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

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) Sept. 12, 2012 – 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

SponsorEst. Spending# AdsFavored Candidate
Totals are from August 26, 2012 through September 8, 2012. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Barack Obama$19.60 M37,230Obama
Americans for Prosperity$5.61 M7,356Romney
Mitt Romney$3.34 M4,503Romney
American Crossroads$1.04 M2,819Romney
Priorities USA Action$1.06 M2,764Obama
Restore Our Future$2.49 M2,711Romney
DNC & Barack Obama$0.28 M606Obama
SEIU Cope$0.19 M374Obama
RNC & Mitt Romney$0.26 M308Romney
Susan B. Anthony List$0.14 M84Romney
1

“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 the General Election Presidential Race

  CandidatesPartiesCoordinatedGroupsTotal
Totals are from June 1 - Sept 8, 2008 and April 26 - Sept 8, 2012. Amounts include broadcast television and national cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
2008 DemsAds Aired134,504305-2,628137,437
Row %97.9%0.2%0%1.9%
Cost$63.8 M$0.2 M$0$1.7 M$65.7 M
2008 GOPAds Aired102,3318,93020,1804,825136,266
Row %75.1%6.6%14.8%3.5%
Cost$45.4 M$6 M$9.6 M$3.7 M$64.7 M
2012 DemsAds Aired280,033-7,14728,376315,556
Row %88.7%0%2.3%9%
Cost$123.4 M$0$15.3 M$14.1 M$152.7 M
2012 GOPAds Aired90,16925,33323,398163,680302,580
Row %29.8%8.4%7.7%54.1%
Cost$37.8 M$17.4 M$15.7 M$117.5 M$188.4 M
1

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

2008PromoteContrastAttack
Percentages are based on an analysis of broadcast television and
national cable spots aired from June 1 - Sept 8, 2008 and April 26 - Sept 8, 2012.
Totals in 2012 are based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG
presidential ad airings. 2008 totals are from the Wisconsin Advertising Project.
Pro-Obama40.9%35.2%24%
Pro-McCain23.1%36.1%40.8%
2012PromoteContrastAttack
Pro-Obama28.2%25.7%46%
Pro-Romney14.4%13.4%72.1%
1

“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

Top Markets Overall  Top Dem Markets  Top Rep Markets 
Totals are from April 25 - Sept 8, 2012. Numbers include broadcast television and natoinal cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
MarketAd AiringsMarketAd AiringsMarketAd Airings
Las Vegas31,161Las Vegas18,387Las Vegas12,774
Cleveland27,049Cleveland16,025Cleveland11,024
Denver26,228Denver15,258Denver10,970
Reno22,082Orlando13,001Charlotte10,694
Orlando21,791Reno12,592Tampa10,535
Tampa21,763Norfolk12,258Reno9,490
Norfolk21,140Richmond11,874Columbus, OH9,243
Richmond20,883Tampa11,228Richmond9,009
Columbus, OH19,757Columbus, OH10,514Norfolk8,882
Charlotte18,781Cincinnati8,342Orlando8,790
Cincinnati17,021Toledo8,303Jacksonville8,715
Grand Junction15,882Des Moines8,173Cincinnati8,679
Roanoke15,793Charlotte8,087Roanoke8,630
Colorado Sprgs.15,633Grand Junction7,651Grand Junction8,231
Davenport15,596Colorado Sprgs.7,594Davenport8,106
Des Moines15,518Davenport7,490Colorado Sprgs.8,039
Cedar Rapids15,387Cedar Rapids7,437Cedar Rapids7,950
Washington DC15,159Washington DC7,428Ft. Myers7,867
Toledo15,109Roanoke7,163Raleigh7,854
Jacksonville14,695Charlottesville6,238Washington DC7,731
1

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

StateEst. SpendingAd Airings% Group
Totals are from June 1 through September 8. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
Montana4,495,13044,54828.4
Missouri13,411,09028,58329
Wisconsin9,757,85026,18235
Texas12,453,08021,70916.9
Ohio12,862,22019,87865
Nevada8,465,48017,16948
Massachusetts11,484,61016,3910
Virginia7,812,14014,52482
North Dakota2,724,89012,61941.7
Florida9,939,17012,31859.2
1

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

DistrictEst. SpendingAd Airings% Group
Totals are from June 1 through September 8. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
GA-121,970,2906,51311.9
TN-031,675,9106,0038.2
CT-053,571,2604,81016.1
OK-021,168,9303,9880
AZ-08761,1803,1659.6
FL-182,159,5903,0620.6
HI-02945,4203,00622.4
KY-06977,4302,28019.3
FL-19834,6602,21214.6
AZ-061,713,8302,15936.5
1

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)

GroupAds airedEst. spendingRaces Active
Totals are from June 1 through September 8. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable spots.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies25,667$13.6MMT, OH, VA, MO, NV, ND, FL, NM, WI, IN, NE Sen.
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce9,303$5.9MFL, VA, WI, MT, OH, MO, NV, NM, ME, ND, HI, UT Sen.
Majority PAC10,482$5.6MND, VA, MO, OH, WI, IN, FL Senate
Americans For Prosperity6,767$3.4MVA, MT, WI, MO, FL, NV, IN, NE Sen.
Club For Growth4,853$2.9MAZ-04, NC-08, WI, TX, AZ, IN Sen.
Texas Conservatives Fund2,128$2.50TX-Sen.
60 Plus Association4,322$2.30OH, VA, FL, WI Sen.
American Commitment3,594$2.1MOH, FL, WI, ND, NV, WV, NM Sen.
Patriot Majority USA4,952$2MUT-04, CT-05, GA-12, KY-06, IA-03, NV, MT, NV, MO Sen.
American Crossroads2,573$1.40VA, NM, NV, NE Sen.
Center Forward2,670$1.2MGA-12, KS-01, UT-04, KY-06, GA-12, IN Sen.
Majority PAC & League Of Conserv. Voters1,351$1.1MVA Sen.
Liberty For All Super PAC677$0.9MMI-11, AZ Sen.
American Future Fund1,588$0.7MND, NV, NM, WI Sen.
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

Pro-Obama ads  Pro-Romney Ads 
Totals based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings from April 25 to September 8, 2012.
Jobs47.90%Jobs69.80%
Taxes41.80%Deficit45.30%
Education17.50%Recession/Econ Stimulus19.80%
Deficit15.60%Govt Spending19.70%
Women's Health12.50%Taxes19.50%
Health care10.80%Health care15.60%
Abortion9.50%Energy Policy7.70%
Business8.20%Trade7.30%
Medicare8.10%Business5.90%
Recession/Econ. Stimulus7.20%Welfare5.70%
Trade7.00%China4.10%
China7.00%Housing3.90%
Govt Regulations6.60%Medicare3.10%
Iraq6.30%Govt Regulations1.40%
Terrorism5.30%Govt Ethics0.30%
1

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 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.

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.  All spending amounts are estimates of broadcast and national cable spots.

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 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.

###

 

 

 

Comments are closed.