The gold standard source for monitoring Presidential campaign TV ad spending remains the data provided by CMAG/Kantar Media on a weekly basis. CMAG/Kantar Media is like the Nielsen Ratings for campaign TV. A full accounting for our purposes is provided by the Associated Press (AP) wire service and found here:
2016 Presidential TV Ad Spending
The data was last updated on October 25. The site provides data and graphics, state by state, for each campaign since January 1, 2016. A veritable treasure house to walk through. There is now just one full week left in the campaign before Election Day.
The original post about campaign TV advertising was prompted by Trump’s glorious promise to flood the airwaves with his popular message with $100 million in the last six week of the campaign. We looked at how he kept his word for the first three weeks of that challenge. Now we can add the results of Week 4 to our inventory.
Everything else being equal, we will also have the results for Week 5 in the Trump Ad Challenge in a day or two later this week (84% complete). Week 6 results will not be known until after the election is over, but we will keep you posted.
So, how did Promise Master Trump do in Week 4?
Chart of Continued Broken Promises (Week 4: October 16-22)
This following chart is a complete summary of CMAG/Kantar Media data for both campaigns for the last four weeks, week by week. It gives total TV ad spending (network, cable, and regional networks) in millions of dollars spent, and number of ads purchased. I have added a cost per ad comparison for each week.
Here goes. Remember Trump’s great challenge announcement on September 23 was that he would spend at least $16.6 million per week on TV for the rest of the campaign.
Did Trump keep his promise to his small donors for Week 4. Well no, but he is edging closer to redeeming his promise.
See the latest chart below.
The good news first. Trump did increase his ad spending by 30% to $13.5 million and the number of ads run by almost 60%, an increase of more than 5,500 ads during thee week. His cost per ad dropped significantly to less than $1,000 per showing, a decrease of about 15% week over week, which is good news.
So, for Trump on Trump performance he did rather better. Compared to the opposition, not so much. In total ad spending Trump lagged by almost $10 million during that single week, and the Democrats ran almost 8,000 more ads in the week than his campaign.
Curses! Foiled again. As 1960’s cartoon villain Snidely Whiplash* might say.
Snidely Whiplash About to Say: Curses! Filed Again.
As for Trump’s cumulative performance during the four week challenge, he is still getting his sea legs adjusted, as he is now after four weeks just about $30 million behind his bold promise of an ad surge. He has stabilized his cost per ad, achieving parity with the Democrats at roughly $1,000 per ad over the entire period. This, Trump’s late entry into the race for reserving ad time is not imposing as much of an efficiency penalty as we first feared. Good for his supporters, and especially his small donors who will get some more bang for their bucks, despite the campaign’s initial screw-up in ad scheduling.
On the other hand, over the 4 week period, Trump is now $55 million behind Democrats in total TV ad spending, and faces a deficit of more than 50,000 total ads in that time, or about 12,000 fewer ads per week in the 10 Battleground states where both campaigns are competing against each other on TV. That’s a lot of unanswered slams against Trump in just one month.
Can Trump make up the difference, and match his promise, in the last two weeks? He would need to spend $33 million per week to fulfill his pledge to his supporters, which would be an increase of 2½ times his very best ad week ever each week.
Could it happen? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the rent money on his odds. As for matching the Democrats, the chances appear to be slim and none. Though miracles do happen occasionally.
So, the results of the updated Trump Challenge after four weeks show Trump well behind, but he could reach his initially promised weekly average for just the last two weeks with some more effort.
Of course, total ad spending nationwide is only part of the picture. It also matters how Trump is doing in the critical Battleground states where the electoral votes and the crux of the election contest are being played out. Maybe he is in better shape on a state by state basis.
Here is a diagram of the campaign spending strategy by state from the same website above. TV ads are being run in a total of 15 states: 10 by both campaigns, Trump alone in Wisconsin, and Clinton alone in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Nebraska (of all places).
Given the polling data one might well wonder why Trump would Wisconsin and Nebraska, for different campaigns would show up at this late date, two week from election day. The campaigns do have some secret sauce polling data and models, so presumably theses are not random selections, if a bit on the margins. On the other hand, since Texas is all red, and Georgia and Arizona are pretty red though tossing this year, Clinton’s unanswered ads there now are not a comforting sign for Republicans, unless she has gone and lost her mind.
[As an aside, given the bitterness and rancor of this 2016 presidential election contest, wouldn’t you like to live in one on the 35 U.S. states where TV peace has broken out, and folks can just focus on earning a living and taking care of their families until this wrestling match is done? Since I live in Louisiana, I get a pass from TV presidential ad assault, though not the rest of the tumult.]
Let’s stick with the ad contests jointly waged in the 10 acknowledged Battleground contests (shaded purple in the diagram above).
Trump wins Maine and Virginia against Clinton, though he spent less than $700 thousand in both states combined. Clinton wins in the other eight. The Democrats more than doubled Trump’s ads in North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In Iowa they tripled Trump’s investment. In Colorado they outspent Trump by $300 thousand, and in New Hampshire by $600 thousand during Week 4. The biggest prize was Florida, where a total of more than $7 million was spent by Clinton, twice what Trump put on the air.
Not a real happy picture overall for Republicans in the Battleground arena.
There was a presidential campaign before August 7, when the heavy lifting began post both party conventions. For the entire cycle of Trump vs. Clinton Trump has spent $54.2 million compared to Clinton’s $269.3 million as of October 22.
