2012 shatters 2004 and 2008 records for total ads aired

7/31/2019 2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records-for-total-ads-aired 1/20

2012 Shatters 2004 and 2008 Records for Total Ads Aired; 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 onbroadcast and national cable television since the start of the general election period. This is a44.5 percent increase from the 637,000 ads aired through October 21 in 2008 and a 43.7 percentincrease 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’vealready 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 adsare concentrated on fewer markets than 2008, meaning that a smaller number of Americans havewitnessed the onslaught of messages in the race for the White House.‖

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

Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. Data from 2004 and 2008come from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan MediaProject.



Figure 2 depicts the volume of presidential ads aired in each media market in the country sinceJune 6 in both 2008 and 2012, showing that Las Vegas, Denver and Cleveland have been theepicenters of presidential advertising this year. It also reveals that a large portion of the countryhas seen no broadcast television ads (other than a few ads aired on national cable). The figuresalso 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, Montanaand 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 1shows. Examining just the first three weeks of October, Democratic-leaning groups areestimated 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 threeweeks, pro-Romney groups have spent over $47 million on television advertising. Thistranslates into a $10 million advantage in ad spending by all Republican sponsors over allDemocratic sponsors during the past three weeks. Of particular note is the shift in sponsorship from 2008 to 2012 on the Republican side. In2008, the Republican National Committee (alone or in coordination with McCain) sponsoredabout 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, theRepublican Party accounted for 12 percent of the Romney ads, while outside groups sponsored44 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 112,000pro-Obama ads aired in the last three weeks compared to 97,000 for Romney. ―There was a lotof talk that Romney and his allies were hoarding resources for a major ad push in the closingmoments of the campaign,‖ said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan MediaProject. ―This was supposed to counteract the Obama advantage in ads aired throughout theearlier part of the general election campaign. We just haven’t seen that to date on local broadcast,‖ added Franz. ―And time is running out.‖

Table 1: Presidential Ad Volume and Spending by Sponsor, 2008 and 2012

(October 1-21)

Candidates Parties Coordinated Groups Total

2008 Dems

Ads aired 130,478 226 2,607 5,258 138,569

Row % 94.16% 0.16% 1.88% 3.79%

Cost $82,437,559 $56,897 $1,321,977 $2,250,505 $86,066,938

2008 GOP

Ads aired 7,805 19,747 54,799 5,530 87,881

Row % 8.88% 22.47% 62.36% 6.29%

Cost $3,502,074 $8,693,427 $23,349,869 $4,482,846 $40,028,216

2012 Dems

Ads aired 97,170 0 0 15,560 112,730

Row % 86.20% 0.00% 0.00% 13.80%

Cost $65,341,560 $0 $0 $12,125,740 $77,467,300

% cost change -20.74% 438.80% -9.99%

2012 GOP

Ads aired 42,937 3,557 8,050 42,863 97,407

Row % 44.08% 3.65% 8.26% 44.00%

Cost $30,326,160 $2,309,370 $7,186,830 $47,285,550 $87,107,910

% cost change 765.95% -73.44% -69.22% 954.81% 117.62%

Numbers include broadcast television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the

Wesleyan Media Project. Data from 2008 come from the Wisconsin

Advertising Project.



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, LasVegas, 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 — andRomney’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. (SeeTable A1 at the end of the report for details on ad volumes in battleground state markets.)

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

―One reason Obama has been able to win the air war in most media markets is that his campaignis funding most of its own advertising, which entitles his campaign to the lowest rate charged bylocal television stations,‖ said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. ―Bycontrast, 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 2: Top Media Markets by Volume in the Presidential Race (October 1 to 21)

Market Total Obama DNC Dem Romney RNC GOP Dem



Groups Groups Adv.

