Wesleyan Media Project

GOP Groups Keeping Senate Contests Close

Wesleyan Media Project — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:29:44 +0000

Republicans Have Ad Advantage in Iowa, Kentucky Senate Races;
Dems Ahead in Michigan, Louisiana

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) September 30, 2014 – Two weeks ago, the Wesleyan Media Project reported that Democrats had dominated advertising in the most competitive Senate races in the first part of September. But over the past two weeks, Republicans have built ad advantages in Iowa, Kentucky, Colorado and Alaska thanks to spending by outside groups. In all four of those states, over 40 percent of pro-Republican ad airings were sponsored by groups between September 12 and September 25. Table 1 shows ad volumes and spending in the top Senate races, ranked by total ad volume.

In Iowa, for instance, ads favoring Republican Joni Ernst outnumbered ads favoring Democrat Bruce Braley by 1,500 during the past two weeks, with over 60 percent of the pro-Republican ads coming from outside groups. And in Kentucky, 56 percent of the ads favoring Republican Mitch McConnell were sponsored by groups, which gave him a 600 ad advantage over his Democratic opponent during the past two weeks.

“Independent group ad sponsors have kept Republicans competitive in a number of the tightest Senate races over the past two weeks,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “This is a big change from earlier this month when Democrats were leading nearly everywhere. Pro-Democratic ad advantages in Kentucky, Colorado and North Carolina have all but evaporated, and Iowa went from near parity to a big pro-Republican lead.”

The geographic comparison of advantages in House and Senate races is displayed in Figure 1. Across all Senate races, Democrats hold a slim advantage, with 45,000 pro-Democratic ads airing in the past two weeks compared to 42,000 pro-Republican ads airing during the same time period, as Table 2 reveals.

The Democratic ad advantage in races for the U.S. House, however, is considerable, with almost 37,000 pro-Democratic ads airing in the past two weeks, 17,000 more than the 20,000 ads favoring Republican candidates.

Figure 1: Advertising Balance in U.S. House and U.S. Senate Races (Sept 12, 2014 – Sept 25)

“The trend we noticed at the beginning of September continues: Democrats are outmatching, outdoing and outgunning Republicans in House races,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “The impact of this disparity is still not clear, but Democrats and their allies are certainly working hard to avoid the midterm curse in 2014.”

At the same time, advertising in gubernatorial races favors Republicans. Over 53,000 pro-Republican ads have aired in the past two weeks compared to just under 47,000 pro-Democratic ads.

Compared to 2010, advertising is down in House and gubernatorial races but is up in Senate contests—and up considerably on the Democratic side. The volume of Senate ads favoring Democrats has increased 42 percent over the comparable period in 2010.

Table 3 shows the top House races, ranked by total ad volume over the past two weeks. At the top of the list is Georgia’s 12th congressional district, followed by Arizona’s 2nd district and West Virginia’s 3rd district. Interestingly, outside groups have stayed out of many of these top races, reserving their firepower for the Senate.

In races for governor, the Republican ad advantage revealed in Table 2 can be entirely accounted for by heavy Republican advertising in Florida and Texas. In Florida, ads favoring incumbent Republican Rick Scott outnumbered those favoring Democrat Charlie Crist by almost 5,000, between Sept. 12 and 25, and in Texas, ads favoring Republican Greg Abbott were double the number of ads favoring Democrat Wendy Davis during this period.

But there were more ads favoring Democrats than ads favoring Republicans in many states, including Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

Many gubernatorial candidates have been highly dependent on groups for ad support. For instance, in Michigan, almost all of the ads favoring Democratic candidate Mark Schauer that have aired in the past two weeks came from a single outside group—the Democratic Governors Association.

Negative Advertising Common; Democrats Stress Personal Characteristics in Attacks

The bulk of the advertising over the past two weeks has been negative, as Table 5 shows. Negativity is most common in Senate races, where 48.6 percent of ads solely mentioned an opponent. Another 25.6 percent of Senate ads were contrast ads, mentioning both the favored candidate and an opponent. An equal percent of ads were positive, mentioning solely the favored candidate. Negativity was only slightly less common in gubernatorial and House races.

In comparison with the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, the most recent two weeks of the 2014 campaign is more negative for gubernatorial ads (up to 45 percent compared to 39 percent in 2010). House and Senate ads are slightly less negative (another change from two weeks ago which showed airings much more negative over recent cycles). The 41 percent of House ads classified as negative for the September 12 to September 25 period, for example, is the lowest negativity in the three-cycle comparison. Senate ads are less negative than in 2012, but more negative than in 2010.

Positive spots in Senate races are at their lowest rate across all three cycles (down to 26 percent from 37 percent in 2010 and 29 percent in 2012).

“All told, lumping contrast and pure attack ads together, voters are seeing an attack on a candidate in 2 of every 3 ads in gubernatorial and House races. And they are seeing attacks on candidates in 3 of every 4 Senate ads,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 6 shows the nastiest Senate races over the past two weeks, ordered by the percentage of ads that are positive. Louisiana tops the list, with no positive ads, followed by Colorado with just 6.5 percent positive ads and Alaska at 12 percent positive. If one looks at just purely negative ads, then Michigan is at top, with 66.8 percent of ad airings classified as negative.

The focus of the attacks is different across parties, as Table 7 shows.

“What is striking is that Democratic candidates in Senate races are attacking more on the basis of their opponents’ personal characteristics than are Republican candidates, parties or interest groups,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Just under 40 percent of the negative ads aired by Democratic candidates in the past two weeks attacked the personal characteristics of their Republican opponents, while 100 percent of Republican candidate ads focused on policy.”

Table 8 shows the most negative gubernatorial races. Wisconsin is at the top, with only 3.7 percent of ads coded as positive. New York and Connecticut also have few positive ads. Maryland’s gubernatorial race has the greatest percentage of negative ads—those that only mention an opponent—at 82.1 percent.

Republican Governors Association Top Spender Among Outside Groups

The top group spender in federal and gubernatorial races over the past two weeks was the Republican Governors Association, which aired over 5,100 ads at an estimated cost of $2.4 million (Table 9). This was less, however, than the group spent during the two-week period from August 29-September 11, when they spent an estimated $2.7 million to purchase almost 6,400 ads. Freedom Partners Action Fund was the second group on the list, with 3,163 ad airings. It was followed closely by Crossroads GPS and NextGen Climate Action Committee, each with just over 3,000 airings.

$90 Million in Dark Money Spending

A Wesleyan Media Project analysis, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, reveals that an estimated $233 million has been spent by outside groups in House, Senate and gubernatorial races this election cycle, starting January 1, 2013; $90 million of that is in the form of dark money—money whose sponsors do not have to be disclosed by law (Table 10). Just in the past two weeks, groups have spent an estimated $33 million, with $10 million in dark money spending.

“This breakdown reveals a trend toward more full-disclosure super PAC spending in the fall campaign,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “In the period before September 12, 55 percent of ad airings were from full-disclosure groups. In the last two weeks, that number is 62 percent. Full disclosure spending is better than dark money, such that voters can examine donor records to determine the financial basis of a group’s electioneering. But even in such cases, many super PACs are still largely unknown to most voters.”

Taxes Top Issue for Dems; Republicans Talk Obamacare

Table 11 displays the issue priorities by party. Taxation is the most frequently mentioned issue in ads favoring Democrats, with 28 percent of ads mentioning the issue. Jobs and Social Security are mentioned in 15 percent of ads favoring Democrats, and 14 percent of pro-Democratic ads mention education, Medicare and the environment. Because ads can mention more than one issue, percentages can total to more than 100 percent.

Republican issue priorities are quite different. Twenty-seven percent of Republican ads mention the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, an issue that Democrats virtually ignore. Jobs are the second most frequently mentioned issue by ads favoring Republicans, followed by budget deficits, immigration, taxation and veterans. Table A provides a more nuanced breakdown of issue priorities by party in the most competitive races.

Ads favoring House Democrats mentioned many of the same issues as ads favoring Senate Democrats, though House ads were more focused on veterans, Medicare and budget deficits (Table 12). Ads favoring House Republicans were quite similar to ads favoring Senate Republicans. Obamacare was again the top issue, followed by jobs and budget deficits.

Affordable Care Act Ads Continue to Rise

In the last two weeks, references to the Affordable Care Act have continued to rise (Figure 2), with increases in both anti-Obamacare attacks and those that obliquely tout the law. The latter are primarily references noting a candidate’s “standing up to insurance companies,” “covering pre-existing conditions” or “passed a law.”

Figure 2. Volume of Ads Mentioning or Referencing the Affordable Care Act

Over the last four weeks, pro-Republican airings in U.S. Senate races have hammered away at the Affordable Care Act to varying degrees across the country. Over 2,400 airings in Kentucky alone have referenced the ACA in the last four weeks (roughly 32 percent). Nearly eight out of every ten pro-Republican ads in West Virginia and almost nine out of every ten in Virginia feature an anti-ACA attack. Iowa and North Carolina are the two races with the fewest pro-Republican ads mentioning the law. Pro-Democratic airings, on the other hand, are rarely discussing the law, with West Virginia being a notable exception, where Democrat Natalie Tennant has used a personal story about her daughter’s health to express support for limits on the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage, though she also notes that “health care reform wasn’t done right.”

“Discussing attention to the health care law in the aggregate hides the vast partisan differences in focus,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Not only is Obamacare the top issue in Republican ads, but in many of the top races, anti-ACA attacks make up roughly a third or more of total GOP airings.”

