Two Wall Street analysts point to that conclusion in reports this morning that examine the estimated $2.8B being spent on local TV this presidential election cycle from different perspectives. Only about 800,000 voters are even persuadable this year, Wells Fargo Securities’ Marci Ryvicker notes citing information from Kantar Media’s authoritative Campaign Media Analysis Group. Even more startling, she says, “the BEST way to reach such voters is through ‘fringe’ programs such as Jeopardy and Wheel Of Fortune.” Thus far the biggest surprises in the campaign have been that spending is stronger than she expected in Wisconsin, but weaker in Pennsylvania and Missouri.
Meanwhile, Bernstein Research’s Todd Juenger says the barrage of commercials from campaigns and Super PACs could backfire. Advertisers consider it efficient for their messages to hit a target audience about four times. But with more than $1.5B likely to be spent over eight weeks in nine battleground states, each presidential candidate could hit their targets as much as 100 times a week — “an absurd amount,” Juenger says. Here’s the thing: Nobody seems to have studied how viewers respond to ad over-kill. “Given this almost surely unprecedented saturation, it certainly is no stretch to postulate that many viewers will become disgusted,” he says. Why do it, then? “No campaign strategist ever got fired for spending too much on advertising….But you can bet there would be a lot of blame for a campaign manager who didn’t spend every penny they could, and their candidate lost.”

Excellent piece.
Here in Virginia we are deluged with political ads that are uninformative at best and highly irritating at worst. Most
baffling is why campaigns and outside groups think it’s a good idea to run the same ad multiple times per hour. Candidates complain they have only 30 seconds to communicate their message, but then fail to take advantage of the opportunity that heavy ad buys afford to amplify and vary their points.
It’s called unconscious brainwashing.
Most political consultants don’t really understand ratings points, they just think they do. Rule of thumb for the past 35 years is 1000 ratings points per message. But now you get a lot less ratings points per spot, (viewership down, more cable options and people meters drastically decreasing ratings per show and their questionable methodology)and instead of adapting to a changing media environment and new methodologies, they stick to buying 70% 0r more of their points on broadcast television and have to buy three times as many actual spots. After a while it’s just noise and turns people off,(think Meg Whitman in 2010). But consultants are afraid to let the other candidate outspend them and the more they spend on TV the more money they make on commission.
I live in Virginia also, and now mute every political ad immediately, and anguish about the
dollars going down the drain.
Agreed. I think the money could be better spent on original ways of getting each campaign’s message out. I like watching the ads personally to see what’s what, but in a room of folks people tend to tune out.
You can’t see “what’s what” by looking at political ads. All you see is what one side wants to show you. The best way to be an informed voter is to stay away from political ads.
I live in DC and the SuperPAC ads are sick — they outnumber the ads for breakfast cereal and cleaning products.
Perhaps those ad buys could contribute could contribute to the public good somehow, rather than just go into Network pockets?
Looks like a clean redistribution of wealth to me: Rich people with an agenda voluntarily giving their riches to greedy politicians who then give it to massive corporations to air ineffective propaganda.
No harm, no foul!
Yeah and they are all going to air in Ohio.
I would vote for the candidate who took all his tv campaign donation money and poured it back into this country and its debt, unemployment, etc.
Unfortunately, the candidate doesn’t have control over where most of the money goes.
Yeah, try spending that amount of $ on the poor or social programs. We’d have less issues in this county and candidates would actually be helping people. But doing actual work is something that I know one candidate has never done because he was born wealthy and doesn’t know what it’s like to have to live on food stamps.
It’s cheaper to send $3,125 to each of the 800,000 undecideds and simply buy their votes. Talk about a stimulus plan!
Meanwhile millions remain jobless, schools and infrastructure continue to crumble, and entire communities go without basic services after being forced to lay off first-responders. What’s wrong with this picture, America?
Imagine how many books and supplies could be purchased for schools, trees could be planted, people clothed and fed, etc. with $2.8 BILLION. Instead it gets pissed away on these pointless and often vitriolic ads. It’s pathetic.
These ads make be grateful that I don’t live in a swing state. Spending all this money does seem like a waste since most people made up their minds about who they’re voting for long ago, while most “undecided” voters probably won’t be voting at all.
The amount of money being spent by the very wealthy to persuade the less wealthy is disturbing. But it is not like the $ is going down the toilet. Ad agencies, video production companies, networks and local TV stations all employ real people. With more money the companies can hire even more folks (i.e. create jobs!), give raises, and buy newer and better equipment from other companies that also employ people. Better paid employees can buy more products and services, save more $, and/or pay more taxes. The $ otherwise might have stayed in the one-percenters off-shore accounts. This might be the only example of “trickle-down” that actually works.