Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
Flashbacks  |  Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

O's got a TV eye on you

The era of TV advertising in presidential general elections is over
By STEVEN STARK  |  June 25, 2008

With his decision to forgo public funding, Barack Obama can raise as much as he wants, giving him a huge financial advantage in the fall campaign. If he spends that cash on organization, registration, and get-out-the-vote efforts, he will absolutely get his money’s worth. But if he spends a major portion of it on television advertising, he will only be doing John McCain a favor.

That’s because the era of TV advertising in presidential general elections is over.

It expired without anyone’s really realizing it, a victim of a new media age — and terrible implementation. In truth, TV ads have never been that important in presidential general elections (as opposed to the primary process). They’re rarely very good, and voters have always had many other competing, and more credible, sources of information out there. After all, if there’s one thing Americans know how to do, it’s how to watch TV ads with a jaundiced eye.

It’s revealing that the few creative political ads the past generation remembers actually came in contests where the outcome was pre-ordained and consultants felt free to experiment. The 1984 Reagan “Bear” ad was a classic, for instance, but would Reagan have received any fewer votes had it never aired? Ditto for Nixon’s 1972 “Turnaround” ad against McGovern. The most infamous ad of them all — Johnson’s so-called daisy ad against Goldwater (created by the brilliant Tony Schwartz, who died this past week) — not only came before LBJ’s landslide 1964 victory, it only ran once. So much for its effect on voters.

To the extent that TV ads have ever had an impact in a general election, that influence has been sharply diminished by the Internet and TiVo Ages. Viewers now receive their information in ways that minimize their contact with commercials. Sure, advertisers still flock to television. But effective product commercials these days run far more often and strategically than do political ads, and production-value-wise, they are light years ahead of anything the candidates ever put out.

The proof is in the pudding. Remember those great ads from the Bush-Kerry race only four years ago? How about Clinton-Dole or Bush-Gore? Of course you don’t. Not even political junkies can recall ads from those campaigns, though they can remember the debates, a convention speech or two, and the general themes of the campaigns.

Making the media circuit
The last great advertising thrust in presidential politics came 20 years ago — eons in media terms — when the Bush forces launched their Willie Horton assault on Michael Dukakis. But even then, the real impact didn’t come from the ads themselves, but rather from the media, which replayed them endlessly on the news. That’s the way ads are really used today (see the Swift Boat controversy of 2004). Never mind directly reaching out to the voters; instead, issues are interjected via the media. It’s an odd process, though. It’s as if Hollywood made movies not for the public but only for critics, who would then show us the clips and tell us why they’re important.

If Obama were to splash, say, $40 million on TV ads in Virginia alone, well, that might make a difference — not that even Obama is going to have money to spend like that. But that’s simply due to total saturation, not to anything the ads themselves might say. Obama with his family, Obama talking foreign policy, a test pattern with the name Obama over it — it wouldn’t really matter.

If ads don’t mean much of anything in a general election, why is so much attention paid to them? Part of it is because the press zeroes in on them, which, in the echo chamber of national politics, makes them important — though even then not as much as anyone thinks. And why do reporters cover them? They’re the easiest stories in the world to report, because you don’t even have to leave your air-conditioned office and you can pretend to be a TV critic.

Consultants certainly have a reason for promoting the influence of TV ads; without them, their fees would go down. And who wants to take the risk and become the first general-election candidate in modern times to abstain from paid TV?

Today, all a presidential candidate really needs to do is film a few commercials, screen them for the reporters and networks who will disseminate them, and then file them away on a shelf. TV ads in general elections don’t sway the masses anymore. All they do is waste a lot of money. And Obama, who has already started advertising on TV, will certainly be able to waste the largest amount in recent history. As they say, easy come, easy go.


Odds: 6-7 | this past week: even
Odds: 7-6 | this past week: even

On the Web
The Presidential Tote Board blog: //

  • The ‘A’ word
    Is there one political story the press shouldn’t report?
  • Emasculation proclamation
    Is Barack Obama in danger of being outmanned?
  • Bull disclosure
    As the candidates prep for the final debate, it’s a fitting time to ask: why do some journalistic conflicts of interest become scandals, while others get almost no attention at all?
  • More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama , Media , Advertising ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Re: O's got a TV eye on you
I believe the expression is, "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting..." As demonstrated by what he has on his IPod, everything from Dylan to Charlie Parker, Obama has taste. He also showed taste by offering to defray Clinton's debt--and to embrace her efforts to help him. What you need in an advertisement is a winning product; and a "dream ticket" would fit that bill. I will bet that Obama chooses Clinton as a running mate, and the ticket will take off, the way Oreo cookie ice cream did a while back, say, by ads as well as by word of mouth.
By gordon marshall on 06/27/2008 at 3:55:05

election special
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   HOOVER? DAMN!  |  October 09, 2008
    George W. Bush’s failures may have set off a tectonic shift in US presidential politics, commencing a Democratic Party reign
  •   CAPTAIN CHAOS  |  October 02, 2008
    Steering a suddenly lost GOP ship,
  •   ODIUM AT THE PODIUM  |  September 25, 2008
    This year, with such a close contest, the debates could have an impact like never before. Here’s what to watch for.
  •   SARAH, GET YOUR AK-47  |  September 17, 2008
    The Alaska governor is dominating the election as we head into the fall — Why that is bad news for the Obama campaign
  •   PEACOCK PROBLEM  |  September 10, 2008
    MSNBC is in Barack's corner, which may cause an electoral backfire for the Democrats

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

Featured Articles in Features:
Tuesday, October 14, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group