Television still dominates as the venue for advertising despite the widespread adoption of new platforms. Most of the political advertising dollars are still funneled into traditional television, but now there is some question as to how effective these ever-present, ever-consistent TV ads actually are.

A recent study published by Business Insider confirms that the amount of time the typical American spends watching TV has remained consistent in the last few years; however, traditional viewing habits are changing, especially among Generation Y.

Gov. Jerry Brown was recently “exasperated” after talking to a younger woman who told him she didn’t watch TV and therefore hadn’t heard of Proposition 30, which Brown is the lead advocate for. Brown questioned, “How do you reach the non-TV voter,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Maybe an ad on rock ‘n’ roll radio.”

Other campaigns have chosen alternate routes. One option is promoting ads on the online streaming site Hulu. The site’s political advertising revenue jumped 700 percent this year, up to $54.4 million from about $22 million in 2008, the Huffington Post reports.

Recent studies found that nearly one-third of TV viewers in presidential battleground states don’t watch scheduled television (i.e., they opt instead for DVRs or video-streaming services) and between 70 and 80 percent of Hulu users voted in the last two presidential elections.

Social media has also seen strong traction.

"I think that Obama back in '08 made good use of the social media aspects and from then it’s kind of snowballed," said USC advertising expert Matthew Curtis. "People recognized the effect it had in '08 and it’s just kind of continued on from then, becoming increasingly important in the 2012 [election]."

"Although TV is still where everyone spends most of their money," Curtis continued, "the return on investment - the ROI - is often times more effective on the social media because it’s so much cheaper to run a Facebook page and put content on there."

Many campaigns have taken to Twitter, which comes as no surprise considering the massive attention devoted to politics on the microblogging site.

Unlike the slower turnaround for TV ads, “Twitter has become a central tool for most political campaigns, letting campaigns reach voters nearly instantly,” the Wall Street Journal said. “Now, paid ads– which make a campaign’s message more prominent, and less likely to get lost in users’ ever-churning news feeds—are moving into the spotlight.”

The article cites an example from Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, whose campaign quickly put out a Twitter ad in response to the “legitimate rape” statement from rival candidate Rep. Todd Akin.

According to Twitter’s advertising blog, more than 100 politicians and political issue advertisers ran campaigns on Twitter this political season. A recent study from Twitter found that Tweets can directly generate political donations, although it did not distinguish between Twitter advertisements and unpaid Tweets. Twitter is also tight-lipped on the cost of its advertising options but by some estimates, campaigns could spend anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 daily.

And then there’s the inevitable, and largely inescapable, Facebook. Compared to the expensive price tag of TV spots, moderately priced Facebook advertising has the potential to reach a wide audience and possibly inspire more engagement than the typical TV ad can.

At least that was the standpoint of politicians and political strategists who have invested in the network’s advertising options. A new study conducted by a political science professor at Columbia University and a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley claims otherwise.

Looking at an anonymous state candidate's online campaign, the study found that users who were exposed to the Facebook ads were no more likely to recognize the candidate, to think favorably of the candidate or to vote for the candidate. "Indeed, the results allow us to confidently rule out the proposition that this veritable bombardment of online ads increased the candidate's name recognition in his district by more than 1.8 percentage points," the study's authors concluded.

Since the report was released, some people from communications firms have argued for Facebook ads’ worth, noting that the social network has various offerings that the study did not observe. 

The effectiveness of political ads on TV has also come into question.

"When you put a commercial on say NBC or ABC, it is watched by the entire town, state or country," Curtis said in a phone interview, "whereas on social media, you can be much more targeted and direct in who they’re reaching out to." Unlike TV with ambiguous audiencies, social media enables "instant feedback on whose clicking, linking and retweeting and liking and so on," he said.

For the voters who haven’t tuned out traditional television, campaign ads can be overwhelming - especially for those in swing states.

In a piece called “Political Ads: How Much Is Too Much?” the Wall Street Journal questioned the value of ads in over-saturated markets, suggesting PACs and candidates would likely find it hard to stand out in the clutter (not to mention the lower-budget campaigns for local propositions or offices).

Rolling Stone commented on that same issue in its article “Political Ads: Overpriced, Inefficient, Essential.” But even with all the arguments against the traditional TV ads, Rolling Stone doesn’t forecast a dramatic switch.

“So while TV advertising might not be a terribly efficient means of reaching swing voters, it’s probably more efficient than any alternative, since TV still has the broadest reach of any medium,” the article concludes.

Curtis argued that campaigns can do both TV and social media because the latter is so cheap. He did, however, agree the transition will be slow: "I think it takes time for the industry to change and often times it’s hesitant and resistant to change."

 

Reach Staff Reporter Karla Robinson here.