Archive for September, 2010

Political Ad Men for Mad Men

Friday, September 24th, 2010

After cable stalwart Mad Men won its third straight Emmy for Best Drama last month, broadcast stations were airing reruns and reality shows.  Meanwhile, cable networks, like American Movie Classics (AMC), which airs the 1960’s Madison Avenue advertising agency drama, were starting their fall schedules right as political campaigns were in full swing. While cable shows have been winning awards and increasing ratings for years, it is interesting to see how an older skewing show like Mad Men coincides with targeting voters efficiently.

When looking at the ratings and rates in Hartford, CT and New York City, Mad Men is actually quite efficient compared to broadcast shows. In Hartford, a spot during an episode of Mad Men only costs $700 and gets a 4.6 rating for an adults 35 or older demo. Meanwhile, comparably rated broadcast prime time shows, like Dateline, How I Met Your Mother, and Law and Order are double or triple the cost. In New York City, a spot on Mad Men is $7,000, but earns the same ratings as CSI, Survivor, and Amazing Race, which go for $17,000-$20,000. While the audience size for cable is smaller than broadcast, the Hartford and New York City markets have two of the top six cable penetrations in the country at 82%, making a comparison of ratings possible. The chart below shows the Cost Per (ratings) Point efficiency of Mad Men in these markets.

Mad Men’s older skewing viewership also coincides with the targeted older voter audience. According to Arbitron research, 58% of voters in statewide elections in Hartford are 50 or older, while only being 46% of the eligible population, and 56% to 46% in New York City.  This data correlates with AMC viewership as well in these markets.  In Hartford, when comparing voters to a base of adults 21 or older, AMC is the fourth highest percentage increase among the top 15 networks.  In NYC, it jumps up to third highest out of 20. Meanwhile, according to Nielsen research, in New York City, 46% of viewers who watch Mad Men are 50 or above and in Hartford it is 62%.

Buying spots in Mad Men over the expensive broadcast alternative will help target this key older voting demographic while making the most of advertising dollars.

In-Game Political Advertising: Does Retail Success Prove Political Value?

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

     As the 2010 Midterm Election heats up, so does the arena of political advertising. Candidates’ campaign budgets for purchasing media are beginning to balloon as races become more competitive across the country. Looking back to October 2008 then, candidate Barack Obama, became the first presidential candidate in the United States to purchase advertising space in the video game market. According to the Obama campaign’s pre-general election filing records, Obama spent $44,465.78 for online video game advertising with the Massive Corporation—a very affordable expenditure for a presidential campaign with deep coffers. Clearly not a keystone of the Obama media campaign, the video game advertising exploration was notable as well as novel however to the political world.

     Certainly criticism exists. Granted the purchase was well timed (October 6-November 3, 2008) during a critical month of the election. The timing of the ad purchase also leads you to believe that the funds were used after ad purchases of a far higher priority took place. Regardless, the purchase begs several questions. Could that $44.5k been spent more efficiently on a television buy in a competitive swing-state market? The purchase was specifically targeted to include ten battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin). However, by law a citizen must be 18 years of age and registered to legally vote in the United States. What percentage of audience met those criteria in an online gaming community? Massive Corporation, the in-game ad firm places restrictions on various advertisements, such as tobacco or alcohol related ads due to the age restrictions of the specific games in question, providing further hesitation to legitimize the target voter demographic in question.

     Interestingly, this week the Nielsen Company released the findings of a study regarding the effectiveness of in-game advertisements. This was the first time that a study of this kind was performed.  The analysis included more than 100,000 U.S. households and focused on many of the same game titles that were purchased by the Obama campaign back in 2008. The study found that “in-game advertising increased household dollars spent on Gatorade by 24%, and offered a return on investment of $3.11.” These results are extremely energizing and enlightening. Whether or not political advertisements will be met with the same success as retail advertisements is still open for debate, research, and review. Another unknown is whether or not voters will see an increase in in-game ads in upcoming elections. Certainly the presence of in-game ads is directly proportional to the size and scope of a particular campaign budget. This being said, the past decade has been witness to an explosion of new mediums of political advertising, as well as the continuous growth of campaign funds. One thing is for sure, political advertising in future elections will continue to take voters by surprise by appearing in unexpected forms.

