How Presidential Hopefuls Score on Social Media

Social media has been making political news in 2016, from Donald Trump's controversial tweets to Bernie Sanders' millennial "like"-ability. So how do all the presidential hopefuls compare in terms of their social media ground game? In a recent Fortune magazine article, the analytics team of Hootsuite social media management rated the candidates on five key categories of social performance: impact, engagement, reach. sentiment, and authenticity. It should be no surprise that GOP front-runner Donald Trump comes out on top, using social media as part of a three-pronged strategy of interdependent, mutually reinforcing use of rallies, media coverage and social buzz. On the theory that any type of attention is better than no attention, Trump wins with impact, reach and authenticity, even though he is weaker than other candidates on engagement and sentiment (more negative social mentions). Close on Trump's heels is Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders, who succeeds with strong engagement, impact and authenticity, despite lack of a planned strategy. Bernie's young followers have created a collective social energy for him that his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton can envy. Nevertheless, Democratic leader Clinton comes in third overall thanks to her huge reach (second only to Trump); she has 3.1 million Twitter followers, 3.1 million Facebook likes, successful use of Instagram and early embrace of Snapchat. She also scores higher on positive sentiment. Meanwhile, Republican Ted Cruz trails in fourth place with weak reach and tepid sentiment inspiration; Cruz counts just 3.2 million followers on Twitter and Facebook compared with Trump’s 14.5 million, for example. And John Kasich is dead last, in delegates and social power, with just 292,000 followers on Twitter and 286,000 likes on Facebook. For the detailed analysis, read http://fortune.com/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-social-media/

Sanders Is Surprise Leader in Ad Agency Spending

Presidential hopefuls are spending millions on TV ads, direct mail, digital ads, social media and data analytics. But the agency big spender may surprise you: Old Towne Media is the agency that has scored the most campaign cash--thanks to the Democrat's anti-establishment candidate Bernie Sanders. In fact, according to a mid-February analysis by Advertising Age magazine, the Sanders campaign has been more generous with agencies than his rivals, spending $10.6 million with Olde Towne Media, an agency focused on TV ads; $5.6 million with Revolution Messaging, a digital consulting and advertising agency; and $2.9 million with Tigereye Promotions for campaign paraphernalia and merchandising. Sanders' agency spending beat rival Hillary Clinton's outlay; her top three agency investments have been $8.7 million with TV-focused media agency GMMB, $1.8 million to Bully Pulpit Interactive for digital, and $1.05 million for direct marketing with Chapman Cubine Adams & Hussey. Bernie also whips GOP party outsider Ted Cruz's agency investment. Cruz sent $3.2 million to Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics and digital media firm; $2 million to Campaign Solutions, a digital agency; and $1.9 million to The Lukens Co., a direct marketing firm. Marco Rubio, the latest GOP establishment hope, has only one agency scoring over a million dollars: Smart Media Group, a media agency, scooped up $8.6 million from the Rubio campaign. However, the Ad Age story isn't including spending by PACs, target of Sanders' ire. Plus, GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who has coasted on "earned media" coverage and finally aired a TV ad in January, isn't included in the article. Still, looking at primary vote forecasts, it's a good bet many of these agencies will soon lose their political gravy train. For more on candidates' agency spending, read http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/towne-media-topped-election-agency-spending-2015/302680/

Political Ads Scramble for TV Time, Winning Formula

The TV ad battles in the 2016 political race are heating up, reports The New York Times, and we haven't even reached the primaries. At the same time, candidates and their super PACs are still struggling to find a formula that will translate ad dollars into votes. In 2015, candidates and their allies already spent nearly $100 million on political advertising, including $72 million in Iowa and New Hampshire alone, Kantar Media/CMAG estimated for the NYT story. Now campaigns are feverishly grabbing for TV ad space ahead of the primaries, and negative attack ads are on the rise. “We’re getting down to the firing-squad part of the campaign,” Larry McCarthy, the strategist making ads for Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Jeb Bush, told the NYT. Yet the biggest spenders, such as the Bush PACs, have reaped only scant improvement in the polls for their efforts. Factors include a changed TV ad landscape thanks to media-master Donald Trump, who has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of free TV time from news coverage and debates, and a failure to break through with distinct content to the target audiences, say analysts. When Right to Rise (Bush PAC), New Day for America (Kasich PAC) and America Leads (Christie PAC), which spent an estimated $26.4 million combined in New Hampshire in 2015, all air an ad focused on Islamic terrorism, no one candidate stands out for voters. As candidates start to recast tactics and budgets (and Trump launches his first paid TV ads), 2015 TV spending is likely to be dwarfed, opined Ken Goldstein, a University of San Francisco professor of politics tracking advertising: “It seems like that was a bunch of money this fall, but that was just the sorbet before the main course. That wasn’t even the appetizer.” To see a current sampling of political TV ad messages, go to the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/ad-wars-of-2016-campaign-erupt-in-a-changing-tv-arena.html

Small-Dollar Donors Boost Long-Shot Candidates

The well-known Clinton and Bush political names may resonate with big donors, but a sea of small-dollar donors are flooding the coffers of some long-shot candidates, according to a recent U.S. News and World Report story. Small-dollar donors account for 45% of the $1.7 million raised by Republican hopeful Carly Fiorina's campaign, 60% of the $13.6 million raised by Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, and 80% of the $10.6 million backing Republican outsider Ben Carson. Contrast that with long-shot candidates who should be able to cash in on experience in public office and existing donor networks, such as Republicans Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who have raised just $600,000 each. What is the formula that has won Fiorina, Sanders and Carson so many small-donor fans? Political experts cite the fed-up-with-politics-as-usual factor, the feel-good of donating to someone whose policies you support and whose persona you relate to, and a basic hope that small donations can add up to help with political success. But that last hope is apt to be disappointed, especially for backers of Fiorina and Carson, if history is any guide. The last time someone who had never held public office won the presidency was Dwight Eisenhower, political analysts note, and he had victory as a World War II general on his resume. For the full article: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/10/small-dollar-donor-mindset-helps-long-shot-candidates-cash-in