Table A: Issue Mentions in Senate Ads Sponsored by Outside Groups
Table B: Ad Totals for Interest Groups in Competitive Senate Races
Table C: Ad Totals for Interest Groups in Gubernatorial Races
Download a PDF of this report

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding and analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG video, which is 93% complete for Senate ads, 63% for House ads, and 82% overall for the time period discussed. Disclosure categorization information on interest groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in an effort to increase transparency in elections. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University. Laura Baum is the Project Manager. The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. The Wesleyan Media Project is partnering in 2014 with both the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on interest group disclosure, and Ace Metrix, to assess ad effectiveness.

The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. CRP’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource available anywhere for federal campaign contribution and lobbying data and analysis.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:
Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813

About Wesleyan University
Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. With more than 2,900 undergraduates and 200 graduate students, Wesleyan is dedicated to providing a liberal arts education characterized by boldness, rigor and practical idealism. For more, visit www.wesleyan.edu.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.

About the MacArthur Foundation
The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, the Foundation works to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society. More information is at www.macfound.org.

2014 General Election Advertising Opens Even More Negative than 2010 or 2012

Wesleyan Media Project — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:11:10 +0000

Dems Hold Advantages in Air War in Senate and House;
GOP Airs More Ads in Gubernatorial Races

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) September 16, 2014 – In the past two weeks, advertising in federal and gubernatorial races has not only increased in volume compared to the same period in 2010, but is more negative as well. Democratic advertising has outpaced Republicans advertising over the past two weeks in House and Senate races, while Republicans hold an edge in gubernatorial races.

Table 1 shows that over 34,000 pro-Democratic ads aired between August 29 and September 11 in Senate races compared to just over 29,000 pro-Republican advertisements. Slightly over 30 percent of total ads were sponsored by interest groups, a percentage that was similar for both Republicans and Democrats. Advertising in Senate races over the two weeks ending on September 11 is quite intense. The 63,000 ad airings are over 13,000 more than the over 49,000 ads aired in Senate races during the same time period in 2010, a 27.5 percent increase.

The Democratic lead on the House side is even greater over the past two weeks, with pro-Democratic ads outnumbering pro-Republican ads by almost a 2 to 1 margin, 20,554 to 10,855. This finding stands in contrast to an earlier report from the Wesleyan Media Project that showed a substantial Republican ad advantage over the entire election cycle. (Those cycle-to-date numbers also included primary ads in the early part of the year.) This recent Democratic ad advantage in House races was led by Democratic candidates, who sponsored 70 percent of pro-Democratic airings over the past two weeks.

“Clearly, Democrats are starting to reverse the early Republican lead in the ad war,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Forecasts of House races suggest that the Republicans will keep control of the chamber, but Democrats are working hard to hold on to–or tip—every competitive seat,” he added.

In the various races for governor, however, Republicans held an ad advantage over the past two weeks. There were about 5,000 more pro-Republican than pro-Democratic ads. Outside groups (including the Republican and Democratic Governors associations) have both aired upwards of 8,000 airings, but groups make up a slightly larger proportion of the pro-Democratic airings (nearly 26 percent compared to nearly 22 percent) while party sponsored airings are slightly higher proportion on the Republican side (22 percent compared to nearly 18 percent for the Democrats).

Figure 1 depicts which party held the ad advantage in each media market over the past two weeks, with separate maps for House and Senate advertising. Blue, which indicates a Democratic ad advantage, is much more common than red, which indicates a Republican ad advantage.

Figure 1: Advertising Balance in US House and US Senate Races (Aug 29, 2014 – Sept 11)

Download Figure 1 data (.xlsx)

Negative Ads More Common than 2012 Cycle and 2010 Midterms

Much of the advertising over the past two weeks has been negative, and that has been especially true in races for the U.S. Senate (Table 2). Fifty-five percent of the ad airings in Senate races were negative, and another 17.5 percent were contrast ads; that is, they mentioned both a sponsor and an opponent. Only 27.5 percent of ad airings were positive ads, those that focused solely on a favored candidate. Gubernatorial and House ads were both over 40 percent negative, and negativity totals for all three races are up in comparison to the same time period in the 2012 elections and in 2010, the previous midterm cycle. In 2012, 23 percent of gubernatorial ads were negative as were 32 percent of House ads and 44 percent of Senate ads. In 2010, 34 percent of gubernatorial ads were negative, as were nearly 27 percent of House ads and 44 percent of Senate ads.

“So far the 2014 midterms are seeing increased volume and increased negativity over 2010, which is going to make citizens even less happy with the tone of the airwaves,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Evidence from political science suggests, however, that citizens may be more informed as a result of the negativity.”

Table 3 shows that candidates in U.S. Senate battles this year are taking different negative strategies, with Democrats far more likely to air pure attack ads (42 percent) and Republicans airing more contrast spots (42 percent). Group-sponsored and party airings continue to be the attack dogs for both parties, though group-sponsored airings have been even more negative on the Democratic side of the aisle. In the House, candidate-sponsored airings have been overwhelmingly positive from both sides (71 percent for Democrats and 78 percent for Republicans), but parties and interest groups have been overwhelmingly negative. Overall, over half of pro-Republican airings (52 percent) were negative while only slightly over a third of pro-Democratic airings (36 percent) were negative thanks, in large part, to the abundance of positive Democratic candidate airings.

More Democratic Ads in 9 of 10 Top Senate Races and All Top House Races

Table 4 shows the top 10 U.S. Senate races, ranked by the total volume of advertising over the past two weeks. In many of the races, the Democratic candidate holds a small ad advantage, with larger Democratic advantages in Michigan, Colorado, Arkansas and Georgia. The one state in the top ten in which pro-Republican ads outnumber pro-Democratic ads is Alaska. The table also shows the percentage of ads in each race that are group-sponsored, along with the percentage of pro-Democratic and pro-Republican ads that were sponsored by groups. Group-sponsored ads as a percentage of total ads are high in many of these races. For instance, in Michigan, 58 percent of the total airings in the past two weeks were sponsored by groups, and fully 73 percent of the pro-Democratic ads were group-sponsored.

The top U.S. House races, ranked by total ads aired over the past two weeks, are shown in Table 5. In all ten of these competitive races, the Democratic campaign holds an ad advantage. The race with the most advertising was the contest for Georgia’s 12th congressional seat, which saw 3,300 ads in the past two weeks. Arizona-02 and West Virginia-03 both saw more than 2,000 ads in the past two weeks. Many of the most competitive House races saw little interest group activity, but there are some exceptions, including Arizona-02, Florida-02 and California-07.

Democratic ad advantages in the Senate and House, however, do not carry over to gubernatorial races, as Table 6 shows. In the past two weeks, pro-Republican ads have outnumbered pro-Democratic ads in Florida, Texas, Michigan, Kansas and Arizona, while Democratic ads have been more common in Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maine and Rhode Island. Interest groups are most heavily involved in the races in Kansas, Maine and Wisconsin.

Table 7 reveals that Denver television stations aired the most ads over the past two weeks, some 5,600. Denver is followed by stations in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Boston and Providence. Over the entire 2013-14 election cycle, the most ads aired in New York City, almost 42,000. Next on the full cycle-to-date list are Denver, Little Rock, Washington, D.C., and Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia.

Figure 2 shows how the volume of House and Senate advertising has varied considerably by media market over the past two weeks, with intense pockets of activity in Colorado, Iowa and Kentucky.

Figure 2: Volume of Ad Airings In House and Senate Races by Media Market (Aug 29, 2014 – Sept 11)

Download Figure 2 data (.xlsx)

Republican Governors Association Top Group Advertiser

The top group advertiser in the past two weeks was the Republican Governors’ Association, which aired almost 6,400 ads (Table 8). The ads were aired in eight different gubernatorial races. NextGen Climate Action Committee, which wants to make the issue of climate change central to campaign discourse, aired almost 4,000 ads in the past two weeks in the Florida gubernatorial race and four U.S. Senate races.

A Wesleyan Media Project analysis, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, speaks to the extent to which those groups advertising disclosed their donors (Table 9). In gubernatorial races, fully 80 percent of ad airings over the past two weeks were sponsored by groups that fully disclose their donors, while fewer than half of airings in Senate races were sponsored by groups that fully disclose. In House races, full disclosure was even rarer, at only 27 percent. Over 60 percent of ad airings in House races were from dark money groups that do not disclose their donors. Overall, across House, Senate and gubernatorial races, 35 percent of ad airings were sponsored by groups that did not disclose.

The extent to which interest groups have dominated advertising varies from one media market to the next, as Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3: Percentage of Total Senate and House Ad Airings Sponsored by Groups (Aug. 29, 2014 – Sept 11)
Download Figure 3 data (.xlsx)

Affordable Care Act Attacks a Consistent Focus, Increasing in Number

In the last six weeks, 37,544 ads criticizing the Affordable Care Act have aired, which is only 1,620 fewer political attacks than aired during the entire six-month enrollment period in which a grand total of 39,069 attacks aired (Figure 4). Furthermore, references to the health care law (including both attacks and oblique positive references) have increased in number along with the increase in campaign ads generally, staying at a steady 16-17 percent of all campaign ads over the last six weeks.

“It may not be the overwhelming campaign issue many predicted, but attacks on the Affordable Care Act are not going away. In fact they are increasing in volume as we head into the upcoming enrollment period,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “How those attacks collide and interact with marketing ads will be interesting to watch with potentially important consequences for citizen attitudes, information and behavior.”

Figure 4: Volume of Ads Mentioning Affordable Care Act
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project. Data include airings from 8/1-9/11/2014

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding and analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG video. Disclosure categorization information on interest groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813

About Wesleyan University

Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. With more than 2,900 undergraduates and 200 graduate students, Wesleyan is dedicated to providing a liberal arts education characterized by boldness, rigor and practical idealism. For more, visit www.wesleyan.edu.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.

About the MacArthur Foundation

The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, the Foundation works to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society. More information is at www.macfound.org.

