Texas drew $1.11 billion in political advertising. Ohio attracted $889 million. Georgia brought in $562 million. Those are statewide totals across races and media through November 2, according to AdImpact. Enormous sums, committed to influencing an electorate that delivered Democrats control of Congress and victories deep inside Republican territory. AdImpact
Look closer at where money met disappointment.
In Ohio, advertisers spent $111.3 million on the Senate race in just two weeks, October 12–25. Approximately $65 million supported the Republican side. Another $43.6 million went into the governor’s contest, roughly $30 million supporting Republicans. Democrats won both offices.
In Texas, nearly $89.2 million went into Senate advertising during those same two weeks, about two-thirds supporting Republicans. Democrats flipped that seat, too.
Maine’s Senate race absorbed another $40.2 million during that period, with Republicans holding a slight spending advantage. The seat went Democratic. Spending: Wesleyan Media Project. Results: Associated Press
The spending could not save those candidates. For the companies selling the advertising, however, the election produced a very different outcome.
Nationally, AdImpact tracked $11.87 billion in political advertising through November 2. Broadcast television collected $5.84 billion, or 49%. Radio received another $284 million. Together, they captured approximately $6.12 billion. These national figures do not establish broadcast’s share in any individual state, but they establish the scale of the industry’s payday. AdImpact
Broadcasters should enjoy the revenue. They should also ask how much of their future they are willing to build around another delivery.
What did the money accomplish?
We do not know exactly why all that advertising failed to carry these Republican candidates across the finish line.
Perhaps the audience had already decided. Perhaps repeated messages became background noise. Perhaps the commercials reached people who were watching but had stopped listening. Perhaps the candidates would have lost by larger margins without the advertising.
Election results alone cannot settle those questions. A candidate’s defeat is not a controlled experiment measuring television’s effectiveness.
But the people financing these campaigns do not need a definitive academic answer before reconsidering their next purchase. They can look at the invoices, look at the results and ask: What should we do differently?
That is where the business story begins.
Will they buy the same campaign again?
How many billionaires want to finance another campaign that looks like this one?
Some will happily return. Political giving buys participation in causes and contests that donors consider consequential. A defeat can inspire a larger contribution the next time around. Others may want different candidates, different messages, different advisers or different media.
There is no reason to assume they will all stop spending. There is equally little reason to assume their next dollar will follow the last one. A donor can remain deeply committed to winning while becoming deeply skeptical of where the money is going.
For broadcasters, that distinction matters. The political advertising market could grow in 2028 while individual stations receive less than they expect. A bigger national spending total does not guarantee a bigger local television order.
The presidential election may bring another spectacular payday. It may also bring more questions about audience, repetition, targeting and results. “Campaigns have always bought television” is a description of past behavior. It is an inadequate sales argument for the future.
Two years is a business planning window
Television executives have another revenue stream to consider alongside political advertising: retransmission fees.
The questions around those fees differ from the questions around campaign spending. But management has to confront the same underlying issue: How much confidence should a station place in revenue whose future depends heavily on decisions made by other businesses?
A station cannot control a billionaire’s campaign budget. It cannot dictate the outcome of every distribution negotiation. It can control whether its sales organization is developing more customers, solving more local business problems and creating more reasons for advertisers to return.
Political revenue can help finance that work. The danger comes when a strong election year allows the work to wait.
There will always be another immediate priority. Another budget cycle. Another explanation for why the sales transformation can begin next quarter. Now there are two years before the next national election. That is enough time to make meaningful changes. It is also enough time to postpone them until the opportunity has passed.
The businesses that need customers every week
Our reporting keeps bringing us back to small and midsize businesses.
These advertisers need customers throughout the year. The heating contractor needs appointments. The dental practice needs patients. The restaurant needs repeat visits. The retailer needs people walking through the door.
Their needs continue after the campaign commercials disappear. Winning their business requires understanding what they sell, whom they need to reach and what a successful campaign would accomplish.
That sounds elementary. It becomes demanding when the customer expects the station to connect its recommendations to business results.
Can the sales team explain why a proposed mix of television, streaming and digital fits that advertiser? Can it make buying straightforward? Can it report results clearly and adjust when something falls short?
Can it serve a smaller account profitably enough to keep serving it? Those are management questions. They concern products, pricing, training, service and accountability. They deserve the same attention executives give the next political forecast.
Put this windfall to work
The practical response is to use election revenue to strengthen the business between elections.
Invest in salespeople who can diagnose a local advertiser’s needs. Give them products they can explain and support. Improve reporting. Make renewals depend on a useful conversation about performance.
Measure progress in recurring customers, retention and revenue that continues after Election Day.
None of this requires abandoning political advertising. Stations should compete aggressively for those dollars.
But executives should distinguish a lucrative opportunity from an operating assumption.
This election demonstrated that extraordinary spending could not protect candidates from an electorate determined to change direction. The people who financed those campaigns will decide what lesson to take from that experience.
Broadcasters have their own decision to make.
Will they spend the next two years waiting for those customers to return, or building stronger relationships with the local businesses that need them every week?
About the author
Mike Blinder is the publisher of Editor & Publisher (E&P) Magazine and host of the weekly E&P Reports vodcast, where he interviews news media leaders about the future of the industry. A longtime media executive, digital media pioneer and sales strategist, he has spent more than three decades helping local news organizations navigate industry change while advocating for a strong, independent press. The views expressed here are his own. He welcomes comments at Mike@EditorandPublisher.com.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here