The Press Stories
It is not surprising that a presidential campaign will cost more for advertising in places with more credible voters, especially in Pennsylvania and Florida.
“Florida and Pennsylvania are two of the biggest prizes for a candidate who must win for both Trump and Biden,” said Nathan Gonzalez, author of the non-partisan “Insight Elections” and a CNN contributor. “It’s hard to replace 29 or 20 election votes with another state.”
One thing these 10 war states have in common: Trump won all but one of them in 2016.
While Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton spent about 52 52,000 on advertising in Georgia, it is difficult to recognize the sports sector this year compared to 2016. This year, Trump has spent about $ 4.94 million so far, while Biden has spent about $ 26,926,000.
In 2016, Trump Clinton did not bother to pay for advertising in Minnesota. So far this year, Trump has spent $ 2.5 million and Biden $ 795,000.
Following Clinton’s loss of the “rust belt” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Biden’s promotional wallet for all three states is in the open this time around. So far, Biden has spent $ 44 million in Pennsylvania, $ 27 million in Michigan and $ 26.1 million in Wisconsin.
Another difference from 2016 is that Democrats spend significantly less on advertising in Ohio.
“Ohio played heavily towards Trump in 2016, and Democrats have not come back to them this year,” Gonzalez said. “But that doesn’t mean they won’t try.”
Looking at other parts of the country, Trump has surpassed his rival in national advertising, red states and even blue states. Aside from the battlefields, among the states that voted for Trump in 2016, Biden and his affiliated PACs were significantly less aggressive, spending $ 5.1 million compared to Trump’s $ 18.7 million.
But that is not necessary because the Biden campaign thinks they cannot compete in Trumpland. Most of those costs went to digital advertising, which was cheaper than TV and radio advertising.
As of August 31, Trump and Biden had spent more than $ 8,228 million on digital advertising on Facebook and Google – about $ 1 million behind their local broadcast television spending and four times more than they had spent on local cable advertising.
Although television and radio costs are primarily used to persuade voters, digital advertising is often used to solicit basic support for donations and to create voter lists (I think those Facebook ads will ask you to add your name).
“When it comes to online advertising for a national campaign, the target is less visible than the ads,” said Eric Wilson, political technocrat who led the digital team for Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.
In the absence of competition, online ads usually emphasize the email list and fundraising, Wilson said. For example, solid blue California has wealthy donors on both sides and is ranked in the top 10 states with the highest advertising costs overall. In more competitive states, there is a greater focus on identifying and transforming voters and volunteers.
Although this is a different kind of campaign, it is worth noting that Trump and his affiliated PACs have spent twice as much on digital advertising as Pitton.
“I am amazed at how little the Biden campaign invests in online advertising,” Wilson said. As incumbent president, Wilson added, Trump also dominates television news coverage, meaning he does not have to pay for increased exposure to television commercials such as Biden.
The benefit of Trump’s online advertising could do something with his target audience as well.
“(Trump’s) supporters are on Facebook, the statistics of those on Facebook are very relevant to their target audience, and all of Facebook’s costs contribute well to their strategic use of the site,” said Kathleen Searles, an associate professor of politics at Louisiana State University. “I think Facebook ads are generally less scrutinized and not subject to the same terms or conditions as TV ads, and that may be part of their strategy.”
In the 10 war states most of the advertising spending was directed towards television and radio. In Pennsylvania and Florida, the gap between Biden and Trump’s broadcast and digital advertising spending is dramatic. In Pennsylvania, Trump on TV / Radio. 29.6 million and 6 3.6 million for digital. Biden spent $ 39.1 million on TV / radio and $ 4.9 million on digital
In Florida, Trump spent $ 26.5 million on TV / radio.5 million and 7 million on digital. Biden on TV / Radio. 34.6 million and 4 7.4 million for digital.
It would make sense to spend more on credible TV commercials in states with more credible voters. The fact that TV and radio commercials are so expensive may be the precision to break the bank in states like Pennsylvania and Florida.
“Campaigns tend to take an arms-racing approach to advertising,” Searles said. Psychologically, some campaigns rely heavily on the strength of state programs to win.
It does not always work in practice. Clinton spent $ 64 million on advertising in Florida in 2016 – twice as much as Trump – and Sunshine State was still in the red.
“Alcohol evangelist. Devoted twitter guru. Lifelong coffee expert. Music nerd.”
