Did $46 million in TV ads pay off for presidential candidates?

Presidential candidates and the super PACs supporting them spent about $46 million to bombard Iowans with more than 90,000 television ads throughout their caucus campaigns.

But just how effective were they in turning viewers into voters?

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and independent groups that supported him spent $4.41 million on broadcast TV ads in Iowa this cycle, but that translated to just $85 for every vote he earned on his way to victory on Feb. 1's caucus night, a Des Moines Register analysis shows.

In contrast, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and independent groups that supported him spent $1,748 for every vote he earned, and still, he finished sixth. After fourth-place finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Bush ended his presidential campaign Feb. 20.

But those who defend the value of TV advertising in politics can point to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Iowa results as justification for big spending.

More ads were aired on behalf of Rubio than any other candidate in January, and that spending is credited, in part, with propelling his surge into third place behind billionaire businessman Donald Trump. Rubio and his backers spent about $214 for every vote he earned.

The numbers confirm what political scientists have cautioned for years: An onslaught of TV advertising does not necessarily lead to better results on election night. Voters have to like what you’re selling too.

PREVIOUS REPORTING:

• Rubio to dominate Iowa televisions during sprint to caucus day
• Political ad onslaught only just begun

Dianne Bystrom, a political science professor at Iowa State University, said political ads often serve the purpose of helping undecided voters make up their minds during the dwindling hours ahead of a vote.

According to a New York Times report on entrance poll findings, Rubio did best among Iowans making their decision on caucus day or in the few days before.

“With Rubio, the fact that he finished a strong third, I think, does say something about the strength of political advertising, even though people say they don’t like political ads,” Bystrom said. “Research has shown that undecided voters, particularly in the days that lead up to a caucus or a primary, if they’re truly undecided, political advertising is a quick and easy way to get your information.”

Bang for their buck

Not every dollar is created equal when it comes to TV spending in presidential campaigns.

In total, Rubio’s backers spent slightly more than those supporting Bush — $9.25 million compared with Bush’s $9.16 million. But Rubio and his backers aired 5,146 more ad spots than did the groups supporting Bush.

That’s because Bush relied heavily on Right to Rise, the super political action committee backing his efforts, whereas Rubio’s campaign bought many of the ads on its own.

By law, candidate campaigns get access to lower TV ad rates, but super PACs have to pay what the market will bear, which is often significantly more for the same TV time.

“We found that, on average, you’re looking at three to four times the cost for a single spot for an issue group as opposed to a candidate,” said Nick Stapleton, a media analyst who compiled a report on Iowa advertising spending for Smart Media Group. “So the hard candidate money goes a lot further than any super PAC.”

Right to Rise was responsible for about 92 percent of all broadcast ads aired on Bush’s behalf in Iowa. Each of those ads cost an average of $1,039. The ads purchased by the campaign itself cost just $276.

Stapleton also noted that Trump had to air very few ads to compete with his Republican rivals.

In Iowa, Trump launched 5,564 ads worth about $1.8 million, all in January. But because of the 24-hour cable news cycle and coverage of Trump’s frequent incendiary comments, he was still a ubiquitous presence on Iowa televisions.

“He has such an advantage with name recognition,” Stapleton said. “Just starting out, 95 percent of Americans are probably familiar with Donald Trump. He’s been around forever. And the ability to dominate the news cycle is definitely something that I’ve never seen before. I doubt anyone could replicate it. How would you?”

But Trump’s message also resonated on another level with his Iowa supporters, who admire that he's largely self-funded, polling shows.

Trump, who is not supported by an outside spending organization, has campaigned heavily on the notion that big money in politics corrupts politicians. He has called super PACs a “scam” and has relied on his personal wealth, as well as donations from many small donors, rather than funding from large special-interest groups.

Democrat Bernie Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has also eschewed super PACs and has campaigned on a similar message. Sanders’ campaign, though, did rely more heavily on televised ads, spending $5.5 million on more than 16,000 spots.

Stapleton’s report calculated that $75 million was spent on political advertising that aired on broadcast, cable channels and radio. The Register’s analysis included only broadcast channels.

He said this level of spending is unprecedented in presidential campaigns and has been prompted by the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United. That decision cleared the way for super PACs to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates.

Those groups are legally prohibited from coordinating or communicating strategy directly with the campaigns they support, which can limit their activities. But one area where they have spent heavily is television.

Super PACs and other outside spending organizations were responsible for about $21.8 million of the $46 million worth of ads aired in Iowa on behalf of candidates during the caucus cycle, according to the Register’s analysis of broadcast advertising.

“This presidential cycle is the first one where the implications of Citizens United are coming into focus as far as what outside groups are able to spend,” he said.

Future of political ads

Barbara Trish, chair of the political science department at Grinnell University, studies elections and technology as well as metrics-driven campaign politics. She said that although digital advertising allows buyers to more closely target audiences and measure results, she doubts that campaigns will be willing to scale back their reliance on TV ads anytime soon.

“Even though it might be more cost-effective, even though you might have more control over your message and the recipient of the message through digital sources, I think there’s too much uncertainty about what would happen,” she said.

She also noted that television advertising is highly visible, both to voters watching and to the news media reporting on it. Being on TV can project an image of strength. Choosing to abstain can risk making a candidate look weak.

Trish said that although money spent backing candidates like Bush may appear to be wasted dollars, it’s hard for campaigns and other organizations to make the gamble of scaling back their advertising.

“What you don’t know is what it would have been like had you not spent the money,” she said. “There’s so much uncertainty that, if there’s any chance the spending works, they’re going to continue to do it — especially with the ability to raise lots of money.”

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This exclusive report was prepared by examining political advertising records that major television stations serving the Iowa broadcast market, including each ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox network affiliate, filed with the Federal Communications Commission through Feb. 12. Ads aired on cable stations or satellite networks such as Dish and DirecTV were not included. The contracts detail the agreements presidential campaigns and political action committees made to purchase time and when advertising would be aired. Information gathered included the name of the committee making the purchase, the dates the ad spots began airing and ended, the number of spots bought and the gross amount spent. That information from nearly 4,000 contracts was entered into a database used in the Register’s analysis.

Assisting Register staffers with the data entry were a dozen college students whose studies include politics, advertising and related fields. They are Maya Kliger, of Chautauqua, N.Y., majoring in political science and history at the University of Chicago; and Iowa State University students Jessica Bales, a senior public relations major from West Des Moines; Saul Bravo, a junior public relations major; Ashley Kirkpatrick, a freshman business major from Madrid; Chris Spendlove, a senior advertising major from San Antonio; Carla Aversa, a senior advertising major from Ankeny; Davide Cavallini, a graduate student from Modena, Italy; Emma Williams, a junior advertising major from Waukee; Hannah Haler, a junior event management major from Waterloo; Makenzie Hobson, a senior advertising major from Carlisle; Leslie Lee, a junior advertising major from Seoul, South Korea; and Tim Stokes, a senior advertising major from Council Bluffs.