Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Political Advertising
-According to the New York Times, $2 billion was spent on political TV ads in 2008.
There were over 380 ads created.
-Sometimes TV ads backfire:
What Does Political
(cc) image by nuonsolarteam on Flickr
(cc) image by jantik on Flickr
''Yes We Can" was an online video that went viral during the 2008 election and is called the video with the most impact to any politicians image
Source: Newsmax, Social Media Pull Out All Stops to Attract Political Ads
In 2010 73% of people go to the internet for the bulk of their political news
The average campaign will allocate 10% of their funds to online advertising
Candidate can purchase"promoted tweet"
why the transition?
Obama (known for his relatively novel concept of social media infiltration in the 2008 election) spent 7.5 million on Google alone during his last campaign
Purpose is for audience to gain confidence and accept their ideas
This means advertisements are designed to influence the vote
Differs from commercial advertising is that the product is a person or political philosophy rather than goods and services
Advertisement objectives need to be met within certain time frame
Have moral implications for population at large
Raises questions concerning campaign funding
The truth or reality of political claims
A study from CNN.com states that
negative advertisements work very
There is some evidence that
negative messages may be more likely
than positive ones to passively register
Negative information is more memorable
than positive information.
Politicians "touring the country" to gain supporters will diminish as most campaigning will be media based.
"there's a real possibility that increased transparency can initiate a more substantive two-way conversation between voters and candidates"- www.ipolitics.ca
Super PACS (the ability of donors to give unlimited funds to a campaign) will give wealthy individuals the ability to have extensive influence on campaigns
the sleeper effect
When people are normally exposed to a highly persuasive message (such as an engaging or persuasive political ad), their attitudes toward the advocacy of the message display a significant increase.
Upbeat/positive advertising tends to appeal to the public
because it allows people to believe that things will improve
Positive ads offer people
reasons to trust candidates
Candidates seem to be
running less positive ads
Customizes ads using information users provide of their personal profiles
During the 2012
Federal Elections Campaign Act
Amendments to the FECA
(Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act)
Citizens United v. FEC
Broadcasters could refuse all deceptive ads except for
"no power of censorship over the material broadcast"
by candidates for public office
*Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315]
Let ads like this get on the air
Increased disclosure of contributions to federal candidates
Contributions to federal candidates
Candidate expenditures from personal funds
Required Disclosure of political contributions
CIO for FDR
Communications Act of 1934
Struck down the ban on independent expenditures for federal campaigns
National Association of Realtors: $1,634,500
National Beer Wholesalers Assn: $1,697, 500
Honeywell International: $1,789,428
Restore Our Future: $51,904,972
American Crossroads: $28,082,720
Winning our Future: $23,907,272
(cc) photo by medhead on Flickr
Effect of Super PACs
"Unlimited spending by supposedly independent super PACs is creating widespread perception of corruption and undermining public confidence that elected officials serve in the public interest"
One-Fourth Of Americans Less Likely To Vote Because Of Super PACs
Attack (Negative) Ads
Icecream Ad, Johnson v. Goldwater 1964
Referenced as the first of political "attack ads"
According to Lipsitz, Trost, Grossmann, & Sides, many voters claim to dislike negative campaigning on principle and want candidates to present policy proposals in a civilized manner.
So why do candidates still use them?
Psychologists feel that negative information has a tendency “to be more influential than equally extreme or equally likely positive information."
Citizens may want to hear the good qualities of the candidates but they tend to remember more about the less desirable ones when presented with them
Ads created by Super PACs cannot be controlled by candidates, which insulates the candidate from criticism even though they may support the ad
By FCC regulation, television stations have to sell advertising slots to candidates for both federal and state office at the “lowest unit rate” within 60 days of a general election and 45 days of a primary.
Super PACs don’t get the discount; they have to pay the same rates as everyone else, making the cost of super-PAC ad buys significantly higher than that of a campaign.
The government mandates that stations provide “reasonable access” to federal candidates. Stations have to allow campaigns for federal office to buy time and cannot censor their ads, regardless of content
While super PACs can raise an unlimited amount of money, the amount of time available to advertise on television is finite.
(cc) image by jantik on Flickr
Regulated in light of the Watergate scandal by the 1974 Amendment to the FECA
"Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people."
In 1952, presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower became the first candidate to use television.
In 1960, candidate John F. Kennedy made about 200 commercials.
In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson used negative ads, which were still new at the time.
In 1984, Reagan used positive ads to make it seem like voting against him meant voting against prosperity.
In 1988, George HW Bush found a way to get free publicity
-The Stand By Your Ad provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 required politicians to say “I approve this message”
In 1992, Bill Clinton used MTV and talk shows like The Arsenio Hall show to appeal to a younged audience
History of Political Ads