Heated Battle for U.S. Senate Draws Deluge of Outside Group Ads, Most Are Dark Money

Wesleyan Media Project — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:20:08 +0000

Groups Responsible for Majority of GOP Ads;
Huge Republican Ad Advantage in House Races Disappears in August

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) September 4, 2014 – With prognosticators giving even odds that Republicans will take over the U.S. Senate after this November’s elections, outside groups are taking notice. Almost 52 percent of ads aired in favor of Republican candidates have been sponsored by interest groups, and that figure is 40 percent on the Democratic side. Groups have spent an estimated $97 million on advertising in Senate races this election cycle, which is up from the estimated $78 million spent to this point in the 2012 election cycle. Table 1 provides total ad counts by sponsor in Senate races in the current and the 2012 election cycles, including all ads aired through August 30 in each cycle.

While the volume of Democratic advertising trails the volume of Republican advertising somewhat in races for the Senate, the disparity in the volume of advertising is stark in U.S. House races, where Democrats are being trounced by Republicans (Table 2). More than twice as many ads favoring Republicans as ads favoring Democrats have aired this cycle. Indeed, the number of pro-Republican ads is up 28 percent over the 2012 election cycle, while the number of Democratic ads is down 24 percent. (These totals, as with Table 1, include primary and general election ads.)

Democrats, however, have recently upped their volume of advertising. For the month of August, 17,302 ads aired favoring Democratic House candidates compared to 16,072 ads favoring Republican House candidates.

“Democratic House candidates have been out-gunned this election cycle when it comes to advertising, but they have really caught up in the past month,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “We won’t know until Election Day whether that early Republican advantage will turn into substantial Republican gains in the House or whether the money was wasted on voters who were not paying attention.”

The parties were at near parity in August for Senate races as well, with 54,595 Democratic ad airings and 53,447 Republican ad airings during the month. Figure 1 displays the overall balance of ads in federal races for the month of August (through 8/30) this year with dark red showing areas of heavy GOP advantage in airings and dark blue heavy Democratic advantage. (For comparable volume for the full period, please see Figure 1A at the back.)

Figure 1. Advertising Balance in U.S. House and U.S. Senate Races

Nearly 150,000 Undisclosed Ads in Federal Races

A Wesleyan Media Project analysis, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, reveals that over half (56 percent) of the group-sponsored ads aired so far are “dark money” ads (those from sponsors who do not have to disclose their donors) , which have aired at an estimated cost of over $68 million (Figure 2). In Senate races, 57.5 percent of interest group airings were sponsored by 501c4 and 501c6 groups, sometimes referred to as social welfare organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors. Although dark money ad airings make up a smaller proportion of all interest group advertising this cycle compared to last, the total volume of dark money airings has increased in U.S. Senate races from 106,137 at this point in 2012 to 124,281 so far in 2014.

“Dark money ads are on the rise in Senate races, meaning more people are seeing spots from groups they know little about,” said Michael M. Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Research suggests that those ads are more influential, which is troubling.”

On the House side, dark money advertisers make up 50.2 percent of all interest group ads. As a proportion of all activity, dark money is not as dominant in U.S. House races this cycle; however, the total volume of dark money airings is just shy of the 2012 volume at this point in the cycle (24,847 in 2014 compared to 26,290 in 2012).

Figure 2: Interest Group Ad Airings in 2012 and 2014 Elections by Disclosure Type*

Americans for Prosperity Top Spending Group; Senate Majority PAC Top Advertiser

As Table 3 shows, the top-spending group is Americans for Prosperity, a Republican-supporting 501(c)4 group that does not disclose its donors. Americans for Prosperity has spent $16.7 million on advertising in nine Senate races, ten House races and the Kansas gubernatorial race, airing 33,127 ads in total. Senate Majority PAC (a SuperPAC that does disclose) has spent almost as much ($16.6 million) to air 33,750 ads, favoring Democratic candidates in 10 different Senate races. The third biggest group spender, a 527 organization called Let’s Get to Work, has dropped almost $13.2 million on ads favoring incumbent Florida governor Rick Scott.

The dominance of non-disclosing dark money groups is evident in the list of top advertisers. Five out of the top ten do not disclose.

Most Groups Increase Advertising over 2012 Election Cycle

Many of the groups that advertised in House and Senate races in 2012 have increased their activity in these races in 2014 (Table 4). Senate Majority PAC, a group that supports Democratic Senate candidates, had aired about 12,000 ads by the end of August in 2012. By the same point in 2014, the group has aired almost 34,000 ads. A similar increase was evident for Americans for Prosperity, a Republican group, which has increased its ad volume from 8,200 in 2012 to 33,000 in 2014 federal races. Two groups, however, have cut back their involvement in House and Senate advertising: Club for Growth and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Interest Groups Dominate Advertising in Competitive Senate Races

Table 5 shows the top ten Senate races by ad count. The race with the highest number of advertisements is in North Carolina, where incumbent Kay Hagen and challenger Thom Tillis face off. Over 44,000 ads, at an estimated cost of $25.2 million, have aired. Remarkably, 80 percent of the ad airings were sponsored by outside groups. It is a pattern that repeats in many of the most competitive Senate races: Interest groups sponsored the majority of the advertising. The most expensive Senate race so far is in Georgia (likely due to higher costs in Georgia markets compared to North Carolina or Kentucky) where David Perdue and Michelle Nunn face each other. Over $26 million has been spent in that race to buy over 37,000 ads.

The same figures are reported in Table 6 for gubernatorial races. The hot gubernatorial races in 2014 are in Florida and Pennsylvania. In both states, more than 50,000 ads have already aired, fast approaching the 60,800 total ad airings in 2013’s gubernatorial races in Virginia. What separates Florida and Pennsylvania, though, is the extent to which outside groups are involved. In Florida, over half the airings are sponsored by groups, which compares to just 7.5 percent in Pennsylvania.

The Affordable Care Act Remains a Prominent Target

Although the 2013-2014 open enrollment period has come and gone, attacks on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have not stopped. In fact, anti-ACA messaging has appeared in roughly one quarter of all federal campaign ads since January 1, 2013, a grand total of 160,636 ads aired across the country. In contrast, a mere 9,264 ads contain somewhat positive (in many cases very oblique, at best not explicitly anti-ACA) language about the law. Not surprisingly, anti-Obamacare messaging was most prominent during the open enrollment period as a proportion of all campaign ads on air (October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014). In that period, over four in every ten campaign ads aired (42 percent) in U.S. House and U.S. Senate races contained some kind of anti-ACA language. In contrast, the post-enrollment period has seen a drop in the proportion of airings devoted to anti-ACA language (23 percent), but this is primarily due to the increase in campaign messaging generally.

“Anti-ACA messaging has not gone away; in fact, ads attacking the Affordable Care Act have actually increased in number since open enrollment closed,” explained Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Americans across the country are seeing many more political ads going after the ACA than before.”

Figure 3: Campaign Ads Mentioning the Affordable Care Act

Figure 4: Campaign Ads Mentioning the Affordable Care Act by Race

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding and analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG video. Disclosure categorization information on interest groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in an effort to increase transparency in elections. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University. Laura Baum is the Project Manager.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. The Wesleyan Media Project is partnering in 2014 with both the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on interest group disclosure, and Ace Metrix, to assess ad effectiveness.

The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. CRP’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource available anywhere for federal campaign contribution and lobbying data and analysis.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:
Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813

Interest Group Advertising Pours Into Senate Races

Wesleyan Media Project — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:16:05 +0000

Two-thirds of Senate GOP and Nearly Half of Dem Advertising Sponsored by Outside Groups;
Almost 60 percent of Group Spending is Undisclosed Dark Money

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) April 29, 2014 – With control of the U.S. Senate at stake, advertising in senatorial races is off to an early start, with 109,701 airings at an estimated $43.1 million spent on television ads so far, a 45 percent increase over ad airings in Senate races at this point in the cycle in 2012. Outside groups are responsible for the majority of spots on the airwaves in Senate campaigns (59 percent of airings, a 64 percentage jump over 2012 levels). Just over two-thirds (67 percent) of ads favoring Republican Senate candidates were aired by outside groups, compared to almost half (49 percent) of the ads favoring Democratic Senate candidates.

What is more, a Wesleyan Media Project analysis, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, reveals that over half of the group-sponsored ads aired so far are so-called “dark money” ads (see Figure 1). In Senate races, 59 percent of interest group airings were sponsored by 501c3, 501c4 and 501c6 groups, which are not required to disclose their donors. In House races, the equivalent percentage is 57 percent.

(Read more about the Wesleyan Media Project’s 2014 ad analysis work, and our grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation here.)

“The 2014 campaigns are currently dominated by interest group advertising,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “And the bulk of the interest group money is coming from dark money groups who don’t disclose their donors.”

Table 1 provides total ad counts by sponsor in Senate races in the current and the 2012 election cycle, including all ads aired through April 24 in each year. Table 2 provides the same information for House races.

Republicans have benefited more from interest group advertising than Democrats despite an increase in Democratic group advertising this year over 2012. In races for Senate, groups have aired about 24,000 ads supportive of Democrats compared to about 41,000 ads supportive of Republicans. In races for the U.S. House, Democrats have benefited from just over 8,000 group-sponsored ads compared to over 12,000 group-sponsored ads on the Republican side.

The top-spending group is Americans for Prosperity, a Republican-leaning group that has aired almost 22,000 ads at an estimated cost of $9 million (Table 3). The group has been active in nine races for Senate and nine races for the U.S. House. They are followed by Senate Majority PAC, with $4.3 million in spending. Independence USA PAC, which is third on the list, advertised in two special elections in 2013. Fourth on the list, with $1.4 million in spending, is House Majority PAC.

