In an era where streaming is king and digital platforms like social media dominate how most Americans get their information, it’s worth asking if traditional political TV ads still have the same effect that they did 10 or even five years ago.
According to survey data from Pew, 86 percent of Americans get their information from smartphones, tablets, or computers “at least some of the time,” while 62 percent said they turn to TV “some of the time” for news. Importantly, however, 58 percent of those surveyed said they prefer to get their news from websites and apps, while just 27 percent said the same for TV.
Additionally, 99 percent of all U.S. households pay for at least one streaming service, like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Video. Streaming surpassed cable as the most popular way for Americans to watch their favorite shows in 2022. The gap has only continued to expand since then.
Nonetheless, marketing and media industry outlet The Drum predicts that political campaigns will spend a record $12 billion on political ads before Election Day, up nearly 30 percent from 2020. As much as 70 percent of that money is expected to be spent on “linear TV,” that is, “traditional television medium with content delivered via satellite or cable.”
Not too long ago, those ads might have made the difference in the race. In the 2012 GOP primary, Newt Gingrich had a head of steam coming out of his South Carolina victory before millions in TV ads swung the contest toward Mitt Romney. That same year, the Obama team’s strategy of defining Romney early through TV ads likewise proved instrumental in his re-election victory.
But more recent history suggests that, despite the enormous sum of money earmarked for TV over the next two months, all those ads likely won’t move the needle too much this time around.
President Joe Biden’s ill-fated re-election campaign is a case study in the limits of TV advertising. Recognizing that Biden’s cognitive decline would prevent him from running a traditional campaign, the Biden team pursued a “TV first” approach. Between January and November of last year, the Biden campaign spent some $39 million on TV ads in key swing states – only to see the president’s poll numbers go down.
In the two weeks preceding Biden’s debate with Donald Trump, the Biden campaign and Democrat-aligned groups spent $21.4 million on campaign ads. In the two weeks that followed, these entities spent an additional $15.6 million. In that same period of time, the Trump campaign and its backers spent $3 million leading up to the debate and $2.1 million following it. Despite outspending Republicans more than seven to one, the ads could not save Biden’s flailing campaign.
Even candidates who didn’t have obvious health concerns hampering their campaigns struggled to move the needle with TV ads this year.
During the GOP primary, Republican presidential hopefuls, most notably Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, poured money into TV, only to be trounced by Trump. As a January New York Times article noted, “Nikki Haley and her allied super PAC spent roughly $28 million on broadcast ads in Iowa. Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies spent $25 million. Trump and his super PAC spent only $15 million — and won by more than 30 points.”
But if TV ads are increasingly ineffective, why are campaigns and activist groups continuing to pour money into running them? In most cases, the answer is that they make the political consultant class piles of cash.
Take, for instance, the case of the Lincoln Project, an organization founded by establishment “Republicans” to oppose Trump.
In 2020, the group ran a slew of TV ads against Trump ostensibly to convince Republicans to vote for Biden. While the ads were unsurprisingly popular with liberals on social media, they were wholly ineffective when it came to actually swaying voters. According to a report from the Democrat Super PAC Priorities USA, many Republicans felt that they were more motivated to vote for Trump after watching the anti-Trump ads.
In total, the group raised nearly $100 million during the 2020 cycle. According to Fox Business, over one third of what they spent in that cycle went to companies owned by the Lincoln Project’s founders. “Tens of millions of dollars went toward expenses like production costs, overhead — and exorbitant consulting fees collected by members of the group.” Steve Schmidt, one of the group’s co-founders, reportedly bragged that the ads the group cut during the 2020 cycle were his ticket to “generational wealth.”
While the Lincoln Project may be one of the more repulsive instances of the consultant class scheming to get rich off of ineffective ads, it is hardly unique. Consultants sub-contracting out TV ad production and booking to companies that they also own has created a major incentive to continue the practice even as fewer and fewer Americans are watching.
TV ads still have a place in campaigns, and done right they can still be effective. But growing signs suggest that the era where blanketing the airwaves could almost single-handedly swing an election is likely drawing to a close.
Andrew Shirley is a veteran speechwriter and AMAC Newsline columnist. His commentary can be found on X at @AA_Shirley.
