because of the influence that politicians have on voters, they can say so many things about themselves or other candidates to get people to vote for them.

Moreover, back to the campaign ad and its relevance, this isn’t all that the President, or Mitt Romney even, have done to criticize one another. President Obama has ads like the one about steel workers above, as well as videos like “When Mitt Romney Came To Town”, while at the same time, Crossroads Generation, an organization that supports Mitt Romney, recently released a video criticizing President Obama and the issue of student debt. Things are getting heated. Debate is starting. Every four years, this point in time is reached where it turns into a free-for-all and the candidates throw jabs and sometimes uppercuts at each other. This is that point in time. With all the possible ways to get under candidates’ skin and blast them, it turns into a criticism-fest. As if the campaign ads weren’t enough, the Obama administration made a website solely to poke at Romney in relation to his responsibility for job losses. All of these forms of campaigning are used to cause mass flow of information to voters so that they have everything at their disposure. All of this can be linked to Richard Neustadt’s claim of presidential persuasion. A president must persuade those in his cabinet, but that is once he is in office. A presidential candidate and his or her administration must not only dig up information on other candidates that would shoot him or her down, but they must also be able to persuade their audience in order to get their votes.

Presidential elections have and always will be about who can make the other look the worst. It will always be about who can say “Look at me. I’m not going to give you everything, but I’m sure as heck better than that guy”, and then have everyone that hears him believe it. This is the epitome of campaigning and its effect on the voters. It’s giving voters the opportunity to form an opinion, just like I have learned to be able to do by taking this class.

Can Twitter, Technology, and Social Media Impact Elections?

Barack Obama’s Yes We Can 2008 Campaign Poster

Since the beginning of the third trimester, our government class has delivered its focus to the inner-workings of our government systems. We have discussed the elections that take place within the government, along with what lurking presence has the biggest effect on the outcome of these elections. Whether we were discussing elections in the Senate, House, or even presidential elections, what I have found to be the most interesting topic that we have debated is that the media has the biggest effect, by FAR, on potential voters. I believe that the media gives new opportunities to connect with American citizens because it allows candidates to deliver their political beliefs to the public, while keeping an eye out for what the people want.

The first reason that technology is important is because the younger citizens of America are starting to pay more attention to politics. America’s founding fathers preached that citizen’s participation in government is one of our greatest responsibilities. As shown from our class’ study on Voter Participation, the younger generation, especially young citizens with college level educations, is starting to pay more attention to politics. The younger generation has also brought along with it a new wave of technology. I know here at Parish it is nearly impossible to walk down the hall and not see someone checking their latest text message or twitter feed; we never go anywhere without our phones. As said in our textbook, “life today is simply busier than in the past and offers more distractions” (150). In order to be successful, it is key for government officials to embrace the new ways of technology.

The most successful example of the benefit of technology was President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, “Yes We Can.” The brilliant campaign directors, hiding behind Obama’s campaign commercials, used the young generation, who “in 2008 flocked to the polls; about 49 percent of those under 25 came out to vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama” (151), to their advantage. In Obama’s campaign ads, the directors featured many celebrities to target the younger crowd. By showing Scarlet Johanson, Nicole Scherzinger, Will I Am, among other famous people repeatedly chanting “Yes We Can”, younger citizens realized that these famous people also want a change. If they can change the world, by campaigning for Obama, maybe they can too.

In my opinion, the most successful government officials are the ones, like Obama, that are up to date with technology. Obama is always tweeting about life in the oval office, which makes citizens more comfortable because they know they are in good hands. Although the media can be negative on the personal lives of candidates, I believe that it is vital for government officials to express their political opinions through twitter, because not all of America has time to sit down and watch interviews on the news. It is also fairly easy to make you’re voice heard through technology. A citizen can email, message, or call the representative they wish to speak too. Through technology, Capitol Hill can turn a new leaf and show America that they really care about making public opinion heard, as well as update citizens on the hectic life inside the government.

The Political Process in an Age of Technology

Over the course of this last trimester in our government class, we’ve ventured through so many branches of our government and the processes within it that it was difficult to even start to think about what I wanted to write my reflection on.  After a while, I began to think about not only what I found interesting, but what actually was important to me in regard to become a better citizen of the United States. I spun the wheel and I finally landed on technology’s impact on elections and the political process today. As technological advancements are made each and every day, political leaders gain more and more access to the public via the internet, the media, and more. Examples of these are: campaign commercials that can be accessed from all over the world, candidates gaining donations through the internet, and the ability to connect more to the public through the ability to really hear what they have to say. All of these things are both good and bad; however, I believe the increase in access to the public via technology is, in the long run, a good thing. The fact that political leaders are able to get themselves out there much easier allows for people to participate more and be more engaged. As the United States has become more reliant on technology (which is not a good thing for it promotes laziness), it has become all that people do. This is why I chose this topic to reflect on; simply because I, myself, spend so much time utilizing technologies that are available to me.