TV Political Ads Head Toward Record 2016 Spend

Campaigns and causes planning to include TV ads in their election-cycle budgets can expect especially stiff, expensive competition for the airwaves: Political ads on television are forecast to increase by 16% and reach a record $4.4 billion in spending for the 2016 presidential race, reports The Washington Post, citing the latest Kantar Media research. Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has already reserved $8 million in TV ads that could begin as early as November, according to The Post story. There are several reasons that TV ad space is in such demand, despite the growth in digital politicking and social platforms, and the decline in traditional television viewing. For one thing, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision has opened the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and outside groups, and primary and battleground states are seeing the impact on TV ad spending, analysts tell The Washington Post. Also, while TV viewing by 18- to 34-year-olds is down, the most reliable, older voters still turn to television for news and entertainment, according to research. As a result of the rush to TV, some primary state TV stations are rejecting ad reservations until closer to the primaries to maximize pricing, according to political analysts interviewed. Read the complete article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/07/20/why-political-ads-are-going-to-reach-a-record-in-2016/

For Media Clout, Rand Twitter Ads Target Reporters

Twitter may not be the political heavyweight in social media, with 300 million users compared to Facebook's 1.4 billion, but Republican Sen. Rand Paul, one of the crowd of GOP 2016 presidential hopefuls, is hoping to enlarge his media footprint with the Twitter ad platform. How? He's directly targeting messages to certain journalists, using a list "uploaded into Twitter's ad platform of journalists," according to a story in The Hill, an influential Washington-based political website. Reporter David McCabe quotes Paul's Chief Digital Strategist Vincent Harris: "We have even created lists of journalists in early primary states, working with the communications team. And it's a really good cheap, effective, targeted way to get a piece of content out there in front of people that you want to see it--journalists who are going to help with their megaphone push a piece of content out further." Rand Paul is following in the footsteps of President Obama's reelection campaign in this respect; Obama digital strategists also used Twitter to try to influence political junkies and journalists. For more, read http://thehill.com/policy/technology/247839-rand-pauls-campaign-directly-targets-reporters-with-ads-on-twitter

Marketing Pro to 2016 Hopefuls: Sell Pithy Specifics

Political campaigns spend big dollars on voter-targeted direct and digital marketing campaigns, so the opinions of direct marketing pros, like well-known and outspoken consultant and author Denny Hatch, are worth noting. Hatch recently wrote an article for Target Marketing magazine, advising the crowded field of 2016 presidential candidates on how they can ease the decision-making nightmare for voters. First, he urges them to avoid BOMFOG, a term gleaned from a former candidate-client's own speech content description: Brotherhood of Man Under the Fatherhood of God. Hatch cites BOMFOG as an illustration of the general political tendency to "bloviate, equivocate, pontificate, obviate and flat-out lie" while avoiding specifics. But when you have over 20 primary candidates, Republican and Democrat, that kind of tactic will leave voters either grabbing at televised one-liners and gaffes, or confused and turned-off. Instead, Hatch suggests that, as in the business world, each candidate should create a pithy, personal resume for voters. That political resume would consist of a CV (99 words maximum about family, net worth, education and career); a Preamble about basic philosophy of governance (249 words maximum); and a series of Issue Stances (99 words each). Hatch provides his own examples of issue opinions, which readers won't necessarily accept, but the idea is to offer a manifesto that is specific, punchy and printed (no BOMFOG evaporating at the end of the speech or media sound bite). Issues include hot topics such as energy, foreign policy, climate change, health care, immigration, jobs, national security, taxes, and more. Hatch taps into marketing basics with his ideas. "Specifics sell. Generalities do not," he notes, quoting marketing freelancer Andrew J. Byrne. By creating a punchy resume, each candidate can focus on his or her USP (Unique Selling Proposition), Hatch suggests. See: http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/article/selling-president-2016-bomfog/

Presidential Hopefuls Duel With E-mail Subject Lines

With e-mail a proven political campaign tool, and subject lines a key to open rates, the crowded field of 2016 presidential hopefuls is already providing interesting subject line lessons, notes a recent Target Marketing magazine article by Kevin Kelleher of Return Path, an e-mail marketing data solutions provider. Consider Ted Cruz's subject line "Exciting news this week!" It aims to generate interest/curiosity (what's so exciting?), urgency and even fear of missing out (this week), Kelleher points out. In contrast, Rand Paul's welcome e-mail subject line rambles on with "Thank you so much for signing up to learn about Rand Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States." Its 134 characters--which is almost too long for a tweet and will be cut short by e-mail inboxes and mobile screens--put it in the minority 3% of subject lines over 100 characters, which also have a lower open rate average of just 9%, per Kelleher. Hillary Clinton takes the opposite tack with a minimalist, one-word "Welcome" e-mail subject line, which may have an eye on mobile users since those devices are constrained to just 25-30 characters. But it certainly seems to miss the more personal, inclusive inspiration added by just three more words with Marco Rubio's "Welcome to the Team." Kelleher adds that Bernie Sanders is the only one to use a question and a soft call to action with his "Are you with me?" subject line. The answer to that question for all candidates is pending, but to give your 2 cents now on the current crop of political subject lines, go to http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/article/presidential-subject-lines-can-learn-early-candidates/