In the latest episode of The Political Marketing Podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with Travis Ridout, the Distinguished Professor and Director of the School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at Washington State University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.
He’s one of the world’s leading academics on political advertising, and so we had one of the all-time-great discussions on the core subject of this very blog.
I would really encourage you to listen to the whole episode, which you can find on all major podcast platforms. However, so that you know what to expect, here are a few notes on what we covered…
The Three Types of Political Ads
According to Ridout, political ads can be categorised in three ways:
- Positive ads: These are purely promotional ads and focus entirely on the candidate they support.
- Negative ads: Often called “attack ads,” these are solely about the targeted opposing candidate.
- Contrast ads: These combine both positive and negative elements, highlighting the differences between the favoured candidate and their opponent.
Election advertising, Ridout explained, has become more negative over time; data from the US since the mid-1990s shows that negativity increased throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s before levelling off around 2010. The last US presidential race was “the most negative ever,” with fewer than 1% of ads for Donald Trump being positive.
The Effectiveness of Negative Ads
So why is negative advertising so effective? Ridout outlinedw that it grabs people’s attention and can make them angry, which may inspire political action. In some situations, it can also be demobilising, causing people who already support a candidate to feel less enthusiastic about voting at all.
Ridout also spoked about how the effectiveness of ads is greater when people know less about the candidates, which is why advertising often matters more in local races than in a presidential race. It also explains why negative ads run early in a race can be particularly effective in defining candidates.
On the subject of whether the public dislike negative ads, interestingly, Ridout noted that when you ask people if it’s fair for a candidate to point out differences between themselves and an opponent, most agree that it is “perfectly legitimate”. But, in research, if the questionnaire uses the term “negative advertising” or “attack ads”, that seems to be a trigger for people registering their dislike, regardless if they find the content of the ad itself useful.
Ridout argues that negative ads can often be more informative and substantive than positive ones. Positive ads tend to be “boring” and “trite,” discussing generic themes like a candidate’s family or values.
Negative ads, on the other hand, are more likely to discuss policy issues and provide a reason to vote for one candidate over another. In fact, Ridout’s research shows that voters who are exposed to more advertising, especially more negative ads, are better at identifying where candidates stand on the political spectrum. This can be interpreted as a demonstration of knowledge about an election, and it’s hard to argue a more informed electorate is a bad thing for democracy.
There is also a strategic argument for using negative ads when a candidate is behind in the polls. The goal is to “shake up the race” and get people to think differently, and negative ads are the most effective way to do that. Conversely, a candidate who is ahead might use positive ads to maintain voter enthusiasm and encourage turnout.
The Role of Interest Groups and Backlash
We discussed the role of third parties and interest groups in election advertising. Ridout highlighted that one reason they use negative ads more than candidates is that candidates worry that negative ads could lead to a voter backlash. Since people don’t vote for groups, the group can absorb the backlash without it affecting the candidate.
Another reason for this trend is that group-sponsored ads can be more persuasive. When a message comes from a politician, voters may immediately discount it because politicians are self-interested. However, if a message comes from a group with a name like “Americans for a better America,” people are more likely to believe the message and find it persuasive.
The Changing Landscape of Political Advertising
We also discussed the shifting landscape of political advertising and the fact that there’s evidence that the efficacy of political ads has declined over time, though they still remain effective.
Ridout explained that the way we study the effectiveness of political advertising has also changed. It used to be easier when most spending was on broadcast television, allowing researchers to match ad exposure data with individual survey responses. However, with the fragmentation of media across local cable, streaming, connected TV, and digital platforms, it’s become much more difficult to get a definitive picture of what voters have seen.
Ridout also shared that younger people tend to view political ads more favorably than older people. This could be because older generations grew up with television ads that were an intrusive and unavoidable part of watching a program, which created a “negative taste in their mouth”. In contrast, younger people are used to being able to scroll or swipe past ads on social media, so they may have less negative associations with them.
politicaladvertising.co.uk 