The Nielsen Company Study

Fact-Checking Reid and Angle: Update to Previous Post

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

(9.15.2010 1:00PM – Update)

On August 27th, 2010 FactCheck.org had posted an article analyzing the level of truth behind the messaging of several of the ads mentioned in my previous blog post:

Right Cross, Left Uppercut: Television Advertising and Candidate Characterization in Nevada

I wanted to share the link as a follow-up in order to provide a more in-depth look at characterization in the Nevada 2010 Senatorial Election.

Reid, Angle Trade Familiar Charges – FactCheck.org

Text-to-Give: The Future of Political Fundraising?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

The earthquake that rocked Haiti in January inspired an unparalleled level of anonymous philanthropy. One of the most successful fundraising strategies to emerge from the earthquake was the Red Cross text-to-give campaign. While this strategy had been utilized modestly during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, text-to-give raised more than $30 million for Haiti — mostly by $10 dollar donations, in just two weeks.

What a difference 5 years makes. The fact that more people carry cell phones now is an obvious reason for the increase in fundraising potential.  But I believe it is more than that. People are now connected to the world by their mobile device through web browsing, news alerts, Twitter, RSS feeds, etc. They see the world and interact with it through their cell phone.

There is another dimension. Cell phone donations are a way of remaining detached from reoccurring fundraising drives. It’s a one-time commitment. This is appealing to people who don’t want to spend the next six months trying to unsubscribe to mailing lists. Instead of thumbing through a glossy mailing pamphlet or reading a lachrymose donation email, people feel like they’ve chosen to give when they donate via cell phone as opposed to being coerced into it.

Nonprofits and political campaigns should take heed of this trend.

For example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul is famous for an online fundraising blitz known as the “money bomb”. Last month during a huge rally at Kentucky’s annual Fancy Farm picnic, I think Paul missed an opportunity to take it one step further.

He could have announced the money bomb, told the crowd to text “money bomb” to donate $10, and ran short radio ads with the same message for people to listen to when they are stuck in traffic on the way home. Not only do people forget, but why make them wait to get to a computer when they can donate instantaneously?

Paul has done very well with internet donations because much of his libertarian support comes from out of state, but I think it is foolish to limit yourself to a specific rather than a diverse fundraising strategy. Using text-to-give messages for rallies and ads will capture donations where traditional and even online means fail.

Right Cross, Left Uppercut: Television Advertising and Candidate Characterization in Nevada

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

     Tea Party favorite, Sharron Angle, rode a wave of voter anger to sweep the Nevada Republican Primary with an impressive 41% of the vote. The next two runners up, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, receiving 27% and 24% respectively. Her handed victory over more well-known Nevada establishment candidates signaled a rally that has been taking place in many primary elections across the nation this cycle that reflects a wave of voter anger against the current political establishment landscape. Interestingly, this is a party reversal on  the same themed wave that the Democratic Party has been riding to win elections for arguably the past few cycles. Many of Angle’s televised primary ads reflected this motif, whether put forth by her campaign itself, or third party actors. Take for instance, three examples of Sharron Angle primary television advertising. Using wise tactics and understanding the likely victory of Harry Reid in the Democratic primary election (Reid eventually would win the Nevada Democratic Primary with 84% of the vote), all three ads mention Reid and pit Angle as the best choice voters have to take on establishment candidates in the General Election. In fact, the first example, a video produced by Club for Growth PAC, is aptly titled, “Best Choice.”

 

Into the General Election, this narrative continues:

            As of September 2nd, the media page on Angle’s campaign website
displays six videos of television ads—all six of these are anti-establishment ads targeting Harry Reid directly. Interestingly, the Reid campaign has begun to attempt to harness similar voter anger and turn it against Angle. The Reid campaign has attempted to paint Angle as an outsider. It is an interesting advertising play that fits Angle directly into the mold that the Angle campaign wishes to fit Sharron Angle in …. Except to the extreme. The idea is to capitalize on the anger that swept Angle into office in the first place and use it to push her further to the periphery. By characterizing Angle as an extremist, the Reid camp is able to portray her as out of the mainstream and out of touch with the wishes and needs of Nevada voters.

                Similar to Angle’s website, the Reid campaign main page displays four video ads, three of these attacking Angle outright. Clicking the video tab takes you to a similar scenario. (The video page) is stocked with video ads that paint Angle as an extreme candidate; many titled appropriately– “Angle Extreme & Dangerous Education Agenda” and “Sharron Angle: Just too Extreme,” are among the more direct video titles.