This means Clinton’s total broadcast TV ad advantage is 5:1. “Holy Cow!”, as legendary Chicago Cubs sportscaster Harry Caray frequently did say.**
Take One Step Back on Campaign Finances
There has been some attention to money on the Presidential race compared to 2012, but not a whole lot. The 2012 contest was a blockbuster with the total raised by each campaign in nosebleed territory, for Romney at $450 million and for Obama at $721 million. See the chart adapted from OpenSecrets.org below.
The 2016 race by contrast is a more muted affair as of late October: for Trump’s campaign $190.3 million and for Clinton’s campaign $451.2 million, about 50% of the amounts raised in 2012.
One final tidbit. As of October 22, the Trump campaign had $40.2 million Cash on Hand to finish the election with a bang, while Clinton’s campaign had $80.4 million Cash on Hand.
Curses! Foiled Again.
Note for the observant. Despite Trump’s repeated insults about big loser Romney and how wealthy and self-actualizing Trump is, in campaign finance terms Trump is the Real Chump. Romney doubled Trump’s overall campaign fundraising, and even topped Trump in small dollar donors, Trump’s supposed strength. Just another example of bloviating and bragging against the documented facts. Those stubborn little critters that just won’t go away.
To emphasize the point: Romney (2012) doubled Trump’s campaign financial prowess; Clinton (2016) doubled Trump; and Obama (2012) more than tripled Trump. Yet another sterling example of Trump’s non-unity effect on the Republican party. He has underperformed big time against a party loser, a black guy, and a woman. A weak 4th place afterthought.
Those numbers are just for money directly given to the candidates. If you add in the National Party contributions and all outsider money, the difference is astounding. The 2012 contest was an overall torrent with the total spent from all sources for Romney was a record breaking $1.25 billion, and for Obama $1.15 billion.
It seems pretty clear by now, that Trump had no real idea what it costs to run a national presidential campaign, and didn’t take the advice of those around him who tried to educate him in time. A self-inflicted wound, for Mister Do It On the Cheap. I’m the Smartest Guy in the Room Always.
A Final Media Sloppy Reporting Sendoff
Despite a plethora of proven examples over the past year that Trump suffers from TES (Trump Exaggeration Syndrome) in pubic pronouncements, the media fell for it again in a second round on the TV ad spending. Having been pranked on September 23 by the initial bogus claim, reporters were back at the Trump fantasy well again on October 18.
Here’s Fox News:
For the first time in the general election, Donald Trump is set to outspend Hillary Clinton on TV ads this week.
Trump’s campaign is slated to spend $14 million on television ads compared to Clinton’s $10 million, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG, a company that tracks political advertising.
This was followed by virtual copycat items on CNN and NBC.
The closest to right that anyone got the story was Bloomberg. They got Trump’s number right (only $1 million too high), but missed Clinton’s on the low side by $10 million. And no one mentioned that Trump was missing his own publicized, self-imposed promise for the fourth week in a row.
For the first time this cycle, Donald Trump is outspending Hillary Clinton on television advertising: he’s spending $14.4 million to her $13.9 million during the week beginning Oct. 18. (On average, Clinton has spent $9.1 million per week since the last primary election on June 14, compared to Donald Trump’s $3 million per week.) Still, the decrease in overall ad spending this cycle when compared to the last presidential election is stunning: Factoring in advertising by all outside groups, there’s been roughly $450 million spent on general election TV advertising; four years ago, the total amount spent was more than twice that.
Go figure. And Trump complains about media bias against him. That’s some brass paired set he carries around all right. It’s a wonder he can walk upright.
*From Grammarphobia entry on the phrase “Curses! Foiled again.”:
A generation later came television’s dastardly Snidely Whiplash of Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties, a series that aired in the 1960s as segments of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Snidely Whiplash, archenemy of the heroic Dudley, usually exited on the line (voiced by the actor Hans Conried) “Curses! Foiled Again!”
** About Harry Caray:
Harry Caray, born Harry Christopher Carabina (March 1, 1914 – February 18, 1998) was an American sportscaster on radio and television. He covered five Major League Baseball teams, beginning with 25 years of calling the games of the St. Louis Cardinals with two of these years also spent calling games for the St. Louis Browns. After a year working for the Oakland Athletics and eleven years with the Chicago White Sox, Caray spent the last sixteen years of his career as the announcer for the Chicago Cubs. He has won multiple Emmy Awards for baseball play-by-play and studio work for NBC Sports.
Yes, I know Harry called games for the Cards and White Sox, but for my money he was at his peak during his 16 years (1981-1997) with the Cubbies on WGN.
Sad to say so far, while the Cubs have made it to the World Series this year, they are facing defeat by the Indians, down 3 games to one as of Saturday night.
I have said before I am a childhood N.Y. Yankees fan of my hometown club, which also happens to be the period of the greatest sustained performance of any American baseball team in my lifetime. That doesn’t mean I can’t have secondary favorites. The Cubs are one, thanks to the reach of Chicago TV station WGN, a pioneer in cable broadcast sports, back when it was hard to carefully follow a team outside your home area.
One of the great live sports pleasures I have ever had was attending a Cubs baseball home game at Wrigley Field on a beautiful June day in the early 1990’s (I believe 1994) to see them in action, and hear Harry call the game and do the Seventh Inning Stretch. Sosa hit a home run, and the Cubs won. I recall they played the Dodgers, and beat pitching ace Oral Hershiser that day (Hershiser had an off season in 1994, before three beauts in a row). The Cubs stalwart Ryne Sandberg did not play in the game.