The campaign commercials’ availability on the internet is a good thing because it allows those who rely on technology to receive political news to see them. It began with only those who had access to a radio could hear the candidates, then it went to television which progressively increased until now, when “47 percent of non-Hispanic whites use the Internet, e-mail or text messaging to get political news or exchange their views, compared with 43 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 50 percent of English-speaking Hispanics” (1). This statistic shows just how many people solely rely on their access to technology. This allows a more technical fight for presidency because it allows more people to see commercials that are both for and against the candidate of their choice, giving them a broader perspective.

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/2008-presidential-predictions/

                Candidates now have the ability to take in donations and other sources of money to spend through the internet. This is a fantastic thing because it helps prevent the “risk of money power dominating the candidate” (2). For so long, candidates that have more money are simply always going to have a better chance to win. This is because, from the get-go, they are able to campaign more, influence more people through said campaigning, and more. Now, with this availability of technology to aid in this financial issue, candidates can be more evenly matched. There will always be a candidate that is funded more heavily than others; however, with technology, hopeful candidates can start their campaigning over the web before the really start it in the political process. This allows for more equality for all.

 http://www.prx.org/pieces/25096-clinton-addresses-money-in-politics

                Lastly, the ability to have access to the true voices is crucial when talking about the benefits of technology in today’s political process. As Prof. Daniel Kreiss from Stanford University said, “These technologies are bringing about a radical change in the political process as ordinary citizens are increasingly participating and making their voices heard”(3).  As more people turn to technology to get their news and see the latest updates about their candidates, it allows more people to communicate in some form with them. In the 2008 election, people made videos and posted them to YouTube to ask questions to candidates of the presidential election during various debates. This alone speaks at length at the vitality of technology in regard to communication between the people and the candidates.

http://socialmediasaturday.eventbrite.com/

                This is just a glimpse at what I learned in my government class. As I conclude this post, I think about the fact that before this was brought to my attention, I didn’t even think that this was a factor in the political process. I have been raised in such a technologically advanced age that I wouldn’t have ever known the difference. Before, I can’t imagine what campaigning was really like and the challenges they must have faced. Voter participation wasn’t a big issue because of the universal patriotism during that time, but during the years after that and before the age of technology began, the hoops that candidates must have had to leap through to promote voter participation must’ve been crazy. However, now, “people need little more than an Internet connection to become a more active part of the political process” (1). This is what makes technology so important. At the end of the day, promotion of voter participation and having the peoples’ voices heard are the things that make technology such a benefit in today’s political process.

(1) : http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-26/politics/technology.election_1_mindy-finn-political-process-online-media?_s=PM:POLITICS

(2): http://www.sbs-resource.org/technology-in-the-political-process-a-grey-area-with-no-clarity-yet.htm

(3): http://www.stanford.edu/~dkreiss/Comm111S.html

What Really is the Key to a Successful Campaign?

Throughout my time in Government & Economics at Parish, I have had the honor of delving into the operations of our government in America. I have learned so much about how our government functions and I have a much greater appreciation for government then I ever thought I would.  We were told at the beginning of the second trimester that we needed to become acquainted with our government in order to grow and become conscientious citizens. One of our activities in class that has helped me grow into a more assiduous citizen was the Campaign Commercials activity during our elections unit.

In this day and age, we live in a world solely based on technology. Campaign commercials and other forms of media and technology have always been a vital component during the election process, and are even more essential today. Campaign commercials can simply make or break a candidate’s vocation. Persuasion and music are two fundamental components that can aid in making a campaign commercial successful.

Picture from Jennings Social Media

Persuasion is to induce a belief by appealing to reason or understanding. Another form of persuasion is directly attacking the opponent. Campaign commercials are the candidate’s attempt at swaying the opinions of the general public in order to gain both support and votes. In Al Gore’s “Accountability” commercial from 2000, the issue projected throughout the ad is increasing the number of teachers in schools. The main idea of the ad is visibly evident. The central issue is projected clearly, while the importance of the issue, smaller class sizes and more interaction between students and teachers, is stressed systematically throughout. In Nixon’s “McGovern Defense” commercial from 1972, Nixon demonstrates and discusses very methodically, every single flaw of the McGovern Defense Plan.  This form of persuasion, of attacking the opponent, is a brilliant way of gaining support. Persuasion is probably the most important tactic in creating a successful campaign commercial.

