Despite Trump Effect, Political Ad Spending May Not Be What Networks, Stations Expect

Donald Trump Political TV Ad Spending
Doug Chayka for Variety

Donald Trump’s candidacy has been a ratings godsend. What’s still uncertain is whether it will boost or deflate political ad spending through the rest of the year.

The U.S. political cycle drives two spikes in advertising every four years: a large one during presidential campaigns and a smaller but still significant bump in even-numbered years that have congressional elections. These peaks in spending are enough to drive more than a quarter of total ad revenue during election years for some owners of broadcast stations, which get the lion’s share of political ad expenditures.

With a lame-duck president and long primary races on both sides, this year’s race has had the potential to drive massive ad spending as campaigns have heated up and stayed hot. The 2016 race has already generated substantially more revenue for station owners than the Obama-Romney campaign did four years ago. Four station owners — Nexstar, Meredith, EW Scripps, and Sinclair — minted $103 million from political ads from Q1 2015 through Q1 2016; the figure during the corresponding period for the earlier campaign was just $38 million. Moreover, the lengthy battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders likely boosted spending at least a bit during Q2.

The bigger question is whether we’ll see any pivot in Trump’s ad-spending strategy from the primary to the general election. He has spent a fraction of the amount laid out by either of his Democratic opponents and several of his erstwhile competitors for the Republican nomination. The conventional wisdom suggests that the free airtime he attracts as a result of his controversial remarks is bad news for ad spend.

When Trump does spend on traditional advertising, he does so in a more targeted way than his opponents, with the intention of influencing key groups of voters in specific geographic areas. Given the rise in addressable advertising technology, it’s likely we’ll see candidates opt for more of this surgical spending, rather than blanket advertising, as we approach the general election.

There still may be a bump in spending from congressional candidates on the Republican side, concerned that voters lukewarm on Trump may not turn out at all. Also in play are super PACs, which could add meaningfully to a mix that already includes direct spending from candidates and their parties.

Overall, the TV industry appears to be banking on record spending throughout the rest of the election, but there seems to be plenty of cause for caution on that front. We may yet see a disappointing haul for station and network owners.

Jan Dawson is the founder and chief analyst at Jackdaw Research, an advisory firm for the consumer technology market.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply

2 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Matchbox says:

    The Clinton campaign has plenty of cash and just today started big media buys in 8 battleground states. But the Trump campaign is low on cash and doesn’t have very good prospects for raising the sort of cash to advertise at the levels Romney did four years ago. And even if they had the cash, Trump is an unconventional candidate who eschews heavy advertising anyhow. Why pay for airtime when CNN and Fox News give it to him for free?

More Voices News from Variety

Loading