EPA-EFE
Like many Americans, Hayden Cook decided long ago who he would vote for in this year’s presidential election.
But the 19-year-old from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, is exposed to political ads every day, even though he has a blocker installed on YouTube and opts out of cable TV.
“It’s still a constant,” Cook said. “I’m six minutes from work. I’ve already heard two or three ads. When I turn on the radio at work, they’re there.”
More than $10bn (£7.6bn) is expected to be spent on political advertising this election. That’s an increase of about 20-25% from 2020, depending on which forecaster you talk to, which is a record cycle in itself.
Most of that money will go to a handful of key competitive states that are expected to determine the outcome of the election, with nearly $1 billion spent in just one state: Pennsylvania.
According to research firm AdImpact, the Keystone State is expected to receive $935 million in advertising spending this election, including former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. This includes $450 million in investment.
And that doesn’t even include all of the free media coverage candidates receive as they repeatedly return to the state on the campaign trail.
Cook, a political buff, isn’t bothered by the barrage, but some are puzzled by it.
At one point, my parents’ house was receiving multiple mailings from conservative groups each day, even though they were all registered Democrats.
“It’s been absolutely non-stop,” Cook said. “It’s everywhere.”
hayden cook
Hayden Cook says barrage of political ads is ‘constant’
In Britain, campaigning is limited to 25 working days, there are caps on spending and political advertising is banned on radio and television.
So America’s enthusiasm may seem like nonsense, especially in a race where so many voters like Cook have already made up their minds about a candidate.
This year’s polls found that only a small portion of voters (about 3%, much lower than in past elections) are undecided.
But polling also shows that while Trump and Harris are in a close race, even some determined voters are expressing dissatisfaction and anxiety, increasing the potential for surprises on Election Day. are.
Erica Fowler, a government professor at Wesleyan University, said, “Advertising in presidential elections is typically only important in the margins, and not that much, but if the margins are effective, they can be very important to the overall outcome.” It will become.” -Director of Wesleyan Media Project.
In terms of numbers
If elections were decided solely by dollars, Harris could be declared the winner right now.
Her campaign, and that of Joe Biden before he dropped out of the race, are raising and spending significantly more than the campaigns of his Republican rivals.
As of early September, the company had $235 million in the bank, nearly double Trump’s $135 million.
His campaign spent about $135 million on media products and ad buys in the past month, nearly 80% of its $174 million total spending in August, according to federal filings. Equivalent (latest official figures).
That was more than double the roughly $57 million the Trump campaign spent on advertising and mailings that month, and much lower overall spending of $61 million.
But elections are about more than just benefits.
Professor Fowler said Mr Trump outspent in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, but because Mr Trump dominated the headlines, he received free coverage, which helped close the gap.
Professor Fowler said that while Harris appeared to be closing the gap with Trump on press freedom since becoming a candidate this year, the Democratic Party’s spending advantage continued to widen. For several weeks in September, Ms. Harris outnumbered Mr. Trump 16 to 1 on Facebook and Instagram.
“I’ve never seen white space like this before,” Professor Fowler said.
The gap between Trump and Harris narrows when spending by outside groups is taken into account.
But based on past experience and rigorous polling, Jeff Pereira, head of content insights at media radar CMAC, which tracks traditional TV and radio advertising, says commercials won’t be the deciding factor for Trump. said he may be making a bet.
After all, pro-Trump groups backed by some of Mr. Trump’s wealthiest supporters, such as Elon Musk’s America PAC, say they plan to redirect spending to other areas, such as voter turnout.
“He overspent in 2016 and 2020, and he’s overspent even more significantly this cycle, at least so far,” Pereira said. “Is it important?”
“Reading between the lines, he doesn’t think that’s necessarily necessary.”
Backlash risk
Cameron Shelton, a professor of political economy at Claremont McKenna College, said advertising by candidates has been found to help boost voter turnout among their supporters. That could make the policy important in states like Pennsylvania, where polls suggest tight margins.
But Professor Shelton warns that unless targeted, the message could backfire.
His research on the 2012 and 2016 elections found that political ads were just as likely to anger opponents to vote as they were to bring in supporters.
“Advertising is not persuasive,” he says. “What happens is that the ad just pushes you into your own preconceptions. It polarizes you and it enrages you.”
“If you can get a balanced audience, it looks like your opponent’s vote is going to increase as much as yours,” he says.
Harris’ Facebook page currently has more than 300 ads targeting Pennsylvania voters, compared to 22 on Trump’s page, many of which are aimed at younger viewers. An analysis by BBC Verify found that it was being marketed to men and women.
But traditional mass advertising on television, which tends to reach older and more trusting voters, continues to make up the bulk of spending for both campaigns.
Over the summer, campaign ads focused on issues important to each candidate’s base, such as immigration for Trump and health care and abortion for Harris.
But in recent weeks, Professor Fowler said there had been a shift in focus to the economy, an important issue for voters on both sides of the aisle and an issue that has historically favored Trump and the Republican Party.
In Pennsylvania, Trump attacked Harris over fracking, an advanced oil and gas drilling technique that Trump had previously supported banning. Hydraulic fracturing plays an important role in the state, which is the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States.
Ms. Harris has spotlighted advertising aimed at traditional Republicans and rural voters, with former Trump supporters and farmers arguing that Ms. Harris only worked for the wealthy.
handout
Tim Anzerone and his grandmother watch the Steelers
In a politically diverse company, any advertising can create awkward moments, said Tim Anzerone, 36, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He recently hosted a watch party to celebrate the start of the season for his NFL team, the Steelers.
Worried that political ads would cause arguments among his guests, he planned ahead to make sure the TV was turned off during commercial breaks.
The plan worked, he said: “People weren’t paying attention…I think 50% of the ads were presidential (election-related), but no one talked about it.”
He said he had already made up his mind about the campaign and was ready for it to be over, but declined to reveal his personal decisions.
“Advertising definitely doesn’t faze me at all,” he said. “I always think this is a huge waste of money, but it could be useful to someone.”
Professor Shelton expects future elections to be more precise in targeting, reducing the risk of backlash and uncomfortable dynamics within the parties, but also potentially driving the United States further apart. said.
“My sad prediction is that we will become even more siled and polarized,” he said. “I’m going to see certain ads that make me believe one thing, and you’re going to see certain ads that make me believe another thing.”
Additional reporting by Maryam Ahmed from BBC Verify
