cable

Update II: MTV staffers wrote back to me saying that they do not place local advertisement and will only be accepting spots from the Presidential campaigns. So the whole idea of local politicians making use of this is moot. Another lost opportunity. So what's my final answer to the question "what are these ads really workth?" Not a whole lot unless you are MTV raking in the cash.

Update: So apparently there is one study looking at the efficacy of political ads targeted at young voters. A study by Green and Vavrek on the efficacy of 30 second cable ads by Rock the Vote found a statistically significant increase in youth turnout in the target areas:

The average intent to treat effect for voters between the ages of 18-24, for which the ads were designed, was 2 percentage points with a standard error of 1.37.

Not a huge bump, but a bump none the less. Still, it is worth studying more this year and this is more evidence that it can benefit candidates. However, peer-to-peer organizing is still far more effective at reaching younger voters. Contrary to Devine's message, that should remain the primary method used by campaigns to engage Millennials.
------------------------

I want to talk a little bit more about MTV's recent announcement that all of their cable channels not directed at children will now accept paid political advertisements.

This was prompted by a discussion amongst a few youth vote colleagues. Some of the ideas expressed were not originally my own, but I agree with them and don't have permission to quote the person who suggested them. Nevertheless, I think they're really important and deserve to see the light of day.

At the heart of the problem is the simple question "what are these ads really worth?" According to Tad Devine, the Democratic strategist quoted in the piece by Ad Age:

"I think MTV's decision to accept advertising is an important indication that the youth vote this year will have a real impact on the outcome of the election," said Tad Devine, a Democratic campaign strategist who handled Sen. John Kerry's campaign four years ago. "Now campaigns have the opportunity to reach young voters in a venue where they congregate, and I'm sure Obama's campaign will look seriously at advertising there, given his advantage with young people."

Not quite. While the Nielsen numbers for MTV might still be quite high, young people are far more likely to "congregate" online or in their communities: at bars, coffee shops, concert venues, barbershops, etc. Studies consistently show that peer to peer interaction is the surest way to encourage someone to vote. Democratic candidates would be far better served reaching out to young voters in these venues than in airing expensive spots on national television.

Reaching young voters is not magic. They are out there, in your community (for real!) and candidates and campaigns don't need MTV to magically open the door to those young voters.

However, this does present us with an opportunity. As far as I can tell, no one knows how effective targeted cable TV ads are at reaching young voters because no one has ever been able to test it out. This was tried in 2004, when the Rappaports tried to air ads on MTV through the organization Compare Decide Vote, but those ads were not accepted.

While I seriously doubt any national political advertisements on MTV will have any direct impact on increasing young voter turnout, it could potentially do a lot at the state level to increase name recognition for down-ballot candidates, move young people onto candidate websites, and turn them into online supporters. If a Senate candidate like Scott Kleeb or congressional candidate like Darcy Burner could (relatively cheaply) purchase some time only in their local markets, that might do a lot for getting their name out there among young voters and moving that support online. From there, a smart campaign should be able to move some of that support offline or collect enough information to increase the effectiveness of their voter registration and GOTV work.

One final caveat. According to Ad Age:

"MTV Networks will accept political advertising that is national in scope, sponsored by a legally qualified candidate, a candidate's official campaign committee, a nationally recognized political party, or the official congressional campaign committee(s) of a nationally recognized party."

My reading of this leads me to believe that issue advocacy organizations will NOT be allowed to purchase air time. That is a shame. This could be truly useful for a group like MoveOn or PowerShift in raising awareness about anti-war or pro-environment actions. Yes, it would open up MTV to conservative messages as well, but that's what the open market of ideas is about. This seems like a big missed opportunity to get more young people actively involved in the national policy discussion.

The Washington Post is reporting that Barack Obama is the first candidate to purchase national TV ad time in the Super (Fat) Tuesday contests. So far, Obama has purchased air time on CNN and MSNBC.

This is a new phase in the Democratic nominating process, and one that most of us are not used to seeing. The campaigns - at least Clinton and Obama - are now in a position where they need to run a national contest between now and February 5th. The crazy thing is that because of online fundraising and the growth of small-dollar donors, they actually have the cash to do this well.

For Obama, this has to mean one of two things - and most likely both. First, he's got to cede control and totally decentralize his field operation. He can't focus all his resources on one place and the candidate can't be in every state holding events and making his case. His supporters - online and offline - are going to have to be the standard bearers of his message.

Second, he's going to need to take the advice of the New Politics Institute and use cable TV ad-buys to target young voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Obama campaign focused a lot of attention on young voters. They did hundreds of rallies, shook thousands of hands. The candidate was a real presence in those states. And the youth vote turned out in big numbers for Obama, even driving him to victory in Iowa with a massive turnout that was equal to 22% of the total electorate.

In Nevada, the candidate was much less of a presence until the final week. There were other mitigating factors as well, but this was in part one of the reasons for low youth turnout (compared to the rest of the electorate) in Nevada. That in turn was a primary reason why Obama lost the popular vote in the state.

If he's going to win on February 5th, Obama will need to find a way to reach out and speak to those voters; to make his presence known and impress upon them the importance of voting in their local primary/caucus. Cable buys can be a cheap and efficient way to do that by targeting young people who watch prime-time and late-night shows on Comedy Central, Cartoon's Network's Adult Swim, and MTV's reality series (yeah, trust me, a lot of 20 somethings still tune in).

Buying cable isn't as sexy as grassroots, decentralized organizing facilitated by the web. Nor is it a replacement for those activities. But it is one other weapon in the campaign arsenal that can help the candidate reach out and speak directly to younger voters at a time when the retail politics that helped him win in Iowa are just not possible.