Figure 2 displays graphically the volume of campaign advertising in U.S. House and U.S. Senate races for 2013 through April 24, 2014 and outlines all markets where interest group advertising makes up more than 75 percent of the total airings. As shown by the figure, in several markets throughout the country, interest group advertisers are drowning out the voices of all others.

Table 4 shows the top ten Senate races by ad count. All ten of these races have already seen at least 5,000 ad airings, with North Carolina topping the list. Almost 15,000 ads, costing $6.3 million, have aired in the Senate race in the Tar Heel State. Part of the reason for the influx of ads is a competitive Republican primary. The special election in Massachusetts last year (both the April 30 primary and June 25 general election) saw over 12,000 ads, while Kentucky’s 2014 race, featuring incumbent Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has drawn almost 12,000 ads to-date. The table in the appendix provides a full list of ad sponsors, including the number of ads aired and dollars spent, in all competitive Senate races.

In many of the races, the large volume of advertising is driven by group sponsors. In North Carolina, groups sponsored 90 percent of the ads, and groups have sponsored more than three in four ads in Michigan, Louisiana, Kentucky and Alaska. “Up to this point, outside groups are controlling the issue agenda in many Senate races. I almost feel sorry for the candidates as their voices are being drowned out,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

One reason for the onslaught of outside group spending may be that such ads work. “Research demonstrates that group-sponsored advertising can be more effective than candidate advertising,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “This is especially true when people know very little about the group except that it has a nice name—and thus they perceive these groups to be more credible than the candidates running for office,” Franz explained. Indeed, research from Ace Metrix, a company that assesses the effectiveness of political ads and a Wesleyan Media Project partner, also reveals that some of the highest-testing ads this election season have been sponsored by outside groups.

The same figures are reported in Table 5 for the U.S. House races. Ad spending in many House races on the ballot in November 2014 is not heavy yet; many of the races on the list in Table 5 are special elections that have already been held. Still, Democrat Nick Rahall’s seat in West Virginia has been heavily targeted by advertisers. Indeed, almost all of the spending in that race has come from interest groups, both Republican and Democratic. Groups have also entered into the Republican primary race in Idaho’s second congressional district, where incumbent Mike Simpsons faces a challenge. All of the advertising in that race, along with Arizona’s second congressional district, has come from interest groups.

Americans Know Little About Top Group Advertisers

Although interest groups have dominated advertising so far, Americans know little about them—and the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of the groups responsible for many of the electioneering ads on television. A survey commissioned by the Wesleyan Media Project reveals that there are only three interest group ad sponsors that most Americans have heard of: Planned Parenthood, the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Table 6 reports the percentage of Americans who have never heard of each of 20 interest group advertisers. Fifty-six percent of Americans reported that they had never heard of Americans for Prosperity, in spite of the group’s being the top ad sponsor in the current election cycle. (Notably, this group was also quite active in the 2012 presidential election, airing over 44,000 ads in the fall of 2012.) Fully 81 percent of Americans reported never having heard of Club for Growth, and nearly three quarters (74 percent) of Americans reported never having heard of Crossroads GPS, two of the biggest advertisers in past election cycles.

“That most Americans haven’t even heard of the top advertisers this year is troubling for the prospect of accountability,” said the WMP’s Fowler. “How can citizens hold groups responsible for the content of their ads if they don’t know anything about the sponsor?”

Advertising Mentioning the Affordable Care Act

As expected, anti-Affordable Care Act messaging is shaping up to be one of the largest issues of the 2014 midterms. Over 187 unique ads (82 for U.S. House and 105 for U.S. Senate) contained a message against the health care law, including 21 new spots that started airing on April 23, suggesting that the anti-ACA onslaught may ramping up. The bulk of this activity to date has come from Americans for Prosperity, which has included an anti-ACA message in every one of its 21,706 airings.

To date, 35 percent of ads (38,392 airings) in U.S. Senate races and 29 percent of ads (16,009 airings) in U.S. House races contained an anti-ACA message. However, there is wide variation in the extent to which a particular race is focused on the health care law and its roll-out. Figure 3 displays the variation in volume (top panel) and proportion (bottom panel) of anti-ACA messaging in markets throughout the country. In contrast, messaging explicitly in favor of the ACA is virtually non-existent. Only a few ads touch the subject, preferring to, for example, reference requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions rather than reference the ACA directly.

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding and analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG video. Disclosure categorization information on interest groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. The Wesleyan Media Project is partnering in 2014 with both the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on interest group disclosure, and Ace Metrix, to assess ad effectiveness.

Ace Metrix is the standard in creative effectiveness analytics for television advertising. A venture-backed startup in Silicon Valley, the company identifies the effectiveness of television commercials through a patent pending algorithm that determines the persuasive elements of an ad and the future intention to watch the ad. Since 2012, Ace Metrix has scored over 1,000 political and issue/advocacy commercials representing over 500,000 consumer interactions. The data can be filtered and sorted by age, gender, income, political activation, political affiliation and education.

Follow the Wesleyan Media Project on Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:
Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813

Project Update: New articles published, ongoing work

Wesleyan Media Project — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:13:39 +0000

2012 Campaign Advertising Volume Crushed Previous Records;

Interest Group and Dark Money Analyses in the Works

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Feb. 14, 2013 – Two comprehensive studies of the campaign ad trends from the 2012 election have been published by the researchers from the Wesleyan Media Project.

“Negative, Angry, and Ubiquitous: Political Advertising in 2012” by Erika Franklin Fowler of Wesleyan University and Travis N. Ridout of Washington State University, and “Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context” by Michael Franz of Bowdoin College, appear in the most recent issue of The Forum, a Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics. Read a summary of these publications on the blog of the Knight Foundation, a major funder of the Wesleyan Media Project.

For more information on these publications, please contact Lauren Rubenstein at Wesleyan’s Department of Media Relations, (860) 685-3813 or lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu.

Upcoming Work

The presidential election may be over, but in many ways the Wesleyan Media Project analyses of 2012 are just getting started. In the coming months, we will have numerous updates examining interest group advertising issue content relative to candidate ads, how disclosure of interest groups (and the method of disclosure) matters for citizen perceptions, and thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics, we will also have new figures on the role of dark money in the 2012 elections. We are also very excited about new analyses we are conducting on ad persuasion using innovative new data from Ace Metrix. Sign up here for email updates about our work, or follow us on Twitter here.

Presidential Ad War Tops 1M Airings

Wesleyan Media Project — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:25:30 +0000

Pro-Romney Ads Cut into Obama Advantage in Last Week of Oct;

Obama campaign outspends Romney campaign 2.6:1 on ads in the general election period;

Republican outside groups make up the difference for Romney

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Nov. 2, 2012 – As the 2012 campaign comes to a close, the number of ads aired in the presidential general election passed the one million mark last week. As of October 29, the two candidates, their party committees, and supporting interest groups had sponsored 1,015,615 ads since June 1, a 39.1% increase over 2008 (730,041) and a 41% increase over 2004 (720,064), during the same period. See Figure 1.

Since Mitt Romney effectively secured the Republican nomination in April, the campaigns, parties and outside interest groups have sponsored just over 1.1 million presidential ad airings on local broadcast and national cable.

“This is, by far, the most advertising we’ve seen in a presidential election,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Everyone expected ads to be more abundant this election than in 2008, especially with super PAC involvement and both candidates opting out of public funding, but passing the one million mark is a real milestone.”

Because these numbers include only ads aired through October 29, the total number of ads aired during the entire 2012 presidential campaign will still include 8 days of additional advertising (excluding Election Day). In the 8-day period between October 22 and 29, candidates, the two parties, and all of the affiliated outside groups aired just shy of 100,000 ads. Between Oct 1 and Oct 29, the total number of ads aired in the presidential race was 309,000.

Figure 1: Ads in Presidential Race Surpass 1 Million

Throughout the general election, President Obama has led in the total number of ads aired. Total airings by the top ad sponsors between April 11 and October 29 are shown in Table 1. The Obama campaign has sponsored about 50 percent of all of the ads aired and has out-advertised the Romney campaign by a 2.6 to 1 margin in both ads aired and estimated money spent. However, in adding up all ads aired on behalf of either candidate, pro-Obama ads outnumber pro-Romney ads by just fewer than 50,000 (574,557 to 526,811). Governor Romney was aided by roughly 270,000 ads from outside groups (51 percent of all pro-Romney ads aired) in the general election, including 60,000 from Restore Our Future, the super PAC organized to support his election, and over 130,000 from the organizations Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads.

“The level of support for Governor Romney from outside groups is simply incredible,” said Michael Franz, Project co-director. “Groups supporting Romney out-advertised the candidate and party committees. That is unprecedented in a presidential election.”

In the week between October 22 and 29, pro-Romney ad sponsors have become much more competitive with the Obama campaign. Of the top 25 media markets, pro-Romney ads outnumber pro-Obama ads in 9 of them. See Table 2. This still suggests an Obama advantage overall, but in our prior reports through the fall, Romney was generally behind in total ads in all but a small handful of markets.

Figure 2 displays the partisan advantages graphically, with the top 15 media markets in total volume outlined in black. Our previous analysis, which examined the October 1-21 period, found ad advantages for Obama in most of the high-volume media markets, but in the past week, pro-Romney advertisers have taken the advantage in some key markets, including Cincinnati, Tampa, and Miami. And Romney ads continue to outnumber Obama ads in some of the smaller media markets, including some in Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire.

Figure 2: Partisan Ad Advantages in the Presidential Race (October 22-29)

Figure 3 shows total presidential ad airings in each media market since April 11. Las Vegas, Nevada, with over 51,588 ad airings, has seen the most advertising of any media market in the country. It is followed by Denver (48,722 airings), Cleveland (48,722 airings), Orlando (40,218 airings) and Tampa (40,154 airings).