Equally as important as persuasion, is the use of music throughout a commercial. In Reagan’s “Prouder, Stronger, Better” commercial, the first thing I notice is the music in the background. The music in this commercial evokes a sense of hope and a sense of pride in America. By creating music that creates emotional sentiment, the audience is instinctively drawn. Senator McCain’s “Ambition” commercial from 2008 provokes a different kind of emotion from the music. The music in this commercial evokes a sense of fear and worry in Obama’s plans and ideas. This kind of emotional effect is equally as commanding when used appropriately.

As demonstrated above, the different motives within campaign commercials all have the same intention in mind – to accumulate as many votes as possible. Successful campaign commercials are the ones that sway the general public and gather the most votes. This activity has really helped me understand how important campaign commercials are to the election process.

Acknowledgements:

Picture:  http://www.jenningssocialmedia.com/blogged/social-networking-friends-politics-facebook-ads-work-political-candidates-favor/attachment/social-media-political-260/

How Campaign Commercials are Convincing You

            I have always found the presidential election an exciting time of political competition.  I like to see how each candidate displays their viewpoints and attacks other candidates.  In America today, it is apparent that technology shapes our world and candidates have taken that greatly into account.  Many political parties use campaign commercials in order to win voters’ support.  I have always found the commercials amusing, but not until my time spent in government class did I consider what the producers and campaigners consider while creating the ads.   The short commercials often address the points of emotion, persuasion, factual claims, and cinematic style in order to arouse audiences and win supporters for a candidate.

            With technology today, it is easy to add things to a commercial, which will catch the audience’s emotions.  Music is very important.  A song with a beat that is loud and rhythmic provides a feeling of security and determination.  A viewer may be engaged in the commercial because they can feel the candidate has a positive strength because of the music, which is what they are looking for in a candidate.  In Mccain’s “Freedom” campaign, the music provides a sense of encouragement and a positive attitude, which many Americans would find appealing in a candidate.  Another example of catching viewers’ emotions is when the commercial contains a picture or clip, which people would awe over.  For example in Romney’s “Better” commercial, a baby is used in order to catch the audience’s attention.  The baby is cute and innocent, which causes people to be on the side of the baby.  Therefore, the commercial producers make the candidate’s views coordinate with the baby in order to win supporters.  Emotional appeals can be a key way in catching people’s attention.

 Wouldn’t this baby catch your emotional appeal? (“Better”)

            Persuasion is a set of beliefs, where in campaigns, the candidates try to sway their opinions and gain votes from people with their same beliefs.  In order to win votes, the candidates must convince their audience.  The commercials include information that proves how the candidate is the best choice.  In Gore’s “Accountability” campaign commercial from 2000, Gore provides reasons why education is a very important issue.  The commercial provides information that people should pick him because he is dedicated to improve education by lowering class sizes.  Persuasion is probably the most important style.

            Next, the objective, factual claims, is used to show if a candidate is truly committed to what they tell people their viewpoints and goals are.  The campaign commercials are able to prove this by providing examples of what they have already done in the past that support their future goals.  For example, in Obama’s Early Childhood Education video, facts are provided to show Obama can be trusted in what he says he will do.  The commercial provides, “Barack Obama promised to invest in early childhood education,” and then it shows that he kept his promise because he “enabled the head start & early head start programs to serve an additional 61,000 children and their families”.  A campaign commercial is able to provide evidence of how a candidate is truthful, which viewers would not have thought about until seeing the commercial.

            Lastly, cinematic style is how the filming is edited to please audiences.  The different styles include voice-overs, pictures, video transition, etc., which help keep audiences interested.  In Bush’s commercial in 2004, the cinematic style creates a comedic commercial.  The music helps create the tone of hypocrisy.  By using clips of the wind surfer going back and forth, people are able to understand how Kerry often changes his mind.  The cinematic style helps enforce ideas and make the main ideas clearer.

            As hopefully seen, the different motives all have the same goal in mind: to win the candidate votes in the election.  In the end of the day, the commercials are successful if they are able to convince voters.  Many of the campaigns become very competitive and will talk bad about the other candidates in order to make themselves look better.  In my opinion, I believe using emotion, persuasion, factual claims, and cinematic style is the best way for a candidate to prove himself.