Campaign advertising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Advertising campaign.
Controversial "Daisy" advertisement

In politics, campaign advertising is the use of an advertising campaign through the media to influence political debate, and ultimately, voters. These ads are designed by political consultants and political campaign staff. Many countries restrict the use of broadcast media to broadcast political messaging. In the EU, many countries do not permit paid-for TV or radio advertising for fear that wealthy groups will gain control of airtime making fair play impossible and distort the political debate in the process. In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, paid advertisements are forbidden, though political parties are allowed a small number of party political broadcasts in the run up to election time. The United States has a very free market for broadcast political messaging. Canada allows paid-for political broadcasts but requires equitable access to the airwaves.[1] Campaigns can include several different mediums (depending on local law). The time span over which political campaign advertising is possible varies greatly from country to country, with campaigns in the United States lasting a year or more to places like the UK and Ireland where advertising is restricted by law to just a short period of weeks before the election. Social media has become very important in political messaging, making it possible to message larger groups of constituents with very little physical effort or expense, but the totality of messaging through these channels is often out of the hands of campaign managers.

History[edit]

Political advertising has changed drastically over the last several decades. In the 1948 presidential campaign, Harry S. Truman was proud of his accomplishment of shaking approximately 500,000 hands and covering 31,000 miles of ground across the nation. But that accomplishment was soon to pale in comparison when in 1952, the next presidential election saw a major change in how candidates reached their potential audiences. With the advent of television, war hero and presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower, created forty twenty-second television spot commercials entitled, “Eisenhower Answers America” where he answered questions from “ordinary” citizens in an attempt to appear accessible to “the common man.” These questions were filmed in one day using visitors to Radio City Music Hall, who were filmed gazing up at Eisenhower as he answered questions about the Korean War, government corruption, and the state of the economy. He didn’t have to shake a half a million hands or travel the country extensively. He won the trust of the American people with his direct approach and subsequently the Presidential election. His vice president was Richard M. Nixon.

In 1960, Vice President Nixon used a formal television address in his presidential campaign, designed to answer questions about The Cold War and government corruption, and to show Americans that he was the stronger, more experienced candidate. On the other side of the fence, Catholic born John F. Kennedy created approximately 200 commercials during his campaign, but there were two that made Nixon’s efforts futile. The first was a thirty minute commercial created from a speech he delivered in Houston, where he called for religious tolerance in response to criticism that Catholicism was incompatible with a run for the Oval Office. The second and more memorable was the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. In the first of four televised debates, Kennedy appeared tanned and confident in opposition to Nixon, who looked pale and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Seventy-five million viewers watched the debates, and although Nixon was initially thought to be the natural successor to Eisenhower, the election results proved otherwise, and Kennedy was ultimately declared the winner.[citation needed]

In 1964, aggressive advertising paved the way for a landslide Johnson victory. One of the first negative and maybe the most controversial commercial, perhaps of all time, was an advertisement dubbed "The Daisy Girl." The commercial showed a young girl picking the petals off a daisy. After she finishes counting, a voice off camera begins a countdown to a nuclear explosion. The ad ends with an appeal to vote Johnson, "because the stakes are too high for you to stay home." The commercial used fear and guilt, an effective advertising principle, to make people take action to protect the next generation.[2] The ad ran for under a minute and only aired once, but due to the right wing, pro-war views of the Republican candidate, it resulted in a 44 to 6 state victory for Lyndon B. Johnson.[citation needed]

Over the next decade, America saw the rise of the televised political attack ad. Richard M. Nixon was especially proficient at this form of advertising, and his commercials proved to be very successful in his reelection campaign of 1972, where he won handily with a 49 to 1 state victory. George McGovern ran a campaign free of political attack ads until the very end of his campaign, when he tried to attack Nixon after he realized he was dipping lower in the polls. His attempt proved to be too late, but his neutral style of attack ads against Nixon, featuring white text scrolling across a black background, became what is now seen as a fairly common method used in political and product advertising.[citation needed]

Attack ads continued to become the norm in political advertising. Ronald Reagan used them against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and it was also the first time that a family member was also used to attack the opposing candidate. One particular advertisement showed Reagan’s wife Nancy accusing Carter of a weak foreign policy. This campaign also saw the rise of campaign finance issues when Reagan used political action committees to solicit funds on his behalf. However, in his reelection bid in 1984, we saw the beginning of a different form of political advertising; one with a much more positive flow and a stronger, more powerful message. With the country in a relatively prosperous state, advertisements in support of Reagan evoked an emotional bond between the country and its president. Visions of Americans going about their daily lives with relative ease were compiled to convince America that voting against Reagan was a vote against prosperity. The positive and emotionally provocative ads proved more successful than negative attack ads.[3] He was so highly successful that he won against Walter Mondale with a 49 to 1 state victory.[citation needed]

