Obama Dominates Advertising in Key States

President Holds Advantage in 14 of 15 Top Markets;

Only 7.8 Percent of Presidential Ads Positive;

FCC electronic disclosure leaves out more than 50% of federal ads

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Oct. 3, 2012 – In the three-week period since the parties’ national conventions, Barack Obama and his party and interest group allies have continued to dominate the airwaves in the battleground presidential states. From September 9 to September 30, Obama held an ad advantage in 14 of the 15 most advertised media markets in the key states of Virginia, Ohio, and Florida (Table 1). In the top 15 markets, pro-Romney advertising outpaced pro-Obama advertising only in Las Vegas, Nevada.  (At the end of this report is a listing of advertising in all battleground media markets, Table 15.)

“The heavy advertising from the Obama campaign has challenged the assumption that Romney-friendly outside groups would saturate and dominate the airwaves in key markets,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

In fact, Obama and his allies aired 1,800 more ads than Romney and his allies in Denver; 1,700 more in Norfolk, Virginia; and 1,500 more in Orlando–all in the last three weeks. “The heavy Obama advantage may be one reason why polling in battleground states has moved against Romney in recent weeks,” Fowler said.

Indeed, Romney was heavily reliant on outside groups to sponsor his advertising.  For instance, one reason pro-Romney ads outnumbered pro-Obama ads in Las Vegas was that outside groups sponsored over 2,900 ads in that media market in the last three weeks (more than double the number sponsored by the Romney campaign).

The Democratic National Committee did not purchase broadcast advertising in these top media markets in the past three weeks, while the Republican National Committee has made some limited purchases backing Romney.

“The absence of party support in the air war for both candidates may have to do with a few key factors,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Project.  “First, the DNC is likely spending most of its energy on base mobilization off the air, such as with voter contact drives.  Second, the RNC coordinated on a significant amount of advertising with Romney, and independently supported him as well, throughout the first part of the general election.  The Republican Party may have shifted its focus to congressional ads in the fall campaign, or may be conserving resources for a late push.”

(See Table 3 for Republican Party ad totals in the full general election period.)

Table 1: Advertising in Presidential Race (September 9-30, 2012)

Market	Total	Obama	DNC	Dem Groups	Romney	RNC	GOP Groups	Dem Adv.
Denver	7,770	4,001	0	790	1,470	116	1,393	1,812
Las Vegas	7,360	2,909	0	111	1,251	159	2,930	-1,320
Cleveland	6,583	3,052	0	705	1,649	48	1,117	943
Tampa	6,361	3,064	0	685	1,648	24	940	1,137
Washington, DC	6,354	3,301	0	181	1,706	58	1,108	610
Orlando	6,144	3,146	0	687	1,387	49	875	1,522
Columbus, OH	5,224	2,255	0	776	1,382	54	757	838
Cincinnati	5,104	2,305	0	365	1,416	47	971	236
Reno	4,993	2,826	0	0	1,013	0	1,154	659
Norfolk	4,880	2,900	0	397	833	68	682	1,714
Colorado Springs	4,878	2,259	0	341	1,218	0	1,060	322
Grand Junction	4,661	2,677	0	0	1,047	0	937	693
Toledo	4,467	1,931	0	585	1,476	51	424	565
Richmond	4,449	2,345	0	348	843	45	868	937
Ft. Myers	4,039	2,024	0	387	1,250	29	349	783
Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.  Party airings also include some candidate-party coordinated ads.

Figure 1: Democratic Ad Advantage in Presidential Race by Media Market (September 9-30)

The Obama Campaign has topped all other spenders in the presidential race over the past three weeks, though it has received some help from Priorities USA Action (Pro-Obama SuperPAC), SEIU COPE and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  In addition to the Romney campaign, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have aired substantial advertising in support of Romney.

