With less than a month to go until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, political advertising companies are ramping up spending to reach voters in just six states.
Since Vice President Kamala Harris announced her presidential bid in late July, Democrats have spent $1.1 billion on aired ads and future bookings, while Republicans have spent just $400 million. That’s according to a new report from AdImpact that tracked 253 unique broadcast political ads and 904,000 airings targeting the presidential election since Super Tuesday.
Most of that money is concentrated in key battleground states. Since Vice President Kamala Harris entered the 2024 presidential race, 79% of all presidential ad spending has gone to just seven states, according to a report from AdImpact. Those battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are also on track to receive 88% of their upcoming reservations between Oct. 10 and Election Day.
So far, Harris’ campaign has outspent Trump’s campaign by a nearly two-to-one margin, spending $456.3 million from July 22 to October 9, compared to Trump’s $204.3 million. Spent. However, the Trump campaign has a slight advantage in terms of future bookings, with $60.3 million compared to the Harris campaign’s $57.6 million.
It is not surprising that the campaigns differ regarding most of the topics mentioned. While Harris has focused her ads on taxes (32%), health care (21%), housing (21%) and abortion (20%), the Trump campaign has focused on inflation. The latter topic accounted for 62% of all ads, followed by the economy (53%), housing (31%) and immigration (17%). At the party level, Republican issue groups focus on immigration in 71% of their aired ads, while Democratic groups focus on taxes in 57% of their ads.
The Harris campaign also outperforms Trump on digital channels. Last week, the Harris campaign spent about $4.5 million on Metaplatform to promote Harris’ account and another $700,000 to promote vice presidential candidate Tim Walz. The Trump campaign, on the other hand, spent just $517,000 during the same period.
As for Google, Harris’ allied Future Forward PAC spent $8.48 million over the past week, and the Harris campaign and Harris Victory Fund spent another $5 million. That’s in contrast to the $1.1 million the Trump campaign spent on Google and an additional $837,000 spent by the Trump National Committee.
The Washington Post, which reported on a separate data analysis by AdImpact, found that between March 6 and October 1, Republicans spent $3 million to $1 million more on X than Democrats.
Political advertising was also featured in several stage talks at Advertising Week 2024 in New York last week. Chris Vail, Effectv’s vice president of political sales, said cable TV used to be nearly twice as expensive as broadcast, but now it can be even cheaper than broadcast. He gave an example of an ad running in Portland, Oregon, where CPMs are 60 to 80 percent lower on cable than on broadcast.
“It’s interesting how this kind of pricing inelasticity exists in politics,” Vail says. “There’s this kind of failure to abandon broadcasts like targeted addressable cable to increase viewership.”
Beyond broadcasting, some political advertisers have found that addressable radio is quite expensive in major markets. Carolyn Xu, founding partner of Media Fortitude Partners, said the cost per point for some Atlanta radio stations is $3,000. Because we trust and we trust that voice. And it’s like we’re kind of indebted to them to spend that money. ”
Daria Grastara, CEO of Direct Persuasion, notes that candidates often have to sustain spending that can disrupt ad buying by rivals. . And that becomes an arms race. ”
The amount of advertising is also increasing across various platforms. Doug Thornell, CEO of SKDK, said the agency produced about 700 ads two years ago, but this campaign cycle now includes everything from YouTube ads to microsites accompanying TV spots. , which is approaching 1,000 including all advertisements. He also said that about 65% of spending is still going to linear TV, while the rest is going to digital and OTT.
How much impact does all advertising have anyway?
A recent study by Cint and Advertising Week surveyed 2,000 U.S. adults and found that trust in political ads varies widely by generation.
Among Gen Z, 37% believe political ads are vetted, and 35% say they trust all content shared in political ads. However, 60% of Gen Z respondents said they are influenced by political ads, down from 72% in the previous survey. Meanwhile, 50% of Millennials, 35% of Gen 50% are influenced by brands that support political values. 30% of boomers.
Generational differences also shape opinions about candidates who engage in pop culture, with more than 40% of Republicans expressing distaste for such moves, while nearly half of Gen Z and a third of Millennials 1 or more people have expressed support. Platform preferences also differ, with Gen Z viewing TikTok as both the most and least trusted source of political news, while Millennials and older generations prefer Facebook and YouTube for political information. YouTube has the upper hand in the latest research.
“As we get closer to the election, people are trying to be more proactive in finding what they want to hear,” Ariel Mudway, Cint’s director of event marketing, said on stage at AWNY. “So whether it’s something from a debate or something very specific that you want to know a little bit more about (about a candidate or a topic).”
