Posts Tagged ‘political ad spending’

Visual Breakdown of the $980 Million Spent on Presidential Ads

Friday, November 30th, 2012

Over $980 million was spent on television and radio advertising during the 2012 Presidential General Election.  When the ad spending from the GOP Primary is included, this total surpasses $1 billion spent on television and radio advertising.  Political ads dominated the airwaves in the battleground states throughout the election.  Who paid for all of those ads?

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Candidates (56%) vs.  Issue Groups (44%)


Not surprisingly, the two advertisers who spent the most money on political ads were the two candidates themselves: Barack Obama was the biggest spender at $335 million and Mitt Romney was the second biggest spender at $213 million.  Between the two of them, the candidates spent $548 million on ads – but that only counts for a little over half (56%) of the total amount spent on presidential-related ads this election cycle.  The remaining 44% (another $434 million) was spent on behalf of the candidates by 23 different Super PACs and issue groups.

Of the $980 Million Total Spent: Team Romney (60%) vs. Team Obama (40%)

Sixty percent of the money spent on presidential ads came from Pro-Romney advertisers ($583 million) and 40% of the money spent on ads came from pro-Obama advertisers ($400 million).

The majority (63%) of Team Romney’s ad spend came from issue groups who spent $370 million on behalf of Romney, while the candidate spent $213 million (37%).

On the other hand, the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s buy came from the candidate himself ($335 million), while issue groups only made up 16% of Team Obama’s spend ($64 million).

Of Team Romney’s $583 Million: Issue Group (63%) vs. Candidate (37%)

There were 12 major issue groups that placed ads on behalf of Mitt Romney during the election.

Who won the ad war?

Team Romney outspent Team Obama in terms of pure dollars.  This is largely due to the multiple issue groups that advertised on behalf of Romney.  But in political advertising, more money does not always equal more ads reaching more voters.

While issue groups indisputably played a significant role in Presidential advertising this election, it is important to consider the difference between the worth of a candidate’s media buy in comparison to the worth of an issue group’s media buy.   Federal Communications Commission law guarantees candidates the best prices for purchasing ad time, but these laws do not apply to political issue groups.  This means that issue groups often end up paying double, triple or even quadruple the market rate that candidates pay for the same advertisement.  This ratio varies across different markets and time periods, and many issue groups successfully negotiate competitive rates, but these advertisers do not receive the same price protection that political candidates enjoy.  Candidates can reach voters at a lower price.

Even though Team Romney outspent Team Obama by $183 million, does that mean that Team Romney won the ad war?  After all, the majority (63%) of Team Romney’s media buy came from political issue groups (who most likely paid higher rates), while the majority (84%) of Team Obama’s total spend came from the candidate (who most likely paid lower rates).  There are several major factors to consider when approaching this question.

  1. Where? Throughout the election, candidates and issue groups alike advertised in eight different swing states (CO, IA, FL, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA), give or take a few (MI, MN, PA, WI).  Were there certain states where Obama outspent Romney?  In what markets was Romney stronger than Obama?  The ad war question must be asked on a state-by-state, market-by-market basis.
  2. At what time? Advertising for the general election began the week of April 2 (when Rick Santorum dropped out) and lasted for thirty-one weeks, until November 6.  Were there certain periods of time when Obama dominated the airwaves?  How did the GOP spending surge in the last nine days of the election affect the outcome?  The ad war question must be framed in terms of time as well.
  3. On what mediums? Broadcast, cable and radio are the three media types that political candidates traditionally place on.  Who had the most sophisticated cable buy?  When did the candidates start advertising on radio? What were the most crowded broadcast markets?
  4. At what price? Perhaps the biggest question that must be asked when determining which campaign was the most effective buy is one of cost.  Were the some markets where issue groups got better rates?  Which markets skyrocketed?  What price did each campaign pay for advertisements?

In the next few weeks, I will be exploring these questions through more in-depth posts on each subject.

‘Quadrennial Effect’ Means Sound Economy and Peace of Mind

Monday, March 19th, 2012

 It is hard to believe the media when they say the Great Recession is no more.  If you have a hard time believing so due to soaring gas prices, the unemployment rate, or number of bankruptcies you are informed of, you are not alone.  According to USA Today, a recent poll shows that 63% of Americans believe the U.S. is still in a recession and 55% thinks the economy won’t fully recover until 2013 or later.  Can the media blame them?  The lack of healthy economical signs support this reasoning and validates Americans’ low consumer confidence.   However, 2012 is the year of the ‘Quadrennial Effect’; that’s not another term for the end of the world, it’s a sign of positive change.