Table 2: Top Spenders in Ad Race (September 9-30, 2012)

Sponsor	Party	Est. Cost	Ads
Barack Obama	Dem	$40,185,030	83,080
Mitt Romney	Rep	$19,234,000	36,406
American Crossroads	Rep	$9,464,430	14,154
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies	Rep	$5,514,270	7,046
Priorities USA Action	Dem	$3,939,520	9,024
Americans for Job Security	Rep	$2,986,050	4,320
Restore Our Future, Inc.	Rep	$1,967,870	2,642
Americans for Prosperity	Rep	$1,397,370	721
Republican Jewish Coalition	Rep	$1,384,180	1,622
American Future Fund	Rep	$776,820	1,269
SEIU Cope	Dem	$573,830	479
Planned Parenthood Action Fund	Dem	$442,820	674
RNC	Rep	$287,830	726
RNC & Mitt Romney	Rep	$218,850	463
Ending Spending Fund	Rep	$189,460	57
Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Since the start of the general election campaign in April, when Romney effectively secured the Republican nomination, the biggest spender on presidential advertising, by far, has been the Obama campaign, which has invested an estimated $164 million into 363,000 ads (Table 3).  The Romney campaign, by contrast, has spent only about a third of that total, $57 million, on 127,000 ads.

Table 3: Top Spenders in Ad Race (General Election Campaign)

Sponsor	Party	Est. Cost	Ads
Obama, Barack	Dem	$163,763,350	363,010
Romney, Mitt	Rep	$57,272,390	126,748
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies	Rep	$41,478,930	68,857
Americans For Prosperity	Rep	$35,936,070	43,088
Restore Our Future, Inc.	Rep	$33,945,950	41,159
American Crossroads	Rep	$17,859,310	28,474
Republican National Committee	Rep	$17,658,350	26,059
RNC & Mitt Romney	Rep	$15,962,220	23,861
DNC & Barack Obama	Dem	$15,309,000	7,210
Priorities USA Action	Dem	$14,592,420	31,707
Concerned Women For America	Rep	$4,400,360	3,132
American Future Fund	Rep	$3,775,150	3,929
Americans For Job Security	Rep	$2,986,050	4,320
Republican Jewish Coalition	Rep	$1,384,180	1,622
Planned Parenthood Action Fund	Dem	$1,369,800	1,751
Totals are from April 25 through September 30, 2012. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 4 provides some historical context, comparing ad totals and costs for the September 9-30, 2012, period with the same period in 2008.  Note that both the Democratic and Republican candidates this year are airing more ads and spending more on those ads than did their counterparts in 2008. Ad spending supporting the Democratic candidate is up 20 percent over 2008, while ad dollars supporting the Republican are up 93 percent over 2008 level.

In both years, however, Obama had significant advantages, though the gap between Romney and Obama is smaller than that between McCain and Obama.  Moreover, whereas McCain relied heavily on coordinated ads with the Republican Party, Romney has relied far more on outside groups.  Spending by groups in support of the GOP nominee in 2012 is up over 3,000 percent from 2008.

Table 4: Ad Totals and Spending in 2008 and 2012 (September 9-30, 2012)

		Candidates	Parties	Coordinated	Groups	Total
2008 Dems
	Ads aired	74,982	535	1,607	4,877	82,001
	Row %	91.44%	0.65%	1.96%	5.95%
	Cost	$35,030,818	$98,564	$495,313	$1,840,263	$37,464,958
2008 GOP
	Ads aired	14,839	924	32,407	1,279	49,449
	Row %	30.01%	1.87%	65.54%	2.59%
	Cost	$7,788,077	$424,586	$13,703,048	$638,079	$22,553,790
2012 Dems
	Ads aired	83,080	0	58	10,251	93,389
	Row %	88.96%	0%	0.06%	10.98%
	Cost	$40,185,030	$0	$7,260	$4,999,280	$45,191,570
	% cost change from 2008	14.7%	-	-98.5%	171.7%	20.6%
2012 GOP
	Ads aired	36,406	726	463	31,957	69,552
	Row %	52.34%	1.04%	0.67%	45.95%
	Cost	$19,234,000	$287,830	$218,850	$23,809,600	$43,550,280
	% cost change from 2008	147%	-32.2%	-98.4%	3631.5%	93.1%
Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. Data from 2008 come from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Indeed, Figure 2 shows that total ad volumes in the 2012 presidential general election have already greatly exceeded ad volumes to this point in 2004 and 2008.