Denver 9,950 4,122 0 1,676 1,677 373 2,102 1,646

Las Vegas 8,057 3,283 0 1,268 1,482 479 1,545 1,045

Tampa 7,992 3,905 0 312 1,394 480 1,901 442

Cleveland 7,961 3,180 0 903 1,626 527 1,725 205

Orlando 7,916 3,840 0 879 847 581 1,769 1,522

Washington DC 7,746 3,454 0 985 1,359 546 1,402 1,132

Miami 7,523 3,892 0 0 1,352 643 1,636 261

Columbus, OH 6,647 2,278 0 961 1,432 520 1,456 -169

Cincinnati 6,488 2,715 0 549 1,320 544 1,360 40

Norfolk 6,489 2,657 0 557 1,692 271 1,312 -61

Richmond 5,665 2,349 0 569 1,296 375 1,076 171

Toledo 5,491 2,050 0 761 1,235 557 888 131

Roanoke 5,403 2,147 0 560 1,300 266 1,130 11

Grand Junction 5,378 2,770 0 0 1,521 109 978 162Reno 5,192 2,898 0 641 1,071 51 531 1,886


CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media

Project. Party airings also include some candidate-party coordinated ads.

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 $30million. Obama is also on the air in seven more markets than Romney. American Crossroads isthe third most active spender, with $28 million for over 26,000 ads. The difference in rates thatcandidates and groups pay for ads is somewhat apparent in the contrast between the Romneycampaign ads and the American Crossroads ads. Both spent about the same amount in the lastthree weeks, but Romney aired 16,000 more ads. (Other factors can account for some of thisdifference too, including the time of day on which ads ran and average price per ad in differentmedia markets.)

Priorities USA was the fourth most active spender in the last three weeks, but this was the onlypro-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 educationaloutreach) has spent over $1.5 million on 1,270 pro-Obama ads in the last three weeks. Table 3: Top Spenders in Presidential Ad Race (October 1-21)

Sponsor Party Est. Cost Ads

# of

markets

Barack Obama Dem $65,341,560 97,170 57



Mitt Romney Rep $30,326,160 42,937 50

American Crossroads Rep $28,532,910 26,798 48

Priorities USA Action Dem $9,537,480 13,443 28

RNC & Mitt Romney Rep $7,186,830 8,050 42

Restore Our Future, Inc. Rep $7,910,480 6,653 32

Republican National Committee Rep $2,309,370 3,557 18

Americans for Job Security Rep $2,848,320 2,571 28

American Future Fund Rep $1,597,730 1,520 11

NRA Political Victory Fund Rep $814,270 1,514 16

Republican Jewish Coalition Rep $2,796,300 1,511 4

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Dem $1,575,410 1,270 4

Special Ops OPSEC Education Fund Rep $293,200 468 3

People for The American Way Dem $265,490 355 2

League of Conservation Voters Dem $611,750 354 1

Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising.


Project.

Table 4 expands the time frame to include the full general election. Obama’s campaign hasspent over $238 million, targeting 62 markets with over 460,000 ads. Crossroads GPS andAmerican Crossroads alone have combined to spend nearly the same as the Romney campaignon ads since he secured the nomination, though their ad totals are about 45,000 fewer thanRomney. 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)

Sponsor Party Est. Cost Ads

# of

markets

Obama, Barack Dem $238,982,260 460,536 62

Romney, Mitt Rep $92,342,860 169,747 73Crossroads GPS Rep $41,981,990 69,097 67

American Crossroads Rep $48,221,480 55,286 59

Restore Our Future, Inc. Rep $42,741,920 47,819 58

Priorities USA Action Dem $25,135,270 45,155 31

Americans For Prosperity Rep $35,936,430 43,090 55

RNC & Romney, Mitt Rep $23,262,460 31,918 42



Republican National Committee Rep $20,438,010 29,627 69

DNC & Obama, Barack Dem $15,309,090 7,210 53

Americans For Job Security Rep $7,958,000 6,903 29

American Future Fund Rep $5,524,960 5,449 41

Republican Jewish Coalition Rep $4,641,910 3,134 4

Concerned Women For America Rep $4,400,360 3,132 21

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Dem $3,131,450 3,020 6

Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising.


