In chapter eight of Congressional Elections Paul Herrnson talks about campaign communication and how campaigns advertise their candidate. Herrnson points out that TV stations reportedly made $2.25 billion from political advertisements in 2006. Televised ads are a great took for a campaign, Robert Teeter says, “80 or 90 percent of what people retain from a TV ad is visual…If you have the visual right, you have the commercial right.” (p.222) Herrnson also says, “65% of House campaigns use either broadcast or cable television, and that percentage would be larger if the costs were not so high.”(p.222) Given the high cost Caligiuri was able to make one on his limited budget and unveiled it this week, just after Murphy released his second ad for the 2010 campaign. In Murphy’s first TV ad titled Neighbor, it talks about how he is going door to door to keep in touch, and that Murphy knows things are tough, also that Murphy is working with Republicans to pass stronger Made in America laws. (Murphy's First 2010 Ad ) In Murphy’s second ad titled Ansonia, Murphy says that he worked with Republicans to help a Waterbury business, showing that once he heard of a problem he was quick to help with a solution. (Murphy's Second 2010 Ad) Caligiuri’s first TV ad just points out the flaws of Murphy but not in a tasteless way but by just pointing out the facts. (Caligiuri's Ad)
Though Caligiuri’s ad just came out this week, I have seen both of Murphy’s ads already on the TV. This could be because unlike Murphy who has not updated his facebook since 2008 Caligiuri is always updating it and keeping people posted because it is not only easy to do but also virtually free of cost. John Kraushaar from the National Journal (National Journal Article) points out that the cost of airing an ad is not created equally, “There are a handful of districts where the cost to advertise on television is so prohibitive that even well-funded members won't be able to utilize their fundraising advantages. Many of these districts are along the Northeast corridor -- in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey in the New York City media market.” Kraushaar also points out how this might help out Caligiuri by saying, “These races are fought on cable television, radio and through direct mail -- much cheaper ways to get out a message, well within the limited means of challengers. Democratic incumbents like Jim Himes, Chris Murphy, John Adler, John Hall, Tim Bishop and Loretta Sanchez won't be able to massively outspend their opponents even though they have significantly more money.”
I think that it is interesting how you mention social networking sites, like facebook, are having an effect on elections. Given that so many people have a facebook page now, that they access daily you would think that candidates take advantage of this and use it as a free way to advertise themselves, rather than spending so much money on tv ads
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a good point about the usefulness of social networks. It is a very free and effective way to reach citizens across the board. In this age of technology it doesn't always necessarily have to be the candidate with the bigger bank account that is doing all of the effective advertising.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that people retain what they see on TV and that we are serious influenced by social networking sites. If politicans want the vote of younger generations they need to reach them in a more modern fashion, and it seems that that is what Caligiuri is doing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above posts about the effectiveness of the usage of social networks in a campaign. Another advantage to using social networks, like Facebook, is that it is free advertising. A candidate can use it to post links to his campaign website and television ads, they can post any updates on his campaign, or even their stance on issues. It can be a very useful tool in a technology-advanced nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the basic idea that social networks have an effect on political campaigns. Playing devil's advocate here, social networks can also seriously hurt a candidate's campaign and reputation as well. We all have facebooks... think about it; how many times have you removed a friend's post on your wall that you didn't want someone else to see? We've all untagged those unflattering pictures from the bar. Many people have actually gone to the extent of changing their name on facebook while applying for a new job or to grad schools. The same thing can happen to political candidates. Yeah, free advertising, woohoo! Facebook, myspace, twitter, these networks are anything but new to us, it's probably a good idea for candidates to be just as caucious about what is floating around on the internet about them and even their families.
ReplyDelete