“If advertising in the presidential race continues at its current pace, the number of presidential ads aired this year will eclipse 2004 and 2008 totals by the second week of October,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.  “The sky is the limit here on what the final number will be by November 6th.”

Figure 2: Volume of Presidential Advertising in 2004, 2008 and 2012

Most Negative Campaign Since 2000

By recent historical standards, the race for the presidency in 2012 has been an extremely negative one.  Table 5 shows that in the past three weeks, only 7.8 percent of ads aired in the presidential race have been positive—mentioning solely the favored candidate.  This compares to 30 percent positive in 2000 and 2008 and 19 percent positive in 2004.  Fully 60 percent of ads over the past three weeks have been negative—mentioning solely the opposition candidate.  The remaining 32 percent of ads have been contrast ads, those that mention both the favored candidate and the opposition candidate.

Going back to June 1, the relative negativity of the 2012 presidential campaign is even starker.  Just 14 percent of presidential ads so far this year have been positive, down from 54 percent in 2000, 35 percent in 2004 and 32 percent in 2008.  Fully 62 percent of ads this year have been pure attacks.

“It will come as no surprise to those who have been bombarded with advertising in key markets, but 2012 is another record-setting year in terms of the amount of negativity we’re seeing in the presidential race,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “The rise in negativity also means that there is a lot of substantive policy-based information on the air to help inform voters.”

Table 5: Tone of Presidential Race (2000-2012)

	September 9-30			June 1 - September 30
	Contrast	Positive	Negative	Contrast	Positive	Negative
2000	47.3%	30%	22.7%	27.2%	54.4%	18.4%
2004	50.4%	19.1%	30.5%	30.3%	35.3%	34.3%
2008	14.7%	29.2%	56.2%	28.5%	31.7%	39.7%
2012	29.5%	7.8%	62.8%	23.5%	13.6%	62.9%
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.  2000, 2004 and 2008 totals are from the Wisconsin Advertising Project.

Table 6 shows the partisan breakdown of tone for the September 9-30 period, comparing 2012 with previous election years.  This year, pro-Obama spots are more likely to use pure attacks than pro-Romney spots, and pro-Romney spots are slightly more likely than pro-McCain ads were in 2008 to use pure attacks (and much more likely to use contrast spots than McCain).

Table 6: Tone in Presidential Advertising by Favored Candidate (2000-2012)

		Promote	Contrast	Attack
2012	pro-Obama	2.5%	33.7%	63.8%
	pro-Romney	15.4%	23.3%	61.3%
2008	pro-Obama	27.7%	18.4%	53.9%
	pro-McCain	31.6%	8.5%	59.9%
2004	pro-Kerry	56.8%	41.9%	1.3%
	pro-Bush	43.1%	17.3%	39.6%
2000	pro-Gore	22.7%	33.6%	43.7%
	pro-Bush	70.5%	12.5%	17%
Percentages based on an analysis of broadcast television and national cable spots aired from Sept 9 - Sept 30 for each year. Totals in 2012 are based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential airings. 2000-2008 percentages are from the Wisconsin Advertising Project.

Parties Similarly Armed in Battle for Senate, House

Ad spending during the past three weeks on races for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is nearly even across the parties.  Spending by or on behalf of Republican Senate candidates was $26.8 million, which edged out spending by or on behalf of Democratic Senate candidates at $25.5 million.  Ad spending on behalf of Republican and Democratic candidates for the House was almost even, at $24 million for each side.

Table 7: Ad Spending in House and Senate Races (September 9-30, 2012)

	Democratic	Republican
U.S. House	$23,996,920	$24,075,790
U.S. Senate	$25,473,550	$26,845,170
Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Looking at individual Senate races, the races in Ohio, Massachusetts and Virginia garnered the most ad spending over the past three weeks.  Notably, the Republican candidates in Ohio, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania are benefiting from large advantages in ad spending, while Democratic candidates in Arizona and Missouri have benefited from considerably more ad spending.

