The current US presidential election has generated billions of dollars’ worth of advertising, some of it – (perhaps the best of it?) – unsolicited by either side.
In August 2015 Adweek blog, Social Times, Borell Associates projected that political advertising will hit a record US$11.4 billion in 2016, 20% more than the last comparable presidential election year of 2012.
There’s less than one month to go, so authorised advertising on behalf of both candidates is now flooding the media. All media – print, TV, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, smartphone…
All of this noise made New York Festivals International Advertising Awards wonder what makes political advertising successful. So NYF asked top advertising creatives to share what they know.
Vida Cornelious, EVP/CCO, Walton Isaacson, USA: “Successful product advertising is based in storytelling. Building a brand story is very compelling and that is what makes consumers develop genuine affinity for a product, done successfully the brand is able to have a genuine role in the consumer’s life. In political advertising, the brand story is the story of the candidate and what they will stand for during their tenure in office, so it’s a long term investment for consumers to buy into their proposition.”
Bill Clinton campaign alum, David Angelo, founder and chairman of David&Golialth, USA: “When you’re creating advertising for the potential next president of the free world, you can’t afford a misstep. You get one chance and the entire country is counting on you. So, you better make sure your message and the way you deliver it is spot on. It’s this sense of urgency and importance that I apply to all the accounts I touch.”
Joe Fuld, president of The Campaign Workshop, Washington: “There are three resources in a political campaign: people, time and money. The fundamental challenge of working on a political campaign is harnessing resources that are limited and communication to voters with those limited resources. When most folks think of elections, they think of the massively funded presidential campaigns, but the average political campaign operates on a shorter timeline with a lot fewer resources.”
Valerie Graves, consultant on Clinton/Gore ’92 campaign: “It’s different in several ways, one is that you don’t have the same kind of time restraints that you have when you’re doing product advertising, but also your target audience is essentially every adult, every potential voter. Everything is very fast moving. When I worked on Bill Clinton’s campaign, we had time upfront to develop a campaign, but after that it was almost minute by minute responses to advertising, there were always nightly focus groups and we could tune on a dime. It can be pretty challenging from a timing standpoint to do really good work under those circumstances”
Before 2008, political ad campaigns ran in traditional media, TV and radio. Social media has noticeably changed the way that candidates persuade, connect and leverage the power of the people in the current campaign.
In 2008, Barack Obama understood that securing the youth vote depended on digital advertising. According to Forbes blogger, Irfon Watkins, Obama spent 10% of his paid media budget on digital advertising (US$8 million), 15% more than $6.5 million more John McCain spent on his campaign, an idea that Valerie Graves likens almost to “a stealth weapon, no one was prepared for that, it had never been done before.” Digital advertising in the current election is predicted to break the US$1bn mark for the first time (9.5% of total ad spend).
Vida Cornelious: “The onset of technology/social media totally changed the game and upped the ante. 2006-07 Obama campaign marked the pinnacle of galvanising and creating a movement via social media. That was by far a game changer campaign in so many ways. It gave consumers a voice and allowed them to be heard and responded to in real time. The backbone of that campaign was in social media….Now a rally or debate can be seen by millions in a live feed on FB. And the audience can connect over any issues that arise and react to the message in real time. Our social networks now have all the power to sway opinion, not the candidate.”
David Angelo: “With the exponential growth of social channels, brands have to be more authentic than ever,” said Mr. Angelo. “You have to be cognizant of every single thing you say or do or the public will call you out. At the same time, there’s greater opportunity to deliver a grass roots message on a massive scale. Once you reach those advocates, you can amplify your message even further.”
Joe Fuld: “Our ability to target voters has changed and so has the saliency of mediums. It used to be that by dominating only one medium you could reach your core audience…we now have to use multiple mediums to break through to them.”
It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2016
Mud-slinging has been a dominant feature of this campaign. Is there a positive side to negative ads?
In The Science of Political Advewrtising, The American Psychology Association noted that psychologists and political scientists are coming up with surprising results. “Negative ads might create more thoughtful voters than positive ones…”
Vida Cornelius: “I think the positive side to a negative ad, is the fact that there has to be truth in it in order to be considered negative. Those ads are done for the purpose of shedding light on the flawed character of a candidate. So if there needs to be a negative ad, it should for sure be based in truth. Negative ads have stopping power as well. Depending on how the subject is presented, it can be impactful in swaying public opinion.”
Joe Fuld: “Having good opposition research and polling is important to crafting a contrastive message that resonates with voters. You can’t win a campaign with just negative ads, you need to create a contrast – why vote for our candidate instead of the other. These days you need to do both to win.”
You might also like
