Tag Archives: AdImpact

Did the Democrats Really Blow $1.3 Billion On Ads to (Not) Elect Kamala Harris?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading the latest Semafor Media newsletter, when I came across this item about the 2024 presidential ad bakeoff.

ROI: The 2024 election . . . demonstrated the limits of television advertising. Democrats spent $460 million more on traditional advertising than Trump and still managed to lose handily.

What the hell, Doc – all those dollars and no sense, eh? Shouldn’t the Dems have just set that money on fire?

– Battleground Burnout

Dear BB,

First off, before you start lighting any matches, let’s note this drought-induced ad that ran in the New York Times the other day.

Safety first, yeah?

Meanwhile, here’s the tab (compiled by AdImpact) for all the presidential sturm ad drang this time around, which mostly ran in the seven battleground states.

That’s $1.37 billion vs. $914 million, for those of you keeping score at home.

Then again, maybe not the best investment, as Trisha Oswald and Paul Hiebert pointed out in Adweek,

It’s telling that a recent survey suggests most U.S. adults think there are too many political ads on TV during presidential campaigns.

As Paul Dyer, chief executive of creative agency Prompt, put it, the Democrat’s strategy was to lead with paid media, while the Republicans started with earned media.

Trump’s October appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast—three hours of unscripted conversation that racked up 26 million views in 24 hours, per Newsweek—was a key moment. During the episode, he also made 32 false claims, per CNN. Trump also embraced the creator economy, teaming up with figures like Jake Paul, whose Instagram video with Trump in a playful moment amassed over 1.5 million likes.

Trump in a playful moment? That’s a phrase the Doc did not have on his bingo card.

Most of that two-plus billion was just costly noise, except for the $100 million that the Trump campaign dropped on a culture-war ad, as Rachel Bachman, Laura Kusisto, and Kris Maher detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece.

The political ad that Donald Trump rolled out in the closing weeks of his campaign was designed to confront voters’ feelings on one of the hot-button cultural issues of our time: transgender rights.

It featured 2019 footage of Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, saying she supported taxpayer-funded surgery for transgender inmates. The tagline: “Kamala’s For They/Them. President Trump is for you.”

The message hit the target for voters like Richard Amorose, a 48-year-old Philadelphia general laborer. He cast ballots for Democrats in the past, but these days he thinks the party has lost touch with working-class voters and is “all identity politics.”

“They need to stop a lot of their ideology, meaning like transgender, whatever. I have nothing against them,” Amorose said, but, “stop pushing it down my throat.” Trump flipped the blue-collar ward where Amorose lives from blue to red on Tuesday.

Just for the record, taxpayer-funded surgery for transgender inmates has occurred exactly twice, but why get technical about it when there are hot-button issues to demagogue?

The Doc’s diagnosis: As we’ve said before, presidential TV spots ain’t what they used to be. But that won’t keep the 2028 White House hopefuls from dropping three billion on them next time around.

All those dollars and no sense, indeed.

Can TikTok’s $2 Million Ad Blitz Buy Time For the Beleaguered Platform?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Oliver Darcy’s latest post at CNN’s Reliable Sources, when I came across this item about the video-sharing site TikTok.

TikTok has launched a $2.1 million television ad campaign as its fate is decided by the U.S. Senate, Brian Schwartz reports. (CNBC)

What’s the deal here, Doc – do U.S. Senators even watch TV? Wouldn’t TikTok be better off taking each one out to dinner at Cafe Milano? It is, after all, “Where the world’s most powerful people go,” according to the New York Times.

– TskTok

Dear TT,

Funny thing – TikTok’s ad buy is roughly the same amount as two anti-TikTok outfits (The American Parents Coalition and State Armor Action) are spending on national TV spots, which the Doc detailed the other day.

The difference is, TikTok is targeting U.S. senators who are just as beleaguered as the Chinese-owned platform is, as CNBC’s Brian Schwartz reports.

TikTok has launched a $2.1 million advertising campaign with a clear message for senators in tough reelection fights this year: Block the House bill that could effectively ban the app in the United States.

“Think about the 5 million small business owners that rely on TikTok to provide for their families,” one purported TikTok user says in the ad. “To see all of that disappear would be so sad,” says another apparent user.

The company has reserved television ad space in the battleground states of Nevada, Montana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to data from AdImpact.

Here’s a transcript of the spot, which for some reason is not on YouTube, but is posted at AdMo. It features a series of people talking up the platform.

“There is no doubt that I would not have found the success that I have today without TikTok.”