The last column shows the percentage of advertising in the race sponsored by outside groups.  This is over 50 percent in Ohio and Virginia and over 40 percent in Florida, Nevada, Indiana and Wisconsin.  The Warren-Brown pact in the Massachusetts Senate race was still holding as of the end of September; it was the second most expensive Senate race in the last three weeks but had no spending by outside groups.

Table 8: Top Senate Races by Spending (September 9-30, 2012)

Race	Total $	Dem $	Rep $	% IG
Ohio	$6,006,570	$2,588,710	$3,417,860	53.2%
Massachusetts	$5,920,670	$2,990,630	$2,930,040	0%
Virginia	$4,996,680	$2,496,410	$2,500,270	52.3%
Florida	$4,573,340	$1,946,940	$2,626,400	47.7%
Nevada	$4,142,620	$1,997,510	$2,145,110	45.4%
Connecticut	$3,724,510	$921,810	$2,802,700	4.1%
Indiana	$3,716,230	$1,573,450	$2,142,780	44%
Wisconsin	$3,636,860	$1,982,070	$1,654,790	48.3%
Pennsylvania	$3,049,390	$823,480	$2,225,910	0%
Arizona	$1,868,990	$1,462,270	$406,720	5.6%
New Mexico	$1,813,060	$840,490	$972,570	12.1%
Montana	$1,738,280	$813,980	$924,300	29.9%
Missouri	$1,599,730	$1,370,550	$229,180	6%
North Dakota	$1,021,470	$517,780	$503,690	37.5%
Nebraska	$933,450	$546,300	$387,150	24.4%
Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 9 organizes the Senate races by the total number of ads aired (by candidates, parties and outside group sponsors) over the past three weeks.  Montana is at the top of the list, with over 19,000 ads aired.  The state is followed by Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts and Indiana.

Table 9: Top Senate Races by Ad Counts (September 9-30, 2012)

Race	Total ads	Dem ads	Rep ads
Montana	19,047	8,362	10,685
Wisconsin	11,337	6,933	4,404
Ohio	10,059	4,669	5,390
Massachusetts	9,971	4,148	5,823
Indiana	9,159	3,719	5,440
Nevada	8,998	4,399	4,599
Virginia	7,409	3,873	3,536
Florida	6,907	3,889	3,018
North Dakota	5,859	3,090	2,769
Pennsylvania	5,076	1,583	3,493
New Mexico	3,902	1,970	1,932
Missouri	3,765	3,282	483
Connecticut	3,588	1,564	2,024
Arizona	3,569	2,781	788
Maine	3,338	192	2,360
Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Top House races in terms of spending are shown in Table 10.  The race to serve Ohio’s 16th congressional district, which features an incumbent versus incumbent matchup thanks to new district lines, tops the list with almost $2.2 million worth of spending in the past three weeks.

Table 10: Top House Races by Spending (September 9-30, 2012)

Race	Ads	Spending	Dem spending	Rep spending
Ohio 16	1,944	$2,199,590	$944,090	$1,255,500
Pennsylvania 12	2,645	$1,897,220	$931,190	$966,030
Colorado 7	2,389	$1,791,240	$1,035,500	$755,740
Arizona 1	2,381	$1,762,070	$1,100,520	$661,550
Minnesota 8	2,168	$1,752,800	$948,800	$804,000
California 52	3,145	$1,734,010	$875,500	$858,510
Massachusetts 6	1,091	$1,689,790	$663,340	$1,026,450
California 10	3,061	$1,593,690	$887,860	$705,830
Florida 18	2,585	$1,536,950	$696,350	$840,600
Utah 4	2,968	$1,424,430	$825,470	$598,960
Nevada 3	2,149	$1,382,370	$757,860	$624,510
Illinois 17	4,299	$1,255,930	$712,260	$543,670
Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 11 shows the top 20 outside groups involved in House and Senate races the past three weeks, along with the races in which they were involved.  Crossroads GPS was the most heavily involved outside group, spending almost $6 million in 8 closely-contested Senate races.  The House Majority PAC, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFSCME were also involved in multiple races.

