More election dollars, and not all for local TV

 

Half the added spending will go to cable, radio and online

By Diego Vasquez

April, 2016

                          

During the first three months of this year, $280 million was spent on advertising for the 2016 presidential election. That deluge of spending prompted Borrell Associates, the Williamsburg, Va., ad tracking firm, to bump up its forecast for political ad spending this year by 3.1 percent, representing an extra $357 million. What’s interesting is that Borrell says only half of that money will go to local TV, which has long been the engine driving presidential ad spending. The other half will go to cable, online and radio. Corey Elliott, director of research at Borrell Associates, talks to Media Life about why interest is shifting slightly away from TV, the Donald Trump effect, and what type of ads newspapers will see.

Why did you readjust your forecast — was that something you had always planned to do, or did circumstances of the presidential race warrant it?
We had always planned to do regular updates since last October, namely because we saw what a volatile season this was going to be. And as things happen on a presidential level, changes can trickle down to more local contests.

You note almost half of the gains you anticipate will go to radio, cable and internet. These media have long been an afterthought behind local TV — is that changing? Why or why not?
It’s changing, but not in the way you might think. TV is still dominant, and will remain so, but a couple of things are happening.

Some of these candidates have shown us that TV might not be the end all, be all. That there are other ways to get your message out and to influence conversation.

So it’s not that radio is the next big thing–it’s more that TV isn’t.
Internet advertising is certainly coming into focus a lot more due in part to all the earned media Mr. Trump receives from a couple of well-timed and worded tweets. The dialogue is happening online and all levels of politicians finally understand they need to be there. Cable and radio have been shifted up due to some of the increases we have seen in the first quarter.

Also, we need to understand the base we are talking about here when it comes to radio, for instance. We see radio getting 7.8 percent of political spend in 2016, and we see that adjustment not coming so much from the national level, but the local level as local politicians use under-tapped media to get their message out during a time when a lot of voices are contending for attention.
For example, we see radio getting 12 percent of the spend on state and local ballot issues, as opposed to the 4 percent in the presidential race.

How has Donald Trump’s candidacy specifically impacted spending?
By showing what a brand can do in a new media age. That brand, of course, is Trump. It’s a brand not born in the political world but rather the business, and then more recently, the entertainment world. And if there is one world that reigns supreme in America, it is entertainment.
One could argue that another strong brand in this race is Hillary Clinton, but it was not forged the same way. Trump has had years to work on a dialogue with people through shows and social media. So, this is what happens when you turn that experience to the political circus. Lots and lots of earned media.

Is he needing to spend less because of his tremendous social media presence? Do you think that will become a model for candidates moving forward, or is Trump simply unique because of his background, very different from the usual presidential candidate?
Entertainers have a unique ability to “read” an audience. In this case, he read the sentiment that a lot of people have, and he has moved on it.
And he has chosen to communicate in a style that resonates with them.

What is “the ground game,” and why will it boost direct mail and telemarketing? Was this a surprise to you at all?
The ground game is the local aspect of a campaign. The meet and greets, the door knocking, etc.
Historically, as those things have heated up, so has telemarketing and direct mail–channels that get right to a specific person in a specific house.

What sort of ads are going to newspapers — do they offer a chance for candidates to lay out their positions? Or are they the same attack ads seen in other media?
Not so far, but we are only starting.
A lot of the ads were in cities and states with primaries and caucuses encouraging people to go out and vote–for their candidate, of course. Newspapers always offer a candidate a chance to explain views, but [the question is] how many take them up on it?
 
In the presidential race, how much is spent by the actual candidates and how much by the PACs?
PACs are spending everywhere, and not just in presidential. It differs by candidate. Overall in 2016, for everyone combined, spending is right around 30 percent PAC, 70 percent candidates. But we really won’t know the [final] answer until the general election.

Do you think PACs will have a bigger presence in this presidential campaign than in 2012? Why or why not?
There will definitely be more money spent. Whether that means more “presence” remains to be seen.
Until now, that hasn’t been the case.