“TikTok has made me a better teacher. It’s helped me to connect with people far beyond my classroom.”

“Think about the 5 million small business owners that rely on TikTok to provide for their families.”

“The village is always there for the moms on TikTok.”

“To see all of that disappear would be so sad.”

“It’s gonna affect a lot of people’s livelihoods.”

“We have got to make enough noise about this so that they don’t take away our voice.”

The spot ends with #KeepTikTok on screen. Not everyone, though, is putting on the pom poms.

The Doc’s diagnosis: TikTok parent ByteDance has flooded social media with testimonials from its users, so voices like the one above are largely drowned out. Whether any U.S. senators are listening, of course,  is another matter entirely.

Is Rick Scott’s New TV Spot Meant to Give Mitch McConnell the Finger?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Punchbowl News, when I came across this item by Jake Sherman.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the former chair of the NRSC, is running an ad nationwide touting his race against Mitch McConnell for Republican leader and his 11-point plan, which became a widely used Democratic talking point.

The new spot is running in D.C., New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Scott is up for re-election in Florida in 2024, but this ad isn’t running in Florida, according to AdImpact. This is sure to raise lots of eyebrows in Senate GOP circles.

It sure raised mine, Doc. What the hell’s that all about?

– Scot Free

Dear Mr. Free,

Let’s begin at the beginning.

Last March, Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R-Largest Medicare Fraud in U.S. History) introduced his 11-point Plan to Rescue America, as Jonathan Weisman reported in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the somewhat embattled head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, said one utterly indisputable thing on Thursday when he stood before a packed auditorium of supporters at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His plan for a G.O.P. majority would make everyone angry at him, Republicans included.

It was an odd admission for the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. His leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has repeatedly told Mr. Scott to pipe down about his “11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” with its call to impose income taxes on more than half of Americans who pay none now, and to sunset all legislation after five years, presumably including Social Security and Medicare.

According to this CNN report by Alex Rogers and Steve Contorno, other proposals in Scott’s plan included “ending imports from China, cutting the federal government workforce by 25% and building a wall on the US-Mexico border and naming it after former President Donald Trump.”

As everyone except Rick Scott could have told you, the whole thing went over like the metric system.

Especially lathered up was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-I’m de captain here!), as he made clear at a press conference reported by CNN.

“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

“That will not be part of the Republican Senate majority agenda,” he reiterated. “We will focus instead on what the American people are concerned about: inflation, energy, defense, the border and crime.”

Apparently undaunted by the widespread backlash he encountered at the time and his subsequent beatdown by McConnell in last fall’s Senate leadership bakeoff, Scott has doubled down with his current TV spot.

Here’s his pitch, annotated for your convenience.

People told me not to run for Republican leader against Mitch McConnell. They said I wouldn’t win. (Duh)

I knew it was gonna be hard. (As in, impossible)

But we gotta start somewhere. (Too bad Rick Scott is currently nowhere)

Look – we’re on the road to woke socialism. (His proof: A screenshot of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

And Republicans are just a speed bump. (Not even that smart, honestly)

We can’t keep doing the same old thing. It’s time for Republicans to be bold, to speak the truth, and to stop caving in. (The way Mitch McConnell keeps doing)

Help us change our party – join us at RescueAmerica.com. (Please give me money so I can run more noodleheaded ads like this one)

I’m Rick Scott. I approve this message. (Of course you do)

Scott is spending a reported seven figures on the national ad buy, which truly makes you wonder why he doesn’t just set his money on fire.

Meanwhile, Politico Playbook PM reports that a new ad campaign has been launched by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose chairman until 12 days ago was [checks notes] Rick Scott.

2024 WATCH — “‘Retire or get fired’: Senate GOP campaign committee targets Manchin, red-state Democrats with ad campaign,” by Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser: “The ad campaign from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), titled ‘Retire or Get Fired,’ takes aim at Trump-state Democratic Sens. JOE MANCHIN of West Virginia, JON TESTER of Montana and SHERROD BROWN of Ohio over what the NRSC calls their ‘liberal records’ and ties the senators to President Joe Biden.” Watch the Manchin ad … Watch the Tester ad … Watch the Brown ad

Here’s the Tester ad.

Inconveniently for the NRSC, Morning Consult’s Eli Yokley just reported that “60% of Montana voters approve of Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, making him the most popular incumbent expected to face a competitive 2024 contest.”

So maybe not the wisest use of the NRSC’s money.

The Doc’s diagnosis: It’s hard to imagine that those NRSC ads came together in the past two weeks, which means they probably represent more of Rick Scott’s handiwork. If so, the logical conclusion would be a) he has four middle fingers, and b) none of them are very flippin’ effective.

