Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
This year, by Election Day, ad spending by both political parties may hit $3 billion, combined. From Deadline Hollywood:
Two Wall Street analysts point to that conclusion in reports this morning that examine the estimated $2.8B being spent on local TV this presidential election cycle from different perspectives. Only about 800,000 voters are even persuadable this year, Wells Fargo Securities’ Marci Ryvicker notes citing information from Kantar Media’s authoritative Campaign Media Analysis Group. Even more startling, she says, “the BEST way to reach such voters is through ‘fringe’ programs such as Jeopardy and Wheel Of Fortune.” Thus far the biggest surprises in the campaign have been that spending is stronger than she expected in Wisconsin, but weaker in Pennsylvania and Missouri.
That's an awful lot of scratch. Although, as you might expect, the political masterminds spending the money may be, um, wasting it:
Meanwhile, Bernstein Research’s Todd Juenger says the barrage of commercials from campaigns and Super PACs could backfire. Advertisers consider it efficient for their messages to hit a target audience about four times. But with more than $1.5B likely to be spent over eight weeks in nine battleground states, each presidential candidate could hit their targets as much as 100 times a week — “an absurd amount,” Juenger says. Here’s the thing: Nobody seems to have studied how viewers respond to ad over-kill. “Given this almost surely unprecedented saturation, it certainly is no stretch to postulate that many viewers will become disgusted,” he says. Why do it, then? “No campaign strategist ever got fired for spending too much on advertising….But you can bet there would be a lot of blame for a campaign manager who didn’t spend every penny they could, and their candidate lost.”
Politicians? Wasting money? I know: you're shocked! But it does raise the question: what's the most effective way to get your message out, without pounding the viewer over the head?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Sajak needs to step up with some new clues on his "fringe" show:
S_CR_T_RY _F ST_T_ J_HN B_LT_N
_B_M_C_R_ D_L_ND_ _ST
S_PR_M_ C_ _RT J_ST_C_ J_HN Y__
If the HHS Secretary can do it while she's working, so can he.
May '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
This is an arms battle. Which side is willing to back down first? Let's see, the Dems always like unilateral disarmament. Maybe they can stop advertising first and see what happens.
Feb '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
It's like nuclear arms. You don't do it, you lose. It's that simple.
Mar '12
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Since the MSM is doing its self-appointed free marketing for O, I would have to think that R/R will have to pay for advertising the old fashioned way, by buying it. I hope that they have enough money.
Mar '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
I'm willing to sell space on the back of my bald head.
Oct '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
So let me get this straight, the best way to reach undecided voters is through Wheel of Fortune?
If only we knew someone who worked on that show...
Sep '12
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
I liked Newt's idea of following Obama around and challenging him to debates. Real debates – minimally moderated, and not soundbite, gotcha debates.
Do something gutsy and out of the ordinary, upend the status quo.
Mar '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Fund public education and get the teachers over multiple decades to indoctrinate their students to your political viewpoint even if the parent disagree.
Oh wait you are asking how Conservatives can do this. Run education policies year around every year which educates the electrocute about sound political policies. The republican should spend 1.5 billion dollars every two years on well made public policy ads not candidates. The problem we need the talent first who can put out a good product. I think we are slowly starting to see that with how cheap production technology has become.
Mar '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
3 billion dollars. 300 million people. 10 bucks a head. Doesn't sound to me like too much to spend on one of the most importan decisions we make together as a country. The left (and McCain) hollers about how much money is spent so they can regulate it.
Feb '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
On the non-presidential election level, money for advertising can make a difference. The other wild card factor are 527 groups. In the NC gubernatorial election, it does seem to be making a difference.
The Republican candidate is Pat McCrory, the former mayor of Charlotte, who pushed through the funding and construction of the site where the Democratic National Convention was held. The Democrat is Walter Dalton, the current Lt. Governor. Dalton did not get his campaign started until late because Gov. Perdue did not make up her mind until January not to run for re-election. At the time, McCrory and Perdue were about even in raising money and McCrory was ahead by double digits in the polls.
Once Perdue got out of the race, Dalton was able to raise much more money than his competitors and went from far behind in the polls to being out front and winning the primary. But he spent all his money. In the meantime, McCrory was sitting on a couple million dollars.
The general election starts and the 527s start spending money on advertising -- the Republican Governors Association directly for McCrory and the Democrat Governors Association and NEA jointly for Dalton.
Edited on September 14, 2012 at 10:26pmFeb '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
The pro-McCrory 527s tried to link Dalton with Perdue which doesn't work well because the two run independently of each other. They should have gone with Dalton and Perdue came out of Basnight swamp. (Basnight was leader of the NC Senate for 18 years and the slime over there was pretty thick. Both Dalton and Perdue were underlings of Basnight.)
