Ad Wars 2024: Harris's Blitz vs. Trump's Heavy Hits 🥊
Inside the Multibillion-Dollar Battle for America's Eyeballs (and Votes)
Hey there, political junkies and ad aficionados!
Remember us? You know, that super-buzzy newsletter that's been clogging up your inbox weekly since January with hot takes on political ads and campaign strategies? Well, if you've been wondering why your Thursday mornings have been suspiciously devoid of keen election insight (and a few throwaway puns) for the past month, let me explain.
Yours truly hit a wall harder than a campaign bus on an icy Iowa road. After months of non-stop analysis, and watching more campaign ads than any human being (that’s not currently in Guantanamo) should watch, my brain went on an unscheduled vacation.
While I put down the keyboard for a bit, I have been busy playing pundit on various news shows, and talking to reporters about Election ‘24, but now my attention returns to you, dear reader.
Why? We're now just over 30 days away from what might be the most consequential election in our lifetime. The airwaves are exploding with ads, the X/Twitter wars are raging aan Elon Musk is pushing his very expensive “like” and “post” buttons, and somewhere, a campaign manager is having night sweats about TikTok dance trends.
In short: It's go time, folks.
So, we're back in the saddle, ready to deliver the insights, analysis, and occasional puns that you've come to expect from Ctrl+Alt+Persuade. Whether you're a political operative, a curious voter, or just someone who enjoys watching this messy process, we've got you covered.
The next 30 days are going to be one wild ride, and we wouldn't want you to miss a single twist, turn, or targeted ad buy.
Let's dive back in.
Show Me the Money: Harris's Ad Blitz Leaves Trump in the Dust (Or does it?)
Remember when I said to keep an eye on ad spending this cycle? It was back in February, so no worries if you don’t remember — but the latest report from the Wesleyan Media Project just dropped, and it seems to confirm some early indications about Trump’s campaign spending, particularly on advertising. Before sharing their findings though, HUGE PROPS to Wesleyan and their team for doing this deep dive on a hugely important (and very under-reported) factor in this election.
Let's break down the cash clash at the top of the ticket:
🔥 Hot Take: Harris is outspending Trump significantly. We're talking a 16:1 advantage on Meta (that's Facebook and Instagram) and nearly 3:1 on Google (YouTube and Google Ads). In cold, hard cash, that's $22.8 million vs. $1.4 million on Meta and $17.3 million vs. $6.5 million on Google. Talk about a digital divide!
📺 But wait, there's more! On good ol' fashioned TV, Team Harris has splashed out nearly $73 million for 73,000 ad spots, while Team Trump trails with $45 million for 52,000 airings. It’s not just the spend, its also the placements. Watch Monday Night Football this week? You probably saw a Harris ad.
🤔 What does it all mean?
Harris is betting big on digital, especially Facebook and Instagram. Is she trying to slide into your DMs with political messaging?
Trump, the self-proclaimed king of social media, is surprisingly quiet on these platforms. Is it a strategic move or a cash crunch?
TV is still king, but the gap is widening. Harris is dominating local cable, national cable, and even radio. Trump's lone advantage? Satellite TV. (IDK, maybe Team Trump thought RT America was still available on DirectTV).
The bottom line: If elections were won by ad impressions alone, Harris would be planning her inauguration party already. But as we all know, politics is never that simple.
What do you think? Is Harris's ad blitz a smart strategy or overkill? Is Trump's relatively quiet media presence a concern for the GOP? Take our poll below.
P.S. For you data nerds out there, check out the full Wesleyan Media Project report. It’s fantastic work.
AI-Altered Ads: When "No Gas Stoves!" Becomes a Political Firestorm 🔥🥘
Well, folks, it looks like AI has officially entered the campaign in the Indiana governor's race, and things are heating up faster than a gas stove on full blast.
Republican Mike Braun's campaign just dropped a $1 million ad buy featuring his opponent, Democrat Jennifer McCormick, surrounded by a crowd holding "No Gas Stoves!" signs.
Plot twist: those signs were digitally altered. The original photo showed just good ol' fashioned campaign signs.
Now, you might be thinking, "Steve, haven't politicians been playing fast and loose with the truth since... forever?"