     Whether this advertising strategy is successful will be determined in part by the results of November’s General  Election. But one thing is for certain, the desired effect of television advertising in characterizing campaign opponents in Nevada is panning out. According to Rasmussen Reports, “The U.S. Senate race in Nevada remains very close. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state shows Democratic Senator Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle tied with 47% of the vote each. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided. “ (Wednesday, August 18, 2010) (This Narrative is enforced by previous polling) “Earlier this year, Reid was considered to be one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents. He picked up just 39% of the vote following Angle’s primary victory but has seen his own numbers improve to 41% in late June, 43% in early July, 45% in late July and 47% today.”

Using Sports in Political Media Buying: A Cost Effective Approach

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Three of the most populated states have major political races coinciding with major sports followings.  In New York City, where the Yankees, Giants, and Jets reign in the fall, there will be competitive races for Senate and Congress in both New York and Connecticut. In California, both the Governor and Senate seat will be heating up as will the division leading Padres and USC college football.  Meanwhile in the heart of Texas, a contested Governors race will compete for headlines with the Cowboys, Longhorns, and first place Rangers.

When looking at research in New York City, Dallas, and Los Angeles, there are some interesting trends in sports viewership in order to reach voters. Using survey data from Arbitron, there are distinct differences when comparing consistent voters 35 and older in statewide elections to non voters in the same age range.  In Dallas, ESPN ranks as the second most watched cable network, and 40% of respondents are “Very interested” in NFL (20% more than non-voters). When looking at broadcast viewing habits, sports ranks as the 3rd highest TV program typically watched (14% higher).  Meanwhile baseball is the craze in New York City, where “Very interested” in MLB leads the category, and voters use the internet for sports scores 20% more than non-voters, the highest percentage difference.  In Los Angeles, voters are 33% more likely to be “Very interested” in college football, and four of the top seven highest voter percentage cable networks are sports related.

While buying sports can be costly, when looking at specific games or teams and considering the delivery audience, there are efficient ways to buy sports. In Dallas, Cowboys games generate huge audiences, including a 16.8 rating for cable, which is larger than any broadcast show that week. However at $50k a spot, this is not an efficient cost per point.  This does not mean to avoid football, just to buy the appropriate game and rate. The Texas/Oklahoma game will deliver a 15.6 rating on broadcast, and at only $22k a spot will be more cost effective than 12 regular primetime programs that week.  In LA, cable is efficient when looking at USC Football, which pulls in a 1.5 rating, two times higher than the second rated show, and at $7k, it is cheaper per point than 10 other networks. In San Diego, the Chargers are a good buy as well since their 20.5 rating on broadcast is more cost efficient than 20 other programs, including non-primetime shows like the Price is Right.

Therefore, here are the key dates in the fall for the three major sports in several battleground states (PA, OH, CA, FL, TX, NY), which should be cost effective and deliver huge audiences. These teams are either highly ranked, big rivalries, or playoff contenders.

Key College Football Dates/Games:

  • 9/11 – Ohio State vs Miami, Penn State vs Alabama, Florida St vs Oklahoma
  • 9/25 – Texas vs UCLA
  • 10/2 – Florida vs Alabama, Texas vs Oklahoma
  • 10/9 – Florida vs LSU, Miami vs Florida St
  • 10/16 – Texas vs Nebraska, USC vs California
  • 10/30 – Penn State vs Michigan, USC vs Oregon, Florida vs Georgia

NFL Key Dates/Games:

  • 9/12 – Cowboys vs Washington Redskins
  • 9/19 – New York Giants vs Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets vs New England Patriots,
  • 9/26 – Miami Dolphins vs Jets, Houston Texans vs Cowboys
  • 10/3 – Philadelphia Eagles vs Redskins
  • 10/24-5 – San Diego Chargers vs Patriots, Dolphins vs Pittsburgh Steelers, Cowboys vs Giants

Key MLB matchups before the playoffs on cheaper local networks:

  • 9/3-9/5 – Cincinnati Reds vs St. Louis Cardinals
  • 9/10-9/12 – New York Yankees vs Texas Rangers
  • 9/13-9/15 – Yankees vs Tampa Bay Rays
  • 9/16-9/19 – San Diego Padres vs Cardinals
  • 9/20-9/23 – Yankees vs Rays
  • 9/24-9/26 – Yankees vs Boston Red Sox, Reds vs Padres
  • 10/1-10/3 – Yankees vs Red Sox

The teams above will all be contenders to make and go far in the playoffs on Fox and TBS, which begins around 10/6 and will end near Election Day.

While the success of the politician and local team may not coincide, at least you can win by efficiently reaching the voters at the same time.