Ads work.
It's the ONLY source of political information for at least 1/2 of the electorate.
LA Times/Dormslife Tracking Poll (Trump 45.0 Clinton 42.4)
Gee...I guess that “money in politics” is only evil when *Republicans* have it.
Reuters/Ipsos Trump +1
But political ads pay the media who are demanding that more political ads be purchased.
Political ads pay the 30% commissions earned by political advisors based on how big an advertising budget they manage.
And political ads are HATED by the mainstream Americans who get annoyed and irritated by the endless stream of political ads they throw away every hour in email, that they throw away every day from their mailboxes, that they ignore on the radio (or change channels), and change channels on the TV (or buy on-line streaming to avoid) or drive by on the billboards.
This is a different election cycle, best characterized by the simple abbreviation: FUDC!
PPD Poll: Trump +2.2
Just for the record, who spent most, Hillary or JebCruzRubioKasichCarson et al.?
Rasmussen Trump +1. The sour grapes is beginning with articles like this. Trump is starting to shellac Hitlery with ads.
Who believes early voters are persuadable?
Ads may work, but the need for TV ads id lessening — the millennial voting block (along with plenty of others) isn’t watching much TV in real time — they’re typically watching via DVR or on-demand, if at all. DVR watchers skip the ads; on-demand is often not packaged with the original ads. Online advertising is a better value to reach these voters.
Also, as was already mentioned, less is more — the campaign needs to find the right balance to inform but not annoy the public.
Yes Walt Disney is rolling in his grave knowing Disney owns this far left
Propaganda outfit.
Everything is a lie from ABC .
Problem is, who is he going to buy an ad with? All the media are out to take him down.
Ads work? You only have to look at the republican primary to find a very clear counter argument to that assertion. Look at all the menu spent by all the other candidates compared to what Trump spent. Jeb spent the most and was one of the first out. Like screening telemarketers, people have more and more found ways to screen out TV advertising. Don’t tell that to television executives. They absolutely rely on paid political ads to stay in the black. But just like the printed press, their days are numbered. Their lifeline is paid advertising, and it simply doesn’t pay anymore. And Trump proved during primary season that you don’t have to buy votes to win.
Finally saw a Trump ad during a local station’s sports show. It was a positive, pro America ad with narration by D-Day. Looking forward to seeing more Trump ads instead of the Johnson, Stein and Queen Amnesia ads.
....BWWWAAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHHHHH!
>>With outside groups excluded, the Clinton campaign outspends Trump’s more than a 9 to 1, according to a new ABC News analysis of television advertising data from CMAG/Kantar Media.
Any yet, he’s tied with her according to most polls that slightly oversample Democrats.
Ads do work and that 1/2 of the electorate have the attention span of a three year old. So when do you deploy the ad blitz for a November election? July-August or September-October?
Ads work.
It's the ONLY source of political information for at least 1/2 of the electorate.
But since most of the voters don't really make up their minds until just before the election money spent this far out has a poor rate of return. Look at Hillarys numbers.
What has all the $$ she spent on ads bought her?
For the last few weeks, Trump has been out there, working HARD and successfully controlling the agenda.
In contrast, Hillary has been coasting — keeping a very low profile and saving her energy for fundraisers. I think even the low information folks are starting to notice this. She has slipped considerably in the polls and may even be slightly behind at this point.
After the disastrous week Trump had (during the Dem convention), I began to question if Trump really wanted the job. The last few weeks have shown me that he does, which boosts my optimism.
It really is a sad state of affairs when you think about it—that all national elections are supposedly decided by the dumbest 10% of eligible voters who can actually be swayed one way or another or even whether they will vote or not vote at this point in the process by an ad. The result could be good or bad, but in any case the ones that vote one way and then another and usually can’t rationally articulate their reasoning supposedly decide the outcome.
We haven’t had 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908. That might actually be a good thing in the past, because higher voter turnout would probably only increase the swing vote as a %. This time I think a higher turnout might actually good for our side for once, almost have to think these people will go for the outsider, especially if there is a hidden Trump vote of those who have never been engaged or at least not engaged for a long time.
Freegards