It's Like a Pizza With Your Four Favorite Toppings, Only More Delicious

Today I discovered a tool that blends four of my loves: New York Times interactive features, Election 2008, maps, and media. The Times' all-encompassing Election Guide offers an ad spending breakdown between the two majors candidates, complete with their spot TV spending.




After geeking out with this for a good half hour, I came to a few conclusions...

--McCain has spent more nationally ($17.7 million/18%) than Obama ($12.0 million/9%). If this continues to be his strategy in the next 18 days, it's great. I just read an article about how he can't depend on swing states anymore, because polls are starting to put Obama in the lead regardless of how the last 6 undecideds vote. If he can't tip the scales in his favor on a state-by-state basis, McCain needs to campaign--and spend--more nationally. Meanwhile, Obama has a solid foundation locked up. Now his strategy is to flood the airwaves in states that are still up in the air.

--Both candidates are spending similarly in major Ohio cities, but McCain is heavying up in smaller markets like Wheeling-Steubenville ($400M McCain, $163M Obama) and Lima ($231M McCain, $87M Obama). Smart. Neutralize Obama's message as best you can in Columbus and Toledo, but don't pile additional weight on top. Voters in the biggest DMAs have to be saturated by ads at this point. Put additional funding into the smaller markets to gain your advantage.

--Obama is spending the shit out of McCain in Florida. Seriously.

--Obama has more of an all-or-nothing market strategy. He skipped states like South Dakota and California that were set in red or blue from the beginning. For states that seemed to give him an early shot, like North Dakota and Montana, or early worries, like Minnesota, he enough money to actually make an impact and kick off a strong plan before changing strategy and dropping out. McCain, on the other hand, sprinkled his spot spending from coast to coast regardless of how set in stone those votes may have been. Seems weird to me. I wonder if the reporting system is accidentally counting some national buys as spot?

--Before you think to yourself, "Poor Philadelphia. They must see a political ad at every commercial break," remember how spot pricing works. There are going to be tons more eyeballs on the ad that airs in Philly than the ad that airs in Minneapolis, so the Philly placements cost more. If this map could be viewed in weekly TRPs instead of just dollars, my life would be complete.

--Check out DC spending. This isn't an effort to sway voters (DC voted almost 90% for Kerry in '04). It's a PR move to endear government employees and media to our next Commander in Chief. Obama is outspending McCain 2 to 1...who's unprepared to lead now, huh, J. Mac?!

--But don't forget, this is only TV spending, and we all know who's been ruling the interwebs this year. Internet spending probably follows TV pretty closely, except in cities with higher indices of Internet news readers.

And I'm not even getting into the ability to break down the ad spending by issues! I really need to pry myself away and get some work done this afternoon so I'll stop. But if you find me at the bar tomorrow night for a Yaybia birthday party (D, Booze, E. Lam, and I all have October birthdays!), I'll probably start gushing to you about this very map. Prepare yourself.

Political Ads, Bias, and Credibility

I believe in traditional news media, especially in election years when the public is hungry for the truth and fact checking is only a click away. It's true that some channels lean right while others veer left, but I still trust both sides' coverage to be honest, if not 100% nonpartisan. A little bias is unavoidable, and even healthy. But generally, both sides of the media do a relatively good job of digging up the facts.

I understand why news organizations accept political advertising. As a media professional, I'd be fuming if CNN wouldn't accept campaign ads. Viewers are clearly interested in the election and seeking information. Demographics for these channels describe the likely voter: older, white, higher income, and so on. So I get it. But when I read a story on Washington Post this morning, I couldn't help but be surprised by these Obama ads:




I'm reading a story about the debate, and there's Obama's hopeful face staring back at me. Does this bother anyone else? Maybe it's only a problem in online and print, where the content is directly juxtaposed with the ad. Something just doesn't feel right about this very evenly balanced, non-partisan coverage...sponsored by Obama for America.

