Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a non-partisan multi-part question about TV advertising. Once the candidates for a general election have been determined, what's the strategy for spending their advertising money? Do they spread it out over the months leading up to Election Day? Do they spend the bulk of it within X number of weeks right before Election Day? Does it make a difference if they are the incumbent rather than the challenger? Is the TV advertising spending strategy in the swing states different than the non-swing states?
I'll tell you why I'm asking. The President seems to be spending his TV advertising money now. Romney, not so much. Yet, the President seems to be more concerned with being outspent.
I'm thinking as the incumbent, the President (in any presidential general election) doesn't have to spend as much money as the challenger because we all know what he's been doing for the last 3.5 years but the talk I hear doesn't bear that out.
Is that because I don't live in a swing state so I don't really know that they are both TV advertising heavily now, just not where I live?
Who here lives in a swing state? Are you being bombarded with TV ads? From both candidates?
There is no fixed strategy. Romney blitzed his primary opposition with TV ads because he didn't have an equally deep ground game everywhere in the primaries. He was fighting at least 3 opponents at a time who kept getting money unexpectedly. TV is expensive, but as a medium, it's very effective at changing minds. One or two perfect ads can do it with relatively light repetition, but so can a barrage of OK ads if they are just good enough. When every 4th or 5th ad is on TV in a critical swing state, either quality or quantity work equally well when carefully used.
Obama developed a big, smart ground team first, before the primaries began in 2007, and that organization carried him to a win with almost no PAC support in the 2008 primaries. That organization is still intact, and is now much more experienced.
I'm only guessing here, but it may be that Obama is spending TV money early, while Mitt is still soft and incompletely formed. Obama's ground game is already going full steam, and he, as the incumbent, can leave it to his volunteers on the ground when he needs to, or when the ground game is most effective. I expect Obama's team will do a blitz when everyone senses the timing is perfect, and most likely it will come during the Silly Season in October, but I could be completely wrong.
His donations didn't hit full flood in 2008 until early September, and I expect that may be similar this time. His supporters are just waiting to see who will be up against them as a team right now.
The Palin lesson was not lost on the Democrats; no matter what she is now, she was a hugely effective fund raiser in 2008. if the Democratic candidates had not joined together quickly after Hillary's defeat, Palin's money could have really damaged Obama in a party that remained split in their loyalties. Hillary's a smart cookie; she knew what she had to do as soon as her loss was evident. By quickly committing her folks on the ground, and donating all she could to what was left in the coffers of her campaign to Obama, she limited the potential damage Palin's fund raising success could have caused.
Everyone- McCain, Clinton and Obama had donation problems at differing times in 2008. Mitt has them right now- he went through a very tough primary that cost him a ton of money he may not have expected he would need to spend. His recent donation surge is only making up for those unexpected early expenses. McCain blew his wad far too early in 2007, and went into 2008 running very lean. Palin's fund raising only pulled him up closer to the level Obama committed late in his TV ads.
The one thing Obama will not do is to become punched out too early. His team are masters of the Rope-A-Dope, as is Obama, and they all went through 2008 all the way to the end. They're ready as can be right now; no learning curve needed with those guys and their boss. The Republicans may have become too accustomed to the typical Democratic disarray that went on for so long, but the Democrats now have the most skilled campaigner in the field, and the best they have had in 30 years. Even Bill Clinton doesn't have Obama's skills.
FEC rules stipulate that the general campaign doesn't begin until after the conventions, so the money raised now (and the donation limits) still counts toward the primary. TV ad buys are generally done a week or two in advance to allow for scheduling, and generally done in blocks of several weeks, like you agree to buy ad time for 6 or 10 weeks etc.
The donation limits reset after the conventions, meaning high dollar donors can max out again. Since most people who would be swayed by ads (i.e. the 10% or so of undecideds or swing voters) don't pay attention to the campaign until September, this is when the bulk of ad buying is done, since there's a fresh infusion of cash into campaigns and the turnaround on creating individual ads is down to a matter of hours these days.
Living in a swing state, we're up to about on average one ad each break on network and cable news, fewer on other cable channels, though that's been changing with national buys on more heavily watched channels such as ESPN and Comedy Central. Obviously since more people still watch OTA network (ABC/NBC/CBS/etc), that's where the bulk of ad buying is. It'll likely ramp up post-convention to two or three ads per break, including SuperPAC ads.
If you're looking for an in-depth study Darrell West's Air Wars is hands-down the best book on the subject.
FEC rules stipulate that the general campaign doesn't begin until after the conventions, so the money raised now (and the donation limits) still counts toward the primary. TV ad buys are generally done a week or two in advance to allow for scheduling, and generally done in blocks of several weeks, like you agree to buy ad time for 6 or 10 weeks etc.
The donation limits reset after the conventions, meaning high dollar donors can max out again. Since most people who would be swayed by ads (i.e. the 10% or so of undecideds or swing voters) don't pay attention to the campaign until September, this is when the bulk of ad buying is done, since there's a fresh infusion of cash into campaigns and the turnaround on creating individual ads is down to a matter of hours these days.