Figure 3: Total Ad Airings in the Presidential Race by Market (April 11-October 29)

Obama Campaign Is Top Spender

Table 3 reports the top spenders in the October 22-29 period. The Obama campaign continues to top the list, with over 40,000 ads aired, but Restore Our Future, the Romney campaign, and American Crossroads together have essentially matched the Obama campaign in total ads.

One of the interesting features of the general election to this point has been the high prices that outside groups have been paying for ads (the consequence of their ineligibility for the lowest unit rate cost). This is apparent in the estimated cost totals in Table 3. Romney aired 20,000 ads for about $13 million, but Restore Our Future spent slightly more for about half the total in ads.

“Given the stiff competition for airtime in battleground states, and the resulting rise in the prices that outside group sponsors are paying, it is starting to dawn on political contributors that sending their money to these groups may not be the most efficient way to get their favored candidates elected,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “I suspect that contributors may re-evaluate their giving patterns before 2016 rolls around.”

About This Report

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University. Laura Baum is the Project Manager.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

Lauren Rubenstein at 860-685-3813 or lrubenstein at wesleyan.edu

Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. More than 2,700 undergraduates and over 200 graduate students from around the world pursue their classroom studies, research projects, and co-curricular interests in ways that are demanding and intensely rewarding.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. The Fund’s grantmaking is organized in three thematic programs that support work in the United States and at the global level: Democratic Practice, Sustainable Development, and Peacebuilding; and in three pivotal place programs that address these themes in specific contexts: New York City, Southern China, and the Western Balkans. For more, visit www.rbf.org.

2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired

Wesleyan Media Project — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:18:27 +0000

Over 900,000 Ads Aired in Presidential General Election Race;

Over 210,000 Ads since October 1;

President Continues to Hold Ad Advantage in Key Markets;

Independent Groups and Obama Campaign Most Likely to Use Pure Attack Ads

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Oct. 24, 2012 – Over 915,000 presidential ads have been aired on broadcast and national cable television since June 1. This is a 44.5 percent increase from the 637,000 ads aired through October 21 in 2008 and a 43.7 percent increase from the 634,000 ads aired through October 21 in 2004. See Figure 1.

“When all is said and done, 2012 will go down as a record pulverizing year for political advertising,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “We’ve already surpassed the total number of presidential ads aired during the entire 2008 campaign—and we still have two weeks to go before Election Day. What is especially striking is that the ads are concentrated on fewer markets than 2008, meaning that a smaller number of Americans have witnessed the onslaught of messages in the race for the White House.”

Figure 1: Volume of Presidential Advertising in 2004, 2008 and 2012

Figure 2 depicts the volume of presidential ads aired in each media market in the country since June 6 in both 2008 and 2012, showing that Las Vegas, Denver and Cleveland have been the epicenters of presidential advertising this year. It also reveals that a large portion of the country has seen no broadcast television ads (other than a few ads aired on national cable). The figures also show how the geography of ad targeting has changed since 2008. Fewer markets are receiving advertising in 2012 than in 2008, with several markets in Missouri, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota dropping off the map. Ad volumes in Michigan and Minnesota have declined, while advertising has increased in states such as Nevada, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia.

Figure 2: Ad Airings by Media Market in 2008 and 2012

Another big change since 2008 involves the sponsorship of the advertising, as Table 1 shows. Examining just the first three weeks of October, Democratic-leaning groups are estimated to have spent 438 percent more on advertising than they did four years ago, and Republican-leaning groups have increased their spending by 954 percent. In just the past three weeks, pro-Romney groups have spent over $47 million on television advertising. This translates into a $10 million advantage in ad spending by all Republican sponsors over all Democratic sponsors during the past three weeks.

Of particular note is the shift in sponsorship from 2008 to 2012 on the Republican side. In 2008, the Republican National Committee (alone or in coordination with McCain) sponsored about 85 percent of the pro-McCain ads during the first three weeks of October. The McCain campaign alone only sponsored about 9 percent of the ads aired on his behalf. In 2012, the Republican Party accounted for 12 percent of the Romney ads, while outside groups sponsored 44 percent.

In spite of the Republican’s spending advantage noted in Table 1, though, Obama and his interest group allies have maintained an advantage in the number of ads aired. Over 112,000 pro-Obama ads aired in the last three weeks compared to 97,000 for Romney.

“There was a lot of talk that Romney and his allies were hoarding resources for a major ad push in the closing moments of the campaign,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “This was supposed to counteract the Obama advantage in ads aired throughout the earlier part of the general election campaign. We just haven’t seen that to date on local broadcast,” added Franz. “And time is running out.”

In fact, Obama had an ad advantage in October in 13 of the top 15 media markets (Table 2). Pro-Obama ads greatly outnumbered pro-Romney ads in several markets, including Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, D.C., and Reno. The only markets in the top 15 in which Republican ads outnumber Democratic ads are Columbus, Ohio, and Norfolk, Virginia—and Romney’s advantage in those markets is slight.Figure 3 depicts in blue the media markets in which Obama and his allies have an ad advantage, while those in which Romney and his allies have had an ad advantage are shown in red. (See Table 13 at the end of the report for details on ad volumes in battleground state markets.)

Figure 3: Democratic/Republican Ad Advantage in Presidential Race (October 1-21)

“One reason Obama has been able to win the air war in most media markets is that his campaign is funding most of its own advertising, which entitles his campaign to the lowest rate charged by local television stations,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “By contrast, many ads supporting Romney are paid for by outside groups, which must pay whatever the market will bear to get their ads on the air.”

Table 3 shows the top 15 sponsors of ads in the presidential race since October 1. Obama continues to dominate the air war, having aired $65 million in ads to Romney’s $30 million. Obama is also on the air in seven more markets than Romney. American Crossroads is the third most active spender, with $28 million for over 26,000 ads. The difference in rates that candidates and groups pay for ads is somewhat apparent in the contrast between the Romney campaign ads and the American Crossroads ads. Both spent about the same amount in the last three weeks, but Romney aired 16,000 more ads. (Other factors can account for some of this difference too, including the time of day on which ads ran and average price per ad in different media markets.)Priorities USA was the fourth most active spender in the last three weeks, but this was the only pro-Obama group in the top 10. Planned Parenthood (which received an endorsement of sorts by Obama in the second debate, when he touted their contraceptive services and educational outreach) has spent over $1.5 million on 1,270 pro-Obama ads in the last three weeks.

Table 4 expands the time frame to include the full general election. Obama’s campaign has spent over $238 million, targeting 62 markets with over 460,000 ads. Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads alone have combined to spend nearly the same as the Romney campaign on ads since he secured the nomination, though their ad totals are about 45,000 fewer than Romney. Restore Our Future, which is Romney’s super PAC, has spent over $42 million since the end of April.

Table 4: Top Spenders in Presidential Ad Race (General Election)

Tone of Presidential Race is Very NegativeOne of the dominant features of the 2012 election has been the increase in negativity. This is apparent when you break down tone by sponsor over different points in the presidential general election. Table 5 shows tone of ads by candidates and outside groups in the first three weeks of October in 2012.In recent weeks, the Romney campaign has emphasized contrast ads—those that mention both candidates. Fully 52.1 percent of ads sponsored by the Romney campaign in October were contrast ads. Only 11 percent of Romney ads in the past three weeks have been positive (mentioning only the sponsoring candidate). The Obama compaign has been even more negative than the Romney campaign. Seventy-three percent of ads sponsored by the Obama campaign since October 1 have been negative (mentioning only Romney), with only 6.3 purely positive. Furthermore, pro-Romney attacks have almost universally focused on policy (96 percent) whereas the pro-Obama attacks have been using a mix of policy focused critiques (56 percent) and a combination of policy and personally focused critiques (44 percent).

Table 5: Tone of Presidential Race by Sponsor, 2012 (October 1-21)

Table 6 compares the tone of advertising in the 2012 general election with the tone in 2004 and 2008. Data are shown for the June 1 to October 21 period. Percentage-wise, the Obama campaign in 2012 has been the most negative candidate campaign in the past three election cycles, barely eclipsing the 2004 Bush campaign in the percent of negative ads aired. (Totals for McCain in 2008 and both candidates in 2004 include spots coordinated with the party committees. These candidates relied heavily on party ads, while Obama and Romney have not. See again Table 1.)

Table 6: Tone of Presidential Race by Sponsor, 2004-2012 (June 1-October 21)*

Ad Focus Shifting in Last Few Weeks
Since the Wesleyan Media Project’s September release, the focus of presidential advertising has changed. Table 7 shows that while pro-Romney ads continue to hammer on jobs (82 percent, down from 92 percent in September), they have broadened their focus to both the deficit (59 percent compared to 39 percent in September) and government spending (47 percent compared to 34 percent in September). Taxes remain a topic in more than one out of every three spots (36 percent), and discussion of the recession/economic stimulus now appears in one out of every four ads (25 percent compared to 10 percent in September). Mentions of China, however, have dropped substantially to fewer than one in ten spots (7 percent) from nearly four in ten in September (39 percent).The Obama campaign and allies continue to discuss taxes in half of their ads (49 percent), and despite the September unemployment numbers, the focus on jobs has declined noticeably (from 36 percent in September to 15 percent in the last three weeks). Instead pro-Obama ads have increased their discussion of economic disparity between citizens (up to 26 percent from 17 percent in September) and the deficit (21 percent in October compared to 16 percent in September). Health care remains steady in 15 percent of airings.

Table 7: Top Issues Mentions by Party in Presidential Ads (Oct 1-21)

As evidenced by Table 8, anger remains the top emotional appeal found in presidential advertising, with pro-Romney ads especially increasing the extent to which they rely on anger in these last three weeks (86 percent compared to 69 percent in Sept).

