A Survey Of Negative Political Campaign Advertising

W. Taft Matney, Jr.

University of South Carolina - Spartanburg

Presented: December 5, 1996

The Following Is An Abridged Version Of The Original Paper. Copies Of The Original Are Available Upon Request

FOREWORD

Some describe it as necessary. Some describe it as evil. Still, others describe it as a necessary evil or do not even care. Depending upon the point of view of the individual or group asked, those are generally the derived responses to questions regarding political campaign advertisements. Approximately every two years or so the American public becomes bombarded with that election year mainstay. Why? The answer is actually simple.

For a moment, imagine the steps taken when introducing a product to the market. First, the specific company develops a product that is demanded or may soon be demanded in the marketplace. Then a division within the company develops a marketing plan which includes: the desired message of the company regarding the product, a budget for research and development for the product, and any advertising and promotion aspects (packaging, distribution, goals for desired market share, etc.). Subsequently, the plans are implemented and measured. Now remove terms such as company, product, and consumer. Replace them with the words campaign, candidate, and voter. Plainly stated, that is the rationale behind the inundation of political campaign advertisements or PCAs on a regular basis.

During this brief examination, along with discussing their existence and purpose, topics such as the primary differences from other forms of advertising, a history of PCAs, and practices of today will be touched upon as well.

INTRODUCTION

Political campaign advertisements (or PCAs as they are also known) are first and foremost a primary bank of tools for those individuals seeking a political office as well as the groups who support that candidate for office. The reverse is also true, however. The powerful PCA is also used by the opposition either to viciously attack an individual or generate a heartfelt support base for another. More often than not, political advertisements are seen as a monster that cannot be controlled. With some degree of certainty, it is possible to state that the average person does not understand how it is that a candidate or group can "get away" with the statements and/or accusations often made in PCAs. Although it is seemingly unfair to certain individuals within the electorate, PCAs are virtually exempt from the "truth-in-advertising" laws governing the rest of the advertising industry.

Political and commercial advertisements as was just established do differ significantly in the level of "truth" that must be supplied. Commercial advertisements are under a relatively high amount of regulation, not only on a governmental level, but also by the advertising industry itself.

The PCA has a great deal more latitude in its manners of presentation due to Amendment I to the United States Constitution which states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In essence, the rights and freedoms granted to the American citizenry by the Founding Fathers also allows the politicians to say what they want in advertisements. PCAs can promote candidates utilizing greater parameters turning the issue of complete advertising truth one of ethics and standards... not of legality.

Through this freedom can former US Senator and former presidential candidate Richard Lugar run advertisements which attempt to panic the electorate by raising the "specter of nuclear terrorism" in a series of commercials which had the implied message that if anyone other than Dick Lugar became elected President, everyone would die from non-military nuclear attacks.

PCAs of 1996 come in many different forms much unlike those of the not too distant past. Home videos produced by the various candidates' campaigns, direct mail solicitations, outdoor advertising (such as billboards), and more traditional forms of paid publicity in radio and print media are growing as sources PCAs; they will be mentioned later. The primary focus of this study of campaign advertising is in its most dominant form which is television.

TELEVISION

Although many of us take television for granted, its use is still relatively recent when put in perspective with the history of the United States and American politics. Only in the 1952 Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower presidential campaign was the medium of television first utilized as a format for political advertising.

Rosser Reeves, an advertising executive with the New York based Ted Bates Agency was hired by the Eisenhower campaign to change the public perception of General Eisenhower who did indeed become President. At first, Reeves had a difficult task since the general did not project a "candidate image" on camera. Reeves remained true to his philosophy on the project (even though he was not a politician, nor did he like politicians). The New York adman,

"...had decided early in his career that the most effective advertising campaigns were not the ones with the biggest budgets but the one that held relentlessly to a single theme. Advertising, he believed, particularly in the age of television, was primal."

He perhaps best described his working philosophy through the story of the mule trainer hired do deal with the "recalcitrant mule." The trainer began the treatment by hitting the mule in the head with a piece of two-by-four lumber. Of course the owner looked at the trainer with shock only to have the trainer explain the reasoning behind the treatment. "Well, first I've got to get his attention," the trainer remarked.

Indeed, that is the strategy Reeves used to create Eisenhower's new public image in "The Man Form Abilene," which was a newsreel styled commercial that played upon Eisenhower's military strength as well as a solution to the Korean War. "The Man From Abilene" kept with the blunt style Reeves refused to live without.

The next milestone in PCAs came in the 1964 Lyndon Johnson presidential campaign. Imagine for a moment a seemingly innocent commercial depicting a young girl playing with a daisy on a bright summer day. She has no worries. She has no fears. Suddenly, without warning, all the television viewer sees is a giant mushroom cloud that devastates all in its reach. President Lyndon Johnson has veteran news anchor/commentator Bill Moyers to thank for that PCA. The "daisy" advertisement, as it has become known over the years, marks what is recognized as the first "negative" campaign advertisement and has been unsuccessfully duplicated repeatedly over the years. The Lugar for President nuclear terrorism series from 1996 is only one example of the failed attempts to repeat "daisy's" horrifying influence on the voting public. The Johnson campaign's message was simple. As Bob Garfield writes, "At least when, 'Daisy' terrified America there was a point to it: Vote Goldwater, Vote Armageddon."