The pro-Dalton 527s tried to link McCrory to lobbying, which is hugely ironic since Dalton's family members are lobbyists (and were successful in Basnight swamp). The person running the 527 is also head of a lobbying firm who has been associated with so much sleeze in NC politics. But they are effective in cutting into McCrory's lead and McCrory's internal polls were showing this. So McCrory went up with his advertising early. It worked in that his lead is back into double digit territory.
McCrory had between a 2- and 3-1 advantage in money, which allowed advertising met by silence. The Dalton campaign just went up with its advertising.
The moral of the story: advertising does matter. Especially when you don't have money to advertise.
Jun '12
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Agreed.
These are leftymedia shills for Obama trying to get Romney to stop advertising.
My response would be to double my advertising budget if I could afford it, or as close to double as I could get if I was cash-strapped.
Aug '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Non incumbents must advertise because they must gain name recognition. In Oregon, Republican campaign strategists figure that even at the end of the campaign name recognition of our candidates is only about 17%. Name recognition of incumbents, like former senator Smith, climbs to about 35%. The Dems don't do much better on name recognition. The most effective name recognition strategy for most of our candidates is lawn and field signs. Bill boards if we can afford them.
At the state level, Republican candidates are much less well funded than the Dems who have the unions and the incumbency. Republicans don't have the funds to advertise.
To gain name recognition they must repeatedly go door to door and they campaign at meet and greets. The signs and bumper stickers are essential. Democratic leaning city governments have now put through ordinances which don't allow signs until a few weeks before the election.
That's politics.
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
If everyone tunes out the advertisements, it hurts Romney -- because, thanks to John McCain (as in McCain-Feingold), he had very little opportunity to make his case over the summer.
But I doubt that people will be tuning out in October. Too many are unemployed; too many are worried about the deficits; and then there is Libya.
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
cbc: The signs and bumper stickers are essential. Democratic leaning city governments have now put through ordinances which don't allow signs until a few weeks before the election.
That's politics. · 1 minute ago
Someone should file a law suit.
Nov '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Until I'm blue in the face: spending money to try to win undecideds by direct appeal will not work. Spend the money to excite and motivate your conservative base at the grass roots and then your conservative base will evangelize the undecideds for you. That's how Obama won in 2008, by exciting his base to create a wave that swept up the undecideds. Instead, Romney alienates and de-energizes his base and then wonders why the undecideds don't get excited for him. If your base isn't excited, nobody else will be. Obama's base ain't all that excited about him this time either, but it is more excited about him than the conservative base is about Romney. Yes, the conservative base is excited against Obama, but that ain't the same as being excited about our guy. Gotta use the base to generate a wave to sweep up the undecideds. Obama's wave is small this year, But Mitt has no wave at all. Nary a ripple. If Mitt doesn't figure this out soon, he's toast--milquetoast.
Jan '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Politics is the ultimate racket. They manufacture the problems they claim to solve. Political consultants and political advertising are the same way. They manufacture the reason for their own existence.
Actually, I'm going to try that strategy. I should go into an employer and tell them, look, if you don't hire me, someone else will, and then where will you be?
On second thought, nah. I wouldn't want to work for anyone so stupid as to fall for that strategy.
Jun '12
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
I have a DVR, I never watch anybody's ads. I never watch TV in real time, and when I do watch, I always fast forward through all ads. I have better things to do with time. All TV advertising is a waste of my time. I see any political ads I decide to watch because someone I trust posts them on a web site I like, and says its worth watching, then I might watch it once. If I want to know about a candidate, I'll go to his/her web site and read their position papers. I never read any newspapers either, except for local news, and the occasional conservative editorial. I just don't need anything else. For science and engineering news, the web is better anyway, and I don't have to read heavily spun stories. Most people I know are doing something similar now, and I suspect traditional means of measuring opinion are becomming less valid. I also NEVER respond to a poll, I always hang-up, party affiliation does not matter, again I have better things to do.
May '10
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Robert! Never, ever say that money spend on television is a waste. Now, go to your room.
Apr '11
Re: Campaign Advertising: A Waste of Money?
Rob Long:
Politicians? Wasting money? I know: you're shocked! But it does raise the question: what's the most effective way to get your message out, without pounding the viewer over the head? · · 3 hours ago
Persuading people to make calls, as I wrote here. Unfortunately, volunteers aren't something money can buy.
With advertizing, it's an arms race. Even if 10 contacts is worth less than 5 contacts in a solo effort, it's worth more if the other guy makes 9 or 15 contacts.
Longer form ads are useful, and we're already seeing much larger ground games than in past campaigns. Neither the campaign professionals nor the candidates are entirely dumb when it comes to this stuff; as is often the case, when something seems simple to laymen and complicated to the professional is not necessarily an example of the professional being an idiot, even if talking head versions of the professional decry their employed brethren as being a bunch of fools.