January 25, 2023
Radio Reaches Key Voters In Super Tuesday States
- by Philip Rosenstein , February 16, 2016
Radio will have a strong impact on undecided primary voters as we move into the heart of primary season, per a Nielsen Audio study commissioned by the Katz Radio Group.
“The Local Vote 2016” study analyzed media consumption trends in the Super Tuesday states of Colorado, Texas and Virginia. (Colorado and Virginia are considered key swing states in this year's presidential election.)
Approximately one-third of all registered voters in those three states can still be swayed by political messaging, notes the study. These voters comprise the so-called “Opportunity Vote.”
Radio has the deepest reach in this electoral group. In Virginia, Colorado and Texas, radio reaches 93.2% of the Opportunity Vote, more than any other medium.
Texas and Virginia are states that hold strong delegate counts, making them essential for candidates to rack up enough delegates in the race to the conventions.
Broadcast TV and cable TV each impact 89.9% and 89.8% of those persuadable voters, respectively. Desktop reaches 87.8% of the Opportunity Vote and mobile 64.4%.
advertisement
advertisement
About one-third of the Opportunity Vote tune into radio significantly more often than they watch TV, listening to roughly two hours of radio daily compared to less than one hour of TV.
Despite strong media focus on TV ads, radio ad spend this cycle is expected to exceed $800 million.
6 comments about "Radio Reaches Key Voters In Super Tuesday States".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Let's see what we have here. Because radio reaches 93% of all swayable voters ---per week?-----while TV reaches a mere 89%, this makes radio a more effective medium for politicians to win the nominations of their parties? What nonsense! Assuming that "audience" data, alone, is the deciding factor, not the ability of a campaign to capture attention and get its message across, how many political media buys will actually get to 93% of their target group in a week using only radio? Not many, I'll bet. And how many GRPs and what station mix does it take to maximize radio's reach? How does TV compare? This kind of stuff is so simple minded that it hurts to read it.
Every advertising campaign depends on more than just "reach" to be successful. The message (or offer), placement with the right targets, frequency, and more determines the success or failure of the campaign. But if all things are equal, 4% more reach can be the deciding factor. Philip Rosenstein didn't advocate "using only radio" to reach the Opportunity Vote but noted that these voters tune in to radio significantly more often than they tune in to tv. Perhaps its a message to agencies not to discount the effectiveness of radio.
Linda, the article makes no mention of the frequency of usage aspect and, frankly, I find it very hard to beleive that "these voters" spend considerably more time with radio than they do with TV. But even if that were the case, it's the effectiveness of the ad and its ablilty to grab attention and get its points across that should be the decisive factor, not some minute difference in "reach". I agree, however, that using both TV and radio, for a variety of reasons, can make sense in a political campaign---especially if your competition is using only one platform ( TV ) and pounding away redundently at the audience. Any time an advertiser in a highly competitive situation can get in the last word without it being immediately negated by his rival's ads, that's a win win situation.
Ed, I've always looked at reach claims in the inverse.
People see a 93% reach and think 'you beaut' my campaign can get to 93% of my target. Yes you can - if you buy a spot in every break that is what you will get (as well as massive media invoices). As you point out you need frequency data.
So, I tend to look at the inverse. If I threw a ship-load of money at radio there is still 7% I can't get to.
Our media industry is so underserved by our trade journalism. Can we please agree to never use "medium reach" or "time spent" as barometers of media effectiveness or media ad spend or in this case, reach potential of a realistic, well targeted, and cost efficient buy. And I'll leave the communications effectiveness of Radio or lack thereof for another day.
Interesting POV John. Why I agree in principle, would I be correct in thinking that when you refer to "media effectiveness" you are refering to its advertising effectiveness?
The issue is that the medium cannot guarantee the effectiveness of any ad campaign as they do not control the advertising content. A 'good ad' shown in a poor programme won't work that well. But then neither will a 'bad ad' shown in a good programme. The networks produce (or acquire) the programming and they price the ad-breaks according to their assessment of what is good and bad (of which ratings make up a large part). It is folly to think that every ad in the same break has the same effectiveness.
So media agencies use metrics such a 'reach' and 'time spent' (and other qualitative data) as ways of working out which programmes have the best chance of getting the ad seen. After that it is up to 'the power of the creative' to deliver the 'media effectiveness'. So on that basis - no, let's contine to use such terms and metrics.