Project.

Tone of Presidential Race is Very Negative One of the dominant features of the 2012 election has been the increase in negativity. This isapparent when you break down tone by sponsor over different points in the presidential generalelection. 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 bothcandidates. Fully 52.1 percent of ads sponsored by the Romney campaign in October werecontrast 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 negativethan 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)

2012

Positive % Contrast % Negative %

Obama 2012 6.3 20.3 73.3

Romney 2012 11.9 52.1 36.0

Dem groups 0 11.3 88.7

Rep groups 1.2 3.6 95.2



Percentages are based on an analysis of broadcast television and

national cable spots. Totals are based on ongoing Wesleyan Media

Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings.

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 Obamacampaign in 2012 has been the most negative candidate campaign in the past three electioncycles, barely eclipsing the 2004 Bush campaign in the percent of negative ads aired. (Totals forMcCain in 2008 and both candidates in 2004 include spots coordinated with the partycommittees. These candidates relied heavily on party ads, while Obama and Romney havenot. See again Table 1.)

Table 6: Tone of Presidential Race by Sponsor, 2000-2012

(June 1-October 21)*

2012

Positive % Contrast % Negative %

Obama 2012 14.4 27 58.5

Romney 2012 20.4 30 49.2

Dem groups <1 21.7 78.2

Rep groups 2.9 8 89.2

2008

Positive Contrast Negative

Obama 2008 37 19.7 43.2

McCain 2008* 24 26.7 49.2

Dem groups 4 32.7 63.3

Rep groups 0.3 1 98.7

2004

Positive Contrast Negative Kerry 2004* 55.8 41.6 2.7

Bush 2004* 27.4 17 55.4

Dem groups 0.3 14.4 85.3

Rep groups 14.8 39.7 45.5

Percentages are based on an analysis of broadcast television and

national cable spots. Totals in 2012 are based on ongoing Wesleyan



Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad

airings. 2004 and 2008 totals are from the Wisconsin Advertising

Project. *Coordinated party ads are included here

Ad Focus Shifting in Last Few Weeks Since the Wesleyan Media Project’s September release, the focus of presidential advertising haschanged. 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 (59percent compared to 39 percent in September) and government spending (47 percent comparedto 34 percent in September). Taxes remain a topic in more than one out of every three spots (36percent), and discussion of the recession/economic stimulus now appears in one out of every fourads (25 percent compared to 10 percent in September). Mentions of China, however, havedropped 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), anddespite the September unemployment numbers, the focus on jobs has declined noticeably (from36 percent in September to 15 percent in the last three weeks). Instead pro-Obama ads haveincreased their discussion of economic disparity between citizens (up to 26 percent from 17percent in September) and the deficit (21 percent in October compared to 16 percent inSeptember). Health care remains steady in 15 percent of airings.

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

Pro-Obama Ads Pro-Romney Ads

Taxes 49.4% Jobs 81.8%

Economic disparity 25.8% Deficit 58.8%

Deficit 20.8% Govt Spending 47.2%

Health care 15.5% Taxes 35.7%

Jobs 14.6% Recession/Econ Stimulus 25.3%

Education 11.2% Business 10.9%

Medicare 7.4% Energy Policy 8.4%

Business 6.4% China 6.6%

Women's Health 5.7% Economic disparity 6.5%

Govt Ethics 5.7% Health care 5.7%

China 4.7% Trade 3.8%

Trade 4.2% Welfare 3.1%

Prescription Drugs (Rx) 3.9% Poverty 3.0%



Energy Policy 3.7% Gun Control 1.7%

Housing 3.3% Foreign Policy 1.4%

Totals based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG

presidential ad airings.

