i agree it might backfire, but this analysis is missing the point of the ad. i'll put my biases out front: i have a lot of contempt for ad people. i think the vast majority of advertising is completely useless, and most people just ignore it. when advertising is rarely effective, it's not because it convinces people at a conscious, rational level but because it reinforces something at a subconscious level - something we've never even really thought about, but that the advertisers realize is floating through the back of our minds.

the reason the ad exists as it does is because they've collected the data through intense micro-polling and who knows what other techniques to conclude that this is a subconscious thought in the minds of the voters they're most likely to swing back. it follows that if you're analyzing the ad on the way most people react to it on the surface, you're just misanalyzing it. the question isn't about how most of us react to it actively, it's how it's target audience (older people) reacts to it passively.

but, i think it might backfire for the reason that it's transparent. not because it's talking points. not because it's awkward. but because it's obvious that it's meant to mess with people.

messing with people like this can be extremely effective, but only if people don't realize they're being messed with. as soon as people realize what's happening, it can backfire - and hard.

but, if that doesn't happen? if people don't see it for what it is? then, this is the most effective ad we've seen yet - for the 5% of voters it's directed at.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservatives-stephen-harper-isnt-perfect-1.3225349