Posts Tagged ‘Political Advertising’

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.

Why Money in Politics is So Important

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Our system wouldn’t be better off if we spent less.

It is a near daily complaint during election season: “There’s too much money in politics.”

Every election cycle there is more and more money spent on campaigns, with more and more groups entering the fray. In particular, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is often cited as the beginning of a new free-spending era in political campaigning. Many think our political system would be measurably better if there was less money in politics.

Surprisingly, the amount spent on politics is still quite small. During the 2010 cycle, the total spending for all races was $4.6 billion, which was 8 percent higher than the 2008 cycle. Sure, $4.6 billion spent on politics sounds gigantic—until you realize there are about 314 million people in the United States. Even if you just look at the roughly 200 million people who are eligible to vote, this would amount to the average eligible voter spending $22.50 per every two-year election cycle.

That’s really not so much money. Just compare that to the size of some other industries in America. Look at the amount spent on coffee consumption, for example. A recent study says that the average American worker spends over $1,000 per year on coffee. Per week, the average amount spent is $21.

The average American spends three times as much on bottled water, four times as much on dog food,  four times as much on gym memberships, fifteen times as much on lottery tickets, and twice as much on plastic surgery.

Yes, political spending has increased markedly in recent years, but the scale of the industry is still quite small. Even though the industry is less lucrative than most realize, money is still key. If it wasn’t, then shrewd political observers wouldn’t monitor fundraising numbers like hawks and politicians wouldn’t build up war chests to scare off challengers.

Why is money so important to the political process that there will be non-stop political ads this fall?

Name recognition is the main reason. Almost everyone in America knows that Barack Obama is the current president, but beyond the presidency, the amount of people who couldn’t even name their U.S. senators or the governor of their state is alarmingly high. Even well-educated people have trouble identifying their state representatives, let alone their city council, county council, or township elected officials.

There is a small core of people who are either in the political world or political junkies, who have the news on all day. These people really do not need political advertising to tell them how to vote. They will seek out ways on their own to learn about candidates and tend to be strong partisans, who won’t be convinced by opposition advertising.

But the large majority of Americans are not like this. Most people “outsource” their political engagement to others. This is not necessarily a matter of intelligence or civic-mindedness. A small business owner, who works 60-hour weeks, can be very involved in their community but has no time to investigate candidates on their own. So he or she may rely on people they trust, like the local Chamber of Commerce, to tell them which candidates are in their best interest.

It’s not realistic in a bustling society like the United States for every voter to be an expert on every candidate that will be on the ballot. But this means that the main way politicians can influence voters is through political advertisements. For a democratic republic to survive, voters have to be engaged in the political process.

The only way the barrage of political ads will go away is for the entire electorate to be so well-educated that political advertising would be worthless. And as long as most want to live a normal lifestyle, enduring political advertisements will be one of the costs of living in a free society.

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.

Summer 2012 Olympics: A Golden Advertising Opportunity

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

With the Olympic Opening Ceremonies only a few days away, viewers across the country and the two presidential campaigns are gearing up for the non-stop television coverage.  President Obama’s ad team has already placed $6.5 million on an Olympic package on the national NBC networks, while Romney’s Restore Our Future PAC booked $7.2 million on local NBC affiliates in 11 battleground states according to Politico. Here in the Washington DC market, the various Pro-Romney PACs placed $665k, more than half their budget, on the NBC affiliate during the Olympics.  These campaigns are well aware of the golden opportunity the Summer Olympics presents.

Historically, viewers are glued to the screen for the two week athletic spectacle and are a great platform for political advertisements. According to Nielsen research, 87% of Americans and 70% of the world’s population watched the Beijing 2008 Games. Viewing habits even change, as 76% of viewers “stay up later than usual” and 48% “change their routine” because of the Olympics, according to a Keleman and Associates Survey.  The message of the ad lasts longer as well, since Nielsen reports a 78% increase in brand recall and 68% jump in message recall during the Olympics.  Meanwhile the NBC affiliates enjoy a 306% increase in ratings while cable offers 554 hours of live coverage over four networks.  These increased viewers are also the coveted targets for the campaigns. According to Arbitron research, individuals who watch Olympics are 79% more likely to contribute to a political campaign, 13% more likely to vote in a presidential election, and 9% more likely to be registered to vote.