Or is our analysis for the birds . . .

How in the World Did $16.7 Billion Get Spent on the 2022 Midterms?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Politico Weekly Score’s Pre-Election Day Special Edition by Madison Fernandez,  when I came across this knee-buckling statistic.

— $16.7 billion: The new projected total spending on state and federal elections blows away the 2018 record. Federal candidates and political committees are expected to spend $8.9 billion, while state candidates, party committees and ballot measure committees are on track to hit more than $7.8 billion, per OpenSecrets.

What the hell, Doc – have they completely lost their minds?

– All Those Dollars and No Sense

Dear All Those,

Well yes they have.

Here’s how the Politico piece broke down the spending.

— $272 million: That’s how much party committees have booked on TV, cable, satellite, radio and digital ads from the beginning of the year through Election Day, per AdImpact. The Democrats spent more over the last eleven months in both chambers. DCCC tops that list with over $96 million, followed by NRCC with over $91 million. DSCC poured in over $45 million, and NRSC spent over $39 million.

— $693 million: That spending script is flipped when it comes to the parties’ flagship congressional super PACs. Republicans dominated the space, contributing to over half of that total. Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund booked over $206 million and $189 million, respectively. Senate Majority PAC booked over $155 million, and House Majority PAC dedicated over $142 million.

Donald Trump’s MAGA, Inc. grudgingly coughed up $16 million across a handful of swing states, but that’s chump change compared to 1) the total amount he’s fleeced the rubes for, and 2) the amounts spent by other outside groups.

“We’ve also seen huge ad spending from outside groups like Club for Growth Action (over $61 million since the beginning of the year), Citizens for Sanity (over $59 million) and Mitch McConnell-affiliated One Nation (over $58 million),” Politico’s Fernandez wrote.

It’s all been pretty smashmouth, but especially vile has been the advertising campaign from the self-styled Citizens for Sanity, a dark-money PAC spearheaded by MAGA gunsel Stephen (Babysnatcher) Miller. As Matt Stieb wrote in New York’s Intelligencer, “[the] ads have been flagged on YouTube as “inappropriate or offensive to some audiences” and widely decried as blatantly racist.”

This one serves as a representative sample.

PolitiFact’s overall grades for the group tell you all you need to know about it.

All those dollars and no sense of decency, eh?

Wait – 30,000 NH Campaign Ads on Boston Airwaves Since Labor Day?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading the Weekend Wall Street Journal, when I came across this item in John McCormick’s piece about the $7.5 billion being spent nationally on 2022 midterm campaign ads.

The Las Vegas market has had the heaviest advertising since Labor Day. Nevada is home to competitive races for governor and both chambers of Congress. Philadelphia, a top market in a state with open-seat races for Senate and governor, saw the second-most spots. Boston, in third place, covers parts of New Hampshire, where there are competitive House and Senate races.

What the hell, Doc – is it right that the good people of Boston should get dragged into the Granite State’s sadstravaganza?

– Campaign Addled

Dear Addled,

It’s not right, it’s politics.

Here’s the tally of campaign ads on broadcast and cable TV through October 17, according to AdImpact.

More to the point, the New Hampshire Senate race between incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan and challenger Don Bolduc (R-Gen. Strangelove) has produced almost $50 million in ad spending overall.

But here’s the difference: According to this Journal graphic on the share of negative ads aired, the Democrats are largely less combative overall than the smashmouth GOP.

That seems especially true in the Hassan-Bolduc race, given this YouTube compilation of Hassan’s recent ads, only one of which attacks Bolduc.

Hassan’s own YouTube channel doesn’t even include that spot, so she’s not exactly Maggie-fying Bolduc’s negatives.

As for Gen. Strangelove, he launched this TV spot – the first from his campaign – in early October

Check out this chart, though, from McCormick’s WSJ piece detailing what “candidates and their allies” spent  on TV ads from Labor Day through October 18.

That twenty-something million virtually all came from two Republican party groups – Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (representative samples here  and here) – both of which, according to this piece by New York Times reporters Shane Goldmacher and Trip Gabriel, have cancelled millions more in New Hampshire ad buys. 

The SLF had planned to spend $23 million on the Bolduc-Hassan bakeoff, but seems to have drawn the line at $18 million. Still, that’s throwing a lot of good money after a bad candidate.

Then again,  at least Boston TV viewers will be spared five million more dollars of attacks on Hassan by McConnell’s wet workers. Be thankful for small favors, yeah?