The Facts About the Impact of Political Ads

Political wags are chattering about former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gusher of ad spending, topping $200 million in barely a month.  The billionaire is blanketing the airwaves to gain traction in the crowded Democratic Party primary.  Pundits are hailing the strategy as brilliant.

Bloomberg's ad binge may yet prove effective, but the facts suggest he would do more good by setting fire to all that cash to heat a homeless shelter.  Many people have been conditioned by the media and the political consultant class to accept conventional wisdom that political ads work.

That is at odds with numerous independent studies which show political advertising is ignored, ineffective and does not change voters minds.  I know you are skeptical because you have heard campaign ad agencies, media airheads  and consultants wax eloquently about advertising's impact.

But those disciples of political advertising all have a vested interest in convincing candidates of the value of millions of dollars spent on television, radio, social media, newspapers and robo calls.  Have you ever wondered who benefits the most from that prodigious spending?

Here is the dirty secret.  Nearly every dollar in ad buys ends up in the coffers of the liberal media.  Consultants are rewarded because they can demand higher fees for managing huge ad budgets.  Advertising agencies charge fat commissions for placing the ads in the media.  It's a racket.

This incestuous cabal then brags about how advertising changed the tide of an election.  No one challenges their assumptions because after all, they are the experts.  If you have accepted that as fact, independent, unbiased studies might change your perception of campaign advertising.

Here is an unambiguous study published in the American Political Science Review by researchers from Yale and Stanford.  After extensive research, the authors concluded: "The best estimates of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on (voters choices) in general elections is zero."

Did you hear that Michael Bloomberg?  Zero! Nada.  We are just warming up.  Another research study authored by political scientists at the University of California-LA and Stanford found nearly half (42%) of viewers tune out all campaign television commercials.

People most likely to watch commercials are what the authors term "low engagement" people, couch potatoes who are not likely to vote.  The next group are "high engagement" people, who have already made up their minds on the candidate of their choice.  Ad executives are squirming in their limos.

I know some of you are shaking your heads, recalling campaign boasts that early ad spending won the election for Bill Clinton.  Of course, that claim was made by his campaign consultant. And others may remember praise for Barrack Obama's advertising blitz that aided his 2008 election triumph.

In a 2010 study, political scientists Michael Franz and Travis Ridout conducted in-depth research to quantify advertising's impact on Obama's victory.  Their estimate is that the advertising moved the voter needle for Obama by 0.551 points.  That tiny difference is within the margin of statistical error.

But wait there's more.  The authors reported the ads did not persuade anyone to actually vote for Obama, but was helpful in motivating turnout of people who already planned to cast their ballot for the former senator.  Michael Bloomberg may want to fire his entire campaign ad staff.

Exit polls confirmed the findings of the research.  Pollsters found that 78% of voters had made up their minds long before election day.  Only four percent admitted they woke up election day and made their choice.  Even that number flies in the face of previous research on voter decision making.

At this point, a few readers are nodding and muttering: "Yeah, but what about social media?"  Big difference maker in 2016.  Everyone has mentioned (either positively or negatively) the influence of social media on the election.  But few if any have actually scientifically measured it.

Those who did, including one University of California-San Diego political scientist, uncovered no evidence to support those claims.  His conclusion: "Social media had no measurable aggregated influence over voters' beliefs."  That's not what most people have been spoon fed by the media.

Another study published in the Public Library of Science Journal reached the same conclusion about social media's role in the 2016 election.  The author, Ohio State University communications professor Kelly Garrett, concluded social media played little, if any, role in influencing the outcome.

Despite the evidence, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from blaming misinformation planted on social media by nefarious Russians for her humiliating defeat.  The bitter Clinton asserted social media posts turned the election in Mr. Trump's favor.  She offered no proof for her views. 

However, political consultants, media political reporters and advertising moguls all have publicly claimed advertising, especially on social media, swung the election.  You would expect nothing less from the very people who profit the most by reinforcing the power of media to win elections.

If advertising really worked as well as its proponents claim, then Hillary Clinton would be president.  She outspent Mr. Trump by a lopsided margin of two-to-one on advertising in legacy media as well as social media.  Clinton purchased $141.7 million in advertising compared to $58.8 for Mr. Trump.

Her campaign spending dwarfed her opponent.  According to OpenSecrets, the Clinton campaign shelled out $768 million to defeat Mr. Trump while the president's team tallied $398 million.  These figures do not include expenditures by outside political surrogates on candidates' behalf.

That begs the question: Why do candidates continue to turn a blind eye to research and spend millions on advertising?  The answer is simple: Elite consultants have cultivated a mystique about the ability of advertising messaging to win elections.  They point to their past victories as evidence.

This aura is sustained by those with the most to gain: the media and ad agencies.  These co-conspirators assert without contradiction that no candidate can win a national election without a Tsunami of advertising.  Few dare to contradict their professed infallibility.

However, even a seismic wave of advertising won't help a lousy candidate.   Michael Bloomberg could spend $1 trillion on advertising and still fail to capture the Democratic Party nomination.  No doubt if he loses his consultants will claim the Russians rigged the election for the winner.