Obama as the Joker: Bad Marketing?

In case you missed it, a doctored image of Obama as the Joker went viral yesterday after physical posters started showing up around Los Angeles.

Most things that go viral online start online.

But this started off-line… in one single U.S. city. Then it exploded on the Internet.

So there is clearly something about the poster that works. Here’s a picture of it in case you haven’t seen it.

At first, I thought, “Whoa. That’s really good.” It got my attention. I felt it made it a point — not necessarily on a conscious level, but on a gut level.

Then my friend and political opposite (Rob Siders) pointed me to an article in which Robert Dougherty makes an excellent point:

The Joker was many things, but he was hardly a socialist. In fact, the Joker is the polar opposite of a socialist, and anyone who watched The Dark Knight would know that. Socialism is the result of an all-powerful central government that runs every aspect of life — but the Joker subscribes to anarchy, one of socialism’s polar opposites.

And as much as I dislike Obama (and all mainstream politicians), I had to agree: Obama is not an anarchist. He’s a socialist. (Not to say socialists are good guys… their mass extermination projects have been among the greatest atrocities in history.)

So if the comparison is inaccurate, what is it about the Obama/Joker poster that works? Why did it go viral so quickly?

I think it’s because of the raw emotion created by blending Obama’s face with the Joker’s makeup. When you first see the poster, your brain isn’t thinking, “Oh, c’mon! The Joker is an anarchist. How could somebody be so stupid!”

And that’s the point: You’re not thinking. You’re feeling.

So on one level, the poster is very effective. It breaks through the noise. It gets to you. (Isn’t this the first job of all good advertising?)

But on another level, the poster loses its punch. Because it’s hard to make the logical connection between Obama and the Joker.

All good advertising must have a strong emotional appeal — and then be well supported by logic and proof. In this case, it seems the second ingredient is missing.

What do you think? Sound off and leave a comment.

-Ryan M. Healy