Despite restrictions, digital spending hits record in US midterms

wASHINGtoN: Even as online platforms tightened rules for political ads, digital spending set new records in the 2018 US midterm elections and appears poised for further growth in 2020.

Digital media campaign spending rose 2,400% from the 2014 midterms to US$1.8bil, roughly 20% of the total US$8.9bil in ad spending, according to preliminary estimates from the research firm Borrell Associates.

Online spending, much of it on social networks like Facebook, has been a significant factor in campaigns for a decade, but tighter rules imposed by digital giants in the wake of the 2016 election could have curbed some of that growth.

Kip Cassino, lead author of the Borrell study, said the online sector kept up a strong growth pace despite new guidelines from Facebook, Twitter and others requiring verification of advertisers to address concerns about foreign influence campaigns.

Digital has some unique advantages over traditional media like television, notably the ability to send out messages quickly and targeted to specific groups of voters.

“They can take advantage of an opportunity very quickly, within seconds,” Borrell said. “You can’t do that with legacy media.”

Additionally, campaigns can finely target voters by geography, age, affiliation and interests, based on data gleaned by online firms.

“You can focus your messages to those people who are going to vote for your or those you want to vote for you,” Cassino said. “You don’t want to waste your money on those who don’t want to listen to you.”

It remains unclear, however, what if any new privacy rules may come into effect before the 2020 election.

Any regulations similar to those imposed in Europe could in theory limit campaigns’ ability to target ads without consent from users.

“I would be surprised if (tough ad targeting regulations) happen with this administration,” said Michelle Amazeen, a Boston University professor specializing in political communication. Amazeen said campaigns this year were able to use finely targeted ads, including many “attack ads,” whose source was not clearly identified – in some cases seeking to get press attention from “sensational” or inaccurate claims.