Programmatic - your new political candidate
Political technologists say that programmatic has a huge potential and a bright future in the political arena. This technology will be one of the keys that will open the door to victory in the US elections in 2016.
The new forecast by Borrell Associates has a vivid picture of the decay of television broadcasting in terms of the cost of political propaganda. Next year, approximately $ 6 billion will be spent on political television advertising in the United States (according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, $ 4.4 billion). In 2012, this figure was $ 5.75 billion. It would seem that there is growth. However, according to leading experts, politicians will spend no more than $ 5 billion on television advertising by 2020. But according to the same consulting company Borrell Associates, the players in the political arena will be much more economical in their spending on TV - by 2020 their TV spending will drop to $ 3.5 billion
')
Yes, television is still the favorite channel - it accounts for more than half (52%) of all political "advertising dollars." But already today, marketers are beginning to "transfuse" budgets into digital space, and it is the digital environment that can become the basis of political advertising in the next 5-10 years. The reason for this tectonic shift - algorithmic advertising purchases.
Borrell Associates notes that by 2020 most of the money spent on digital advertising will be spent through programmatic channels, which provide a guarantee that the marketer will reach the right audience, or in our case, the electorate.
According to new data from such a politically oriented digital consultant as the company Targeted Victory, an average of 75 cents from every advertising-political dollar is being wasted due to inaccurate voter targeting. You can look at how “Republicans start and lose” on the map from Targeted Victory and Google. Looking at this infographic it is possible to understand how enormous the financial losses of political forces are, which make their appeals to the wrong people.
The 10th congressional district in Illinois, the wasteful political race that cost the Republicans $ 19,148,540, turned out to be the leader in wasting money. At the same time, only $ 1,389,261 was spent on targeting the target electorate. By simple mathematical calculations we can establish losses: just imagine - $ 17,759,279! This is 93% of the budget!
In response to the Targeted Victory study - and perhaps indirectly in response to data from Borrell - the Television Bureau (Television Bureau of Advertising, TVB) released a statement saying that television is still the main channel of political advertisers.
“Advertising will never be effective if ads are shown to the wrong people,” said Steve Lanzano, president and CEO of TVB. “The fact remains that television offers advertisers a scientifically proven way to reach their target audience. While digital advertising is still the subject of heated debate over such “pitfalls” as visibility and fraud. ”
Most marketers seem to agree with Lanzano, since politicians spend the most money on TV. But it’s also clear that political marketers are experimenting more and more courageously with digital channels. After all, even the Television Advertising Bureau recognizes that digital political advertising platforms have their advantages.
In 2013, the analytical company Deep Root Analytics was created, whose services have already been used by several US presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, who is the youngest brother of the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush. Deep Root Analytics collaborates with leading data combination and in-depth analytics solutions developer Alteryx Analytics to optimize targeting and procure TV placements.
Zack Moffat, co-founder of Targeted Victory, defines programmatic as “insights plus automation.” But it was this man who led the Mitt Romney digital campaign, who was the US presidential candidate in the 2012 elections from the Republican Party. Moffat argues that in the pre-election race tens of millions of dollars were spent using programmatic technology. And it was more than a successful investment.
Adherents of the old school of procurement mediyki say that it is very difficult to abandon TV in favor of the new technology, but they note the growing appetite of marketers, who have saliva at the mention of algorithmic procurement advertisements.
Eric Frenchman, who advises Republicans on digital advertising, warns many market players that, despite the relative simplicity of algorithmic advertising procurement, programmatic is not a plug-and-play technology.
“People think they’ll just be able to load their ads and then just press the buttons,” says Mr. Frenchman. "Everything is more complicated."
Debate continues. Ace in the sleeve of TV people are problems with the visibility of digital advertising and widespread advertising fraud. However, digital marketers have something to show to supporters of the TV channel: today, many users record TV shows and watch them later without advertising. This discussion boils down to the following: effective vs. efficient (achievement of goals against achieving goals with the lowest cost) and proven facts vs. unsubstantiated. It remains only to wait for the time to lay everything out.
