A Quote by Anne Northup

There's a reason people run negative ads... it's because they work. — © Anne Northup
There's a reason people run negative ads... it's because they work.
Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.
Well, I mean, I think all campaigns run negative and positive ads.
You run an ad claiming that [Mitt] Romney is an absolute unfeeling, mean-spirited animal hater because in the example they gave he put his dog on the roof of the station wagon during the family vacation. Why does it work? Why did it stick?And there is an answer.When they [Democrates] ran the ads about guy's wife dying with cancer...? Remember this? This was a serious series of ads, and it was deadly effective.
People don't understand the logistics of advertising. To have the ads purchased and run, you need to have a series of products that work together.
Misery doesn't only love company. It demands it. For this reason, don't walk away from negative people. RUN!
In our case, we focus on quality, and we have a very simple model. If we show fewer ads that are more targeted, those ads are worth more. So we're in this strange situation where we show a smaller number of ads and we make more money because we show better ads. And that's the secret of Google.
If I can convince people that good people don't do attack ads, and that we want good people to represent us, then the attack ads work against themselves.
People sometimes sneer at those who run every day, claiming they'll go to any length to live longer. But don't think that's the reason most people run. Most runners run not because they want to live longer, but because they want to live life to the fullest.
I don't think anyone would object to Facebook selling ads or having ads directed at me, as long as people didn't think those ads were manipulated by personal data.
A lot of our Democratic consultants have fallen into the self-defeating prescription that the candidate that runs the most negative ads wins. I have a new theory: Positive is the new negative.
Mr. Trump has evolved to the point where he understands that a grass-roots strategy must be supplemented with paid advertising to be able to combat the negative ads that will run against him - and he is prepared or preparing to spend what it takes to make sure his message gets to the voters.
I liked writing the negative ads more than - because it's more minor chords.
The only reason I took up a negative role in 'Lingaa' was because I got to work with Rajinikanth. I'd never have even considered it otherwise.
The reason we make money is because we have a few different business models. One is ads: we get incredibly high click rates because most people on Scribd are searching the site for something, or they came from a search engine, and they're looking for something specific.
I think that the best approach would be if the American people ever insist that we cut down on the massive amounts of money that moves into the campaigns from special interest groups, and if we resist publicly by saying "No more negative advertisements that destroy the reputations of one's opponents." In the meantime, just don't pay any attention to negative ads, if you can avoid them, and try to focus on the issues.
The super-salesman neither permits his subconscious mind to "broadcast" negative thoughts nor give expression to them through words, for the reason that he understands that "like attracts like" and negative suggestions attract negative action and negative decisions from prospective buyers.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!