Table 8: Emotional Appeals in Presidential Advertising (Oct 1-21)

Distribution of 2012 Federal Advertising for U.S. House and Senate Only
Figures 4 and 5 display the total number of ad airings for all federal races and for congressional (combining U.S. House and U.S. Senate) races across the country since June 6, respectively.

Figure 4:Total Ads Aired for Presidential, Senate & House Races (6/6 – 10/21/12)

A comparison of Figure 2 and Figure 5 indicates the much broader set of voters who are seeing congressional ads as opposed to presidential ads. In almost every market in the continental United States, voters have been exposed to some House or Senate ads.

Figure 5: Total Ads Aired in Senate & House Races (6/6 – 10/21/12)

Small Republican Advantage in Race for House and Senate
Pro-Republican sponsors, including candidates, parties and interest groups, have spent more than pro-Democratic sponsors in the race for the U.S. House and Senate (Table 9). Since June 1, Republicans have aired about 8,000 more ads than have Democrats. The Republican advantage in Senate races is greater, about 56,000 ads across all Senate races.

Table 9: Ad Spending in House and Senate Races (June 1-October 21)*

*Download tables of ad airings and costs for House and Senate races (PDF) (Excel)

Table 10 shows the top U.S. Senate races ranked by total spending from the October 1-21 period. Virginia’s race has been the most expensive, with over $14 million spent in just the past three weeks. A good chunk of that, almost 37 percent, has been spent by interest groups. Indiana’s Senate race is second, followed by races in Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio. Most races are closely matched in terms of spending, but there have been large disparities between Republican and Democratic spending in Connecticut, New York, Missouri and New Jersey.

Table 10: Top U.S. Senate Races by Spending (October 1-21)

Ranked in terms of total ads aired, the Montana Senate race tops the list (Table 11) with over 25,000 ad airings. One reason Montana has seen so much advertising is the large number of media markets and low cost of advertising. Voters in Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio have also been inundated with advertising on their televisions.

Table 11: Top U.S. Senate Races by Ad Counts (October 1-21)

There are also several highly competitive House races that have seen substantial advertising, as Table 12 shows. Topping the list is Georgia’s 12th Congressional district, which has seen 8,000 ad airings in just the past three weeks. Outside groups have been heavily involved in House races as well, airing over 30 percent of the total ads in many of these contests.

Table 12: Top U.S. House Races by Ad Counts and Cost (October 1-21)

Table 13 shows the spending and activity of the top 15 groups in congressional races since October 1. Crossroads GPS tops the list with over 16,000 ads in 8 Senate races and 9 House races. Majority PAC, which is airing ads for Senate Democrats, has ramped up its presence on the airwaves. In the final three weeks of September the groups aired only 1,300 ads. In the three weeks since the beginning of October, the group has aired nearly 8,000. Of the top 15 groups, seven are airing ads in support of congressional Democrats.

Table 13: Spending and Ad Totals of Top 15 Outside Groups in Races for U.S. House and U.S. Senate (October 1-21)

Figure 6 compares interest group ad counts in House and Senate races in 2008, 2010, and 2012, split by party. Republican groups account for a greater percentage of pro-GOP ads aired in 2012 than in 2010 and 2008 in Senate races, and the same is true of Democratic groups in House and Senate races. The only decline is for pro-Republican groups in House races this year. They have accounted for about 16 percent of ads aired on behalf of Republican House, down from 20 percent in 2010.Since June 1, fully one-third of all Senate ads that promoted Republican candidates have been sponsored by outside groups. That number is nowhere near anything comparable in recent congressional elections.

Figure 6: Percentage of Interest Group Airings in U.S. House and U.S. Senate Elections

Tables 14 and 15 give a breakdown of advertising by sponsor in the Montana and Wisconsin U.S. Senate races.

Table 14: Ads by Sponsor in the Race for U.S. Senate in Montana (Oct 1-21)

Table 15: Ads by Sponsor in the Race for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin (Oct 1-21)

Table A1: Volume and Cost of Presidential Advertising in Battleground States (Oct 1-21)

About This Report
Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG video, which is 100 percent complete for presidential ads between 10/1 and 10/21/12 and 96.8 percent complete for the general election period from 4/25 through 10/21/12. Intercoder reliability checks on coding found 96 percent agreement between independent assessments of tone for a Kappa score of 0.87.The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University. Laura Baum is the Project Manager.The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool.Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

Lauren Rubenstein at 860-685-3813, 203-644-7144 (cell) or lrubenstein at wesleyan.edu

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. The Fund’s grantmaking is organized in three thematic programs that support work in the United States and at the global level: Democratic Practice, Sustainable Development, and Peacebuilding; and in three pivotal place programs that address these themes in specific contexts: New York City, Southern China, and the Western Balkans. For more, visit www.rbf.org.

Obama Dominates Advertising in Key States

Wesleyan Media Project — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:16:00 +0000

President Holds Advantage in 14 of 15 Top Markets;

Only 7.8 Percent of Presidential Ads Positive;

FCC electronic disclosure leaves out more than 50% of federal ads

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Oct. 3, 2012 – In the three-week period since the parties’ national conventions, Barack Obama and his party and interest group allies have continued to dominate the airwaves in the battleground presidential states. From September 9 to September 30, Obama held an ad advantage in 14 of the 15 most advertised media markets in the key states of Virginia, Ohio, and Florida (Table 1). In the top 15 markets, pro-Romney advertising outpaced pro-Obama advertising only in Las Vegas, Nevada. (At the end of this report is a listing of advertising in all battleground media markets, Table 15.)

“The heavy advertising from the Obama campaign has challenged the assumption that Romney-friendly outside groups would saturate and dominate the airwaves in key markets,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

In fact, Obama and his allies aired 1,800 more ads than Romney and his allies in Denver; 1,700 more in Norfolk, Virginia; and 1,500 more in Orlando–all in the last three weeks. “The heavy Obama advantage may be one reason why polling in battleground states has moved against Romney in recent weeks,” Fowler said.

Indeed, Romney was heavily reliant on outside groups to sponsor his advertising. For instance, one reason pro-Romney ads outnumbered pro-Obama ads in Las Vegas was that outside groups sponsored over 2,900 ads in that media market in the last three weeks (more than double the number sponsored by the Romney campaign).

The Democratic National Committee did not purchase broadcast advertising in these top media markets in the past three weeks, while the Republican National Committee has made some limited purchases backing Romney.

“The absence of party support in the air war for both candidates may have to do with a few key factors,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Project. “First, the DNC is likely spending most of its energy on base mobilization off the air, such as with voter contact drives. Second, the RNC coordinated on a significant amount of advertising with Romney, and independently supported him as well, throughout the first part of the general election. The Republican Party may have shifted its focus to congressional ads in the fall campaign, or may be conserving resources for a late push.”

(See Table 3 for Republican Party ad totals in the full general election period.)

Table 1: Advertising in Presidential Race (September 9-30)

Figure 1: Democratic Ad Advantage in Presidential Race by Media Market (September 9-30)

The Obama Campaign has topped all other spenders in the presidential race over the past three weeks, though it has received some help from Priorities USA Action (Pro-Obama SuperPAC), SEIU COPE and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In addition to the Romney campaign, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have aired substantial advertising in support of Romney.

Table 2: Top Spenders in Ad Race (September 9-30)

Since the start of the general election campaign in April, when Romney effectively secured the Republican nomination, the biggest spender on presidential advertising, by far, has been the Obama campaign, which has invested an estimated $164 million into 363,000 ads (Table 3). The Romney campaign, by contrast, has spent only about a third of that total, $57 million, on 127,000 ads.

Table 3: Top Spenders in Ad Race (General Election Campaign)

Table 4 provides some historical context, comparing ad totals and costs for the September 9-30, 2012, period with the same period in 2008. Note that both the Democratic and Republican candidates this year are airing more ads and spending more on those ads than did their counterparts in 2008. Ad spending supporting the Democratic candidate is up 20 percent over 2008, while ad dollars supporting the Republican are up 93 percent over 2008 level.

In both years, however, Obama had significant advantages, though the gap between Romney and Obama is smaller than that between McCain and Obama. Moreover, whereas McCain relied heavily on coordinated ads with the Republican Party, Romney has relied far more on outside groups. Spending by groups in support of the GOP nominee in 2012 is up over 3,000 percent from 2008.

Table 4: Ad Totals and Spending in 2008 and 2012 (September 9-30)

Indeed, Figure 2 shows that total ad volumes in the 2012 presidential general election have already greatly exceeded ad volumes to this point in 2004 and 2008.

“If advertising in the presidential race continues at its current pace, the number of presidential ads aired this year will eclipse 2004 and 2008 totals by the second week of October,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “The sky is the limit here on what the final number will be by November 6th.”

Figure 2: Volume of Presidential Advertising in 2004, 2008 and 2012

Most Negative Campaign Since 2000

By recent historical standards, the race for the presidency in 2012 has been an extremely negative one. Table 5 shows that in the past three weeks, only 7.8 percent of ads aired in the presidential race have been positive—mentioning solely the favored candidate. This compares to 30 percent positive in 2000 and 2008 and 19 percent positive in 2004. Fully 60 percent of ads over the past three weeks have been negative—mentioning solely the opposition candidate. The remaining 32 percent of ads have been contrast ads, those that mention both the favored candidate and the opposition candidate.

Going back to June 1, the relative negativity of the 2012 presidential campaign is even starker. Just 14 percent of presidential ads so far this year have been positive, down from 54 percent in 2000, 35 percent in 2004 and 32 percent in 2008. Fully 62 percent of ads this year have been pure attacks.