BYYD • Mobile Advertising Platform
The new forecast by Borrell Associates has a vivid picture of the decay of television broadcasting in terms of the cost of political propaganda. Next year, approximately $ 6 billion will be spent on political television advertising in the United States (according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, $ 4.4 billion). In 2012, this figure was $ 5.75 billion. It would seem that there is growth. However, according to leading experts, politicians will spend no more than $ 5 billion on television advertising by 2020. But according to the same consulting company Borrell Associates, the players in the political arena will be much more economical in their spending on TV - by 2020 their TV spending will drop to $ 3.5 billion
')
Yes, television is still the favorite channel - it accounts for more than half (52%) of all political "advertising dollars." But already today, marketers are beginning to "transfuse" budgets into digital space, and it is the digital environment that can become the basis of political advertising in the next 5-10 years. The reason for this tectonic shift - algorithmic advertising purchases.
Borrell Associates notes that by 2020 most of the money spent on digital advertising will be spent through programmatic channels, which provide a guarantee that the marketer will reach the right audience, or in our case, the electorate.
According to new data from such a politically oriented digital consultant as the company Targeted Victory, an average of 75 cents from every advertising-political dollar is being wasted due to inaccurate voter targeting. You can look at how “Republicans start and lose” on the map from Targeted Victory and Google. Looking at this infographic it is possible to understand how enormous the financial losses of political forces are, which make their appeals to the wrong people.
The 10th congressional district in Illinois, the wasteful political race that cost the Republicans $ 19,148,540, turned out to be the leader in wasting money. At the same time, only $ 1,389,261 was spent on targeting the target electorate. By simple mathematical calculations we can establish losses: just imagine - $ 17,759,279! This is 93% of the budget!
In response to the Targeted Victory study - and perhaps indirectly in response to data from Borrell - the Television Bureau (Television Bureau of Advertising, TVB) released a statement saying that television is still the main channel of political advertisers.
“Advertising will never be effective if ads are shown to the wrong people,” said Steve Lanzano, president and CEO of TVB. “The fact remains that television offers advertisers a scientifically proven way to reach their target audience. While digital advertising is still the subject of heated debate over such “pitfalls” as visibility and fraud. ”
Most marketers seem to agree with Lanzano, since politicians spend the most money on TV. But it’s also clear that political marketers are experimenting more and more courageously with digital channels. After all, even the Television Advertising Bureau recognizes that digital political advertising platforms have their advantages.
In 2013, the analytical company Deep Root Analytics was created, whose services have already been used by several US presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, who is the youngest brother of the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush. Deep Root Analytics collaborates with leading data combination and in-depth analytics solutions developer Alteryx Analytics to optimize targeting and procure TV placements.
Zack Moffat, co-founder of Targeted Victory, defines programmatic as “insights plus automation.” But it was this man who led the Mitt Romney digital campaign, who was the US presidential candidate in the 2012 elections from the Republican Party. Moffat argues that in the pre-election race tens of millions of dollars were spent using programmatic technology. And it was more than a successful investment.
Adherents of the old school of procurement mediyki say that it is very difficult to abandon TV in favor of the new technology, but they note the growing appetite of marketers, who have saliva at the mention of algorithmic procurement advertisements.
Eric Frenchman, who advises Republicans on digital advertising, warns many market players that, despite the relative simplicity of algorithmic advertising procurement, programmatic is not a plug-and-play technology.
“People think they’ll just be able to load their ads and then just press the buttons,” says Mr. Frenchman. "Everything is more complicated."
Debate continues. Ace in the sleeve of TV people are problems with the visibility of digital advertising and widespread advertising fraud. However, digital marketers have something to show to supporters of the TV channel: today, many users record TV shows and watch them later without advertising. This discussion boils down to the following: effective vs. efficient (achievement of goals against achieving goals with the lowest cost) and proven facts vs. unsubstantiated. It remains only to wait for the time to lay everything out.
BYYD • Mobile Advertising Platform
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/296816/
All Articles