Posted on 08/12/2016 10:46:42 AM PDT by xzins
Trump set more than one record during the primary season. The most talked about is his earning more primary votes than any other candidate in the history of the republican primary system. Trump excelled in another category as well. He spent far less than any of his major opponents.
It should be noted that not every dollar of spending is for advertising, but it is a significant part of total spending for most candidates. Numerous articles were written on Jeb Bush's scorched earth TV campaign that spent tens of millions and yielded so little in terms of results. During that time, Trump marched seemingly unfazed toward the nomination while spending so much less than Bush that the media at times made Trump's lack of spending a central issue in their coverage.
Yet, the unspoken conclusion of all this is very troubling to the media industry. Trump is succeeding without spending money on them. Normally, a political season has them awash in dollars and ad buys from campaigns and PACs. Not so with Trump. He appears to be demonstrating that the purchase of advertising for political campaigning is not as necessary as once thought. He might not be demonstrating that advertising is going the way of the buggy whip, but he could well be demonstrating it is going the way of the blackberry.
NYT in June reported on primary season spending by the various campaigns. Trump's Republican party primary opponents spent 316 million dollars. Trump spent just a token percentage of that...63 million. PACs supporting his opponents and sometimes attacking him spent 316 million. Trump PACs are said to have spent 2 million. Others say that Trump PACs didn't exist. (On the democrat side Clinton spent 196 million plus an additional 45 million by PACs supporting her.)
Rubbing salt in the wound, Trump is reported by HotAir to have spent ZERO dollars on ads so far in this general election campaign:
Analysis: "Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising"According to an analysis by NBC News, the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
"The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars."
Even the two third-party presidential candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump, the GOP nominee. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.
When outside groups are factored in, Clinton’s advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
Campaign advertising is an expected cash cow for the media industry. And it all comes in a relatively short span of time. During the 2012 season, advertising reigned. And it rained dollars. National broadcast and TV ad buys alone were about 164 million in 2012, with the Dems buying 77 million and the pubbies coming in at 87 million. http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records-for-total-ads-aired/ Others have attempted to quantify the total spending on media advertising, and the estimates begin with total campaign expenditures of about 2 billion dollars in 2012. Much of that was for advertising, and as the above study shows,over 160 million was for national level advertising alone. How much more was for local buys, sometimes a far more effective means of targeting areas with electorally important states?
Among the many distinctions of the 2012 election season was that it was the most expensive in history. President Obama and Mitt Romney each raised around a billion dollars and outside groups spent another billion or more. http://www.npr.org/2012/11/30/166260533/2012-election-the-most-expensive-in-history
Trump is shunning the cash cow of the media moguls and the wisdom of the Washington wizards. They are not getting the pay day that they expect every four years. Bottom lines are being affected.
"How dare upstart Donald Trump not buy from us! Doesn't he know that we make and break campaigns? We'll show him. This is war!"
The Media IS Desperate for Trump to Lose -- They Must Prove Their Power As Trump Soars Without $$ Spent on Ads.
That's one more reason for them to attack him with everything they have.
But, this Friday morning's poll from USC/Dornsife shows him tied with Hillary Clinton. And he's spent ZERO dollars on advertising.
To date, they've brought out the long knives, then the IEDs, and then this last few weeks they've been launching NUKES.
Maybe they better find Lex Luther and buy some kryptonite.
Think about that, this November, libs.
And they donated 1,000,000 tax deductible to the Clinton Foundation which they will spend on themselves and 10% for charity maybe
The media almost have to support Hillary. At this point, she’s their main source of income.
Yes. Under the guise of “First Amendment rights” for corporations. Allowing contributions to pacs etc. to push favorite candidates.
The MSM is reporting on Trump, for free.
They aren't getting a single penny from him, and they're keeping him in the headlines every day with their biased reporting.
No wonder they are angry.
Hillary, on the other hand, is doing the only thing she know how to: Pay to play.
She is paying them in hopes of getting benefits in terms of favorable reporting--something she learned from her tenure as Secretary of State. But now the shoe is on the other foot.
The MSM needs to take a page from Hillary's book and say: "She paid us all this money, and we didn't do anything for her in return." Yeah, right.
And here we have THE REAL REASON so many media execs have ordered their employees to spew anti-trump propaganda, vehemently.
Politics is a BI-MONEY business now, and the Big Execs expecte dto rake in THREE BILLION DOLLARS+ in ad revenue this cycle.
With Trump spending next to NOTHING, the revenues are going to be down mightily, which puts the JOBS of those very execs at risk.
Just wait until he starts spending some money!!!
saw a Clinton ad at the watering hole a few weeks back.
bunch of folks were watching the television at the bar, and the ad came on.
Several at the bar basically shouted “look at that crooked b*tch on TV” and basically “F her”. Not really everyone, but I’m sure that had an affect on formulating an opinion to some who were eating their burgers.
People do not trust political ads, or politicians, they do not trust what they see on TV anymore, they know it’s all lies, and the more she plays these ads on TV, I think the more it hurts her with independents.
Some folks may not like Trump, but Clintons image and her voice (which was NOT in the ad, it was just a few still shots of her and a voice over) infuriate many people.
So I say she should double down and buy MORE ads.
Those reporters only vote in NYC, DC and CT.
the media thinks the “magic words” they speak are enough.
don’t pick on Ace!
Yep.
After Desert Storm, the first President Bush had an approval rating of like 94%.
He had a press conference, and a reporter asked him a stupid question. President Bush noted that it was a stupid question.
Right then and there, you could see the hatred for him grow.
How dare he, a mere President, point out that a reporter was stupid!
They’ve been insufferable since.
“He’s their answer to ‘campaign finance reform’, and it almost makes me laugh.”
Oh, well said!
Alternate definition of Cui Bono: “Follow the money.”
Works with the Clinton’s, Obozos and the Never Trumpskis.
Because Trump doesn’t spend much money on Ad.
Trump probably will have over a half $ billion in funds by October. Gee, what is he going to do with all that money?
I can think of a few things none good for Hillary. :)
If I may be so bold as to offer advice for some of it; Hire poll watchers for November in precincts where there won't already be volunteers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.