Advertising in the 2016 election
As presented in the article, there was an expected high ad revenue this election year because of the nature of the candidates: an atypical businessman and the first woman nominee – especially considering the extreme mud-slinging of this election cycle in particular. However, this was not the case and the ad revenue earned by local media matched that of the 2012 election cycle. This is due to Trump’s campaign spending significantly less on ads than any of the other candidates, particularly in the primaries. This leads to an interesting situation, as we study the competition for ad spots and the revenue generated by ads.
It is expected, as we learned, that competitors would be vying for the most advantageous ad spots, in a way very similar to market clearing. However, this is clearly not the case, as Trump’s campaign has hardly competed for these advertisement spots at all. This ought to leave the Clinton campaign with the advantage, as she would be more likely to secure the better ad spots. Yet it does not seem that this situation presents any advantage to her; she may run ads of higher quality at better times of the day and confront fewer ads against her, but Trump has managed to advertise himself without the use of actual advertisements at all. This seems incongruous; as we have learned, the Clinton campaign should have the upper hand here. Instead, the Trump campaign seems to be “winning” in the sense that his regular media exposure through just news reporting is advertisement enough, saving him money. It is interesting to think about what other factors are in play. Certainly, elections are more complex than just the ads, and it would be look into how regular news reporting can become a form of advertising.