TV faces threat to its throne in politics
Bush spends much to achieve little; Trump blows off broadcasts
Both presidential candidates, one the year’s big surprise and the other its big disappointment, were talking about television, for a half-century the dominant weapon of national politics.
Trump proclaimed its irrelevance; Bush acknowledged such skepticism — while doubling down.
It’s a paradox of the 2016 campaign: unprecedented political spending on TV ads and unprecedented doubt over whether it’s having much impact.
The fall of King TV is not imminent. But in 2015, TV broadcast advertising seemed inversely related to political success, as measured by polls.
Outsider-neophytes such as Trump have thrived with little or no paid TV, while some of the least successful candidates have spent the most.
Bush’s campaign and political action committee spent more
“I’ve spent no money, and I’m No. 1.” — Donald Trump
“I’m going to do something really novel. It’s called advertising.” — Jeb Bush
than twice as much as the nearest Republican, Marco Rubio, and aired about $30 million worth of ads in early voting states. He trails in those states and averages in the low single digits in national polls.
Other candidates have fared even worse.
Rick Perry’s political action committee spent more than $900,000 in Iowa after he announced his candidacy in June. Three months later, he was out of the race.
A Scott Walker PAC had begun a $17 million campaign a few days before the former Iowa front-runner dropped out in September.
A PAC supporting John Kasich bought more than $5 million in TV ads in New Hampshire this fall, but his share of Republican support there has dropped from 12.7% in late summer to 9%, according to RealClearPolitics’ latest poll average.
Nor was TV decisive in electing the president four years ago, says John Geer, author of In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s poll numbers moved significantly only twice — after Bill Clinton’s convention speech and Obama’s shaky first debate performance — and not because of TV ads.
Yet political advertising remains a seller’s market. The volume of GOP presidential ads is up 45% over four years ago, according to the Wesleyan University Media Project. Station sales managers in Des Moines and Manchester need only wait for the phone to ring with orders for 30second spots.
Kantar Media, which tracks political advertising, estimates that about $4.4 billion will be spent on TV for the 2016 election, up from $3.8 billion in the 2012 campaign. TV spending on the GOP presidential race alone is five times higher than at the same point four years ago, partly because PACs — which don’t pay the lower rates offered by law to campaigns — account for 8 of every 10 ad dollars spent.
After the terror attacks in Paris, Bush, Rubio, Chris Christie, Kasich, Lindsey Graham (also now out of the race) and others released ads and made major airtime buys in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Some wonder whether this default response makes sense. “For candidates who’ve failed to build momentum with ads,’’ Kantar’s Elizabeth Wilner says, “the re- sponse has been to run more ads.” Big TV buys — traditionally a sign of a campaign’s strength — are beginning to look like a sign of weakness.
John Philip Sousa IV, head of the super PAC backing Carson, says he thinks voters in the early primary states are beginning to associate the classic saturation air campaigns with the “businessas-usual politics’’ they so disdain.
Digital advertising is beginning to challenge TV’s dominance. According to a report for clients by the consulting firm Borrell Associates, political spending on digital ads will pass $1 billion for the first time in this election, and digital’s share of the ad pie will rise by 9 percentage points. By the 2020 election, Borrell forecasts, digital will have risen to within 30% of broadcast TV.
Listen to Borrell’s Kip Cassino: “Canny pols realize more folks are carrying their lives around in their pockets” — on mobile devices — “and you have to put your message there.”
“Free media” — everything from an appearance on CNN to a tweet — also erode TV’s franchise. Trump is the exemplar. He makes so much news he’s constantly on TV without having to pay for it, and he’s a sensation on Twitter, where he has 5 million followers and counting.
But for the foreseeable future, broadcast TV’s unique advantages will make it the most important single channel in politics. Experts say the poll woes of stalwart advertisers such as Bush are primarily the fault of the candidates, not their adver- tising medium.
“TV is powerful,” says Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University communication expert who’s consulted in presidential and congressional races. “It’s visual, it’s emotional, it reaches into homes. And you can run an ad a zillion times.’’
Those spots also appear for free online, says Geer, the political advertising analyst. “But the news media doesn’t take them seriously unless the campaign puts serious money behind it.” That means TV.
Voters, especially older ones, still watch a lot. Nielsen, the ratings service, says Americans view an average of 36 hours a week; those older than 50 watch 47 hours.
Even Trump, who’s promised to advertise on TV but as yet has not done so, may be coming around. He said Tuesday he’ll spend about $2 million a week in three early voting states. He doesn’t think he needs to, he said before a rally in Iowa, but “I don’t want to take any chances.”
TV may be heading for a cliff. Even the PACs, which were essentially devised to finance TV ads, are investing more in nonbroadcast campaigning. The Borrell report predicts that after 2016, “broadcast TV’s fall from political ad spending grace will be breathtaking.’’ By 2020, it estimates, TV will have lost almost 14 share points as digital nips at its heels. For now — whatever its expense and however questionable its utility — TV advertising in a close election is like nuclear weapons in the Cold War: No one wants to risk disarming unilaterally. “That,’’ Berkovitz says, “would take real cojones.’’
Sousa (the 64-year-old great-grandson of the March King) says he hated being pummeled with broadcast ads when he visited Iowa. But the pro-Carson PAC he heads, the 2016 Committee, has been spending $4.3 million on ads in early voting states, most of it for TV in Iowa, where polls have shown Carson’s strength slipping.
“We’re doing it because we have to,” Sousa says, “but I believe at some point, people will start to tune it out. … Will it happen in my lifetime? I doubt it.”
He may not have to wait. This week Jeb Bush’s campaign announced it was doubling its staff on the ground in Iowa — and canceling $1 million in television ads.
“For candidates who’ve failed to build momentum with ads, the response has been to run more ads.” Elizabeth Wilner, Kantar Media