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

Table 8. Emotional Appeals in Presidential Advertising (Oct 1-21) Pro-Obama ads Pro-Romney ads

Anger 70.0% 86.1%

Fear 29.7% 36.0%

Sadness 47.3% 31.9%

Enthusiasm 23.0% 25.3%

Pride 15.1% 4.2%

Totals based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of

Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings.

Distribution of 2012 Federal Advertising and for U.S. House and Senate Only

Figures 4 and 5 displays 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:



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



Figure 5:

Small Republican Advantage in Race for House and Senate

Pro-Republican sponsors, including candidates, parties and interest groups, have spent more thanpro-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 advantagein 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)

Democratic Republican

House

Ads 195,420 203,477

Est. Cost $112.2 M $124.3 M

Senate



Ads 263,753 320,281

Est. Cost $146.5 M $181.7 M

Numbers include broadcast television advertising.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with

analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

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

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

Race Total Dem Rep % IG

Virginia $14.04 M $7.31 M $6.73 M 36.8%

Indiana $10.58 M $4.94 M $5.64 M 54.0%

Florida $10.42 M $4.96 M $5.46 M 47.7%

Massachusetts $9.59 M $4.83 M $4.76 M 0.0%

Ohio $9.48 M $5.13 M $4.36 M 28.2%

Arizona $9.29 M $5.26 M $4.03 M 29.3%

Pennsylvania $9.16 M $4.2 M $4.95 M 0.0%

Wisconsin $8.49 M $4.5 M $3.99 M 38.3%

Connecticut $8.41 M $2.19 M $6.22 M 8.4%

Nevada $7.93 M $4.26 M $3.67 M 25.6%

New York $4.71 M $4.23 M $0.48 M 10.2%

Missouri $4.42 M $4.07 M $0.34 M 28.0%

New Jersey $4.07 M $4.07 M $0 M 0.0%

Michigan $3.45 M $2.96 M $0.49 M 0.0%Montana $3.27 M $1.65 M $1.63 M 35.8%


CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the

Wesleyan Media Project.



Ranked in terms of total ads aired, the Montana Senate race tops the list (Table 11) with over25,000 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 Ohiohave also been inundated with advertising on their televisions.

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

Race Total ads Dem ads Rep ads

Montana 25,211 11,396 13,815

Wisconsin 17,906 9,780 8,126

Indiana 12,922 6,131 6,791

Virginia 12,863 7,438 5,425

Ohio 12,371 6,687 5,684

Nevada 12,115 6,165 5,950

Massachusetts 11,558 4,943 6,615

Florida 10,321 6,689 3,632

Arizona 10,126 6,000 4,126

Pennsylvania 8,249 3,032 5,217

Missouri 7,270 6,842 428

North Dakota 7,050 3,846 3,204

Maine 5,909 1,601 2,816

Connecticut 5,448 2,245 3,203Michigan 4,560 3,829 731


CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis

by the Wesleyan Media Project.

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 8,000ad airings in just the past three weeks. Outside groups have been heavily involved in Houseraces 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)



Dem

Ads

GOP

Ads Dem$ GOP$

% IG

Ads

GA12 4,704 3,372 $1.85M $1.48M 16.68%

CA24 2,504 3,970 $0.43M $0.90M 30.99%IL17 2,786 3,466 $1.36M $1.59M 32.68%

CA52 2,524 2,903 $2.33M $2.61M 22.72%

NY21 2,232 2,423 $0.63M $1.25M 23.01%

CA36 2,650 1,971 $0.60M $0.43M 11.19%

NY24 2,176 1,911 $0.76M $0.74M 11.74%

TX23 2,329 1,744 $2.58M $1.70M 32.02%

CA07 2,139 1,923 $1.74M $1.69M 10.81%

NY27 2,665 1,272 $1.10M $0.81M 24.10%

IL13 1,672 2,039 $0.81M $1.15M 19.16%

UT04 2,031 1,604 $1.22M $0.82M 23.93%

CO06 1,506 2,104 $1.99M $2.47M 8.37%

NY19 1,677 1,840 $0.66M $0.75M 30.48%

PA12 1,283 2,232 $1.20M $2.76M 27.40%

KY06 1,767 1,714 $0.90M $0.95M 3.05%

OH06 1,720 1,592 $0.52M $0.58M 15.18%

FL18 1,343 1,825 $1.35M $1.43M 32.19%

NV03 1,949 1,338 $1.59M $1.29M 1.55%

AZ01 1,742 1,486 $1.73M $1.81M 10.32%

Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan MediaProject.