Table 11: Spending and Ad Totals of Top 20 Outside Groups (September 9-30, 2012)

Sponsor	Spending	Ads	Races
Crossroads GPS	$5,983,000	10,774	VA, OH, ND, NV, MT, WI, NY, IN Sen
House Majority PAC	$3,087,030	4,365	CA10, WV03, OH16, WA01, FL18, CA07, AZ01, AZ09, IL17, IA04, NY27, VA02, NH02, OH06, CO07, UT04, MN08, NV03,
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce	$2,921,480	5,158	WI, VA, HI, MT, OH, ME, ND, NM, FL Senate, CA10, CA07, CA09, CA52, CA24, IL10, IL13
AFSCME	$2,323,860	3,569	MT, HI, WI, NV Senate, OH16, MN08, PA12, CA07, CO07
YG Action Fund	$1,741,450	1,493	IL12, FL22, GA12, PA12, MA06, NC07
Center Forward	$1,511,230	2,692	IN Sen, GA12, UT04
Center For Individual Freedom	$1,331,700	2,572	NY21, UT04, KY06, NY24, NV04, IA03
American Crossroads	$1,295,830	1,268	FL Sen
American Action Network	$1,167,310	948	MN08, CA10, IL13
Congressional Leadership Fund	$1,106,340	902	TX23, OH16
Majority PAC	$926,680	1,347	IN, ND, MT, WI, VA Sen
SEIU COPE	$712,110	1,066	PA12, VA02, IA04, IL17, CA07, WI Sen
Now Or Never PAC	$675,620	334	IL08
NEA Fund For Children & Public Education	$572,620	821	OH Sen
Club For Growth	$503,710	782	IN Sen
Patriot Majority USA	$440,960	1,168	IA03, ND, NV Sen
Freedom PAC	$403,570	4	FL Sen
Treasure Coast Jobs Coalition	$367,320	483	FL18
Women Vote	$315,880	702	HI, MO, WI Sen
National Fed. Of Ind. Businesses	$292,260	727	IA04, NY25
Numbers include broadcast television. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Online Disclosure Misses Many Ads

Recent FCC rules require that certain television stations in the 50 largest media markets in the United States make their public files, which detail ad spending by sponsor, available online.  While such a requirement goes some way toward increasing transparency about who is paying for political advertising, it still misses a lot.  Indeed, there are 160 media markets that are not covered by the disclosure requirement, which went into effect in early August.  The Wesleyan Media Project looked to see what was not easily available online and found that there were 447,000 ads aired in the presidential, Senate and House races, at an estimated cost over $140.6 million that were not covered under the electronic disclosure requirements (Table 12).

Table 12: Costs and Ad Volumes in “Disclosure” and “Non-Disclosure” Media Markets

Market	Est. Cost	Ads
Not top 50 market	140,577,920	447,120
Top 50 market	297,454,560	357,857
Totals are from August 2 through September 30. Numbers include broadcast television and national cable advertising. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Ads Focus on a Variety of Issues and Themes

Since the Wesleyan Media Project’s mid-September release, the focus of presidential advertising on both sides has shifted.  Table 13 shows the top 15 issues in pro-Romney and pro-Obama ads.  Nearly every pro-Romney spot (93 percent) has mentioned jobs, while just over one in three (37 percent) of pro-Obama ads mention the topic.  Almost one out of every two (48 percent) pro-Obama ads have mentioned taxes, while a similar percentage of pro-Romney spots mention health care (47 percent) and taxes (41 percent).  China has dropped out of the top 15 issues on the Democratic side while the mention of China increased on the Republican side (from 4 percent in the general through 9/8 to 32 percent in the last three weeks).  Similarly, pro-Obama spots have increased their focus on energy policy, previously not among the top 15 issues, while pro-Romney ads have decreased their focus on energy (from 8 to 2 percent).

