Campaigns Must Go Beyond First-Party Voter Data

Political campaigns in 2016 are challenged as never before to go beyond first-party voter data in their digital outreach, points out a recent AdExchanger.com post. Peter Pasi, vice president of political sales at the digital ad agency Collective, notes that Borrell Associates has predicted candidates will be spending $1 billion on political digital ads ahead of the 2016 election, a huge jump from the $159 million spent in 2012. A lot of those dollars will be absorbed by programmatic advertising, which replaces human ad management with programmed ad buying and placement based on targeting data and real-time bidding. That requires digging a lot deeper into the data to avoid wasting impressions, and dollars, on generic voter campaigns, Pasi argues. Why won't basic voter data do the job? Because political advertising needs to focus on a finite audience of eligible voters actually likely to go to the polls and back the candidate or cause. Remember that only half of eligible voters actually show up to vote and many of those are not persuadable, Pasi points out. Plus, if 2016 proves anything, it is that polarizing candidates can overturn the usual assumptions about voter support. Luckily, campaigns can now use targeting data that goes beyond the static modeling by age/income/ethnicity/party affiliation of the past. They can optimize ad-targeting with real-time polling results, ID calls, field work, e-mail and direct mail responses, set-top TV data, and offline purchase and interest behavior. A lot can be gleaned about voters from what they read, view, share and buy. For example, targeting new mothers might help a candidate with a strong platform on child care or child tax credits, while identifying hunters can be crucial for campaigns focused on gun control and related issues, notes Pasi. And in today's volatile races, access to real-time data is key to adjusting and optimizing messaging and targeting. For more: http://adexchanger.com/politics/to-reach-likely-voters-political-advertisers-must-move-beyond-first-party-data/

Where's the Bang for Political Consulting Bucks?

Candidates pouring money into the coffers of political consultants, especially for TV ads, aren't getting much bang for their bucks so far in this election cycle. In fact, a December 2015 New York Times piece by Adam Sheingate, chairman of the Johns Hopkins University political science department, looked at 2016 presidential hopefuls' spending on political consulting firms and noted an often inverse relationship between dollar outlays and poll rankings. For example, Jeb Bush has spent over $50 million to date with a handful of political consulting firms (mainly for TV ads) to earn 3% support in recent CNN/ORC polls, while Donald Trump spent just $1.2 million in the same period to earn a 39% support position in the polls. A ranking of 10 Republican candidates by consultant spending through the end of 2015 has Bush in the lead, with Carson coming in second (for 10% poll support) and Christie in third place for 5% poll results. (Poll leader Trump ranks ninth in spending out of 10.) On the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton spent the most on consultants at about $18.5 million in 2015--spread evenly over TV, digital media, direct mail/fundraising and polling--but it has earned her higher poll numbers than Bernie Sanders with his $4.9 million consultant outlay. Thanks mainly to media ad costs, 2016 is on track to outdo 2012 in terms of political consulting spending. In 2012, consultants billed federal candidates, parties and super PACs more than $3.6 billion for products and services, Sheingate notes, with 70% of that amount going to firms specializing in the production and placement of media (mainly TV). As of December 10, 2015, candidates and their affiliated super PACs have already spent more than $163 million on consulting services, compared with just $43 million spent on consulting at the same point in 2012 campaigns. By the way, $45 million of 2015's $163 million is accounted for by Jeb Bush's media (TV) dollars, point out Sheingate. For more detail on spending by candidate and promotional channel, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/opinion/campaign-stops/the-political-consultant-racket.html?_r=0

Be Cautious of Skewed 2014 Midterm Polls

A recent National Journal article by Steven Shepard should caution political pundits and campaign strategists alike about relying too heavily on voter polls in this midterm election year. Democratic and Republican pollsters interviewed all agreed that most of the public surveys on the big 2014 congressional races are underestimating the level of Republican support, Shepard reports. That's because most public polls conducted for media outlets or by academics are surveying the entire universe of registered voters, voters who may not actually cast a ballot on Election Day. In fact, in the past few midterm elections, Democratic-leaning voters have not turned out at close to the same rates as those who typically back GOP candidates. Those who are likely to vote in midterm elections are older, white and more Republican, Shepard notes. In the 2006 and 2010 midterms, for example, 79% and 77% of voters, respectively, were white. In the 2008 and 2012 presidential election years, white voters dropped to 74% and 72% (a record low), respectively. Younger voters also drop off in midterm years. Voters under 30 made up 12% of the 2006 and 2010 midterm electorates, compared with 18% and 19% of the 2008 and 2012 presidential election voters, respectively. As an example of how this might mean that Republican candidates are in stronger midterm positions than public polls indicate, Shepard points out that the respected NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in October 2010 showed more registered voters favored a Congress controlled by Democrats, by a 2-point margin, yet Republicans scored a historic midterm landslide the survey didn't anticipate. The same survey this month again showed Democrats with a 2-point edge. The takeaway? The possibility of skewed midterm polling is a good reason for both parties to be cautious about strategic assumptions and to focus on partisan turnout. For more, see http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/it-s-time-to-unskew-the-2014-election-polls-20140129