The 29% Nation of I Don't Care.

May 25, 2004 9:29 AM

Political ads fail their mission.In an Advertising Age poll, 92% of respondants said the ads had not swayed them to change their prospective votes. More than half said the ads didn't influence them, and nearly a quarter found Bush's ads "not at all persuasive." Before you liberals get cocky, consider this: 29% thought Kerry's ads were totally unpersuasive.
posted by me3dia (19 comments total)

So maybe we can all just skip the political adsposts here on MetaFilter, right?

I know, wishful thinking. Sigh.
posted by me3dia at 9:30 AM on May 25, 2004

This conclusion depends on the premise that people actually know whether they are being influenced by advertising or not. We all want to think of ourselves as independent thinkers who are basing our decisions on our own gut instincts and vast experience. Which of us wants to admit that millions of dollars in advertising could somehow shape our views? This poll and its results get distorted by our own rosy views of ourselves.
posted by smrtsch at 9:40 AM on May 25, 2004

Before anyone gets cocky, swaying just 8% of the electorate is very often enough to award the victory to a candidate who would otherwise lose.

On preview, what smrtsch said too.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:42 AM on May 25, 2004

In addition to smrtsch and DA's points, it is also worth noting that the ads for both candidates suck. We need ads like the LBJ Daisy Girl ad to stir things up.
posted by birdherder at 9:52 AM on May 25, 2004

Rarely has America decided so firmly and so early for their choice. I think that's what's going on here.
posted by jragon at 9:55 AM on May 25, 2004

I don't see how they can claim the adds are "failing" when 8% of the electorate admits to being persuaded by them. The last American presidential election was decided by less than a 1% margin. In this context, 8% is a success of massive proportions.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:55 AM on May 25, 2004

DevilsAdvocate is right on the money; those adds aren't trying to sway 100 percent of consumers. They're meant to sway those voters who are (a) undecided, (b) TV watchers and (c) sufficiently motivated to actually go to the polls. Targeting anyone else, at the expense of executing any of those goals, is a fool's errand. Mark Moskowitz, who directed the acclaimed Stone Reader, also makes political ads, and discusses them here.
posted by blueshammer at 9:57 AM on May 25, 2004

This conclusion depends on the premise that people actually know whether they are being influenced by advertising or not.

Without seeing the actual questions posed, you can't positively say this is true. I doubt they just asked, "Does this ad influence you?"


They're meant to sway those voters who are (a) undecided, (b) TV watchers and (c) sufficiently motivated to actually go to the polls.

Well, obviously they're only tagetting people who watch TV. But I think they're after more than just those who are "sufficiently motivated" -- they also aim to convince a few of the people who aren't motivated to get motivated.

However, I agree that it won't take very many people to turn this election. The real problem is, a lot of people who are dissatisfied with Bush aren't inspired by Kerry, leaving a huge swath of people lacking a candidate they consider viable.
posted by me3dia at 10:15 AM on May 25, 2004

I always want to know how and what questions were posed when I read reports like this. I used to work collecting stats, and how you phrase the Q changes everything. The data will admit to anything if you torture it long enough.
posted by dabitch at 10:28 AM on May 25, 2004

Which of us wants to admit that millions of dollars in advertising could somehow shape our views?

seriously. "yeah, i really don't know anything about current events. i trust the advertisements for the information i need to make an informed decision."

i'm curious about the effect of the Net on the efficacy of political ads. anytime you have more information available (free for almost everyone via a public library), propaganda becomes less effective.

i just can't believe the budgets for these two ad campaigns. what a waste of time, energy, money, etc.

let's imagine a scenario (it's easier to single out Bush b/c he spends more). Bush's pre-convention advertising budget is $90 million. if only 8% of votes can be swayed to his side, let's say for argument's sake that he convinces 6% of active voters to vote for him (a very generous estimate). the number of people who voted in the 2000 election was 105,405,100. even if we bump up (since this is a big election) and say 120,000 voters this year, that's 7,200 voters that Bush might sway with advertising, making each vote cost $12,500. !!

i know that the numbers are ballpark and the FPP poll likely underestimates the effectiveness of political ads, but it still boils my blood. there are innumerable people and families out there who could honestly turn their lives around with $12,500 (and a little guidance).

yes, i know advertising executives have families too. it's just much easier to think of them as demon spawn.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:30 AM on May 25, 2004

I think they're after more than just those who are "sufficiently motivated" -- they also aim to convince a few of the people who aren't motivated to get motivated.

