RALEIGH – There are mathematical simplicities in politics. For example, in any given contest the candidate who gets the most votes wins (please, no Florida jokes). And then there are mathematical complexities, such as the ones now playing out within the major political campaigns of 2004.
It used to be that each major party brought its reliable base of voters to the polls and then used paid and “earned” media to compete for the allegiance of some 15 to 20 percent of voters deemed uncommitted. In today’s electoral environment, however, the share of voters truly uncommitted is far smaller, perhaps only 7 to 10 percent. This is more than just evidence of polarization. It has important implications for the marketing model of politics.
This is especially true when you recognize other relevant trends. First, there is the fragmentation of the media marketplace. The hundreds of TV channels available only from cable or satellite systems now collectively draw a larger share of the viewing audience than the broadcast TV networks do. Readership of daily newspapers is lower than it was a generation ago, but there is an unprecedented number of niche publications on the newstands, each trying to capture a sliver of readership, with the proliferation of news sites and blogs on the Internet further accentuating the dispersal of readers.
A second point, related to but distinguishable from the first, is that American audiences are looking for and often finding ways to avoid mass-market advertising. It is a myth to suggest that people are more annoyed by or antagonistic to advertising than they used to be. The percentage of folks expressing skepticism about advertising claims has been remarkably stable over time. According to advertising scholar Jack Calfee, about 70 percent of Americans told pollsters in the 1930s, the 1970s, and the 1980s that, as a general rule, advertising claims cannot be believed. But the same share, 70 percent, said they found advertising messages useful. (In the political context, this tension can be seen in the fact that most people say they dislike “negative ads” but are also the more attentive to them than to soft and fuzzy bio ads.)
What’s different now is that consumers have more tools at their disposal to act on their general desire to escape mass marketing: syndicated web sites, watching DVDs and TiVo, using Caller ID and no-call registries, etc. They still want information, mind you, just not in ways that “break up” their news or entertainment consumption, again a finding that is strikingly similar to the views expressed by many radio listeners in the 1930s. Then as now, solutions to the dilemma are found in product placement, word-of-mouth promotions, and similar marketing strategies.
To return to the political sphere, Democrats and Republicans are changing the strategy and tactics of campaigns. On strategy, getting already committed voters to the polls is now seen as at least as important, if not more so, than lavishing expensive attention on the dwindling number of persuadable undecideds. Tactically, this means using contributions and volunteer time to motivate partisans to vote. Broadcast TV ads used to be considered the most cost-effective deployment of campaign cash, but the right measurement is no longer the number of people reached per dollar. It’s the number of likely voters reached and brought to the polls per dollar. That increases the attractiveness of ads on media with narrower audiences – including cable TV, web sites, and radio – and on developing systems for personal outreach by volunteers. According to a Harvard study, face-to-fact contact boosts partisan turnout much more (18 percent) than door hangers (1 percent) or phone calls (4 percent) and doesn’t boost the cost much.
This is the new math of 21st century campaigns – coming soon to a home near you, if not your own.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.