Skip to comments.Romney's weak air war, Iowa edition (Obama ran 13,000 more commercials even though outspent)
Posted on 11/26/2012 10:34:23 AM PST by Arthurio
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 11/26/12 10:54 AM EST
Via Hohmann, the Des Moines Register reports on the huge sums both presidential campaigns spent in the last weeks of the 2012 race -- and OFA's consistent advantage on the air in spite of Romney's money:
"Together, the campaigns and their allies averaged nearly $1 million a day in new TV spending in swing-state Iowa from Oct. 1 to Election Day. Several polls in the frenzied final weeks had shown a neck-and-neck battle in Iowa.
Romney and the outside groups backing him spent $21.5 million in the final five weeks, essentially matching their total spending in the preceding six months, according to a Des Moines Register analysis of TV station records.
Although Romney and his allies spent more, the Obama coalition out-advertised them.
About 13,000 more pro-Obama TV ads ran in Iowa than pro-Romney ads during the final weeks."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Did the station broadcasters give the Obama campaign better rates or something?
It’s something I’ve often wondered about re: campaign advertising.
Station charges Obie $100 a commercial ... Romney $1000 a commercial.
I’m pretty sure Romney didn’t lose because he didn’t advertise enough.
No. Romney campaign booked all of the commercials at the last minute, yielding the most expensive rate.
Imagine if you booked all of your airline tickets that way.
*sigh* When you’re a feckless idiot you surround yourself with feckless idiots. So they shoved McLame on us, Romney ... I can’t WAIT to see who’s next. *eye roll*
Obama probably bought up the airtime early, Romney later. That was one of the drawbacks to Romney's late saturation tactics, the ad buys had to have been top dollar - at rate card instead of negotiated discounts.
Just once, I’d like to see a GOP candidate’s campaign run by people who HAVE A F***ING CLUE.
Just to prove they’re not ALL dumbasses.
A community organizer is just another name for a ward heeler - someone who understands retail politics from the ground up. Romney was doing this from 50,000 feet up. Obama knew all the little things he needed to take care of. Romney's problem (as with Perot) is that he had no experience in politics. He was always a dilettante - a dabbler. He managed to win the 2012 primary and almost win the 2008 primary because he had more money than all the other guys put together. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't able to outspend Obama.
"Lie early and lie often" really does work.
Romney ran a 1980 campaign.
the GOP is DECADES behind the communication curve, the voter minds were set weeks if not months before Romney fired his first real shot. The consultants were calling the race for the wrong decade.
Now we have to fight the next weak ass, Dim-lite candidate...the GOP-e forces on us.
I was seeing them EVERYWHERE. I also couldn't go on Facebook, youtube or yahoo without seeing them.
I made the remark back in 2008 that the GOP better learn how to command the 'net and its ad potential. They still haven't learned.
From reading the linked articles it looks like Romney had the same ad rates available to him! but his campaign went with an ad buy stratagy that was more flexible but much more expensive than Obama’s.
That isn't correct. Obama was charged less because they spent huge manpower of chasing the cheapest rates and buy preemptable minutes. Romney's campaign didn't throw manpower at this problem and bought at the far more expensive non-preemptable rates to ensure its ads ran.
Recently there was a very good article showing exactly the disparity in rates paid by the two campaigns in a battleground market and explaining the above.
...Facebook, youtube or yahoo...
...Never, seldom, never...
“Romneys vaunted business experience was negated by a Marxist Chicago community organizer.”
Not so “commanding” or “inevitable” after all.
First, broadcasters are required to give Candidate Campaigns the lowest Ad costs. This does not include "SuperPACs" and the like.
Second, a contested Primary leaves the winner in a hold pattern until after that party's convention before being able to spend non-primary advertising dollars. Obama had no primary opponent so he could start attacking Romney as soon as he started to become the obvious GOP candidate.
I DO NOT KNOW if the GOP spending could have started earlier IF all the GOP Primary Opponents had bowed out but the fact is that it was not until September that Romney could do his ad buys. It is hard to fight this stacked deck when it is a law and it could explain this Iowa outcome.
Thus Obama had the entire summer to select, position and buy time and pound Romney with little pro-GOP/Romney response. It seems obvious that if this were a Republican Incumbent, we would have seen the 'UNBIASED' media in full attack mode, but with Obama ... praise and acceptance for the great Won!
Did Romney really need to cut an ad to get you to vote against BHO?
Didn't think so. Therefore, it ain't about you. ;-)
You can either define yourself to this younger...tech indulged generation using their medium...or you can let others do it for you.
Because Obama didn’t require the spots to be run at a particular time. Also he got them at lower cost because contracted earlier. Romney couldn’t because he wasn’t nominated yet...but RNC could have contracted, but they didn’t.