The Turning Point: How the 1960 Campaign Commercials Invented Modern Politics
By Political Jar Staff
If you were to pinpoint the exact moment American politics ceased to be a contest of speeches and became a contest of images, you would circle the year 1960.
While the 1952 and 1956 elections introduced television as a novelty, the 1960 contest between Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy was the first “TV Election.” It was the year the medium matured, moving from a passive tool for broadcasting rallies to an active weapon for shaping perception.
For historians and political junkies alike, the commercials of 1960 are not just vintage artifacts; they are a part of the source code for every campaign that followed. They established the rules of engagement that candidates still follow today: the importance of lighting, the power of a jingle, and the ruthless efficiency of the 60-second spot.
The Death of the Speech and the Birth of the “Spot”
To understand the commercial strategy of 1960, one must first understand what was discarded. In previous cycles, candidates like Adlai Stevenson insisted on purchasing 30-minute or 5-minute blocks of airtime. They viewed television as a podium—a way to deliver a truncated version of a stump speech to a living room audience.
By 1960, the advertising agencies had taken control. The “Mad Men” era was continuing to develop a foothold in Washington.
Agencies realized that voters were not students looking for a lecture; they were consumers looking to be sold. The 1960 campaign saw the definitive shift toward the “spot ad”—30 or 60 seconds of concentrated messaging designed to interrupt entertainment programming rather than replace it. This shift fundamentally changed the rhythm of politics. Candidates could no longer rely on a slow build; they had to grab the viewer’s attention before they could reach for the dial.
The Kennedy Strategy: Selling a Mood
Senator John F. Kennedy’s media team, led by the agency Guild, Bascom, & Bonfigli, understood the visual language of television better than their opponents. They realized that Kennedy’s greatest asset was not just his policy platform, but his aura—his youth, his energy, and his photogenic family.
The Kennedy commercials were marvels of production value for the time. They utilized fast cuts, catchy music, and documentary-style footage that made the candidate look like a man on the move. Rather than simply setting up a camera and asking Kennedy to speak, they showed him in action: walking through crowds, shaking hands, and smiling.
Perhaps most importantly, the Kennedy campaign mastered the art of the “jingle.” The ubiquitous “Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy” tune was an earworm that stuck in the heads of voters across the nation. It was light, optimistic, and entirely devoid of policy details—a pure branding play that conveyed a sense of momentum.
Furthermore, the Kennedy camp used the candidate’s family as a strategic asset. Commercials featuring his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, speaking in Spanish to reach Latino voters were revolutionary. They turned the candidate’s personal life into a political strength, softening his image and adding a layer of glamour that Nixon simply could not replicate.
The Nixon Strategy: The Weight of Experience
In stark contrast, Vice President Richard Nixon’s advertising strategy was rooted in a pre-television mindset. His team, Campaign Associates, bet everything on the argument of “experience.”
Nixon’s commercials were often static and visually heavy. They frequently featured the Vice President sitting on the edge of a desk or in a study, talking directly to the camera for a full minute. While this was intended to convey gravitas and seriousness, on the small, flickering screens of 1960, it often came across as stiff and lecturing.
Nixon’s team failed to account for the coolness of the medium. Television favors the conversational and the visual; it penalizes the formal and the static. By framing Nixon as the stern lecturer, his commercials inadvertently reinforced the visual disparity seen in the famous televised debates. While Kennedy looked like the future, Nixon’s ads often made him look like the past.
It is worth noting that Nixon did attempt to showcase his grueling 50-state pledge in his ads, trying to highlight his work ethic. However, without the dynamic editing used by the Kennedy team, these spots often felt exhausting rather than energizing.
The Rise of Negative Space
The 1960 election also hinted at the future of negative partisanship, though it was far more polite than modern standards.
Rather than the visceral attack ads that would define the Lyndon Johnson campaign four years later, the 1960 negative spots were comparative. Kennedy’s ads would subtly mock the “status quo” of the Eisenhower-Nixon years without being outright hostile. Nixon’s ads would question Kennedy’s readiness without attacking his character.
However, the psychological groundwork was being laid. Both campaigns began using “man on the street” interviews in their commercials—an early form of social proof. These spots featured average citizens explaining why they were switching parties or sticking with the incumbent. It was a way to give permission to voters to cross party lines, a tactic that remains a staple of political advertising today.
The Legacy of 1960
When we look back at the archives of the 1960 election, we see the moment political consultants realized that the image is the message.
The Kennedy campaign proved that a candidate could be sold using the same psychological triggers used to sell cigarettes or automobiles. They proved that a catchy song could be worth more than a ten-point policy plan. Nixon’s campaign, conversely, provided a cautionary tale: having the better resume doesn’t matter if the presentation fails to connect emotionally.
For the modern viewer, these commercials are a masterclass in the transition from the typographic age to the televisual age. They represent the moment when the American presidency became a production, and the voter became a viewer.