Political ad spending piles up in key states less than a month until Election Day

Most of that money is focused on key battleground states. According to AdImpact, 79% of all presidential ad spending has gone to just seven states since Vice President Kamala Harris entered the 2024 presidential race. These battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are also set to receive 88% of future reservations between Oct. 10 and Election Day.

So far, the Harris campaign has outspent the Trump campaign nearly 2:1, having spent $456.3 million between July 22 and Oct. 9, compared to $204.3 million spent by the Trump campaign. However, the Trump campaign holds a slight advantage in future reservations, with $60.3 million placed vs. the Harris campaign’s $57.6 million.

It’s also no surprise that the campaigns differ on most mentioned topics. Harris has concentrated her advertising topics on taxation (32%), healthcare (21%), housing (21%) and abortion (20%), while the Trump campaign has made inflation its cornerstone. The latter topic accounted for 62% of total ads, followed by the economy (53%), housing (31%) and immigration (17%). At the party level, Republican issue groups have focused on immigration in 71% of ads aired while Democratic groups have focused on taxation in 57% ads.

The Harris campaign is also outspending Trump on digital channels. In the past week, the Harris campaign has spent around $4.5 million on Meta platforms to promote Harris accounts and another $700,000 to promote VP candidate Tim Walz. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign has spent just $517,000 during the same time period.

On Google, the Harris-aligned Future Forward PAC has spent $8.48 million in the past week while the Haris campaign and Harris Victory Fund have spent another $5 million. That’s a stark contrast to the $1.1 million spent by the Trump campaign on Google and another $837,000 spent by the Trump National Committee.

There’s one place Harris hasn’t outspent Trump: On X. Republican spending on X outpaced Democrats $3 million to $1 million between March 6 and Oct. 1, according to the Washington Post, which reported on a separate data analysis by AdImpact.

Political advertising also came up last week during several onstage talks at Advertising Week 2024 in New York. And of course, part of that conversation was all about pricing. Cable used to be nearly twice as expensive as broadcast but now it’s sometimes even cheaper than broadcast, noted Adam Wise, Chief Innovation Officer of National Media and President of National Media Insights. He gave one example of running ads in Portland, Ore., that had cable CPMs 60% to 80% cheaper than broadcast.

“It’s kind of interesting how you have this pricing inelasticity in politics,” Wise said. “There’s this kind of failure to abandon broadcast for things like addressable cable with even less targeting to drive better viewership.”

Beyond broadcast, some political advertisers are finding addressable radio to be pretty pricey in key markets. Carolyn Xu, founding partner of Media Fortitude Partners, said some Atlanta radio stations have a cost per point of $3,000: “You can’t ignore it because the community trusts those DJs, trusts those voices, and it’s kind of like we’re beholden to spend that money.”

Daria Grastara, CEO of Direct Persuasion, noted candidates often have to keep up where rivals spend can add ad-buying chaos: “We end up having a really messed up strategy where just because the other side spent it, we have to somehow match that. And it becomes this arms race.”

The volume of ads is also increasing across various platforms. Doug Thornell, CEO of SKDK, said the agency produced around 700 ads two years ago but that’s now closer to 1,000 this campaign cycle – across everything from YouTube ads to microsites that accompany TV spots. He also mentioned about 65% of spending is still goes to linear TV, but the rest goes toward digital and OTT.

How much do all the ads influence anyway?

A recent study by Cint and Advertising Week surveyed 2,000 U.S. adults and found that trust in political ads varies significantly across generations.

Among Gen Z, 37% believe political ads are vetted, and 35% said they trust all content shared in political ads. However, 60% of Gen Z respondents reported being influenced by political ads, a drop from 72% in the previous survey. Meanwhile, 50% of Millennials, 35% of Gen X, and 50% of Baby Boomers also acknowledged political ad influence, though Gen Z showed a stronger susceptibility to brand endorsements, with 50% being swayed by brands endorsing political values, compared to just 30% of Boomers.

Generational differences also shape opinions on candidates engaging with pop culture, with over 40% of Republicans expressing distaste for such moves, while nearly half of Gen Z and more than a third of Millennials expressed support. Platform preferences also diverge, with Gen Z seeing TikTok as both the most and least trustworthy source of political news, while Millennials and older generations favored Facebook and YouTube for political information – with YouTube gaining ground in the latest survey.

“As we’re getting close to the election, people are trying to be a little bit more proactive in finding the things they want to hear,” said Ariel Madway, director of events marketing at Cint, on stage at AWNY. “So whether that’s something from a debate or something very specifically that they might want to do a little bit more of a deep dive to learn [about a candidate or topic].”