New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/1XYqTzu) today compares “going viral” in social media with the retail politics of Iowa primaries. Lots of interesting points, but the one that struck me was that less than 3% of campaign spending thus far has been in Iowa.
Instead of buying media in one geographic place, candidates are "directing the funnel of their campaign money to their national offices staffed by D.C. political operatives.” The article suggest that these centrally run campaigns are more likely to focus on engaging voters directly through social media than investing in paid political advertising in an early voting state.
So, the campaign is already national. State boundaries and political processes are becoming irrelevant. And if campaigns are investing less in paid media advertising is this just one more blow to the struggling mass media business? Just how dependent are media outlets on revenue from political advertising? Can they grab a piece of the social media spending?
Instead of buying media in one geographic place, candidates are "directing the funnel of their campaign money to their national offices staffed by D.C. political operatives.” The article suggest that these centrally run campaigns are more likely to focus on engaging voters directly through social media than investing in paid political advertising in an early voting state.
So, the campaign is already national. State boundaries and political processes are becoming irrelevant. And if campaigns are investing less in paid media advertising is this just one more blow to the struggling mass media business? Just how dependent are media outlets on revenue from political advertising? Can they grab a piece of the social media spending?
No comments:
Post a Comment