Yesterday I was part of a conference call and zoom session that included dozens people who regularly contribute to Democratic candidates and a handful of congressional candidates. It was easy for me to write off the candidates who said they needed contributions because their media markets are in our near big cities and are prohibitively expensive. Their campaigns should have warned them that advising on broadcast TV is prohibitively inefficient and a waste of donors' money. The beneficiaries of this kind of waste and inefficiency are mercenary consultants who get a fat percentage of whatever is spent— and broadcast TV is, by far, the most expensive media, generating the biggest profits for the consultants... and for whomever they're kicking back any of it to.
If, for example, you have a district with 455,000 and your broadcast TV market includes 4,550,000 people, you’re paying for 10 times the number of people who can potentially vote for you. You don't need those millions of eyeballs, but you're paying for them— and top dollar. Cable and social media sell their ads based on geography, and you can place an ad based on the congressional district you’re trying to reach. I can’t imagine wasting money on something like broadcast— a poor decision by a candidate and not something I would help finance.
Right after the conference call, I noticed a report from Melanie Zanona in PunchBowl about the decline of TV advertising in politics, something she called, aptly enough, “a slow death march.” Noting that “Political campaigns, candidates and organizations that historically rely heavily on standard TV to get their messages on the airwaves have also been disrupted by the growing trend of Americans cutting their cords in favor of streaming services.”
Her research concludes that “this cycle, the top super PACs associated with both House Republicans and Democrats are spending historic sums— roughly nearly $70 million combined— to place political ads on streaming services,” as are candidates’ committees. I should mention, Blue America laughed at the idea of broadcast TV in 2006 and never looked back. This cycle, Hakeem Jeffries’ PAC spent $30 million on ads on streaming services, while MAGA Mike’s PAC spent nearly $37 million on streaming so far— double what they spent in the 2022 cycle. No, they haven’t figured it out entirely— “advertisements on broadcast and cable TV,” wrote Zanona, mixing broadcast and cable together for some reason that makes no sense “still account for the lion’s share of the organizations’ investments. The goal is to pump their messaging through a diverse media mix that acts as a sort of ‘surround sound’ for targeted audiences… Yet it’s not hard to imagine a day when streaming dollars are on par with or even overtake traditional TV spending.”
The benefits: The most obvious upside is that political groups can better reach voters in cluttered media markets. Consumer viewing trends have significantly shifted in recent years among key demographics, including younger voters.
Streaming also gets them more bang for their buck. Buying ad time on traditional TV becomes increasingly expensive, especially later in the cycle. So streaming can be a cost-effective alternative, particularly for last-minute maneuvering.
It also allows for a more targeted approach. In most cases, the groups can’t get as granular as picking specific shows to advertise on. But after selecting the streaming service, they can target the ads to certain households.
One exception is YouTube. While organizations can’t target potential voters based on data or political affinity, they can choose to place ads with content that they think swing voters might be consuming.
Tailoring the content: In order to have maximum impact, both parties have started to tailor their content for streaming. An ad that may work for traditional TV might not always be a good fit for streaming.
MAGA Mike’s PAC has dedicated more of its advertising budget to 15-second spots since viewing habits are different on streaming. Voters may have shorter attention spans while scrolling on their phones. But sources involved in the digital strategy said the ads also need to pass the eye test. For example, does the ad still make sense without sound?
Traditional TV is still a big factor: There are still plenty of political ads being placed on old-school cable and broadcast TV. Live sports, which account for the majority of the top 100 shows on television, are a key part of MAGA Mike’s buying strategy, for instance. That’s especially true in the fall, when NFL football, college football, NHL hockey and playoff MLB baseball games are all airing.
And with the World Series this year a classic showdown between the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Yankees, there’s even more of an opportunity to reach voters in markets with key House races this cycle.
While those are expensive ad buys, the viewership is also likely to represent some key demographics. But even live sporting events are increasingly being shown on streaming.
Spencer Slovic is the founder and CEO of Mycorrhiza Digital, which does social media advertising for progressive candidates. This morning he told me that “YouTube is the most popular free video service— and most popular streaming service— in the world. It's an easy place to put up a quick-response ad, like David Kim's response to his opponent's allegations that he used to be a Republican. In a huge media market like Los Angeles, and with YouTube ads costing as little as 1/3rd as much as streaming per view, it's a crucial place for progressives and Democrats to reach young voters in a high-turnout election... In a Presidential general election, younger and less cable news-addled voters are going to be the crucial demographic that doesn't show up in midterms and primaries. No one under the age of 35 has a cable subscription, and anyone stuck on cable news is likely to be voting in other elections in addition to this one. If Democrats are being outspent by Republicans on streaming that's a bad sign, a signal that their consultants are still favoring outdated methods with less data and down-funnel metrics that report back how well an ad performs. In short, they like cable TV more because it's a black box— they don't have to account for the metrics. Digital is more work, in the sense that you have the option and ability to test many different ads and formats to improve. In the last few Presidential elections it's mainly been the Trump campaign doing that. I'm glad Democrats are starting to catch on.”
Although... This might work as a compelling broadcast TV ad, if you had a few million dollars to throw away.
Opmerkingen