The media is already drawing record eyeballs with their pre-election coverage. I think CNN or Fox News could generate some awesome PR--not to mention a credibility boost--for refusing to air political ads, even just for the last month leading up to the election. But do they dare risk pissing off these campaigns and the agencies that represent them? What do you think?

As far as online and print, obviously the Post accepts political ads, but I couldn't find any info on nytimes.com or wsj.com. Even cnn.com and foxnews.com seem to be relatively light on ads. Anybody have any info on whether these guys have banned Obama and McCain from their sites?

Context FAIL

New York Times: "McCain Seeks to Delay First Debate Amid Financial Crisis" flanked by FIRST DEBATE FRIDAY NIGHT! CNN banners. Granted, this is breaking news. But somebody on the CNN media planning team needs to have their servers hold off on those for a hot minute.

Microsoft Defines Themselves: You Heard It Here First!

Remember my gripes about Microsoft letting Apple continue to define them as the bumbling, bland, old PC? Turns out CP+B had a plan to combat that image all along. The New York Times has reported that the next round of ads will directly battle the "I'm a PC" tagline, going so far as to find a John Hodgman lookalike to complain that he's been stereotyped.

Y'think?

Reportedly, the campaign's new twist involves real Microsoft users talking about the pride they take in their machines and the work they produce with them. Okay, fine. I guess I need to see the spots first, because there's still something missing for me. At least they're actively countering the identity their competitor has carved for them. No brand should ever be content in letting their image come from their competitors. Even if it starts in an us-them comparison, the attacked brand (Microsoft) needs to spin it in their favor ASAP, or even use it to target a group of people who will appreciate that trait.

(Kind of reminds me of the Presidential campaign. As soon as McCain whispers "inexperience," Barack spins it into "change," and so on...)

New Microsoft campaign is scheduled to begin today. Keep your eyes peeled, yaybies!

Minnesota Pioneer Press?

Since when did the St. Paul Pioneer Press become the Minnesota Pioneer Press?

Photo taken outside of Brit's Pub.

With the newspaper industry is sitting on the edge of pending doom and potential new business opportunities, our old printing friends have been the topic of many a conversation as of late. Whether newspapers decide to go hyper-local, all digital, or start waving their white flags - big changes are on the way. Libby and I noticed the name change on the Pioneer Press as we were leaving Brit's with the Grinterns. There currently isn't a statewide paper, or is there now? We have our local papers that cover high school sports and grandma's 80th birthday party notices, and we have our USA Today's and NY Times that are read mostly online and nationwide. But there isn't a dominant statewide paper. Maybe the Pioneer Press is on to something. Or maybe they're just trying to look busy at work. Thoughts?

P.S. the Pioneer Press home page, while lucky enough to dominate the www.twincities.com domain, scared the crap out of me with this giant Star Wars ad. SKIP IT.

UPDATE! I was at my mom's house this weekend and spotted a Dakota County Pioneer Press!

"social" is not a destination

Today I stumbled across this thought provoking article in the NYT. I love the quote about social not being a destination. I think that Google and Yahoo are smart to not try to directly compete with Facebook and MySpace. People are going to go where their friends are, and are NOT going to sign up for another social networking site just for the fun of it. In order for users to have a desire to use multiple social networks, the site must provide a unique utility (and NO I do not mean just new features or better privacy, I mean a completely new utility).

Here is a good analogy for you: AOL Instant Messenger holds the lead position for instant messaging. MSN and Yahoo never cracked AIM because when they came out (in the US at least) everyone and their friends were already on AIM. MSN and Yahoo only offered the essential same utility as AIM, but nobody's friends used it. So, 10 yeas later, AIM is still the leader. However, in my mind, this is all about to change. Facebook chat offers the same essential utility, but with no download, and most Facebook users have all of their AIM friends on Facebook. So, is Facebook chat going to be the demise of AIM? I think so, unless AIM adds some new incentives to download their software.