Even with all the money and attention shown to the two week event, it is still an efficient way to reach viewers. In the DC market, it costs $1000 for a primetime spot on the NBC sports cable networks during the Olympics for a 1.0 rating, compared to $1400 for a .7 rating on Fox News, and $1540 for a .4 on CNN during the same time. Meanwhile on broadcast, a spot on the late local news immediately following the Olympics gets a 7.4 rating for $5000, compared to reruns of the Office for a 2.7 rating for $8000 during the rest of the summer.  While the campaigns are spending millions, they are reaching millions of potential voters in return.

In addition to audience and cost efficiency opportunities, the Olympics provide unique messaging possibilities for the campaigns as well. Viewers tuning in to root for American athletes will be turned off by negative ads that have become the staple of political advertising. Therefore, the Olympics offer a reprieve as the campaigns turn to patriotic optimistic messaging with plenty of red white and blue in the background. In particular, the Romney campaign will most likely focus on his positive role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, while Michelle Obama will lead the U.S. delegation to the opening ceremonies.

Both campaigns realize this golden advertising opportunity and hope to be standing on top of a podium in victory as well come November.

Politics As Entertainment

Monday, June 11th, 2012

Candidates need to be ready to craft their Hollywood pitch

Mandie Suits

And the winner is…both!  That was the outcome of the Kristen Bell-Toby Keith-hosted debate in the opening segment of Wednesday night’s CMT Music Awards. The show began with the two performers campaigning for the top host spot of the night. Voters for this election included the likes of Jon Bon Jovi and Matthew McConaughey, as well as President Obama and Mitt Romney. The president and his challenger appeared in separate skits where they deliberated over their votes for host. In the end, the politicians proposed that Bell and Keith equally share the spotlight. 

That isn’t the only thing they agree on. The other is finding a place for their campaigns in the entertainment world. Hollywood and awards shows may not be on Romney’s radar by choice, but he has to be where the competition is. Last Sunday night, Obama’s campaign aired its first national TV spot during the MTV movie awards. The 30-second ad consisted of actress Sarah Jessica Parker introducing Obama’s latest fundraising effort – a sweepstakes for a dinner with her and the first lady at her house on June 14. 

In response to Parker’s commercial, the Republican National Committee released a web video pointing out that the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent at the same time as Parker was publicizing this swanky fundraiser.

This isn’t the first Hollywood fundraiser for Obama. George Clooney recently hosted an event at his home in Los Angeles that raised nearly $15 million for the president and just on Wednesday Obama was at Glee creator Ryan Murphy’s Beverly Hills mansion for a funder.

Hollywood seems to have made it clear where its support – and money – is going. But will there be celebrity backing – and the media coverage that goes with it — for the GOP side this year?  It doesn’t look like it, at least if this past Tuesday is anything to go by.

Gov. Scott Walker (R) won the recall election in Wisconsin on the same day actor Liam Hemsworth proposed to former Disney Channel actress Miley Cyrus. NBC, ABC and CBS spent more minutes covering the couple’s engagement and minimal time on Walker, which shows the campaigns where people’s priorities are.

A version of this post was also published on Campaigns and Elections.

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.

Sparks fly in Presidential Jobs Ads…Literally

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Presidential campaign ads are formulaic. In many cases, the viewer sees a montage of established symbols flashed across the screen: American flags flying, wheat fields rustling, Main Streets lined with shoppers, people going to work. Symbols are a powerful way of quickly relating a message to an audience. American flags, for instance, are used to represent freedom, while wheat fields are used to represent prosperity. But which symbol best represents 21st century jobs? The welder. Nothing like sparks flying off a grinder to tell people: this candidate embodies the dynamism of the American economy.

