This November’s election looks like another record setting cycle, perhaps being the most expensive midterm election in U.S. history. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, campaign spending has already surpassed $1 billion for U.S. Senate and House campaigns nationwide, with forecasts that it will top out somewhere around a whopping $3.7 billion for those races alone.
Of course, California is leading the way in reaching new heights at the state level. With more records set in the June primary, highlighting the fact that the California elections are keeping pace with these broader national trends. It seems that the name of the game continues to be how much money can be raised and spent, with little regard to how effectively these funds are be used.
If recent campaigns can be counted on as providing reliable clues for how campaign dollars will be spent, then it is almost a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of spending will once again be on traditional media, especially television. Major evolutions in technology, however, call into question the wisdom of spending advertising dollars predominately, if not exclusively, on traditional media. And, this year should be the year when those who invest their dollars in political campaigns demand more for their investment.
To illustrate this point, a very telling anecdote can be found outside the political arena with one of the world’s most innovative marketers; the soft drink company, Pepsi. Pepsi’s marketing strategy is a great example of how changes in technology require careful rethinking of media. Between 1999 and 2009, Pepsi spent over $142 million on Superbowl TV ads. 2010 however, marked a dramatic change in Pepsi’s approach. For the first time in 23 years, Pepsi ran no television ads during the Superbowl. Replacing TV commercials with high profile celebrities such as Cindy Crawford, Brittney Spears, and Justin Timberlake, they made exclusive use of the Internet, as they kicked off a social media campaign (texting, blogging, or social networking) called "The Pepsi Refresh Project".
Pepsi recognized two factors that accounted for a change in strategy: eroding impacts of TV and a spike in Internet use. Combined with these factors, widespread use of portable communication devices (smart phones, iPads, etc.) points to a marketplace that is reconfiguring in ways that stretch far beyond the reach of traditional media boundaries.
I’m not suggesting that campaigns should abandon TV altogether, but the reality is that digital media is an essential part of communicating with voters and must be a serious component of campaign spending.
At a recent Google briefing I attended, representatives from that company estimated political campaigns last cycle spent a paltry 1.6% on online communications (Google recommends successful campaigns dedicate 5-10%; still way less than the percent of time that voters are spending online).
Incorporating the right use of digital media, along with traditional media, will enable innovative campaigns to reach potential new supporters and activate existing ones. For those that have yet to embrace digital media just think about what automobiles, online stock trading, and digital cameras have in common. They are all technological innovations that toppled and replaced what was traditional and what appeared to be irreplaceable.
It is looking increasingly doubtful that campaigns that lack an integrated approach to new and traditional media will enjoy success on Election Day. All indications suggest that a tipping point in political campaigning and communications has arrived, and that means that it is time to innovate or be replaced!