Why Are SuperPACs Ignoring Digital?
These political advertising behemoths must radically reorient their budgets
The 2016 election will undoubtedly be the biggest in the history of digital media. In a recent piece entitled “Political Ad Spending Online Is About to Explode”, Wired reports that political campaigns will spend upwards of $1 billion online this cycle. Likewise, Campaigns and Elections concluded that “digital consultants will be big winners this cycle.”
But when the same report expects overall political advertising to reach $11.4 billion, is that really something worth celebrating?
Moffett Nathanson Research, a leading authority in television business forecasting, found that online accounted for 44% of all media consumption in 2014 compared to 37% for TV. And they expect that by 2020, online will account for 56% while TV will decrease to just 30%.
Which begs the question — why is digital still fighting for scraps?
Bold headlines that herald a digital takeover in politics belie a different reality. Wired later notes that this $1 billion on digital is really only 9.5% of political ad budgets and lags behind other industries that spend 30–50% online. And while that’s pretty bleak, the biggest spenders so far in 2016 are even worse.
SuperPACs — presently accounting for nearly 90% of advertising in the Presidential race — historically spend a tiny fraction of their budget online. A look at the top 5 SuperPACs of the previous cycle puts the problem in stark relief:
And it’s unlikely to change in 2016. Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise PAC, which has raised over $100 million, recently announced it’s preparing to unleash $24 million in TV ads. No mention of any digital spend to support this massive ad blitz. Back in August when they announced a $10 million TV spend, Right to Rise PAC had only spent $200,000 online overall — a ratio of 50:1.
Television obviously plays an important role in political campaigns but, given the changing media consumption habits of Americans, is this gross disparity seriously defensible?
And when studies find that political advertising has a short-lived effect on voter attitudes, shouldn’t campaigns and SuperPACs be investing more in digital — a tool that can not only persuade, but also raise money, build an audience, recruit supporters, and get them to the polls?
For SuperPACs, the disproportionate reliance on TV is even more dubious.
SuperPACs don’t get the lowest unit rates offered to candidates by TV stations and must pay a premium for their ads. When demand is high, “super-gouge rates” can cost SuperPACs “five or six times — the rate paid by candidates.” Some advertising in Iowa is already 10 times more expensive for SuperPACs.
So for a SuperPAC to reach primary voters in New Hampshire on TV they aren’t just buying the already inefficient Boston-Manchester DMA — where 82.4% of viewers can’t vote for your candidate — they’re doing it at a ridiculously premium rate.
“The super-PACs are like a kid with money burning a hole in their pocket.”
— Kip Cassino, research director of Borrell Associates
The most frustrating thing is that these SuperPACs should be leading the way in digital. Less encumbered by complicated field programs, flashy campaign events, or expensive campaign infrastructure, SuperPACs should have the most budget to dedicate to digital.
Yet somehow SuperPACs are perpetuating an even more outmoded strategy than campaigns, one that is at odds with private sector trends, media consumption forecasting, and basic common sense. SuperPACs are ignoring digital.
Michael Duncan is Founding Partner at Cavalry, a public affairs firm based in Washington, DC. Previously he served as a Digital Strategist on the campaigns of Senator Mitch McConnell and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He can be reached at michael@cavalryllc.com or on Twitter at @MichaelDuncan.