Living in a swing state, we're up to about on average one ad each break on network and cable news, fewer on other cable channels, though that's been changing with national buys on more heavily watched channels such as ESPN and Comedy Central. Obviously since more people still watch OTA network (ABC/NBC/CBS/etc), that's where the bulk of ad buying is. It'll likely ramp up post-convention to two or three ads per break, including SuperPAC ads.
If you're looking for an in-depth study Darrell West's Air Wars is hands-down the best book on the subject.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I think I will check it out. Sounds like my kind of book.
After making this post last night, this morning The Hill has a link to a Wall St Journal story:
"In the exchange of attack ads that is defining the presidential race, Mitt Romney has been hindered by a feature of campaign-finance law. While Mr. Romney is outraising President Barack Obama, much of his money can't be used until he formally becomes the GOP nominee."
There is no fixed strategy. Romney blitzed his primary opposition with TV ads because he didn't have an equally deep ground game everywhere in the primaries. He was fighting at least 3 opponents at a time who kept getting money unexpectedly. TV is expensive, but as a medium, it's very effective at changing minds. One or two perfect ads can do it with relatively light repetition, but so can a barrage of OK ads if they are just good enough. When every 4th or 5th ad is on TV in a critical swing state, either quality or quantity work equally well when carefully used.
Obama developed a big, smart ground team first, before the primaries began in 2007, and that organization carried him to a win with almost no PAC support in the 2008 primaries. That organization is still intact, and is now much more experienced.
I'm only guessing here, but it may be that Obama is spending TV money early, while Mitt is still soft and incompletely formed. Obama's ground game is already going full steam, and he, as the incumbent, can leave it to his volunteers on the ground when he needs to, or when the ground game is most effective. I expect Obama's team will do a blitz when everyone senses the timing is perfect, and most likely it will come during the Silly Season in October, but I could be completely wrong.
His donations didn't hit full flood in 2008 until early September, and I expect that may be similar this time. His supporters are just waiting to see who will be up against them as a team right now.
The Palin lesson was not lost on the Democrats; no matter what she is now, she was a hugely effective fund raiser in 2008. if the Democratic candidates had not joined together quickly after Hillary's defeat, Palin's money could have really damaged Obama in a party that remained split in their loyalties. Hillary's a smart cookie; she knew what she had to do as soon as her loss was evident. By quickly committing her folks on the ground, and donating all she could to what was left in the coffers of her campaign to Obama, she limited the potential damage Palin's fund raising success could have caused.
Everyone- McCain, Clinton and Obama had donation problems at differing times in 2008. Mitt has them right now- he went through a very tough primary that cost him a ton of money he may not have expected he would need to spend. His recent donation surge is only making up for those unexpected early expenses. McCain blew his wad far too early in 2007, and went into 2008 running very lean. Palin's fund raising only pulled him up closer to the level Obama committed late in his TV ads.
The one thing Obama will not do is to become punched out too early. His team are masters of the Rope-A-Dope, as is Obama, and they all went through 2008 all the way to the end. They're ready as can be right now; no learning curve needed with those guys and their boss. The Republicans may have become too accustomed to the typical Democratic disarray that went on for so long, but the Democrats now have the most skilled campaigner in the field, and the best they have had in 30 years. Even Bill Clinton doesn't have Obama's skills.
McCain had public funding if I remember correctly. You couldn't donate directly to his campaign. I'm guessing Romney will make more money after his convention than Obama will make after his simply because of the "newness" of Romney which is another reason why I don't think he should choose Pawlenty (zzzzzz) or Portman (zzzzzzz). Then again, I never actually thought an incumbent, any incumbent, would have to spend as much as the challenger because we all know the incumbent and his record. Of course, I was thinking of the "old days" when the ads were more about what the ad runner was going to do with his four years than demonizing the opponent. The very few ads I see now (seriously, if I went by TV ads I'd never know this was a presidential election year) in my state are all about not voting for the other guy and very little about why I should vote for the guy running the ad. I pay attention but I wonder about all of those other folks out there.
Who here lives in a swing state? Are you being bombarded with TV ads? From both candidates?
Apparently Wisconsin is considered a swing state. Yep, the bombardment has started. We also have a big senate primary, just got through reaffirming who our governor is.... sheesh, it's always something here.
Funny you mentioned Pawlenty and Portman. They're the top two predictions of a local talk show host. The theory is Romney doesn't want the VP to be polarizing, a distraction, or too closely associated with Bush because the Obama camp still occasionally spews out blame for stuff on Bush keeping the former president on the minds of voters whether warranted or not. Romney also wants somebody who he's compatible with and who he thinks can just plain do the job, of course. He's not going to lose any votes over those two guys, but probably won't energize anybody. After Palin and Biden, I'm sure there's an extra sense of caution. You'd think it wouldn't be that hard finding a VP. Personally, I think they over-think it. Not that the pick's unimportant, but... they emphasize the oddest things when looking for one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
