Type to search

That Buzzing In Your Pocket? It’s A Politician Wanting Your Vote

Business Money Politics Technology Top News Tribune News Service

That Buzzing In Your Pocket? It’s A Politician Wanting Your Vote


By Lindsay Wise, McClatchy Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — If you thought you couldn’t escape the onslaught of political ads in 2012, just wait until 2016.

This election cycle, campaigns are expected to fully embrace mobile advertising as a way to target voters anytime, anywhere.

For the first time, spending on political ads for digital media is expected to top $1 billion, rivaling the estimated amounts campaigns spend on telemarketing and radio, according to a report released this month by the research firm Borrell Associates.

That’s still just a fraction of the total $11.4 billion Borrell estimates will be poured into political advertising in 2016. But it’s a big increase since 2012, when spending on digital political ads was just $159 million.

Compared to the cost of airing a traditional television commercial, digital ads are a relatively inexpensive way for campaigns to get attention, said Steven Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis.

“The formula is simple: Do something humorous, encourage links in social media and shape the initial impression of an opponent before he or she can do it themselves,” Smith said.

A recent example popped up on some Missourians’ smartphones during the first Republican debate: A series of 10-second videos on the messaging platform Snapchat that portrayed Jason Kander, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, as a “pandering panda” who hobnobs with wealthy donors and special interests in Washington.

Funded by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Snapchat videos were followed by a website titled “Kander Pander,” along with a longer video featuring a person in a panda suit dancing with a money bag. Corresponding social media posts spread the panda-themed attack on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Kander’s campaign manager, Abe Rakov, dismissed the quirky ads as a sign of desperation from Republicans worried about the re-election of incumbent GOP Sen. Roy Blunt.

But the dancing panda also is a harbinger of the changes coming to political advertising as Americans grow increasingly reliant on their mobile devices for everything from checking the weather to buying a latte.

Snapchat, which automatically erases messages in a matter of seconds, might seem like an odd venue for ads. But with 71 percent of Snapchat users between the ages of 18 and 34, it’s easy to see why politicians are eager to use such tools to reach younger voters where they spend a lot of their time — on their smartphones.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush turned to Snapchat to announce he was running for president earlier this year, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio used it to showcase behind-the-scenes footage from his own presidential campaign kickoff.

Another Republican presidential hopeful, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, used the app to air brief videos of him destroying the tax code by setting it aflame, feeding it through a wood chipper and hacking it with a chainsaw.

Not to be left out, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker aired their own 10-second presidential campaign ads on Snapchat in July.

“Maybe I oughta run,” Kasich says with a smile on his Snapchat ad, a shaky production that gives the impression it was shot from the end of a selfie stick.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton joined the Snapchat craze this month. She joked at a fundraiser in Iowa that she loved Snapchat because “those messages disappear all by themselves,” a reference to the ongoing scandal regarding her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Candidates also are flocking to Pinterest, Instagram and apps such as Meerkat and Periscope that let mobile users livestream video from their phones.

“If 2004 was about Meetup, 2008 was about Facebook and 2012 was about Twitter, 2016 is going to be about Meerkat (or something just like it),” wrote Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior public relations adviser to President Barack Obama, on the website Medium.

Broadcasting an event live used to require a costly truck and satellite time, Pfeiffer points out. “Now you can do it with your phone … the same machine you use to text, check Instagram, hail an Uber, and play Candy Crush,” he wrote.

Smartphone use in the United States has exploded since the 2012 election, increasing by 394 percent, said Andrew Lipsman, vice president of marketing and insights at comScore, a company that tracks digital consumer behavior.

“Mobile has really taken over the landscape,” Lipsman said. “So if that’s where consumers are going to spend their time, from an advertising perspective that’s where you need to be.”

And then there’s the fact that two highly sought after voting demographics are reachable by mobile: millennials and Hispanics, Lipsman said.

Nearly 80 percent of Hispanic Internet users say they access the Internet on a phone, tablet or other mobile device, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.

And those in the millennial generation tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time on their phones, Lipsman said.

His company’s research also suggests another reason why political strategists want to invest in mobile ads: They tend to work better than online ads.

“That’s a surprise for a lot of people,” he said. “One of the big reasons is a lot of online ads are relegated to the side of the screen, but a mobile ad takes up most or all of your screen. So it can be a quick impression, but it can make a big impression very quickly.”

Mobile advertising has limitations, however. People are not as likely to make donations from their mobile phones as they are from a desktop computer, Lipsman said.

And mobile ads that “microtarget” voters based on their location or personal data could backfire if they make people feel harassed.

“There’s an irony here that many of these candidates claim they would support protecting consumer privacy, yet their campaigns are in essence engaged in online and offline stalking,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Digital Democracy in Washington.

Photo: A mobile phone shows a Facebook page of campaign propaganda to promote Hillary Clinton as president in 2016, in this photo illustration taken April 13, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Segar



  1. TZToronto August 31, 2015

    “A series of 10-second videos on the messaging platform Snapchat that
    portrayed Jason Kander, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, as a ‘pandering panda’ who hobnobs with wealthy donors and special interests
    in Washington.” Sounds like the pot saying that the kettle has some soot on it. While I’m sure both Democrats and Republicans are pandering pandas on numerous occasions, it’s interesting that the GOP, which wants all the financial benefits available going to the wealthy, would accuse a Democratic hopeful of hob-nobbing with vested interests.

  2. @HawaiianTater August 31, 2015

    Yes, I do want to see a woman president someday; just not Hillary. I’d love nothing more than to see 8 years of President Warren after 8 years of President Sanders.

  3. Dominick Vila September 1, 2015

    There is no doubt in my mind that the 2016 campaign is going to be like nothing we have seen before, not only in the sophistication of communication and advertising mediums, but because of the unprecedented influx of money into both campaigns, and the pervasive influence of money in American politics.
    As for wanting to see a woman President in the USA, that could not happen soon enough! Let’s face it, other than promoting policies that require perpetual warfare, catering for the interests of the wealthy, and ignoring major natural and social issues that should have been addressed long ago, we boys have not done the greatest job in the world. Might as well let our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters take a crack at what we have failed to do.
    Unfortunately, Hillary is not making things easy for her supporters, including me. It is not only her low key responses to all the fraudulent claims directed at her, but her reluctance to fight back. Her laid back performance thus far has allowed implausible candidates such as Trump, Carson, Walker, and Fiorina to get attention and support in spite of glaring shortcomings. Unless Hillary does something truly dramatic soon, our best hope to see a woman near the Oval Office is a Sander-Warren ticket.

    1. Karen Bille-Golden September 1, 2015

      I agree, I’d like to see her out there on more of the issues. But right now, most of the campaign coming from Trump and the likes are nothing more than attack politics. A woman candidate walks a fine line when it comes to backbiting, nasty political jabs a la Trump. Too much of it and she is labeled more harshly than her male counterparts and not enough and she comes off as weak. I’m not sure what she could say regarding the attacks on her but I think she’s trying to keep her cool and let the truth surface. Remember how long Obama let the birthers ramble on before producing the certificate. In the end, who looked more foolish? It’s early and I’m still expecting a lot more from her. At this stage of the game it’s difficult to tell who she should be fighting. Let the dust settle, it’s still early. I don’t think she can be over-confident any longer though. My opinion as to who should be our candidate is still up in the air.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.