“It will come as no surprise to those who have been bombarded with advertising in key markets, but 2012 is another record-setting year in terms of the amount of negativity we’re seeing in the presidential race,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “The rise in negativity also means that there is a lot of substantive policy-based information on the air to help inform voters.”

Table 5: Tone of Presidential Race (2000-2012)

Table 6 shows the partisan breakdown of tone for the September 9-30 period, comparing 2012 with previous election years. This year, pro-Obama spots are more likely to use pure attacks than pro-Romney spots, and pro-Romney spots are slightly more likely than pro-McCain ads were in 2008 to use pure attacks (and much more likely to use contrast spots than McCain).

Table 6: Tone in Presidential Advertising by Favored Candidate (2000-2012)

Parties Similarly Armed in Battle for Senate, House

Ad spending during the past three weeks on races for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is nearly even across the parties. Spending by or on behalf of Republican Senate candidates was $26.8 million, which edged out spending by or on behalf of Democratic Senate candidates at $25.5 million. Ad spending on behalf of Republican and Democratic candidates for the House was almost even, at $24 million for each side.

Table 7: Ad Spending in House and Senate Races (September 9-30)

Looking at individual Senate races, the races in Ohio, Massachusetts and Virginia garnered the most ad spending over the past three weeks. Notably, the Republican candidates in Ohio, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania are benefiting from large advantages in ad spending, while Democratic candidates in Arizona and Missouri have benefited from considerably more ad spending.

The last column shows the percentage of advertising in the race sponsored by outside groups. This is over 50 percent in Ohio and Virginia and over 40 percent in Florida, Nevada, Indiana and Wisconsin. The Warren-Brown pact in the Massachusetts Senate race was still holding as of the end of September; it was the second most expensive Senate race in the last three weeks but had no spending by outside groups.

Table 8: Top Senate Races by Spending (September 9-30)

Table 9 organizes the Senate races by the total number of ads aired (by candidates, parties and outside group sponsors) over the past three weeks. Montana is at the top of the list, with over 19,000 ads aired. The state is followed by Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts and Indiana.

Table 9: Top Senate Races by Ad Counts (September 9-30)

Top House races in terms of spending are shown in Table 10. The race to serve Ohio’s 16th congressional district, which features an incumbent versus incumbent matchup thanks to new district lines, tops the list with almost $2.2 million worth of spending in the past three weeks.

Table 10: Top House Races by Spending (September 9-30)

Table 11 shows the top 20 outside groups involved in House and Senate races the past three weeks, along with the races in which they were involved. Crossroads GPS was the most heavily involved outside group, spending almost $6 million in 8 closely-contested Senate races. The House Majority PAC, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFSCME were also involved in multiple races.

Table 11: Spending and Ad Totals of Top 20 Outside Groups (September 9-30)

Online Disclosure Misses Many Ads

Recent FCC rules require that certain television stations in the 50 largest media markets in the United States make their public files, which detail ad spending by sponsor, available online. While such a requirement goes some way toward increasing transparency about who is paying for political advertising, it still misses a lot. Indeed, there are 160 media markets that are not covered by the disclosure requirement, which went into effect in early August. The Wesleyan Media Project looked to see what was not easily available online and found that there were 447,000 ads aired in the presidential, Senate and House races, at an estimated cost over $140.6 million that were not covered under the electronic disclosure requirements (Table 12).

Table 12: Costs and Ad Volumes in “Disclosure” and “Non-Disclosure” Media Markets

Ads Focus on a Variety of Issues and Themes

Since the Wesleyan Media Project’s mid-September release, the focus of presidential advertising on both sides has shifted. Table 13 shows the top 15 issues in pro-Romney and pro-Obama ads. Nearly every pro-Romney spot (93 percent) has mentioned jobs, while just over one in three (37 percent) of pro-Obama ads mention the topic. Almost one out of every two (48 percent) pro-Obama ads have mentioned taxes, while a similar percentage of pro-Romney spots mention health care (47 percent) and taxes (41 percent). China has dropped out of the top 15 issues on the Democratic side while the mention of China increased on the Republican side (from 4 percent in the general through 9/8 to 32 percent in the last three weeks). Similarly, pro-Obama spots have increased their focus on energy policy, previously not among the top 15 issues, while pro-Romney ads have decreased their focus on energy (from 8 to 2 percent).

Table 13: Top 15 Issues Mentioned by Political Party in Presidential Race (September 9-30)

Not only is 2012 the most negative campaign in recent history, but it also has featured an overwhelming number of appeals to anger. Table 14 displays the top emotional appeals addressed in presidential advertising.

“It’s clear there is a lot of anger out there this year,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Anger was the most common emotional appeal made in presidential advertising in the last three weeks, and that was true for Obama and Romney ads,” said Ridout.

Table 14: Emotional Appeals in Presidential Advertising (September 9-30)

Sizable percentages of GOP-leaning interest group ads in the last three weeks have also discussed “hope” (17 percent) and “change” (15 percent), and Republican Party ads have all featured the word “change” (100 percent) while pro-Obama ads have notably avoided either term. Pro-Democratic interest groups describe Obama as “hard working” in nearly one out of every three of their ads (29 percent). Romney’s own ads have tried to tap into empathy, conveying a sense that the candidate “cares” about average Americans in more than a quarter of all airings (28 percent). GOP-leaning interest groups have painted Obama as “dishonest” (19 percent of airings). And it is not just GOP presidential airings that are going after the president; more than a quarter (25.2 percent) of U.S. House and U.S. Senate advertising this year has featured Obama in a way to show disapproval or opposition.

Table 15: Volume and Cost of Advertising in Battleground States (September 9-30)

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG video, which is 95.5 percent complete for presidential ads between 9/9 and 9/30/12 and 96.8 percent complete for the general election period from 4/25 through 9/30/12. Intercoder reliability checks on coding found 97 percent agreement between independent assessments of tone for a Kappa score of 0.89.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

Heather Tolley-Bauer at 860-685-2768, 860-918-1868 (cell) or htolleybauer at wesleyan.edu
Lauren Rubenstein at 860-685-3813, 203-644-7144 (cell) or lrubenstein at wesleyan.edu

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. The Fund’s grantmaking is organized in three thematic programs that support work in the United States and at the global level: Democratic Practice, Sustainable Development, and Peacebuilding; and in three pivotal place programs that address these themes in specific contexts: New York City, Southern China, and the Western Balkans. For more, visit www.rbf.org.

Obama’s ‘Convention Bounce’ May Actually be an Ad Bounce

efowler — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:41 +0000

Pro-Obama Advertisers Had Over 2 to 1 Advantage in Last Two Weeks; Romney Heavily Reliant on Outside Groups; Negative Ads Up Sharply from 2008

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) – Although the Romney campaign has (until recently) dominated the money race, the Obama campaign dominated the broadcast airwaves in the two weeks during the presidential conventions.

As Table 1 shows, during the August 26 to September 8 period, Obama and his allies aired 40,000 ads on broadcast and national cable television, the vast majority of which were paid for by the Obama campaign. By comparison, Romney and his allies aired roughly 18,000 ads on broadcast and national cable television during that same time period.

Table 1. Ad Airings by Sponsor in Past Two Weeks

“In the past couple of weeks, pro-Obama advertising has outpaced pro-Romney advertising by more than a two to one margin,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “During both the Democratic and Republican conventions, ads favoring Obama dominated the airwaves in numerous markets, including key swing states such as Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia. This advantage may help to explain why Obama’s ‘convention bounce’ was larger than Romney’s.”

Since April 25, the date Romney effectively secured the Republican nomination, however, the ad war has been close, with Romney, the RNC, pro-Romney and anti-Obama groups airing about 303,000 ads compared with 315,000 ads from the Obama campaign, the DNC, and other pro-Obama and anti-Romney groups.

“The notion that Romney’s money advantage will lead to his domination of the airwaves has just not been borne out—at least not yet,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “However, Romney is now free to use all the general election money that he has raised since securing the nomination,” Franz added. “And he and the Republican Party have generally fund-raised more than Obama and the Democrats.”

Interest Groups Heavily Involved in 2012 Race

“Another important trend in the spending figures is just how heavily reliant Romney has been on outside groups, including his SuperPAC, Restore Our Future, to keep him competitive with Obama,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “More than half of all pro-Romney spots have been sponsored by outside groups during the general election season.” In just the last two weeks, for example, Americans for Prosperity, American Crossroads, and Restore Our Future have aired nearly 13,000 ads on local broadcast and national cable stations. The Romney campaign, by comparison, has sponsored about one-third of that total.

Table 2 shows that since the end of April, pro-Romney or anti-Obama groups have sponsored 54 percent of Republican ads. By comparison, through the 8th of September in 2008, pro-McCain or anti-Obama groups accounted for only 3.5 percent of Republican ads. Obama has sponsored 90 percent of ads supporting his candidacy since the end of April this year, down slightly from the 98 percent of pro-Obama ads sponsored by the Obama campaign through September 8, 2008.

Table 2. Advertising in General Election Presidential Race

2012 Presidential Campaign More Negative than 2008

The 2012 presidential contest is shaping up to be a much more negative one than the 2008 contest, with both sides more willing to use pure attack ads—those that solely mention the opponent. Table 3 shows that pro-Romney spots are overwhelmingly negative, with more than seven in ten focusing on Obama, and compared to 2008, pro-Obama spots this cycle are nearly twice as likely to be attacks (up from 24 percent to 46 percent).

Table 3. Tone in Presidential Advertising

“We might be witnessing this fall an interesting magic trick: the mysterious disappearance of the positive ad,” noted Wesleyan Media Project co-director Michael Franz.

