The evolution of the “Wild West” of political advertising

We’ve all seen a many political advertising recently. But in the states on the battlefield, it is a tsunami. Jack Lewis is an independent voter in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which makes him one of the most desirable voters on the planet: “Emails, texts, phone calls, it’s in my news feed, it’s on social media. In the last two days, I counted, I had 30 spam emails about the election,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.

Not to mention TV and radio advertising. – Come on, it’s everywhere! he laughed. “Are you kidding me? Ad after ad after ad!”

Erica Franklin Fowler, Co-Director Wesleyan Media Projectwho tracks campaign advertising, and co-author “Political Advertising in the United States”, says she likes to watch political ads. But, she adds, “first I will apologize to all the people of the states on the battlefield, because I feel their pain.”

When asked if political ads actually persuade anyone, Fowler said, “Political ads don’t have as much impact as citizens sometimes think. Political advertising really only matters at the margin. That’s not to say that margin doesn’t matter. , right? In this competitive election cycle, it will be the difference between getting to the White House or not.”

What about negative and positive messages? “There is no doubt that the negative is remembered better,” she said. “It’s more emotional.”

We may hate these attack ads, but Fowler says the positives aren’t saying much. “Citizens hate negativity,” Fowler said. “Negative ads tend to be more policy-based, more issue-focused, and those details are actually very important to citizens who otherwise don’t pay much attention to politics.”

We’ve all seen the same ads before. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy” commercial implied that his opponent Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war; and in 1988, George W. Bush’s infamous Willie Horton ad made his opponent, Michael Dukakis, look dangerously soft on crime.

But these days we will not see each other the same message. It’s not just three TV channels anymore. According to Tiffany Rolfe, chief creative officer of the advertising agency R/GA“In a way, everything has become a media channel.”

She says that targeting ads to individual voters by location or demographic details via social media has become an incredibly precise science. “I think it’s amazing how they can target,” she said. “Like, some of them are individual ads.”

Some ads and memes on social networks are not created by the candidates, but by their supporters. For example, Taylor Swift posted a photo of herself as a “childless cat lady” in support of Kamala Harris; the post was then reposted and reposted. “Now you have people who have access to creative tools that can put an AI version of Trump on a lion,” she noted.

So both candidates are now using all their fans as advertising agencies? “Yeah, I mean that’s where our competition is!” Rolf laughed.

Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the nonpartisan organization Brennan Center for Justicesaid: “People make their own videos. People make memes. People create their own ads. That’s good. It’s more participation. The problem is that some very wealthy individual or interest is putting tens of millions of dollars into these ads, sometimes manipulating them, and we don’t know what they’re doing.”

Spending on political advertising broke all records this year: about 16 billion dollars OpenSecrets. And what worries Waldman is that he doesn’t know where all this money is going from: “Now it’s a Wild West of front groups and stealth spenders reaching out to people through their phones, targeting someone’s likes and dislikes directly,” he said.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United. This and subsequent cases have removed all limits on what corporations and billionaires can spend on political campaigns. “It destroyed a century of campaign finance law,” Waldman said. “Now the politicians know who gives; donors know who gives. The only people who don’t know who gives are the taxpayers.”

He said the last Congress was very close to passing legislation that would require disclosure of who gave the money. “It would make a big difference,” Waldman said.

Could it happen? “Voters really care about it — Democrats, independents, Republicans really care about it,” Waldman said. “When people are angry enough, when they’re organized enough, throughout history our country has acted to improve our political system, and it can happen again.”

Segmented messaging, ad targeting, and secret funding may be new, but if you ask Tiffany Rolfe, some things will never change: “At the end of the day, it’s not just about policies or product features. , as Is this person for me? Do I like this person? Do I believe them? And I think, no matter what, it will not change.”

As for Pennsylvania voter Jack Levis, one question remains: Did he vote? “Sent today,” he replied. – So, it’s decided!

For more information:

The plot was created by Gabriel Falcon. Editor: Remington Korper.

See also: