Political Operatives Predict Next Big Campaign Medium Is -- Surprise -- TV


WASHINGTON, DC -- One of the surprising take-aways at Marketing Politics here was, that despite the hyper-focus on “digital” and “multi-screen,” TV remains far and away the most vital medium for political campaigns.

That point was underscored during the opening keynote conversation between MediaPost columnist Bob Garfield and Obama campaign chief digital strategist Joe Rospars, who noted that only 9% of the 2012 campaigns budget went to digital. It was also underscored on the local election scene during a presentation by Russ Schriefer, partner at Strategic Partners & Media.

To illustrate just how well TV still works, Schriefer related a personal anecdote of a recent email correspondence with a friend who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C., who had just seen a TV spot for a candidate in another state.

“She was stunned, sitting in her house in Georgetown,” Schriefer shared, adding that he then asked her two questions: 1) Was she still registered to vote in her home state; and 2) Was she watching DirecTV. She answered yes to both, leading Schriefer to remark, “God, this stuff really works. This is really happening.”

Describing the experience as “probably the coolest stuff I saw last year,” Schriefer said it wasn't digital, Big Data, or viral videos, but TV, especially broadcast TV -- in the above case, direct broadcast television -- that is moving the political needle more than ever.

Schriefer tried to explain why TV works better than ever in political marketing, and he attributed at least part of it to the fact that TV programming may also be better than it has ever been before.

“Today, we still find that television is still moving numbers,” Schriefer reiterated, noting that when he invests ad budgets on television he sees direct results in the polls, and hopefully, in the polling booths.

“As long as the creative is halfway decent, they will spit back what I am saying,” Schriefer said of the post-broadcast polling. “Broadcast is the only medium, basically, where that is happening. It doesn’t necessarily happen in cable either.”

Schriefer did cite a variety of studies showing that the political media mix is beginning to disperse, and greater efficiencies are coming from those mixes, but he said he doesn’t see much of a shift from broadcast TV’s dominance in the next several years, especially in local races.

“I'll go out on a little limb here and say that TV, particularly broadcast, is going to continue to dominate over the next few cycles,” he said, adding that while TV costs -- and consequently campaign advertising budgets -- are likely to rise over the same period, it will retain its dominant position in the political media mix.

Specifically, Schriefer said that campaigns that used to be able to generate a messaging effect with 300 to 400 rating points now require about 1,000 points, and that when the noise gets particularly cluttered near the final run.

Tags: politics
Recommend (9) Print RSS
4 comments about "Political Operatives Predict Next Big Campaign Medium Is -- Surprise -- TV".
  1. Roy Moskowitz from Reciprocal Results , March 18, 2014 at 3:16 p.m.
    TV or not TV. To buy or not to buy. These are the questions political campaigns well and poorly funded must ask themselves. Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of an opponents’ negative TV commercial unanswered by one of your own or spend an outrageous fortune reaching viewers who can’t vote for you because they don’t live in your political district. Political campaigns that should embrace electronic media and refuse to seriously consider it as an option and those wasting precious financial resources on broadcast advertising when their race’s specifics indicate they should avoid it, equally frustrate me. Campaigns that refuse to advertise when they should and those buying television and radio time when they shouldn’t, are both guilty of bad decisions. I'm a big fan of geo-targeted political advertising, particularly repurposed commercials and other video creative, Voters can be targeted by IP address zip code. Some websites even have the capability to target based on Congressional or other political districts. Candidates should not squander money on Broadcast if their political districts make up only a tiny fraction of the audience. For example, only Big Apple citywide candidates and NY and NJ statewide candidates should should buy broadcast in the NY market. CT candidates such as Linda McMahon, shouldn't (Although I'm happy she threw away her money because I'm a Democrat). NY DMA Congressional, State Legislature and Council candidates should not buy broadcast. Cable is a better option for some districts and candidates, but for many, cable buys still include way too much waste. Geo-targeted online video ads would be the solution for candidates in districts that fail to reach a broadcast or cable audience composition critical mass.
  2. Roy Moskowitz from Reciprocal Results , March 18, 2014 at 3:16 p.m.
    TV or not TV. To buy or not to buy. These are the questions political campaigns well and poorly funded must ask themselves. Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of an opponents’ negative TV commercial unanswered by one of your own or spend an outrageous fortune reaching viewers who can’t vote for you because they don’t live in your political district. Political campaigns that should embrace electronic media and refuse to seriously consider it as an option and those wasting precious financial resources on broadcast advertising when their race’s specifics indicate they should avoid it, equally frustrate me. Campaigns that refuse to advertise when they should and those buying television and radio time when they shouldn’t, are both guilty of bad decisions. I'm a big fan of geo-targeted political advertising, particularly repurposed commercials and other video creative, Voters can be targeted by IP address zip code. Some websites even have the capability to target based on Congressional or other political districts. Candidates should not squander money on Broadcast if their political districts make up only a tiny fraction of the audience. For example, only Big Apple citywide candidates and NY and NJ statewide candidates should should buy broadcast in the NY market. CT candidates such as Linda McMahon, shouldn't (Although I'm happy she threw away her money because I'm a Democrat). NY DMA Congressional, State Legislature and Council candidates should not buy broadcast. Cable is a better option for some districts and candidates, but for many, cable buys still include way too much waste. Geo-targeted online video ads would be the solution for candidates in districts that fail to reach a broadcast or cable audience composition critical mass.
  3. Maarten Albarda from Flock Associates (USA) , March 18, 2014 at 3:19 p.m.
    TV is so much more expensive that using it to compare how important, effective or impact-ful one medium is over the other is like saying "these rocks must be better for me than these oranges as they are much heavier".
  4. Curt Prins from CPM , March 20, 2014 at 6:58 a.m.
    Millennials don't watch broadcast TV. Millennials 25-30% of the electorate. Millennials vote. Russ likes TV. Russ earns his commissions off broadcast media. Maybe that's why Russ, like most outdated political operatives, suffers from a serious case of path dependence.