Romney, Obama Lead Ad Spenders This Cycle

The University of Wisconsin's Ken Goldstein is out with his eagerly awaited analysis of presidential campaign TV advertising in 2007-8, and here are the highlights:

** The candidates spent more than $107m on ads. Mitt Romney spent three times as many ads as his nearest opponents -- 35,000 separate spots costing him $29M, while Barack Obama has spent about $5M more than Hillary Clinton.

** The only candidate who has not aired a negative television ad: Barack Obama.

** Third party groups spent a combined total of $3M to influence the presidential race.

** Mike Huckabee and John Edwards are singled out for running ads that name their opponents.

** $43M worth of television ads aired in Iowa.

** Through last Sunday, only $3M worth of ads had been aired in the Super Tuesday states.

** Interesting factor: Barack Obama narrated more than 80% of his own ads, compared to less than 50% for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

(All data is courtesy of TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG with analysis by the Wisconsin Advertising Project)

Comments

Marc, seems to me that 22.7 million (Obama's $ spent) minus 18.7 million (Clinton's $ spent) is about a Four million dollar difference, not five. What am I missing?

Posted by Bill | February 1, 2008 11:26 AM

Interesting. Will Obama now launch a TV ad trumpeting his disavowal of negative ads, whilst at the same time laying into Hillary for being negative? Probably not.

I wonder this report has an reflections on the overall efficacy of TV ads in this campaign compared to previous years. From what I understand they don't work as well as they used to, something that reflects an overall change in the media landscape.

marbury

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | February 1, 2008 11:27 AM

** The only candidate who has not aired a negative television ad: Barack Obama.

I think this deserves more than a little bullet point. Could it be that we have a significant challenge to the conventional wisdom that cynicism and nastiness is what wins elections?

Posted by J.B. | February 1, 2008 11:28 AM

J.B.: Obama hasn't won anything yet... but your point is a good one.

Marc, is that it for the study? Can we get a link to the whole analysis?

Posted by willie | February 1, 2008 12:24 PM

And yet Romney has tanked while Obama is surging...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 1, 2008 12:54 PM

>>The only candidate who has not aired a negative television ad: Barack Obama.

this should be in bold italics.

Posted by rob! | February 1, 2008 1:02 PM

Most people have a long-standing habit of tuning out TV ads (for anything, not just politics). So it may be at least as significant that Obama banner ads are showing up all over Yahoo e-mail's pages this week.

Posted by wj | February 1, 2008 1:07 PM

Is it not a little too early to suggest that Romney is tanking while Obama surges? This has been a weird election cycle already. I would not be at all surprised if it gets a whole lot weirder. Super Tuesday may add clarity or more confusion. Who knows?

Posted by rbscott | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM

This analysis makes perfect sense. Romney and Obama don't carry the name recongition that Clinton, and McCain do. Obviously they have to spend more money to get their names out there.

Posted by Nate | February 1, 2008 5:01 PM

Obama has spent more money, but it is money from people like me, who give small donations over and over again, not from PACs or lobbyists. I am proud to be a contributor to the campaign of he only one who has not aired negative ads. May the DNC and the party base wake up before Tuesday and discover the chance of the lifetime for our party and our country.

Posted by katharine | February 2, 2008 8:47 AM

No negative TV ads, but didn't someone, with at least tacit approval from the campaign, run a negative radio ad in Nevada targeted at Latino voters that said, in Spanish, something to the effect of "Hillary Clinton doesn't care about our people." I didn't follow those caucuses closely, but as I recall there were protests from Clinton people and the thing was pulled. Maybe it was
something one of the unions produced.

Posted by Ed | February 2, 2008 10:45 AM