Increased interest group activity is one reason for the jump in negativity on the airwaves, but candidate-sponsored ads are also more negative this cycle compared to 2008. Fewer than a quarter (22.5 percent) of ads sponsored directly by the Obama campaign (through 9/8) were attack ads in 2008 compared to more than four in ten (42.3 percent) this cycle. More than half (54.6 percent) of ads sponsored by the Romney campaign are attack ads compared to fewer than three in ten (29.9 percent) sponsored by the McCain campaign in 2008.

Ad Battleground Concentrated on Few Key Markets

Where are all of those presidential ads being placed? In the past two weeks, Denver was at the center of the advertising war, with local stations airing over 3,000 ads. It is no surprise that markets in other swing states are also on the list, with markets in Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Iowa seeing the most advertisements in the last few weeks.

Many of the same media markets targeted in the past two weeks have been targeted throughout the general election campaign (Table 4). Las Vegas, Nevada, has seen the most presidential advertising, with over 30,000 ads aired. Over 18,000 of those were aired by, or on behalf of, the Obama campaign, while almost 13,000 of those ads supported Romney. Markets in Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa also appear in the top 20 markets for advertising.

Table 4. Top Markets in Presidential Race during General Election

Montanans, Missourians Inundated with Senate Ads

There are several U.S. Senate races seeing high volumes of advertising this year, as Table 5 reveals. In terms of the sheer volume of advertising, Montana’s race between incumbent Senator Jon Tester and U.S. House representative Denny Rehberg is the hottest one in the country, with almost 45,000 ads airing in Montana’s media markets since June 1. This volume of advertising only cost about $4.5 million, however, as ad time in Montana markets is much cheaper than in other places. By comparison, the most expensive race has been in Missouri between incumbent Claire McCaskill and U.S. House representative Todd Akin. Candidates, parties and groups combined have already spent over $13 million on broadcast advertising in that state. (Ad totals there are 15,000 below those in Montana.)

Table 5. Senate Races with Most Advertising

Table 6 shows that in the battle for control of the U.S. House, Georgia’s 12th congressional district has already seen over 6,500 ads, while the race to serve Connecticut’s 5th congressional district (an open seat) has been the most expensive, with candidates, parties and groups spending more than $3.5 million on broadcast advertising. (Totals in Tables 5 and 6 include any general and primary election advertising that aired since June 1.)

Table 6. House Races with Most Advertising

Outside groups have also been very active in House and Senate races. Tables 5 and 6 also show the percentage of ad totals sponsored by outside groups. Totals in House races are generally lower than the outside group investments in Senate races. In many of the top Senate races, outside groups have sponsored between 17 to over 80 percent of all of the ads through September 8. Notably, the super PAC agreement between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown appears to be holding, with no outside groups sponsoring any ads on television since June 1.

Table 7 shows the top outside groups and their total investments in House and Senate races since June 1. Of these 15 groups, 10 have advertised on behalf of Republicans, while 5 have supported Democratic candidates (Majority PAC, Patriot Majority, Center Forward, League of Conservation Voters, and Women Vote). All told, pro-Republican groups have sponsored about 32% of all Republican congressional ads since June 1. Pro-Democratic groups have sponsored about 25% of Democratic congressional ads. These compare to 20% and 10%, respectively, for the same time period in 2008; and 17% and 9% from 2010.

Table 7. Top Outside Groups Active in Senate and House Races (since June 1)

Presidential Campaigns Focused on Issue of Jobs

Table 8 shows that Republican and Democratic ad sponsors agree that jobs/unemployment is the top issue in the presidential campaign, but pro-Romney spots are much more heavily focused on the issue of jobs and are three times as likely to mention the deficit as pro-Obama ads. Other top Republican issues include references to the economic recession and stimulus money, government spending, health care, energy and trade policies. Democratic ads are more likely to talk about taxes than Republican ads, which is a reversal of the usual partisan focus on the issue. Democrats are also heavily focusing their advertising on women’s health issues and abortion and on health care and Medicare.

Table 8. Top 15 Issues by Political Party in Presidential Race

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG video, which is 97 percent complete for the time period discussed. Intercoder reliability checks on coding found 96 percent agreement between independent assessments of tone for a Kappa score of 0.88.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center –part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci at wesleyan.edu
Lauren Rubenstein at 860-685-3813 or lrubenstein at wesleyan.edu
Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu
Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or
Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu

###

Presidential Ads 70 Percent Negative in 2012, Up from 9 Percent in 2008

efowler — Thu, 03 May 2012 03:00:19 +0000

Super PACs Sponsor Bulk of Presidential Ads; Obama, Crossroads GPS Battle in Same States

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) – The 2012 presidential race is shaping up to be an overwhelmingly negative one, much more negative than the 2008 contest to date. As Table 1 shows, 7 out of 10 of the ads aired in this year’s presidential contests have been negative—that is, they mentioned an opponent. This compares to fewer than 1 in 10 ads aired during the 2008 presidential race up to this point that were negative.

Table 1: Tone of Ads in Presidential Race (2008 and 2012)*

“One reason the campaign has been so negative is the skyrocketing involvement of interest groups, who have increased their activity by 1100 percent over four years ago” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “But we cannot attribute the negativity solely to outside groups. Even the candidates’ own campaigns have taken a dramatic negative turn.”

Interest group airings, though few in 2008, were overwhelmingly positive (75 percent) in that year compared to only 14 percent positive this year. Candidate airings, which made up the bulk of the airings in 2008, were only 9 percent negative in 2008. So far in this election cycle more than half of the ads sponsored by candidates (53 percent) have been negative.

Table 2 shows that the total number of presidential ads (through April 22) was just over 200,000 airings on broadcast television and national cable. Candidate-sponsored ads, which made up 96.6 percent of the total airings in 2008, declined to just over a third (35.8 percent) of the total this year. Making up for most of the difference are outside groups (including Super PACs) who have sponsored almost 60 percent of the ads aired this year, compared to just 3 percent of ad airings in 2008. An estimated $112M has been spent to date on 207,000 ads compared to $190M spent on just under 300,000 ads in 2008. Much of this decline in spending and ad volume is due to the lack of a nomination contest on the Democratic side this year.

“Such levels of outside group involvement in a presidential primary campaign are unprecedented,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “This is truly historic. To see 60 percent of all ads in the race to-date sponsored by non-candidates is eye-popping,” he added.

Table 2: Advertising in 2012 Presidential Race*

Table 3 displays the top sponsors of general election advertising spots. Crossroads GPS has aired nearly 17,000 (mostly anti-Obama) spots. This compared to 10,500 spots from the Obama campaign and 9,842 spots from the Democratic National Committee. Americans for Prosperity, another Republican group, has aired over 7,000 ads. General election advertising so far has favored the GOP at a ratio of 1.31:1, with 33,420 anti-Obama, pro-Republican spots aired compared to 25,516 anti-Republican, pro-Obama spots aired.

Table 3: Top General Election Ad Spenders*

“The biggest difference between general and primary election ads so far is that the majority of general election airings and spending has come from groups that do not need to disclose their donors,” said Michael M. Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “That’s a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.”

Candidates have relied heavily on Super PACs to air ads on their behalf during the 2012 presidential campaign. Wesleyan Media Project analysis (Table 4) reveals that several candidates relied upon their Super PACs to pay for a majority of their advertising, including Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul was least reliant on Super PAC advertising of all the major candidates. About 20 percent of Obama’s advertising has been sponsored by his Super PAC, though the Democratic National Committee has also aired a substantial number of ads on his behalf.

Table 4: Super PAC Sponsorship of Advertising*

Recent Presidential Activity

Since Santorum dropped out of the race on April 10, Romney and his Super PAC continued to focus on the primary race, blanketing Pennsylvania with 2,076 spots from April 11 to April 22.

The Obama campaign and Priorities USA Action (Obama’s Super PAC) have been going toe-to-toe with Crossroads GPS across markets in Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, and Nevada, as Table 5 shows. All but four of the markets in Table 5 feature ads from both pro-Obama and pro-Romney forces, meaning voters in these markets are already experiencing the back and forth of the general election.

“Early general election spending reveals that both parties are focused on markets in the same key battleground states,” notes Travis N. Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “The past couple of weeks, Obama and his Super PAC have been on the air in a few more markets than Crossroads GPS, but both sides have focused their advertising in markets in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and Ohio.”

Table 5: Number of Ads Aired by Sponsor and Market (April 11-22, 2012)

Independent groups have been active not just in the presidential campaign. Since April 1, numerous outside groups have aired ads on behalf of a variety of candidates, as Table 6 shows (only groups with more than 250 airings are reported). For instance, the Club for Growth has been airing ads in the Republican Senate primaries in Indiana and Nebraska, Americans for Prosperity has been involved in the Nebraska Senate race, and the American Action Network has weighed in on Senate contests in Florida and Indiana.

Table 6: Activity of Independent Groups*

Wisconsin Governor Recall

Although the presidential race has received the majority of attention this year, there are some other highly competitive races around the country. One that has seen a lot of advertising, in particular, is the recall race of the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker. Over 17,000 spots at an estimated cost of $6M have flooded the state. Table 7 shows that Walker and his ally, Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (an arm of the Republican Governor’s Association) have aired considerably more advertisements than his Democratic opponents. Combined, the pro-Walker advertisers have aired over 10,000 ads. That compares to fewer than 5,000 ads combined from Democratic candidate Kathleen Falk and an outside group, Wisconsin for Falk, working on her behalf. Democrat Tom Barrett has aired more than 1,700 ads.

“Wisconsinites have been inundated with advertising surrounding the gubernatorial recall election,” said Mike Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Walker and his allies hold a substantial advantage to date in the air war in all markets except Madison, and the incumbent governor’s ads have been more positive than his competitors’ ads.”

Table 7: Advertising in the Wisconsin Governor Recall*

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:

David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci@wesleyan.edu

Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu
Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or
Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu

###