Archive for October, 2010

Going Viral- Your Big Break?

Friday, October 29th, 2010

You’ve seen it dozens of times this election cycle. Political candidates running for offices ranging from Alabama Ag Commish to Member of Congress (also oddly, from Alabama) running “viral” spots, meant to be shocking, over the top, or just plain funny. While these spots have received an unprecedented amount of attention when posted on YouTube.com, going quickly viral, they have two things in common: both candidates lost. This Dale Peterson Spot itself was interesting, unique, and received nearly 2 million unique views (over four times as many views as total ballots cast in that race). It started dozens of spin-offs and was re-posted by multiple YouTube accounts. The primary result for Dale Peterson: third place meaning no spot in the run-off.

What was Peterson’s biggest problem? Well, first of all, had he released that ad at the beginning of his candidacy, Dale might have won in a landslide (I mean according to a later video he went from 3% to 28% in the polls)….of course, I might be his biggest fan. His biggest problem is we have no idea where those two million unique views came from. We can be sure most Alabamans didn’t see the spot. While his opponents were up statewide with significant broadcast and cable buys Peterson had $15k on statewide cable behind this spot. Spread throughout the state this was not the kind of buy that can muscle through two competitive gubernatorial primaries, an extremely competitive (and expensive) primary for the Attorney General’s nomination, and every other campaign trying to buy time the week before the election. As a result, while most campaigns dream of that viral video that will shock and awe their way into a W the question is, will it actually work? Will your voters see it, or will voters in California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois see it?

Journalistic Standards Rise as The Wall Street Journal Cites SMG’s Twitter Account

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Wall Street Journal 10-25-2010

Political Ads Inundate Media Markets

Rates Soar Fivefold in Cities With Tight Races, Like Syracuse and Seattle, Prompting Candidates to Find Creative Solutions

By Elizabeth Williamson and Suzanne Vranica

U.S. political candidates have amassed more advertising cash this year than ever before. The hard part is finding places to spend it.

In the busiest markets, which include California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, prime spots are virtually closed to nonpolitical advertisers until after Nov. 2.

Ad rates are up fivefold in markets with newly tight races, including Syracuse, N.Y., the site of two toss-up House races, and Seattle, where Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray is fighting a surge by Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

The glut has forced candidates and their ad buyers to wait, innovate or try to game the system.

Given its small budget and soaring prices, the Louisiana Democratic Party couldn’t afford to run in prime time a documentary-style, two-minute ad about Republican Sen. David Vitter’s admitted past ties to a Washington madam. Instead, it ran late-night ads for a week in early September. A longer version ran on two separate websites.

Vitter spokesman Luke Bolar said Democratic nominee Charlie Melancon “is obviously really desperate if he has to resort to personal attacks to duck and divert attention from his abysmal voting record on the issues.”

A Supreme Court ruling in January freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent campaign advertising. Combined with a series of competitive races in high-priced television markets, ad spending is on track to top $4.2 billion this year, compared with about $2.5 billion in 2008.

“It’s the strongest market I have ever seen for a non-presidential race,” said Paul Wasserman, general sales manager at WLPG in Miami, an ABC affiliate owned by the Washington Post Co., where ad rates adjacent to news programming, a favorite slot, have doubled from pre-election levels.

As a result, digital-ad agencies have seen political spending on the Web change this season, with more campaigns paying to run video ads on Web sites. Previously, they would post TV commercials on YouTube and hope they went viral.

After the Supreme Court ruling, one veteran buyer booked nine months’ worth of prime TV spots in expected competitive states on behalf of outside political groups backing Republicans, the buyer said. That locked out some Democratic buyers, he said, and locked in a low rate. The buyer cancels unneeded time two weeks in advance, as is generally required in such contracts.

Ad buyers with union clients are doing the same, said Eric Adelstein of Chicago-based buyers Adelstein Liston. “You try to max out the best-rated stations first” for groups, he said. Some stations have started turning down ad buys from candidates, because by tradition they pay a lower rate than independent advocacy groups.

Smart Media Group, a suburban Washington ad buyer with GOP clients, maintains a Twitter feed of Democratic ad cancellations. The feed alerts Republicans to buying opportunities, and serves as a barometer of Democrats’ shifting spending priorities.

In California, some GOP-backing groups are finding inexpensive time on Christian and talk-radio stations instead of regular broadcast and cable TV. Online, conservative groups compete for spots on the Drudge Report, while liberal groups vie for placement on the Huffington Post Web site.

In Illinois, ads for federal and local races have jammed Chicago news broadcast schedules, forcing some political buyers to chase tiny audiences in the wee hours, use cable, or make a single, expensive network buy, for example, during a football game.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an antiabortion group, is doing a lot more direct mail. Postage alone comes to $300,000. “We’re keeping the postal service in business by ourselves,” said group spokeswoman Kerry Brown.

Some things haven’t changed this year from prior campaigns: production quality. Revere America, a nonprofit that supports opponents of the health-care overhaul, is saving money with ads that superimpose candidates’ names and faces in several races across the country over the same generic video and voiceover.

Political campaigns “will always have sloppier creative ads,” said Josh Koster, managing partner of Washington-based agency Chong and Koster, who is advising a number of candidates for the midterms. “Where else do you see ads that go from script to airing in less than 24 hours?”

Debating a Spoiler

Friday, October 8th, 2010

Every election there are debates for congressional, gubernatorial and senate races. Third party and independent candidates always attempt to force their way into the forum, and the major party candidates fight tooth and nail to keep them out. The upcoming debate between Alexi Giannoulis and Mark Kirk, candidates for the U.S. Senate in Illinois has drawn national attention due to the efforts of Libertarian candidate Michael Labno who is attempting to force his way onto their Meet the Press Debate. The argument against allowing third party and independent candidates to participate in debates, that have traditionally featured only candidates from the two major parties, is that you’re giving them gratuitous exposure. The question then becomes, what are you giving them?
Again, the debate will be taking place on Meet the Press. This venue allows us to actually quantify the cost of allowing the third party candidate. We were able to calculate this by determining determine the cost of a :30s spot during Meet the Press ($4,000), its rating share (1.4), and estimating the time he is allowed to speak (between nine and twelve minutes). As a result, we were able to determine that allowing Libertarian Michael Labno to participate in the Meet the Press debate is the equivalent of making a $72,000 (which is $72,000 more than he reported at his last filing) ad buy for the Libertarian Candidate. And that’s just Chicago broadcast! This will provide Labno with the advertising equivalent of 30 GRPs. And that’s using the conservative estimate that he would only get 20% of the total speaking time. If Labno were to able to speak as often as the major party candidates, Kirk would be making the equivalent of a $120,000 donation to the Labno campaign (42 GRPs)!
In addition to the unnecessary (and not inconsequential) exposure that Kirk would be giving by allowing Labno to participate, he’d also be taking money out of his own coffers. If we assume that Labno’s time would be split between Kirk and Giannoullis equally, then he is taking between $36,000 and $60,000 in free media (between 15 and 21 GRPs), from his campaign chest. To compensate for this, the Kirk Campaign would have to needlessly spend no small sum of cash to compensate for the unnecessary amount of exposure that a fringe candidate received during the debate. And this does not even take into account the possible cost of additional earned media that a spoiler could earn with a few good lines being consistently replayed on the nightly news (or worse, going viral on YouTube!). The rational conclusion is that it just makes more financial sense for a candidate to ensure that he’s not debating any spoilers- just the real thing.