In the following election, attack ads returned with a renewed vigor. In 1988, George H.W. Bush used campaign ads that ridiculed his opponent, making him appear soft on crime.[4][5] He contrasted these negative ads, with the emotional style commercial used by Ronald Reagan, to capitalize on his connection to the former president. Again borrowing from Reagan's campaign practices he used free publicity as often as possible, making sure he was photographed in various situations that were likely to be aired in the evening news. Although Michael Dukakis tried to discredit the Bush campaign in many ways, he was ultimately unsuccessful, losing to the former Vice President by thirty states.[citation needed]

Regulation of campaign advertising[edit]

United States of America[edit]

While there has been progress in regulating campaign finance, very little has been done in the way of regulating political advertising content. Candidates can and will display messages in their advertisements that come very close to propaganda. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 addressed the issue of "soft money” or money contributed through political action committees, it raised the legal limits of hard money that could be raised for any candidate, and set limits on what funds could be spent on election broadcasts, but it did nothing to challenge the lack of truth in political campaign advertising. As of this time, there is no pending legislation addressing this issue.[citation needed]

Currently the Federal Communications Commission requires that the contracts for political ads shown on broadcast stations be posted online, but the agency is currently considering a proposal to expand that disclosure requirement to other platforms, including radio and cable.[6]

European Union[edit]

In most EU Member States campaign advertising is heavily regulated.[citation needed]

In some Member States, the United Kingdom and Ireland for example, party political advertisements on broadcast media (known as Party Political Broadcasts) are restricted to specific circumstances such as political party conferences and a limited time period before a General Election. In the latter instance political parties are allowed specific time slots on the broadcast media in which the advert may be aired. These are limited in time, offered to all registered parties and must be aired at times during the schedules that have similar levels of viewership. Furthermore, a moratorium on all election coverage is mandated on the day of the ballot.[7]

Some Member States regulate the posting of election posters at both national and municipal level. In Ireland there are restrictions on the erection of election posters which mandate the time period after an election by which time the poster must be removed, with fines as a potential sanction. Some local councils have voted to ban the placement of election posters, citing the cost of removal and the waste generated.[8]

Many municipalities in France restrict the placement of election posters to specific areas, often erecting stands specifically for that purpose.[citation needed]

Regulation of political advertising[edit]

European Union[edit]

In contrast to advertising in the print, radio and internet media, many Member States of the European Union have consistently restricted advertising on broadcast media which are aimed at political ends, both party political advertising and political advocacy by non-partisan groups. These restrictions have been justified on the basis that the ban offers a level playing field in which money interests cannot gain an unfair advantage in the political discourse of a Member State. The broadcast media has been singled out due to its historical reach and influence.[citation needed]

Outright bans on advertising engaged in political advocacy have been referred to the European Court of Human Rights which has held that such restrictions may be a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[9] but the Court has held that restrictions on political advertising can be justified in certain circumstances, provided they were proportionate to the public interest they aimed to protect. Certain Member States including the United Kingdom, Ireland[10] and Switzerland have repeatedly refused to remove their blanket bans. An attempted television ad campaign by the Association against Industrial Animal Production (VGT) which drew a comparison between battery farming and the Holocaust was persistently refused in line with Swiss law, and was the subject of two ECtHR cases, the second case resulting from the persistent refusal by Switzerland to modify its laws on political advertising. However, in a similar UK case involving Animal Rights advertising, the Court upheld the UK ban on political advertising on several grounds. It held the UK had consulted widely before legislating, the court recognized the legitimacy of limiting political advertising on television, acknowledging the argument that there was a “risk of distortion” of public debate by wealthy groups having unequal access to advertising, and accepted that the ban was not a ban on free speech given that other methods of communication were available. The court thus recognized that television advertising is especially powerful and thus wealthy groups could block out the valid arguments of less wealthy groups and thus distort public debate.[11]

India[edit]