On the other hand, negative ads also succeed if a sufficient number of motivated supporters of the candidate being attacked decide "Gee, he's just as bad as the other SOB" and choose not to vote at all. I thought I remembered surveys that showed that voter turnout went down when most of the campaign ads were negative (but I don't have time to go googling for them).

And, I hate to be the first one to point this out, mrgrimm, but I think you dropped some zeroes in your figures: 6 percent of 120million is 7.2million, not 7200, and $90million spent for 7.2million votes is $12.50 per vote...
posted by wendell at 10:36 AM on May 25, 2004

Everybody thinks advertising doesn't work on them.

Doesn't matter what the subject of the ad is; I've never met a single person who would admit that the Budweiser frogs made them drink more beer, or that the "where's the beef" lady made them eat more burgers, or that anything taglined "I'm XYZ and I approved this message" could possibly influence them to vote for XYZ.

Which means one of two things: A) every corporation on earth has fallen for a gigantic scam, and is spending billions of advertising dollars on nothing but training the next generation of music video directors, or B) people aren't very good at judging when they've been influenced, or admitting it when they have been.

Which do ya think?
posted by ook at 10:49 AM on May 25, 2004

29% thought Kerry's ads were totally unpersuasive.

Interesting interpretation. Here's another: 71% thought that Kerry's ads were at least somewhat persuasive.
posted by sic at 11:10 AM on May 25, 2004

Maybe these people should talk to the folks at the NYTimes.

In a survey conducted from April 15 to May 2, 61 percent of the 1,026 voters questioned in the 18 swing states where most of the advertising has run said they believed Mr. Bush favored sending jobs overseas. And 72 percent said they believed that three million jobs had been lost during Mr. Bush's presidency. Mr. Kerry made that claim in a spot in late February, when the most commonly used Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed the actual net job loss to be closer to 2.3 million, down from 2.7 million in late summer. That number is now less than 1.6 million.

...

More than half of those surveyed also said they believed Mr. Kerry had "voted for higher taxes 350 times." That idea, Annenberg researchers concluded, is based on a commercial for Mr. Bush in which an announcer said, "Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times." While Bush campaign aides say the contention is accurate and have made public a list of instances to which it refers, they acknowledge that in several of these cases Mr. Kerry had in fact either voted to maintain tax rates or even to cut them, but not by as much as Republicans had proposed."

People may say the ads aren't influencing them, but their own opinions suggest otherwise.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:15 AM on May 25, 2004

6 percent of 120million is 7.2million, not 7200, and $90million spent for 7.2million votes is $12.50 per vote

thanks for the correction. somehow i read 105,000 instead of 105 million. even though it doesn't feel like it sometimes, i suppose that more than 100,000 people will vote this year. ;p

i suppose $12.50 isn't as ridiculous, but it still stinks.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:19 AM on May 25, 2004

i suppose $12.50 isn't as ridiculous, but it still stinks.

buying votes, even indirectly, at any price, stinks.
posted by sic at 11:26 AM on May 25, 2004

I've never met a single person who would admit that the Budweiser frogs made them drink more beer, or that the "where's the beef" lady made them eat more burgers....

Now you have. Pleased to meetcha ook!

But you're right -- most people do not think advertising works on them. Obviously, most people are fools.
posted by spilon at 12:20 PM on May 25, 2004

Which means one of two things: A) every corporation on earth has fallen for a gigantic scam, and is spending billions of advertising dollars on nothing but training the next generation of music video directors, or B) people aren't very good at judging when they've been influenced, or admitting it when they have been.

You forgot: C) You only know people who are smart.
posted by kindall at 12:32 PM on May 25, 2004

Huh. I'll admit that possibility hadn't crossed my mind.
posted by ook at 3:45 PM on May 25, 2004