Table 13: Top 15 Issues Mentioned by Political Party in Presidential Race (September 9-30, 2012)

Pro-Obama Ads			Pro-Romney Ads
Taxes	47.8%		Jobs	93.3%
Jobs	36.9%		Health care	46.6%
Education	21.4%		Taxes	41.4%
Econ disparity	18%		Deficit	34.4%
Health care	17%		China	31.8%
Trade	16.1%		Business	30.1%
Deficit	16.1%		Gov’t Spending	27.7%
Medicare	11.7%		Trade	14.9%
Energy Policy	10.8%		Recession/Econ Stimulus	9.6%
Recession/Econ Stimulus	9.4%		Housing	2.6%
Business	8.2%		Poverty	2.6%
Housing	6.4%		Israel	2.5%
Childcare	6.2%		Energy Policy	2.3%
Women's Health	5.8%		Welfare	2.3%
Abortion	5.6%		Local Issues	2.1%
Totals based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings.

Not only is 2012 the most negative campaign in recent history, but it also has featured an overwhelming number of appeals to anger.  Table 14 displays the top emotional appeals addressed in presidential advertising.

“It’s clear there is a lot of anger out there this year,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.  “Anger was the most common emotional appeal made in presidential advertising in the last three weeks, and that was true for Obama and Romney ads,” said Ridout.

Table 14: Emotional Appeals in Presidential Ads (September 9-30, 2012)

	Pro-Obama ads	Pro-Romney ads
Anger	96%	68.6%
Fear	34.9%	41.2%
Enthusiasm	29.6%	25.1%
Pride	3.9%	17%
Sadness	32.9%	27.9%
Totals based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings. Totals include any ads that coders assessed as making “some” or “strong” appeal to the emotion.

Sizable percentages of GOP-leaning interest group ads in the last three weeks have also discussed “hope” (17 percent) and “change” (15 percent), and Republican Party ads have all featured the word “change” (100 percent) while pro-Obama ads have notably avoided either term.  Pro-Democratic interest groups describe Obama as “hard working” in nearly one out of every three of their ads (29 percent).  Romney’s own ads have tried to tap into empathy, conveying a sense that the candidate “cares” about average Americans in more than a quarter of all airings (28 percent). GOP-leaning interest groups have painted Obama as “dishonest” (19 percent of airings).  And it is not just GOP presidential airings that are going after the president; more than a quarter (25.2 percent) of U.S. House and U.S. Senate advertising this year has featured Obama in a way to show disapproval or opposition.

Table 15: Volume and Cost of Advertising in Battleground States (September 9-30, 2012)

