TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM
July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.10.2008
Does Advertising Matter?

Does advertising matter?  Just ask the Obama campaign.

A Washington Post article yesterday suggested both that John McCain's negative ads had been ineffective (true) and that advertising in the Presidential contest just wasn't all that important:

"As the presidential candidates open their war chests in the campaign's final stretch -- spending a combined $28 million on television ads in the week that ended Oct. 4 -- political pros are mixed on whether they're getting their money's worth. Obama, who faces no fundraising restrictions because he declined to accept public financing, is outspending the senator from Arizona on the air by a 2 to 1 margin.

"But some analysts say neither side's spots are changing the campaign dialogue. This has been particularly true, analysts say, during the recent financial crisis that has at times overwhelmed the campaign itself."

But as The Politico points out today, someone forgot to tell the Obama campaign that the ads aren't having an impact:

"In the first three weeks of September, Barack Obama ran 1,342 television commercials in the Washington media market that reaches heavily populated and contested Northern Virginia.

"According to The Nielsen Company, in the same period and market, John McCain aired just eight commercials on broadcast stations."

Advertising may matter less on the Presidential level than it does for House and Senate candidates, who receive considerably less attention in the press than Presidential candidates do.  But make no mistake -- all the wonderful bio ads that the Obama campaign has been running have had an impact by allowing the campaign to impart critical information about their candidate that voters would not now otherwise be hearing or seeing.

In effect, the Obama campaign's financial advantage allows it to have a separate, independent, and critically important conversation with the American public about a topic of their choosing.

Senator McCain's ads may have been ineffective -- but that doesn't mean Senator Obama's have been too.

 

Howard Wolfson also blogs at GothamAcme.

 

 

Posted: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:47 AM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

fougasseu said:

Broadcast advertising tends to be most effective with "current users", less effective luring new users and category switchers. So my guess is that the ads worked best to excite against each party's base, the Democratic base being quite a bit larger - Obama takes better advantage of the medium. And it being an off-year (to put it mildly) for Republicans, category switchers and new users would be more open to Obama's message of change ("sampling"), than trying any candidate of the GOP (Bush's Third Term).

I think the Republicans are at a crossroads:

Obama is winning not via ads, but knocking on more doors, making more calls, staging more rallies, raising more money (a lot more) from  more people (a lot more), and enlisting more volunteers.

The Republicans have waged a propaganda war. Their strategy was to use FOX and Talk Radio to turn daily trivialities into headlines, scandals into votes. It didn't work.

Going forward: Does the GOP remain media-centric, taking their lead (talking points) from celebrities like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or do they try to become a grassroots political party?

Do they chase ratings, or chase voters?

October 15, 2008 11:51 AM

perkowitz said:

so your argument that advertising matters is that obama is spending a lot of money on them (a fact, albeit one that doesn't actually prove much) and the claim that talking directly to the public is having an impact (speculation). I get your point, and it's interesting to read about the spending disparity and speculate on its impact, but your headline led me to hope for some actual analysis of results (e.g. connection between advertising and movement in polls). maybe I've been reading too much nate silver :)

October 15, 2008 12:22 PM

fougasseu said:

Broadcast advertising was the best tool of the few available tools for decades. Today, it's still the best tool, but it works most effectively when complemented by a variety of other mediums.  It has less reach, less persuasive power, costs way too much, but the visuals are invaluable. As a smart Japanese designer once said, people buy with their eyes.

Obama's advertising was necessary and it worked, but it wasn't the secret sauce. The sauce was the volunteers.

October 16, 2008 11:38 AM