Fluctuating Voters: Flood of Ads – Does it Make a Difference?

Fluctuating Voters: Flood of Ads – Does it Make a Difference?

In the USA, where elections are coming up, the population is literally drowning in a sea of ​​political advertisements. One example is 19-year-old Hayden Cook of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, who is inundated with political ads on a daily basis despite his best efforts to avoid advertising. “It’s so constant,” complains Cook. “We’ve heard two or three advertisements here on the way to work.” The amount of money invested in this advertising is simply astronomical. It is estimated that over $10 billion will flow into political advertising, an increase of about 20 to 25 percent compared to the already record-breaking 2020 election cycle. Pennsylvania in particular is being targeted with around $935 million, including $450 million for the presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Despite a variety of advertising strategies, polls show that only about 3 percent of voters are still undecided. This makes the meaning of this advertisement both questionable and fascinating. Erika Fowler, professor of government, explains: “Advertising typically only plays a marginally significant role in presidential elections.” This statement makes it clear that already safe voters are more difficult to influence by the flood of advertising, although if the voting decision is tight, targeted advertising could be crucial.

The importance of advertising strategies

Another aspect is the financial strength of the election campaigns. Kamala Harris has raised and spent immense amounts of money in recent months, allowing her to afford an online marketing strategy that dwarfs Trump. Harris' campaign had $235 million on hand at the start of September, nearly double Trump's $135 million. Still, the reality is that elections don't just depend on money. In the 2016 and 2020 election cycles, Trump was similarly at a disadvantage, but was able to distinguish himself through strong media presence and reporting.

Election advertising is particularly crucial in a state like Pennsylvania, as voter shares are considered to be particularly tight here. Chris Shelton, a professor of political economy, points out that political advertising increases voter turnout among supporters, but can also provoke negative reactions if the advertising is not properly tailored. “If advertising is not well targeted, it is more likely to mobilize opponents,” warns Shelton.

Although Harris has run over 300 different ads on social media such as Facebook, the majority of advertising dollars are still tied up in traditional media. The relationship with older, more stable voters plays a role here. Another real-world example is Pittsburgh native Tim Anzelone, who strategically muted the commercials at an NFL broadcast party to avoid conflict among his guests. “The advertising doesn’t influence me,” he says, adding that it’s a huge waste of money.

Political advertising in the United States remains a phenomenon that attracts attention because of its high stakes and engaged voter interest. While some voters are disappointed by the flood of ads, for others it could actually be crucial. The use of targeted advertising strategies is likely to increase in the future, but this could further polarize the political landscape.

How the elections will ultimately turn out and whether the numerous advertising efforts will be significant remains to be seen. In any case, voters are more than ever confronted with the question of how much they are influenced by politics and the extent to which advertising reinforces or undermines their previous beliefs. The developments in Pennsylvania are particularly important to watch here, as publications such as www.bbc.com have already examined a variety of factors that influence the voting decisions of this crucial voter base.