In an effort to track the general messaging behind this year’s presidential ads, Smart Media Group has kept a playlist of all of the television-worthy spots uploaded to YouTube by the presidential candidates, Political Action Committees and issue groups. So far, SMG has tallied 98 different broadcast-quality ads that have been uploaded to YouTube and relate to the 2012 GOP primary election. Of those 98 ads, 22 are negative ads (22 percent), 67 are positive ads (68 percent) and 9 are “contrast” ads, or positive/negative (9 percent).

SMG also has counted eights ads that have featured a table saw with sparks flying. Of these eight ads, five have been positive ads, two have been negative ads and one has been a contrast ad. Watch how each candidate lets the welder tell a story:

1 “Believe in America

Mitt Romney was the first the candidate to feature the welder in his ad, “Believe in America.” It was an attack ad on Obama. Not too many sparks flying, but definitely bright.

2 “America’s CEO

Friends of Herman Cain produced this positive ad called “America’s CEO.” It features a much more impressive shot of sparks flying.

3 “Rebuilding the America We Love

Newt Gingrich entered Iowa with this positive ad, “Rebuilding the America We Love.” It looks like the whole factory is ablaze!

4 “Freedom and Opportunity

Mitt Romney released a positive ad called “Freedom and Opportunity.” This shot is a bit more complicated, with the candidate actually walking behind the welder.

5 “Best Chance” & “Very Best Chance

Rick Santorum also featured the grinder in his positive ad aired in South Carolina, “Best Chance” and version 2, “Very Best Chance“. This is a great, full screen shot of a welder working hard.

6 “Timid vs. Bold

Newt Gingrich featured this table saw in his contrast ad, “Timid vs. Bold.” This shot is a nice switch up from the traditional close up of the welder.

7 “Mitt Romney: Job Creator?

MoveOn.org aired this Romney attack ad on cable networks in New Hampshire. It’s a nice shot of the man working with the grinder.

8 “Leadership

The Pro-Perry Make Us Great Again PAC aired “Leadership” in both Iowa and South Carolina. This may be the best shot of a welder and sparks flying.

Did we miss any welders? Which ad is your favorite?

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

The Illusion of Holiday Ad Spending

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Around the holiday season, news reports of crowded malls and commercials for surprise Lexus’s fill the airwaves creating a sense of a crowded marketplace for advertisers. Kantar Media predicts an increase in 4th quarter spending as well as an increase overall as compared to 2010. How does this change affect advertisers in a now apparently crowded marketplace?

When looking at Kantar Media’s data across multiple months and advertising categories, the effect of the holiday shopping blitz is minimal. While the numbers are certainly higher in November and December in the retail category, it is not worthy of an increase of station rates and lack of inventory. While 21% of the dollars spent by retail advertisers are in November and December, it is hardly a gigantic increase over the two smallest months, January and February at 15%. When compared to other categories (ex: auto, political, and telecom), retail only increases from 30% of the marketplace in October to 36% in December. Once you include all the categories, December is not even the highest spending month, which is May and October (due to political ad spending).

Knowing that advertising dollars are spread out more thinly over different categories and months, stations in fact do not jack up rates to capitalize on the shopping buzz, but rather wait for the hectic political season.

Secret to Success This Electoral Cycle: Money, Data, Adaptability — and a Narrative

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

From Advertising Age, 10/4/2011

http://adage.com/article/special-report-advertising-week/election-12-narrative-data-bad-twitter-behavior/230209/

Advertising Week Panel Predict Billions Spent on Niche-Targeted Micro-Campaigns; Twitter as Negative Campaign Tool

By Ken Wheaton

With the 2012 electoral cycle already well underway, campaign managers overwhelmed by a wealth of new media options, thousands of bytes of data, billions of dollars in advertising spending and multiple third-party players should remember this: “Story telling in political advertising is more important than ever.”

That was Catherine “Kiki” McLean, senior partner, global head of public affairs and managing director for Porter Novelli Public Services, at an afternoon Advertising Week panel discussion about political advertising. Ms. McLean, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, joined Purple Strategies’ Rob Collins, Smart Media Group’s Kyle Roberts, ASGK Public Strategies’ Eric Sedler and Time Warner Cable Media President Joan Hogan Gillman.