Market	Total	Pro-Obama	Pro-Romney	Dem Adv.	Est Dem Cost (Ms)	Est Rep Cost (Ms)	% Contrast	% Negative
Colorado
Denver	7,770	4,791	2,979	1,812	3.26	2.55	36%	58%
Colo. Springs	4,878	2,600	2,278	322	0.55	0.56	29%	64%
Grand Junction	4,661	2,677	1,984	693	0.18	0.17	20%	70%
Florida
Tampa	6,361	3,749	2,612	1,137	2.81	2.61	39%	52%
Orlando	6,144	3,833	2,311	1,522	2.53	2.44	37%	56%
Ft. Myers	4,039	2,411	1,628	783	0.62	0.58	40%	50%
W. Palm Beach	3,690	2,191	1,499	692	1.06	0.93	42%	52%
Miami	3,603	1,907	1,696	211	1.61	1.88	15%	41%
Jacksonville	3,391	1,388	2,003	-615	0.38	0.74	21%	67%
Tallahassee	997	748	249	499	0.15	0.07	42%	58%
Gainesville	931	692	239	453	0.12	0.09	28%	53%
Panama City	509	457	52	405	0.06	0.01	58%	42%
Dothan	173	140	33	107	0.04	0.03	44%	56%
Iowa
Davenport	3,779	2,275	1,504	771	0.91	0.73	36%	57%
Des Moines	3,634	2,186	1,448	738	0.56	0.57	40%	54%
Cedar Rapids	3,310	1,923	1,387	536	0.44	0.43	38%	57%
Sioux City	2,523	1,659	864	795	0.34	0.22	36%	59%
Rochester, MN	1,794	1,222	572	650	0.22	0.09	48%	52%
Omaha	1,106	619	487	132	0.28	0.26	21%	71%
Ottumwa	427	357	70	287	0.04	0.01	39%	60%
Quincy	425	335	90	245	0.04	0.01	24%	74%
North Carolina
Charlotte	3,378	1,593	1,785	-192	0.85	1.33	26%	65%
Raleigh	2,286	963	1,323	-360	0.61	1.10	10%	81%
Greensboro	2,279	1,109	1,170	-61	0.24	0.40	11%	80%
Greenville, NC	1,807	685	1,122	-437	0.14	0.31	12%	77%
Greenville, SC	810	382	428	-46	0.14	0.19	0%	100%
Wilmington	661	650	11	639	0.10	0.00	0%	100%
New Hampshire
Burlington	1,876	1,429	447	982	0.36	0.15	43%	56%
Portland, ME	1,866	1,422	444	978	0.40	0.20	42%	55%
Boston	1,672	1,247	425	822	1.26	0.90	45%	46%
Manchester, NH	1,404	840	564	276	0.34	0.29	26%	61%
Nevada
Las Vegas	7,360	3,020	4,340	-1,320	1.73	3.54	16%	71%
Reno	4,993	2,826	2,167	659	0.43	0.46	28%	60%
Ohio
Cleveland	6,583	3,757	2,826	931	2.93	2.68	26%	67%
Columbus, OH	5,224	3,031	2,193	838	1.82	1.55	20%	73%
Cincinnati	5,104	2,670	2,434	236	1.18	1.48	28%	64%
Toledo	4,467	2,516	1,951	565	0.76	0.57	22%	69%
Dayton	3,858	2,112	1,746	366	0.70	0.79	27%	66%
Youngstown	2,514	1,958	556	1,402	0.53	0.19	27%	70%
Charleston, WV	942	515	427	88	0.15	0.12	41%	41%
Lima	869	704	165	539	0.07	0.02	35%	63%
Wheeling	601	295	306	-11	0.06	0.05	49%	31%
Zanesville	405	374	31	343	0.08	0.01	36%	61%
Parkersburg	375	199	176	23	0.06	0.04	42%	43%
Virginia
Washington, DC	6,354	3,482	2,872	610	4.50	5.27	23%	68%
Norfolk	4,880	3,297	1,583	1,714	1.06	0.82	21%	75%
Richmond	4,449	2,693	1,756	937	0.76	0.84	21%	74%
Roanoke	3,456	1,806	1,650	156	0.45	0.55	42%	53%
Charlottesville	1,489	1,243	246	997	0.17	0.06	37%	57%
Tri-Cities	969	615	354	261	0.17	0.10	38%	53%
Wisconsin
Milwaukee	3,472	2,019	1,453	566	0.94	0.99	28%	66%
Madison	2,978	1,693	1,285	408	0.57	0.51	29%	65%
Green Bay	2,674	1,382	1,292	90	0.29	0.35	34%	60%
La Crosse	1,480	228	1,252	-1,024	0.06	0.44	32%	57%
Wausau	1,051	241	810	-569	0.04	0.20	38%	50%
Numbers include broadcast television. Tone percentages based on ongoing Wesleyan Media Project coding of Kantar Media/CMAG presidential ad airings. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

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 95.5 percent complete for presidential ads between 9/9 and 9/30/12 and 96.8 percent complete for the general election period from 4/25 through 9/30/12. Intercoder reliability checks on coding found 97 percent agreement between independent assessments of tone for a Kappa score of 0.89.

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.

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.