OTHER FORMS

Due to the success of PCAs on television over the past thirty-two years, other forms of advertising have begun to become more prevalent, sometimes even surpassing television as the vehicle of preference to a candidate, campaign, party, and/or group.

Home videos (or "Meet the Candidate" videos as they are known) have begun to make a tremendous impact. These are videos lasting anywhere from fifteen to thirty minute videos that will ideally tell the viewer why he or she is the best candidate and the best person for the office the individual may be seeking. Some political consultants consider these in-home speeches to be one of the best kept campaigning secrets around the industry. If written, produced, and distributed in the correct manner (simultaneously making the assumption that the candidate is quality as well) the videos themselves can serve as surrogate speakers. Only beginning to spread in the past couple of election cycles, the videos have brought an entirely new method by which to campaign.

Essentially, the videos are informative pieces on the candidate and the position he or she may take on a given issue. They also allow the candidate to reach a larger audience; no one can be everywhere at once. The candidate does not take questions after the presentation, so the media cannot take an answer to a question and remove it totally from the context in which it was originally given. Perhaps one of the greatest attributes is the fact that the production technology has gotten so inexpensive, in comparative terms, the tapes can be mailed, "... maybe $1.25 for a ten-minute slobberfest including the tape, postage, and a fund-raising letter." Such innovations are sometimes budget savers to candidates in media markets where high cost does not permit for large scale buys to spread a message.

Two media for PCAs that most would rarely, if ever, group together are radio and direct mail solicitation. Although solicitation through direct mail is more statistically targetable with a higher degree of certainty, advertising via radio can at least give an idea of the general listenership to determine which, if any, radio station is a comparable format for the candidate. The determination of a station's market share of audience is determined by the ARBITRON Rating System which gains data for a specific market through a type of diary filled out by specific radio listeners in an area for a three month period. These diaries gain valuable information for the stations from the ages, incomes, areas of support, gender, race, and the list goes on, much like the A.C. Nielson Rating System for television. Each piece of information can even be broken into "day-parts" which in lay terms means, "Who is doing what, and when are they doing it?"

Direct mail pieces can target individuals in a similar manner. Other than the more stringent guidelines for truth in advertising for commercial products, there is a very distinct similarity between the political and the commercial divisions of the industry. The use of direct mail has been used by advertisers for years. Over the past few years, however those in the political sector have begun to do the same since methods used to target have become more scientific and efficient. By using past voter lists and census data, which contains a great deal of the non-political information such as consumer attitude toward products, political direct mail professionals can more easily refine their lists. Not only can they target the voter segment, they can also target possible donors by varying amounts.

Gaining in popularity for PCAs is the genre of outdoor advertising, either in the form of billboards or yard signs or something in-between. According to Communications, Inc., outdoor advertising has a higher recall factor among those who see the signage.

COST

There is an importance not only in the cost of the advertisements, but in the fact that the media buys are taking place at such a rate. According to the Television Bureau of Advertising, $350 million was spent nationwide on political advertisements on network television in 1994. That is "a 17% increase from the previous record of $299.6 million in 1992. From March 1 through June 14, 1996, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton re-election campaign commissioned 17,000 advertisements at a cost of $15 million. Estimates predicted between President Clinton and Senator Dole, over $100 million would be spent by November 5, 1996.

PUBLIC OPINION

What do people think about the negative campaigning? Their voices speak louder than any writer could pen. They should have their own words heard.

- Sherry "the Waffle House Waitress"

- Phil Dusenberry, vice chairman for BBDO Worldwide

- Rance Crain, Writer Advertising Age

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Needless to say, the amount of information regarding forms of political campaign advertising and the negative ads which often accompany them, at least perceptually, is plentiful. We see the pundits discuss it on the television and hear them on the radio. We see it in the newspapers and in magazines. Commentaries on PCAs in American politics surround us before during and after an election season, but what does it all mean?

During the course of reading and research, it was noticeable that the overwhelming majority of sources despise the habitually ruthless tactics used in the process. Yet, still there is a certain amount of truth in the glossy covered candidate advertisements. I highly doubt though that any office holder has ever voted in the affirmative on a bill titled "A Bill To Remove Healthcare From Elderly Patients Who Do Not Have The Money To Pay Their Bills."

Information researched indicated that the average American voter is tired of the negative advertisements and will shout their opinion to the heavens if asked. At the same time, those PCAs that everyone loves to hate must have some amount of effectiveness; election returns demonstrate it clearly.

What should be done about the problem, though? Burt Manning, Chairman - Chief Executive Officer of J. Walter Thompson Company and outgoing chairman of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, believes that the entire advertising industry will face severe repercussions if the political media consultants to not change their methodology. Manning advises, "The Four A's should formally and publicly urge media consultants to set up their own self-regulatory process." He believes that if there is no self-regulation within the industry itself, the federal government may take action to do it instead.