The panel kicked off not with an obsession over what Facebook will mean for the candidates or how Twitter will change everything, but rather with four old-fashioned TV ads, chosen by panel members based on their strengths and, in one case, its weakness. The unfortunate ad was for Maryland gubernatorial candidate Bob Ehrlich, who lost his last try for office.

The problem, said Ms. McLean, wasn’t the tone or even the message, but that the ad “told you nothing about what it would be like” if Mr. Ehrlich won the election. The other three ads — one of which was not a political ad, but an Allstate ad about the recession – ranged from humorous to serious but all had clear narrative voices.

Of course, having great ads will be just one part of an increasingly complex equation. The number of candidates might not be any higher than in previous years, but the number of groups — from candidate’s campaigns to political party committees to SuperPACs — spending money will be up dramatically. While the national media will be caught up in a presidential contest likely to approach $3 billion, Smart Media’s Mr. Roberts pointed out that in 2010 one congressional contest in Roanoke, Va., saw $8 million in outside money. That’s only expected to increase this time around.

Note to media companies, Mr. Roberts said only half-jokingly: “We need a lot more inventory.”

Time Warner’s Ms. Gillman, who has a background in politics, was quick to point out that Time Warner, which happened to sponsor the panel discussion, was in a position to help candidates (as are, one assumes, other cable providers). But cable companies, she added, have had to adapt with the times. Political campaigns are now optimizing their messaging in close to real time and local cable providers have no choice but to be able to put an ad up — or take it down — within a 24-hour time frame.

She also raised the point of data mining and niche targeting, which cable providers, as well as various online outlets, now make available to candidates.

Mr. Sedler, who founded ASGK Public Strategies with top Obama campaign advisor David Axerod, picked up on the data theme. “There is so much data … you’re going to see dozens and dozens of micro campaigns underneath macro campaigns.” He envisioned, for this cycle, “hundreds of campaigns that will be visible only to niche audiences.”

That, of course, is where online and mobile come in — banner ads, YouTube videos, candidate web pages, blogger outreach. And social media?

The panelists spent little time discussing the flavor of the last three years until asked to do so by an audience member. Those spending hours and hours of time on Twitter and Facebook might be forgiven for thinking that large percentages of the billions to be spent will be funneled that way, but the seasoned political consultants see the platforms as an efficient way to, well, preach to the choir and keep the believers engaged.

“Smart campaigns are going to spend significant resources to build a social-media voice” prior to and during next summer, said Purple Strategies’ Mr. Collins. After all, “picking up a Facebook friend on Oct. 31 is not the best use of that platform.” (Mr. Collins, noting the possibility of ad oversaturation and voter exhaustion, emphasized the need for campaigns to distinguish themselves early in the cycle. “Before Labor Day, spending can move numbers,” he said. “After Labor Day, it just locks in numbers.”)

Mr. Sedler noted that the best use of Facebook is as a “mobilization platform not a persuasion platform.” Though he did note that it’s changed dramatically since 2008 now that, theoretically at least, 50% of voters can be reached through the platform.

Perhaps his most interesting comment was made about Twitter. Seen typically as a conversational medium and portrayed as something that’s done good (Haiti and Tsunami relief efforts, Democracy movements), it’s also been a quick way to spread gossip and, from time to time, false information.

Mr. Sedler seemed to think political operatives might be unable to resist the dark side of the medium. “Twitter was a non-actor in 2008,” he said, but “my sense is you’ll see a lot of negative stuff put out via Twitter.”

Political and Issue Advertising

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

Why do agencies generally pay more money for issue ads? Are stations providing the lowest unit rate, even for political issue groups?

Experience says in retail media buying and planning one must contact stations, request avails and notify stations of the client, flight dates, and demo.  Typically, stations send the rate card and then buyers negotiate the rates based on cost per point. Agencies user their historical cost per point to help gauge a market cost per point. Simple enough.