Table 13 shows the spending and activity of the top 15 groups in congressional races sinceOctober 1. Crossroads GPS tops the list with over 16,000 ads in 8 Senate races and 9 Houseraces. 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 threeweeks 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)



Sponsor Spending Ads Races

Crossroads GPS $10.1 M 16,269 IN, ME, MT, ND, NV, OH,

VA, WI Sen, CA21, IA03,

IL12, IL17, IN02, NV04,

NY01, NY19, NY25

Majority PAC $5.6 M 7,895 AZ, CT, IN, MO, MT, ND, NV,

OH, VA, WI Sen

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce $8.5 M 7,341 CT, FL, HI, ME, ND, NM, OH,

VA Sen, CA07, CA09, CA10,

CA24, CA52, GA12, IL10,

IL11, IL12, IL13, IL17, MA06,

NY21, NY24, NY25, NY27,

UT04

House Majority PAC $8.7 M 5,977 AZ01, AZ02, AZ09, CA10,

CA24, CO06, FL10, FL16,

FL18, IA01, IL08, IL10, IL11,

IL17, IN02, MN08, NH02,

NV03, NV04, NY27, TN04,

VA02, WA01

AFSCME $4.0 M 2,994 HI, IN, NV, VA, WI Sen,

CA07, CA10, CA52, CO07,

IL17, MN08, NV04, OH16,

PA12, TX23

Americans For Tax Reform $2.3 M 2,862 CA52, CO03, GA12, KY16,NY18, NY21, OH,06, PA12

SEIU-COPE $1.9 M 2,421 MO, MT, NV, WI Sen, CA52,

CO07, FL18, IA04, IL08, IL17,

NY19, OH16

American Crossroads $3.8 M 2,148 FL Sen

Patriot Majority USA $1.7 M 1,838 MT, ND, NV Sen, FL02, GA12,

UT04

American Hospital Association $0.9 M 1,819 CA24, IA01, LA03, NY19,

NY22, NY23, WA05

Club for Growth $2.1 M 1,467 AZ, IN, OH Sen

YG Action Fund $1.7 M 1,366 FL18, FL22, GA12, IL12,

NC07, NC08, PA12,

Women Vote $734,060 1,038 H1, MO, NV, WI Sen, IL17

American Action Network $990,020 916 CA10, IL13, NH01, NY26

League of Conservation Voters $838,520 862 NY24, TX23



Figures 6 compares interest group ad counts in House and Senate races in 2008, 2010, and2012, split by party. Republicangroups account for a greater percentage of pro-GOP adsaired in 2012 than in 2010 and 2008 in Senate races, and the same is true of Democraticgroups in House and Senate races. The only decline is for pro-Republican groups in Houseraces 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 beensponsored 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

Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. Data from 2008 come fromthe Wisconsin Advertising Project. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan MediaProject.



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

Market Total Pro-

ObamaPro-

RomneyDemAdv.