The Quadrennial Effect is a series of significant events that occur every four years.  These events occurring in 2012 include the Presidential and Congressional elections, Summer Olympics, and European Soccer Championships.  The monetary and economical impact from these events brings a little peace of mind to policy makers as this affect is a stimulus package in the form of advertising.  These events that make up the Quadrennial Effect encourage significantly more advertising spending, which is put back into the economy and creates a nice financial cushion that the governments can’t provide. 

Even as the U.S. is recovering, the Quadrennial Effect has perfect timing.  The European Union is still in a period of reduced economic activity that this great coincidence is sure to neutralize.   Experts feel positive about the Euro Crisis because they are predicting that global ad spending will reach nearly $5 billion by the end of the year, a 5% increase from last year.    Without the Quadrennial Effect, global ad expenditure for 2012 would see a 5% decrease.

Another positive sign that things are defusing in Europe is that developing markets overseas are the biggest contributors to the impending momentum.  According to ZenithOptimedia forecasts, between 2011 and 2014, 60% of all of the world’s growth in ad spending will come from developing markets.  Brazil, Russia, India, and China are predicted to account for 33% of growth, while Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa, South Korea, Mexico, and Turkey will contribute another 16% of growth.

Here in the homeland, we are already seeing a portion of the Quadrennial Effect take effect.  In this case, political campaigns are contributing to the economy in two ways.  First, political coverage surrounding their campaigns provides valuable inventory for advertisers to buy.  On the other hand, they are the consumers buying up inventory in TV, radio and online.  To date, presidential campaigns have already spent $95 million on TV and radio advertising this year, and roughly another $6 million in internet advertising.  That does not include Senate and Congressional races.  Plus, it’s only March and this year’s presidential campaigns are predicted to execute the highest amount of spending in history.  So next time you start to complain about political ads cluttering your TV, think of all the money it’s generating for the economy.

As advertising budgets grow, so should consumer’s confidence.  If you would like to follow ad spending for a peace of mind, there are many online resources that offer this type of insight, like Ad Age and Media Post.  For the best insight into political ad spending, follow Smart Media Group on Twitter or like us on Facebook.

How the States Got Their Primary Ad Buys

Friday, February 24th, 2012

Spending by the surviving presidential candidates and their allied Super PACs will soon top $80 million and the financial bleeding is foreseen to continue. Michigan and Arizona are up next week with Super Tuesday on the horizon.

Mitt Romney’s camp is already planning for March. In addition to its Michigan and Arizona buys, which date from January, Restore Our Future PAC, the governor’s independent ally, has bought time in Ohio. ROF, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich’s ally, Winning our Future PAC, have also booked media buys in other Super Tuesday states, including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

As of Friday, Republicans have spent a combined total of $77.8 million on broadcast, cable and radio advertising for the GOP presidential primary (see full list of spenders below). Michigan alone has seen $7.2 million invested there, while Arizona has seen about $1 million.

Smart Media Group’s ad tracking goes back to last summer when the first round of GOP primary spending began. Leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll in August, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul together spent $1.8 million on advertising in Iowa. By Jan. 3 there had been $16.5 million spent on advertising in the state.

One week later, as voters headed to the polls for the first primary, advertisers poured $5.4 million into the New Hampshire. After the New Hampshire primary, a flood of new advertisers began to crop up in South Carolina. After the dust settled, $12.4 million had been dropped on the first Southern primary.

In the week leading up to Florida, Team Romney and Team Gingrich continued to buy time and duke it out over the airwaves there. They were the only camps to do so – both Santorum and Paul (and their supporters) stayed out the expensive state. Florida received $21.2 million dollars from a handful of advertisers.

Other states are now lining up for their own disbursements from the candidates.

*(Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow PAC, AFSCME, Americans for Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Citizens for a Working America, Citizens United, Ending Spending, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Keep Conservatives United, Latino Americanos for Newt Gingrich, Leadership for Families PAC, MoveOn.org, Make Us Great Again PAC, National Organization for Marriage, Numbers USA, Barack Obama, Our Destiny PAC, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Priorities USA, Pro-Life Super PAC, Restore Our Future PAC, Revolution PAC, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Red White and Blue Fund, Santa Rita PAC, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake, SEIU, Susan B. Anthony List, William de Jean, Winning Our Future PAC).

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