So here I am at a political/advocacy shop. Candidate buying varies slightly from retail with the biggest difference being posting and the rate card structure.  Political windows are one unique aspect to political media buying – 45 days before a primary race the political window opens up and 60 days before the general election the window reopens.  During that time the stations must give candidates the lowest rate a station has to offer for a specific time period. When stations send candidate cards they must have the various levels of rates that will clear. The lowest rate is supposed to go to the candidate if the flight falls into the window. 

Interestingly enough, when agencies negotiate buys outside of the window, stations are not required to give political candidates the lowest until rate. At this time agencies must acquire regular rate cards and negotiate based off of those. I am currently in a situation in a state wide race and I was able to place a few weeks outside the window. Now we are going to be approaching the window when the rates are going to be lower. To be continued…

Why are issue groups automatically moved to the top of the card? “Highest level on the card” is what most reps say. But why? Because it HAS to run. The Fixed Non-preemptible rates simply mean that clients want their spots to run as ordered with no problems. But the problem the definition of this level is that some stations send makegoods and the resulting GRPs don’t match what was originally placed. When things are placed at the lowest level they are more likely to be pre-empted, but most of time it runs! Well I am going to get to the bottom of this. Over the next few months I am going to document and research issue rates. Smart Media Group has a very good reputation of negotiating and collecting public files. We have proved many times over to be getting a better rate for our candidates. I am hoping to prove the same thing with issue.

I quote a friend who works in radio sales, “oh whenever we get an avail for issue we always bump up the rates by at least 50%”. Really? Is this fair? Issue advertisers are helping stations make up their loss budgets. That is obviously my opinion on the matter. This statement alone makes me want to investigate.

Metro Advertising Opportunities

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

 Recently when riding the metro with nothing to read, I noticed two particular advertisements that peaked my interest and specific needs I had at the time.  Bose was advertising their newest set of in-ear headphones, which grabbed my attention since my current headphones are wearing down, and a McCafe advertisement sounded good on the cold winter day. However, the two advertisements did not mention where I could pick up the new headphones and warm coffee, as seen in examples below (courtesy CBS Outdoor).

 

Even though there are roughly 100 McDonalds locations in the DC metro area and Bose’s website is listed on the ad, it would be beneficial for these companies to add locations to the creative.  A simple “One block from Rosslyn station” or “Sold at L’Enfant Plaza” could prevent me from going to Starbucks instead and would drive up sales. These ads are available to target locally by metro line and station, and are common on the metro already with local ad campaigns such as new jet fighters near the Pentagon station, and health care reform near the Capitol South station.  Bose and McDonald’s could coordinate with local branches/retailers to target their customers, which is common with auto dealerships on print and TV. Bose and McDonalds could take its cue from Home Depot and Fuddruckers, which already have ads that mention locations as seen in the examples below from other subway systems:

 

While these large corporations with enormous marketing campaigns might not bother with this level of targeting, there is unlimited potential for creative metro advertising for local businesses.  Companies with one location only need to advertise near their closest station or mention the one address on all their creative. Meanwhile mid level local advertisers with multiple locations can utilize the different lines to better target their customers with some creativity. Here are some examples:

  •  “Boss make you angry over the TPS reports today? Take it out tonight at a LA Boxing Gym next to the Braddock Road and Foggy Bottom stations on the blue line.”
  •  “Long winter expected? Don’t get caught in the cold without a new winter coat from Burlington Coat Factory. Available at the Silver Spring and Greenbelt stations.”
  • “Just finish your book? Check out the new Tom Clancy bestseller at the following Barnes and Nobles locations on the red line, Bethesda, Dupont Circle, Metro Center, and Union Station.”
  • This targeting even applies to political advertising as well. “Bob Smith voted against the Purple line last session.  Vote for Mike Jones in November to shorten your commute.”

The cost for this type of campaign is reasonable as well.  The monthly fee for 250 Metro ads roughly equals the same amount as 50 radio spots on the top stations, 25 cable ads on ESPN/CNN/Fox News and 20 television commercials on the local four stations. Imagine how much money Verizon would have saved on advertising when they had exclusive service rights to the Metro if they ran ads “No bars down here? Switch to Verizon today.” Maybe one day these companies will seize this opportunity to reach an audience staring at an ad for 30 minutes.