By ruling of The Cable Television Network Rules of 1994,[12] political advertisements were prohibited. However, a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 dictated that one may apply for an advertisement to be displayed on TV, but it must be approved by a committed created by the Chief Electoral Officer; the committee consists of The Joint Chief Electoral Officer, a Returning Officer, and one expert. Additionally, the committee will only consider advertisments from registered political parties or groups or organizations whose headquarter are in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. This model was also spread to other states; they are to have a committee consisting of a Joint Chief Electoral Officer, a Returning Officer, and one expert. Just as with Delhi, the other territories are to consider applications from registered political parties or groups or organizations whose headquarter are in the territory. In all cases, the Returning Officer is the one who considers applications for advertisements. Additionally, there is a committee within every state, designated by The Chief Electoral Officer, to handle and complaints. This committee consists of The Chief Electoral Officer, an observer, and an expert. In addition to these 2004 decisions, it was decided in 2007 that these procedures would be extended national parties for the elections in the states of Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.[13]

Effects of political advertising[edit]

President Reagan giving Campaign speech in Austin, Texas, 1984

Direct effects of political campaign advertising include informing voters about candidates' positions and affecting the "preferences and participatory ethos of the electorate".[14] Studies show that voting results are affected by voters' characteristics and the type of ad to which they are exposed.[citation needed]

Both positive and negative advertisement have been proven to play different roles in regards to candidate evaluation. Positive ads, which usually start at the beginning of a campaign aim at introducing or reintroducing a candidate through reinforcing his or her positive image and qualities.[citation needed]

Negative or attack ads have been studied for their effects on memory and ability to shape attitude towards candidates. Both variables are measured to determine the effectiveness of negative ads, which tend to be well remembered. The limitation of this technique is that it can sometimes be highly counterproductive as ads turn out to harm the attacking candidate.[15]

One other effect of political campaign advertising includes greater attitude polarization among voters. In fact one study conducted by Gina Garramone on the effects of political advertising on the political process shows that "by discerning clear differences between candidates, voters may be more likely to strongly like one candidate while strongly disliking the other."[16] This typically leads to higher levels of confidence within voters choices and can widen the degree of participation in the electoral process.[citation needed]

List of election advertising techniques[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ . Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-218.htm.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ J. Scott Armstrong. Persuasion Principles Principles for Making Applications. A Creativity Exercise. 
  3. ^ J. Scott Armstrong. Advertising Principles. 
  4. ^ Simon, Roger (November 11, 1990). "How A Murderer And Rapist Became The Bush Campaign's Most Valuable Player". The Baltimore Sun.
  5. ^ Germond, Jack W.; Jules Witcover (1989). Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars: The Trivial Pursuit of the Presidency, 1988. Warner Books. pp. 159–161. ISBN 0-446-51424-1. 
  6. ^ Schwarz, Hunter. "The FCC could start posting more information about political ads online". www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  7. ^ Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Broadcasting Code on Referenda and Election Coverage pursuant to the Broadcasting Act 2009 [1]
  8. ^ http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/town-bans-election-posters-405985.html
  9. ^ http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2001/7/article2.en.html
  10. ^ Irish Supreme Court judgement upholding ban after ECtR judgement quashing similar ban in Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland [2]
  11. ^ "Ban on Political Advertising Does Not Violate Article 10: Animal Defenders International v. UK". Strasbourg Observers. Six Ph.D. researchers at the Human Rights Centre of the Faculty of Law of Ghent University, Belgium, who work on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights under the supervision of Prof. Eva Brems. Retrieved June 7, 2014. 
  12. ^ http://indiancabletv.net/catvact.htm
  13. ^ http://indiatogether.org/uploads/document/document_upload/2142/blawpolads.pdf
  14. ^ Ansolabehere, S. & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How campaign advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate. New York: The Free Press.p.3. 
  15. ^ Biocca, Frank. (1990). Television and Political Advertising. Psychological Processes, Volume,1. 
  16. ^ Garamone, Gina M.; Charles K. Atkin, Bruce E. Pinkleton, and Richard T. Cole. (Summer 1990). "Effects of Negative Political Advertising on the Political Process" (PDF). Journal of Broadcasting 34 (3): 299–311. doi:10.1080/08838159009386744. 

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2003). Media Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1992). The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Television, 3rd Edition. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dretzin, R. (Director), & Goodman, B. (Director). (2004). The Persuaders. [Frontline Documentary]. United States: Public Broadcasting Systems.

Museum of the Moving Image. (2010). The Living Room Candidate. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

Straubhaar, J., LaRose, R., & Davenport, L. (2010). Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology. Boston: Cengage Learning.

External links[edit]