[ad_1]
- The 2020 elections show that the value of traditional television advertising is declining. Despite spending more on political ads than in any previous election, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had much to show for it.
- Public content faces fiercer competition for audience attention than ever.
- In 2016, Trump earned nearly $ 6 billion in free media coverage. Authenticity (or perceived authenticity) is the key to attracting attention and resonate with audiences.
- Matt Terrill is a partner at Firehouse Strategies and served as the chief of staff in Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
- Visit the Business Insider home page for more stories.
In the Kennedy era of the 1960s or the Reagan era of the 1980s, political television ads swayed millions of votes. They were the opinion programming of their time, attracting genuine viewers attention.
Today things are different. The value of traditional ads is being questioned as they increase in price and decrease in effectiveness. If the 2016 election started the conversation about whether traditional means of payment are worth it, then the 2020 election might be over.
About $ 8 billion was spent over the 2020 cycle on political ads, the most in history, but both sides have little to show for it. Democrats spent more than Republicans at nearly 2 to 1, yet the states in which they spent the most appeared to yield less.
Democrats spent more than the Republican Party totaling $ 116 million in key Senate elections in North Carolina, Iowa, South Carolina and Kentucky, where many polls showed them leading the way. The Republicans won all four races anyway.
At the presidential level, President-elect Joe Biden spent more than President Donald Trump on television by more than $ 200 million. In the final week of the election, Biden more than doubled Trump’s television advertising spending in Texas, Ohio and Florida. In the same three states, Mike Bloomberg racked up an additional $ 100 million in television commercials endorsing Biden. Trump won all three states anyway.
Even though Biden’s campaign won the election, it’s hard to argue that they got their money’s worth from paid media. Even if TV ads gave them a crucial extra percentage point in key states on the battlefield, can anyone really claim that $ 600 million in the media is the best way to secure those votes? Is it possible that there was a cheaper way? Or for free?
Decrease in paid political advertising
Those of us who worked in the 2016 presidential campaigns learned the answers firsthand. While traditional candidates like Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio spent millions on paid media, Trump barely spent. Instead, he earned $ 5.9 billion in free media coverage, more than any other candidate combined. In the first month of 2016 alone, Trump earned $ 400 million in free media, more than John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign.
Trump’s authenticity (or perceived authenticity) and the courtship of controversy gave him a similar advantage in 2020. It allowed him to outspend Biden 2-to-1 and still defy polls by substantial margins and win about 10 million more votes than in 2016. Anyone who takes away from Biden’s victory that traditional payment methods are back is missing the big picture.
What can other candidates, corporations and brands learn from this cycle?
They must learn that all of their content – paid, earned, or social – faces fiercer competition for audience attention than ever. Money can help, but it is not what it used to be. Authenticity is the real currency of this new era. More than commercial breaks, the new battleground is media coverage between them, which can only be won through content that grabs attention and leads to genuine dialogue.
Brands from various sectors seem to be recognizing this new paradigm. National television advertising revenue declined more than 7% through September, even with the massive influx of political advertising. The decline was twice as great in the critical field of sports advertising. Spending on television advertising is expected to fall 11% throughout the year. In a telling example, the gaming industry’s pay TV spending fell more than 30% in October from the previous month.
It remains to be seen whether these numbers indicate lasting trends. But the lessons from these past elections should be clear: the return on investment from old forms of advertising is collapsing. This is good news for most organizations because it levels the playing field. Getting your message out to the masses no longer requires spending a lot on manufactured content. If your message is authentic and resonates, others will drive the content for you, in many cases for free.
Matt Terrill is a partner at Firehouse Strategies and served as the chief of staff in Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.
