|
There are two interesting articles over at AdAge. One looks at Evan Tracey's (of TNS Media Intelligence) prediction that political ad spending will hit $2 billion for this campaign cycle surpassing the 2004 election by 17%....
The second one looks at how political ads have been going negative. Both articles should have been grouped together because they paint a picture on what the offline strategy looks like in 2006, and why more of that money should go toward online.
First the negative strategy. Historically, campaigns run negative ads because, well, they work. Yes, you hate them and complain about them, but they work. They break through the clutter and capture your attention. As long as the negative ads are backed up with a candidate's stand on issues, then the strategy should be effective.
Negative ads have been a part of American Politics for hundredsd of years. Don't believe me? Read up John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson. However, what's interesting (the only part for me) is the unknown quote at the end, "The negatives aren't working as well and so campaigns are turning up the volume in their ads," and this works nicely with a few quotes I have heard from other political consultants when it comes to their TV ads - basically, they aren't working as well as they did in the past.
Hold that thought for a second.
So, campaigns need to turn up the volume which works on two fronts. First, the tone to break through the clutter and the TiVos. The second is to buy even more ads while TV stations boost their spot market buys. Plus, with more donation money pouring in and the committees like the RNC, NRCC (House), and the NRSC (Senate) spending for their own advertising goals you have more dollars coming in. And, let's not forget special interest groups, people advertising for ballot initiatives and you have what should be the peak in TV spending.
More negative tone, more negative ads to try and boost assumed effectiveness (remember they are using tracking tools to measure viewership) translates into throwing more money after an outdated strategy.
The audience is spending more time online so the consultants should divert money to where the viewership is - online. We've been very successful at taking the same offline TV commercials and streaming them in banner units via PointRoll. In fact, we've streamed these ads against a match file of known voters and we know the click rate, traffic to the Web site and how long they actually watched their ads. We had one candidate spend a very small amount online for a 2 week buy and got over 3,000 hours of people watching his commercial.
Try figuring that with your offline spend, but you have to use actual data not derived using formulas that make you look good.
It is time for political campaigns to stop chasing their TV tail. The audience is leaving, and even if they are still in front of the boob tube, you have to fight through DVRs or people just running to the fridge to grab a drink. Stop looking at outdated models that predict trends based on derived viewers. Come over to the internet where we can measure what people are doing. You can still take those TV commercials that you worked so hard on to produce and stream them in a banner buy.
You know what, you actually might influence people....
PardonMyFrench,
Eric
|
Comments
Eric,
My unscientific analysis of the reasons more dollars aren't being spent on line are: 1) the rising number of political blogs and web sites negate the need to advertise; 2) Political streaming video runs rampant on YouTube, further negating the need to advertise; and 3) the presence online of every talking head in America representing every point of view further negates even more the need to spend ad dollars online.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.02.06
Personally negative ads usually turn me off to a candidate. I read FactCheck.org for the truth.
Political action groups using email to stir grassroots movements within communities that matter to the voter work more for me.
I used to enjoy political blogs but the nation is so polarized that every joe shmoe is writing the same damn thing over and over.
As much as I dislike Bush, I am sick of blunder videos on YouTube.
The internet is already saturated with those that tune in and those that are quickly tuning out when it comes to politics.
TV ads sock it to me in the gut when I'm home relaxing with my family.
They get me riled up. They infuriate me when they fling mud and half truths and spinning wheels of rhetoric.
So in a way I would have to admit TV works.
When I'm online the last thing I want is for it to be cluttered with pop-ups about how candidate A is stealing Social Security and cadidate A fires back No you are! Infinity.
Spend those internet dollars to get the people involved.
When the people are empowered and engaged you will see more dollars spent on internet marketing.
Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 11.02.06
Wow - great comments. Tammy, well done on your comments I think you added nicely. Keep using Factcheck.org to see what is really going on with the ads.
Lewis, couple of comments...
1) Blogs do provide a false positive when it comes to advertising. Some candidates feel they don't have to advertise because blogs do it for them. However, the vast majority of the blogs do not have the traffic that say a Yahoo has...
2)YouTube is also another false positive. It is free and people can comment, but why not get them when they are elsewhere on the internet...
3)Good point....;-)
Eric
Posted by: Eric Frenchman | 11.02.06
My favorites are the radio ads in this area. It seems most candidates have 2 running simultaneously, one praising them as being a 'good Christian', then the other running at the same time mocking their opponent.
Posted by: Mack Collier | 11.03.06
Things that make you go hummm. Negative Ads, are they not preaching to the choir? As a voter who already knows who and want I will vote for, negative ads hold no sway for me, except for the "distaste" factor.
(We in Kansas City get a double whammy with both Missouri & Kansas candiates mud slinging.)
Which leaves me to think that negative ads are focused on the undecided. Which I pity the "undecided" voter, all the mud slinging, so call "we have the facts, the other guys are lying" would be enough to confuse anyone. Which makes me think, how can anyone make a decision based on those ads?
Posted by: Carol Doms | 11.07.06
its the norwich union advert,,,, it makes my blood boil,,, its on all the time,,, and it stays in my head for ages, and once its out of my brain its normally back on the tele,,, you know its that stupid man singing "didlybopbopdigadigaboo didlybopbopdigadigaboo" nnnnnnaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh do norwich union realise what it must be doing to people,,, i know this sounds bitter but out of sheer principle now i will never use norwich union car insurance and if any friends or family are with or are thinking of joining norwich union i will persuade them not too
Posted by: drew fox | 04.27.07