TV Is King of ‘Angry Money’ Politics
Experts tell us the internet will forever change how political campaigns are waged. Maybe so, but forever doesn’t start until the 2010 election is over.
If 2008 was the year voters wanted change, 2010 is the year voters want blood.
And if you want blood, you have to go on TV.
Let’s start with a low-risk prediction: 2010 will be the largest midterm election ad spend ever. It will also be the roughest, toughest, meanest, most fragmented cycle ever. Think the Wild West with yard signs.
2010 is also the year of being angry. And this year anger equals money.
The smart money will go where it’s always gone: directly to campaigns, party committees (although the RNC, which has outraised the DNC, may have hurt its fundraising abilities due to a poor choice of entertainment venues), and well-established outlets like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Club for Growth, and others.
But 2010 will see a new kind of financial instrument: angry money.
Angry money hates incumbents. Angry money hates Washington. Angry money hates the political establishment. Angry money wants to see someone’s head on a pike.
This money isn’t heading to the usual places. Angry money donors are taking a tip from the tea party movement and forming their own groups. We could easily have 15 or more semi-organized to very organized groups willing to spend anything from a few thousand dollars to millions and millions. Pick the right race in the right Congressional district and you could wreak some serious havoc for 20 grand or even less.
“running ads people don’t hate is even better”
Amen. I hope that more people in advertising listen to your wisdom. Not just political advertising but all sorts. I may not be able to tell you what commercial will make me buy something but I can point to over a dozen that will make sure I never spend a dime on those products.
“Television makes you legitimate. And let’s be honest, we don’t believe anything until we see it on TV.”
Vinny old buddy you’re confused.
If people want straight forward, legitimate and timely information they start out by going to Drudge. This can be paralleled or followed by thousands upon thousands of accurate, thoughtful blog web sites, as well as listening to Rush Limbaugh and a very large world of very intelligent, very smart conservative hosts – PLUS their equally savvy callers.
Television is limited to three or four irresponsible HNIC turds that call the shots for all of the mindless camera / microphone minions to gush out into the airwaves to brain dead listeners / viewers.
There are three things people with an IQ higher than a plant can’t stand.
1. Wet toilet paper.
2. Warm beer.
3. TV
I’m a big girl now, but even I can’t take anymore of your crap.
Back to you Doug, here’s some things people with an IQ higher than a plant can stand:
1. Warm toilet paper;
2. Wet beer;
3. TV (sadly, the turdy networks still make money, although the $42M NBC paid Conan probably stung, and Katie-Q is still getting too much from CBS).
I don’t know, one and two don’t seem so terrible.
Okay, let me get this straight.
The author works for a media relations firm that apparently (from their website) does TV ads, but not online ads.
And here he pens (keyboards?) an op-ed declaiming that no, online ads just won’t work this year, but, hey, TV ads will be gloriously successful!
While I am all for the free market, and appropriate use of the opinions of people who work in given fields, this seems just a wee bit self-serving even to me.
Conservative Wanderer,
Actually we do tons of web ads. It’s a fun, freeing format to work in. I maintain that to move large quantities of people in small amounts of time, you can’t beat TV.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Vinny
In that case, one would expect that you’d put some on your website. All I saw were TV spots.
I don’t agree Vinny. We only watch tv for entertainment and mute all commercials; however we pay more attention to politics on the computer. That way we don’t have to listen to them making promises we know can’t be kept. Especially obama. Can’t stand to watch or listen to him.
I hate TV, and I almost never watch it. But this is a fact:
There is nothing comparable to television advertising on the major networks to get the message out.
Blogs? Please. There are hundreds of millions of blogs, and the popular ones allow comments, where for the pro-Jones posts there are the anti-Jones posts. They tend to cancel out.
Also, you don’t want rational discussion in your campaign advertising. You want a one-sided story – your story. Your propaganda. Only yours, not the other guy’s.
Radio? Radio ads work, but they are not as effective as television ads. Listeners are only using one sense – hearing – while TV watchers use both hearing and sight. Visual aids are far more effective. And people listening to the radio while driving, which is when most people listen to the radio, tend to either hit the station button or the volume, or tune out when an obnoxious ad starts.
Newspaper ads? They work, too. But like radio, they are not nearly as effective as TV is. Who really reads the political ads? It’s the same with postal mailers. Who reads the “Yes on J” ads, or “Vote No on Prop XYZ” flyers? For most folks, they go straight into the recycle bin.
Television is extremely expensive, and everyone agrees that TV ads suck. Especially the political ads. But the fact is that television ads work better than any alternative. Repeated ads on network TV are the most effective, and they are part of the reason elections are becoming so expensive.
California’s gubernatorial election will help determine if this premise is right or wrong. It features a relatively broke but politically adept, intelligent candidate, Moonbeam Brown, against a rich opponent, either Whitman or Poizner. My bet is that the big money wins [with the caveat that like anyone, I am often wrong when predicting the future; November is a long way off in political terms, and a lot can - and will - happen between now and then].
If Whitman is the nominee, eventually she will be flushed out of hiding, and will have to debate Moonbeam, who is up to speed on just about everything political. He knows how to avoid gaffes, while Whitman is untested, but is clearly following a script prepared by experts. If the money were equal, Brown would likely win. But Whitman can afford plenty of TV time; she’s a billionaire, and she wants the job.
Truly nice post of “TV Is King of ‘Angry Money’ Politics”.