Est DemCost (Ms)

Est RepCost (Ms)

Colorado Denver 9,950 5,798 4,152 1,646 7.13 6.58Colo. Springs 4,788 2,761 2,027 734 0.26 0.31Grand Junction 5,378 2,770 2,608 162 0.86 0.74

Florida

Tampa 7,992 4,217 3,775 442 4.77 5.70Orlando 7,916 4,719 3,197 1,522 4.99 4.77Ft. Myers 4,464 2,659 1,805 854 4.61 6.81W. Palm Beach 4,534 2,714 1,820 894 1.93 1.60Miami 7,523 3,892 3,631 261 0.88 1.52Jacksonville 4,506 2,021 2,485 -464 1.16 0.92Tallahassee 1,838 1,553 285 1,268 0.44 0.14Gainesville 1,782 1,146 636 510 0.27 0.28Panama City 602 602 0 602 0.12 0.00Dothan 216 216 0 216 0.08 0.00

Iowa Davenport 3,894 2,210 1,684 526 1.13 1.31Des Moines 4,905 2,550 2,355 195 0.89 0.87Cedar Rapids 4,335 2,539 1,796 743 1.41 1.31Sioux City 3,385 1,976 1,409 567 0.66 0.59Rochester, MN 3,234 1,477 1,757 -280 0.38 0.40Omaha 1,911 492 1,419 -927 0.39 1.01Ottumwa 1,122 329 793 -464 0.10 0.15Quincy 407 242 165 77 0.06 0.04

North Carolina Charlotte 4,105 1,932 2,173 -241 1.46 2.25

Raleigh 2,992 1,349 1,643 -294 1.33 2.02Greensboro 2,749 1,375 1,374 1 0.49 0.63Greenville, NC 2,389 917 1,472 -555 0.25 0.55Greenville, SC 1,293 526 767 -241 0.28 0.52Wilmington 1,003 768 235 533 0.20 0.09

New Hampshire Burlington 2,090 1,441 649 792 0.56 0.37



Portland, ME 1,822 1,231 591 640 0.53 0.36Boston 1,409 912 497 415 1.51 1.18Manchester, NH 1,403 814 589 225 0.52 0.45

Nevada Las Vegas 8,057 4,551 3,506 1,045 3.65 4.15

Reno 5,192 3,539 1,653 1,886 0.85 0.48

Ohio Cleveland 7,961 4,083 3,878 205 4.74 5.77Columbus, OH 6,647 3,239 3,408 -169 2.94 3.32Cincinnati 6,488 3,264 3,224 40 2.16 2.93Toledo 5,491 2,811 2,680 131 1.06 1.09Dayton 4,328 2,082 2,246 -164 1.06 1.51Youngstown 3,917 2,177 1,740 437 0.95 0.86Charleston, WV 1,854 862 992 -130 0.34 0.34Lima 1,206 405 801 -396 0.16 0.14Wheeling 1,334 630 704 -74 0.09 0.14Zanesville 817 388 429 -41 0.23 0.14Parkersburg 936 573 363 210 0.12 0.12

Virginia Washington, DC 7,746 4,439 3,307 1,132 8.46 9.23Norfolk 6,489 3,214 3,275 -61 1.59 1.99Richmond 5,665 2,918 2,747 171 1.29 1.65Roanoke 5,403 2,707 2,696 11 0.80 1.12Charlottesville 2,800 1,529 1,271 258 0.29 0.37Tri-Cities 2,631 1,255 1,376 -121 0.42 0.64

Wisconsin Milwaukee 4,418 2,567 1,851 716 1.56 2.12Madison 3,924 2,202 1,722 480 0.95 1.05Green Bay 3,702 2,212 1,490 722 0.63 0.63La Crosse 2,274 961 1,313 -352 0.35 0.58Wausau 1,716 655 1,061 -406 0.18 0.41

About This Report



Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cablebuys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Content information is based on ongoingWesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG video, which is 100 percent completefor presidential ads between 10/1 and 10/21/12 and 96.8 percent complete for the generalelection 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 televisionadvertising in real-time. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of theAllbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor tothe Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika FranklinFowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associateprofessor 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. KnightFoundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wesleyan University. Data provided by KantarMedia/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-basedcoding tool.

http://www.knightfoundation.org/




http://www.rbf.org/

http://www.rbf.org/

http://www.rbf.org/

http://www.rbf.org/



2012 shatters 2004 and 2008 records for total ads aired

Documents