What we learnt from the US election
Jim Marshall, chief client officer at Aegis, saw the US election campaign as a fascinating aspect of the American political way and a wonderful media jamboree, but thinks most people in the UK would be horrified if our own politics went the same way.
I was a bit disappointed by the coverage of the US presidential election. I stayed up and expected an incredibly tense affair which we were told was ‘too difficult to call’. Of course it proved not to be particularly close and Obama was re-elected with not too much fuss or serious opposition from Romney.
For me, Obama’s re-election was hardly a surprise.
In fact, it felt inconceivable that the US would drop a man who seems to be genuinely progressive and concerned about the future of a potpourri of cultures, races and social issues that make up modern American – in spite of the fact that he hasn’t proved quite as radical as many had hoped for in his first term.
Neither did it seem a surprise when his opponent, by his own notorious admission, was disparaging about a large proportion of the nation who he suggested didn’t deserve his representation.
But then I’m not an American voter and I wasn’t exposed to the humongous amount of marketing, advertising and media activity both political camps put behind their candidates.
It’s a fascinating part of the American political process – their advertising activity; not me being a non-voter, I hasten to add.
According to the Washington Post, both Obama and Romney raised around $1.1billion for their campaigns with Obama spending $887million and Romney ‘only’ $777million.
But what was spent on advertising and through the media? This is difficult to define because, as well as direct advertising for the two individual presidential candidates, there were also generic and Republican and Democrat campaigns running simultaneously.
Additionally, and more importantly, were the campaigns run by the ‘interest groups’ and ‘independent political organisations’, known as the Super PACS (Political Action Committees). They might sound like a variation on Super Mario, but these are very serious and very ‘moneyed’ organisations, which are required to be run entirely independently of the candidates and political parties, but are allowed to use their ‘own money’ to support their chosen party and/or candidate. (Incidentally their support largely means running campaigns attacking the opposition.)
Overall their contribution adds up to many hundreds of million dollars with a distinct bias for Republican support – four of the top five spenders were Republican supporters, with snappy names ranging from ‘Restore our Future’ to ‘Americans for Prosperity’, and their expenditure alone in the top four Republican supporting organisations was over $300million!
Some of the smaller Super PACs look like distinctly odd or even somewhat sinister organisations. These included the ‘National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund’ and the ‘Conservative Majority fund’ – the latter running TV ads claiming that Obama was not born in the US and that his birth certificate is fraudulent.
They would normally be difficult to take seriously were it not for the fact that they spent around $10million and $3million respectively supporting Romney (or, more accurately, attacking Obama).
What this all adds up to is an overall expenditure on the campaign which the Washington Post estimated at around $6billion with the cost of paid for advertising probably exceeded $2billion. The Washington Post also wrote, in its assessment of the whole event:
“Election 2012 was billed as the year that would see gushers of campaign cash raised and spent by interest groups on both sides of the political aisle…less certain is whether that spending made much of a difference.”
So does that mean $6billion went down the drain?
Spending smart vs. spending big
Interestingly, the most money spent in any state was in Florida, which was identified as the key ‘swing state’. In the run up to the election the residents of Florida were consequently exposed to around $170million of advertising. In the event the result of the election was announced before the Florida count was even completed (Obama won the state anyway), so this expenditure was entirely superfluous.
In fairness, while the overall expenditure didn’t determine the final result, it is a given now that, unless you can raise very substantial financial backing – and we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars – there really is no point in attempting to stand as a candidate for even the senate, let alone the presidency.
What is interesting about this is that we are often led to believe that the American political parties are employing clever strategies and that they can teach traditional marketers and advertisers a thing or two. Indeed, Obama has always been commended for his ‘smart’ digital and social media strategies with the 2008 presidential election termed the first presidency determined by social media.
In my humble, little islander, English opinion, this is a load of bollocks. Yes, they may employ smart regional tactics; yes, they may employ the whole gambit of communication tools; and yes, they may run genuinely integrated multi-channel campaigns; but the overall strategy is based on one single premise and that is spend BIG, BIG, BIG.
And by spending big they can do everything from running blockbuster TV campaigns to identifying the names and telephone numbers of undecided voters and getting Obama to give them a call on Election Day.
“Hello, this is Barack Obama calling for Mrs Smith.”
“Mum, it’s another one of those nuisance political callers, shall I tell him to **** off as well?”
It is a fascinating aspect of the American political way and a wonderful media jamboree, but I think most people in the UK would be horrified if UK politics went the same way. But then the Americans probably find it hard to understand why we have a national TV broadcaster which doesn’t carry any advertising (let alone political ads), but does seem to regularly fire its Director General when there is a whiff of political scandal.