What falling network ratings mean for campaign advertising

NBC’s recent decision to end the runs of “30 Rock,” “Parks and Recreation” and “Community” speaks volumes about the state of network viewership. Despite generating buzz, these highly rated series were not bringing in enough viewers. For instance, the “30 Rock” season finale this year drew less than three million viewers. Twenty years ago, on the same night and the same network, “A Different World” was attracting an average of 14 million viewers per episode. And the American population is now about 25 percent larger than it was back then.

In political advertising, broadcast television has had pride of place ever since TV advertising began in the 1950s. Its preeminence can be found in its name, literally “broad cast”. With the ability to reach the entire electorate, political advertisers have been willing to go on broadcast even when rates were very high, and even if only a limited percent of a television market is relevant to the race.

But the advantages of the broadcast model have been breaking down for some time. Primetime viewership has been in a long, slow decline for decades. The primetime broadcast audience is about half of what it was 25 years ago. And during the same period, the amount of household televisions that are on during primetime has actually increased. So where are all the viewers going?

Cable, primarily. Primetime viewership of cable surpassed primetime broadcast viewership eight years ago. The ratings for the most popular cable series are now competitive with all but a few popular broadcast series and specials. The cable advertising philosophy has been targeting viewers by interest and by geography — the opposite of broadcast. This makes cable ideal for smaller scale races, but there’s still one major drawback to cable: not everyone has it.

The cable penetration in television markets ranges from anywhere around 85 percent in some big East Coast markets like New York and Boston to as low as 30 percent in some markets, particularly in mountainous areas. So even when cable programs have competitive ratings with broadcast shows, cable has still been at a disadvantage because its reach is much less than broadcast’s. And so even with all of the changes in the media landscape, political advertisers still devote most of their budgets in major races to broadcast.

The utility of both broadcast and cable advertising is being further undermined by TiVo, or what industry professionals call “time shifted viewing.” The current television ratings can now measure time shifted viewing within six hours of a program’s original airtime. This will capture viewers who watch a program later that night or who start watching a program a few minutes later to skip through all of the commercials. This is further decimating the effectiveness of political advertising, as skipped advertisements are wasted money.

One alternative has been digital advertising. Online budgets for most campaigns are still a small percentage of the overall budget, but are increasing. Online advertising can be targeted more efficiently – by, say, interest or geography — than cable.

Though Internet usage is now very high, the almost infinite number of web pages in existence means no web strategy can recreate the reach of broadcast. Digital advertising is more important than ever, but for political advertisers at least; it’s even less suited to replacing broadcast than cable.

In the near future, the balance of advertising budgets will likely be less strongly focused on broadcast. Major races that still spend ninety percent of their paid media budgets on broadcast are, in most cases, overinvesting in a medium that just cannot deliver as much as it once could. Look for the share of the advertising budget devoted to cable to increase. And as digital advertising becomes more sophisticated, it too will become more of a serious player in media buying decisions.

Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

A version of this post was also published on Campaign and Election’s blog Campaign Insider

Assistance from outside groups was key to victory

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s primary victory over six-term incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar last night was years in the making. Mourdock’s long-term courtship of the party faithful helped him consolidate the movement conservative vote behind him. With no threat of another challenger dividing the anti-Lugar vote, Mourdock was able to demonstrate enough credibility to draw in outside help.

Meanwhile, Lugar was able to utilize the superior resources available to a veteran of almost four decades on Capitol Hill. The senator spent $2.2 million on his primary campaign. Mourdock didn’t have the same resources at his disposal. For his campaign, he spent $725,000 — meaning he was outspent 3-1 by Lugar.

Mourdock started out small with cable buys in mid-February. He didn’t go up on broadcast until early March; six weeks after Lugar went up. Even then Mourdock was only on Indianapolis broadcast three weeks before the election. He mostly stuck with advertising on newscasts while Lugar expanded to all programming slots about one month before the election. In March, Lugar was up on broadcast in six Indiana TV markets while Mourdock was up in one.

With Mourdock’s back against the wall, ad spending by the Club for Growth became decisive. They placed $1.3 million on broadcast and cable. Combined with Mourdock’s media buys, it would almost equal Lugar’s total spending. They were also more willing to go on broadcast outside the newscast slots. And they were the first pro-Mourdock group to expand beyond Indianapolis newscast advertising.

Other outside groups also came in — but to help Lugar. One pro-Lugar SuperPAC, the Indiana Values PAC, was run by the senator’s former aides. It placed $390,000 during the last month of the primary. Another Super PAC, Hoosiers for Economic Growth and Jobs, placed $100,000 for one week in late March. The most prominent intervention on the pro-Lugar side came from the American Action Network (AAN).  It came into the race in the last few weeks with the goal of tilting the race toward Lugar. Its original outlay was close to $650,000, all of it on broadcast.  But on the afternoon of April 27, AAN cancelled all its spending beyond May 1.  This was a signal that insiders considered the race to be Mourdock’s to lose. Ultimately, AAN cancelled about $100,000 in spending, and laid out a total of $545,000.

Toward the end, the pro-Mourdock side was outspending the pro-Lugar side. In the last nine days of the election, the pro-Mourdock side spent about $100,000 on ads. The spending decisions of outside groups were crucial. If AAN kept its original schedule, the spending in this period would have been about equal. Other groups decided to join Mourdock once it appeared there was a real chance to defeat Lugar. The NRA spent $86,000 on cable and broadcast. This is significant because it’s rare for the NRA to target an incumbent Republican. Outsider conservative groups also hitched their wagon to Mourdock. Citizens United, a conservative group, decided to place $88,000 worth of cable in the last two weeks. Once Lugar looked vulnerable, others wanted to join in and defeat him.

On Election Day, Lugar narrowly won in the immediate Indianapolis area. This was the one market where Lugar had clear air superiority. Pro-Lugar advertisers were at 1800-2000 points per week for the last few weeks of the campaign, compared to only one week where the pro-Mourdock side was above 1000 points. But Lugar lost just about everywhere else in the state by about a 2-1 margin.

The northeast corner of the state, a heavily Republican area, went about 70 percent for Mourdock. The pro-Lugar side was actually getting its message out more here, but that didn’t make a difference in the end. The Mourdock side also emphasized performance in the South Bend market, where they were airing more broadcast spots than the pro-Lugar side every week for the last month. The effort paid off as Mourdock ran very well in an area that’s not a Republican stronghold.

Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

A version of this post was also published on Campaign & Elections’ blog, Campaign Insider.