-
5. What, When, and Where: Making Sense of Campaign Advertising
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
C H A P T E R F I V E What, When, and Where Making Sense of Campaign Advertising O VER THE COURSE OF THE 2000 election season, 970,424 ads advocating for federal candidates aired in the top seventy-five media markets . In 2004, in these same markets, 1,050,630 ads aired on behalf of presidential, Senate, and House candidates (over 600,000 of which were for the presidential race). In the top 100 media markets for 2004 (as noted earlier , CMAG expanded its market coverage that year), nearly 1.4 million spots aired. Ads in both years aired at all times of the day and during scores of different shows, and they were sponsored by candidates, parties, and independent interest groups. In order to understand the effects of exposure to all this campaign advertising , it is first necessary to explore the factors that determine the content and influence the placement of all these ads. In this chapter, we treat political advertising as the dependent variable, focusing principally on the volume, tone, and targeting of advertisements in the 2000 and 2004 elections. We ask what factors shaped the ad environment that voters confronted, exploring the roles of competitiveness, sponsorship, timing, and what we refer to as the “total ad environment.” From these findings, we draw a number of important lessons for the study of campaign advertising. Competitiveness As discussed previously, many studies have looked at campaign advertising using national-level measures, essentially placing all citizens in the same political context (e.g., Finkel and Geer 1998; Kaid and Johnston 1991). Political advertising, however, is never evenly distributed throughout the country. There is wide and systematic variation when it comes to the mix and level of ads broadcast. To a W H AT, W H E N , A N D W H E R E 53 very large extent, this variance is a function of the degree of political competition in a given media market. More competition almost inevitably means more ads. As a result, in 2000 and 2004, citizens in different markets were exposed to strikingly different campaigns. Throughout the course of the 2000 campaign in San Antonio, for example, seldom was heard a discouraging ad—or any political ad at all, for that matter. Only 531 election ads were aired during the entire year in the Alamo City. Similarly, Wichita, Oklahoma City, and Baltimore were each home to fewer than 2,000 broadcast political spots during the course of the entire 2000 campaign. What do these markets have in common? They were all in states that were clearly safe for either George W. Bush or Al Gore, and they were all devoid of competitive Senate races. In contrast, other markets in 2000 drew saturation levels of advertising for months before Election Day. The top markets for election advertising in the country were in states that were not only in play in the presidential race, but that had competitive Senate races and often closely contested House races as well. In 2000, such “perfect storm” markets included Seattle (22,120 general election spots aired), Detroit (21,835), Kansas City (20,528), St. Louis (20,461), Philadelphia (19,347), Spokane (18,406), Flint (18,135), and Grand Rapids (17,341). In Michigan, it was Spencer Abraham versus Debbie Stabenow; in Missouri, John Ashcroft faced Mel Carnahan and then his widow, Jean; and in Washington State, Slade Gorton was successfully challenged by Maria Cantwell. Philadelphia not only drew presidential advertising as a key swing state, but also as a home market for hard-fought Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Similarly , New York City made it into the top-twenty most heavily advertised markets (with nearly 16,000 general election spots aired) not because of the presidential race there—there really was none—but on the strength of advertising buys in the Franks–Corzine Senate race in New Jersey and the Clinton–Lazio race in New York. This pattern holds true for advertising in 2004, albeit with a slightly different set of markets. Table 5.1 shows the top-twenty markets for general election advertising in 2000 and 2004; totals include all general election ads aired on behalf of federal candidates (including party and interest group spots). In 2004, top markets included Tampa (37,252 general election ads), Albuquerque (32,484), Denver (32,396), Las Vegas (32,000), Miami (31,703), and Philadelphia (28,050). Ad buys were so intense in these markets primarily because of the competitiveness...