Sure, this isn't just another campaign trick; it's a quantum leap in tech. We're dealing with AI that can seamlessly alter reality – making candidates appear at events they never attended, putting words in their mouths they never said, or fabricating "evidence" of misdeeds that never occurred. The line between fact and fiction is blurring at an alarming rate.
But there’s more: Indiana actually has a new law requiring disclaimers for digitally altered ads. Braun's team claims they're the first to comply with this law, but... oops! The initial version sent to TV stations "mistakenly" omitted the required disclaimer. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake, right? 🤔
McCormick's team is crying foul, calling for the ad to be pulled. They're saying it "violates the principles of transparency and integrity voters deserve." Meanwhile, Braun's camp is sticking to their guns (or should I say, their stoves?), insisting the ad is legit because McCormick supports the United States Climate Alliance, which has some opinions about gas stoves.
But why is this ad making waves now? Well, the race is heating up. Inside Elections just changed their rating from "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican." A recent poll shows McCormick trailing Braun by just three points. Is it any wonder Braun's team is feeling the heat?
So, what's the takeaway here? As we've discussed before this is just the tip of the iceberg. We're entering an era where seeing isn't necessarily believing, especially in political ads. It's more important than ever to stay informed, question what you see, and maybe keep an eye on your kitchen appliances. They might end up in a campaign ad next.
OK, All this $$ is Being Spent — Show Us Some Ads Already!
The Wesleyan study revealed some striking numbers about campaign ad spending. Let's focus on this key finding:
Over the past two weeks, the Harris campaign and supporting groups spent nearly $73 million on almost 73,000 broadcast television ads promoting her White House bid, compared with nearly $45 million on more than 52,000 television ad airings for Trump by his campaign and supporting groups.
This significant spending difference raises an important question: What messages are these ads conveying? Let's take a closer look at some of recent ad offerings from the top of the ticket.
Harris Campaign's Ad Strategy: Big Spending, Targeted Messaging
The Harris campaign has demonstrated a keen ability to quickly produce ads in response to key campaign events, particularly debates. These rapid response ads show the campaign's agility in reinforcing key messages and addressing emerging narratives in near real-time.
Capitalizing on the Debate(s)
Pinpoint Messaging and Voter Targeting
Beyond reactive content, the Harris/Walz campaign is strategically targeting key demographics in crucial swing states. These targeted ads demonstrate the campaign's effort to tailor its message to specific voter groups, potentially swaying key demographics in battleground states.
Trump's Ad Offensive: Targeting Harris on Policy and Character
While the Trump campaign and supporting groups spent less than Harris - nearly $45 million on more than 52,000 television ad airings - their strategy seems clear: Drive up VP Harris' negative ratings by focusing on key issues.
This approach is seen in the following spots from the Trump camp that go very hard on Harris’ perceived weaknesses, “out of the mainstream” policies, and the Trump campaign’s claim that Harris is not strong enough to address major foreign policy challenges.
These ads reinforce core campaign narratives that resonate with Trump's base while targeting swing voters concerned about these issues.
Policy Contrast: Highlighting Perceived Flip-Flops
Rapid Response: Targeting Foreign Policy
The Ad Game: What's Your Take?
As we've seen, the battle for the White House is being fought not just on debate stages and at rallies, but in living rooms and on smartphones across America. The Harris campaign is leveraging its financial advantage to blanket the airwaves with a mix of rapid response and targeted messaging, while Team Trump is focusing on hard-hitting attacks and policy contrasts.
But here's the million-dollar question (or in this case, the $118 million question): Which strategy will resonate more with voters? Is Harris's approach of varied, targeted messaging more effective, or will Trump's focused attacks cut through the noise?
We want to hear from you:
Which ad did you find most compelling, and why?
Do you think the sheer volume of Harris's ads will make a difference, or is Trump's more focused approach potentially more effective?
How do you think these ad strategies might shift as we get closer to Election Day?
Are there any issues or messages you're surprised aren't being addressed in these ads?
Share your thoughts in the comments below. Your insights could be featured in our next deep dive into campaign strategies!
For the poll, I’m thinking all of the above.