ALSO: How to balance a healthy life with campaign pressures
Are dot-com TV ads going to make political commercials more expensive in this fall's elections?
Yes, and by as much as 10 percent, according to Advertising Age.
Background: Dot-com advertising exploded from $650 million in 1998 to $4 billion in 1999. Some cable networks experienced their "first-ever sellout of inventor)," and now they and local network affiliates arc increasing their prices.
Big bucks: Media buyers expect nationwide ad sales for dot-coms to total between S7 billion and SlO billion in 2(HX). The biggest increase will be in the holiday-driven 4th quarter (October-December), which begins in the final month of the election. That means more traffic and higher rates for political advertising.
But not everywhere. Whereas campaigns "spend most heavily for news programs in states with tight races," dot-com companies buy primetime and remain "mostly a major market phenomenon" in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston and other urban areas. That means potentially more stable political advertising rates in smaller markets.
Another caveat: Dot-coms are more prone to buyouts and consolidations, further complicating long-term advertising projections.
Bottomline: Expect higher political rates, buy earlier to avoid getting locked out in October, but don't settle for a one-size-fits-all strategy. This year, if your ad plays in Peoria, it might cost too much to play in Chicago.
How do you balance your life while working in the business? I'm talking about family time, exercise program, errands, etc.
Guess what: Campaigns aren't about balancing your life. They are 24-7, win-or-losc propositions. Boilerplate advice: Eat healthy, don't smoke, drink alcohol in moderation, force yourself to find time to work out. In other words, vow to do what very few do by the end of a campaign.
Stress is the adrenaline of campaign life; it gives you the power to do what you thought was impossible. Some can hack it, many can't. If you can't, get another job and get your political fix from watching "Inside Politics."
You recently called automated phoning "old technology," but I recently won election using it to contact 9,000 voters on the day before the election. Only 8,500 ballots were cast in this atlarge election with nine candidates. Only 99 votes separated the winning third-place candidate from the fourthplace loser. Although I came in first a majority of my campaign team opposed the tactic, and think I actually lost votes using automated phoning. What is your advice? Does it gain or lose votes? Is it worth $2,000, 10 percent of our budget? What would you do instead to get out the vote?
Automated phoning does not lose votes, unless the recording is obnoxious or poorly timed.
Consider: Earlier this year, because of a computer error, "some 2,000 automated political calls" paid for by a congressional candidate "started ringing district phones around midnight." The phone vendor apologized for the technical glitch again using a recorded message to contact the bythen irate voters. The candidate lost, despite outspending his opponent by at least 4-to-1 .
Even with a well-timed, poll-tested message, the real question is value: Arc there better ways to persuade voters and turn them out?
In top-of-the-ballot races (e.g., Senate, Governor, Mayor, etc.), it's far more effective to use TV, radio and mail for persuasion. During GOTV in any campaign, it's more effective to use live callers or door-to-door canvassers.
As for a "majority of my campaign team opposing the tactic," that's fine unless they had their own profit motive constituting a conflict of interest (e.g., contract to do media buys, direct-mail, hire paid walkers, etc.).
Is it better to use volunteers for phone banks or canvasses? We have a limited budget and are in a five-way primary.
One: Pay for phone banks; they ensure accuracy and accountability, especially when you call back to turn out your vote.
Two: Recruit volunteers for canvasses - at least on the weekends, though you may need to pay for week-day activities when most potential volunteers are working.
And for the record: Everybody has a "limited budget."
How do you force opponents to stay within the bounds of election finance law?
You can't. But sometimes their non-compliance will open political opportunities for you.
Toothless tigers: Most campaign regulatory agencies - federal, state and local - lack the resources to audit reports and discipline scofflaws, even when the law is clearly on their side. However, law-breaking invites punishment from ethics watchdogs, editorial boards, opponents and voters.
As Richard Nixon said of his enemies after resigning the presidency: "I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in. And they twisted it with relish. And, I guess, if I'd been in their position I'd have done the same thing."
[Author Affiliation]
Craig Varoga is a partner in Varoga & Rice with offices in Texas and California. Fax questions to 713-529-1998, or e-mail to cvaroga@ix.netcom.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment