Once again via Swing State Project, we get this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats have reserved millions of dollars worth of television advertising in 31 congressional races in all corners of the country, according to documentation that provides an early roadmap of the party's drive to strengthen its majority in the fall elections.

[...]

In all, the documentation obtained by The Associated Press shows the DCCC has reserved nearly $35 million in advertising to begin in September and October.

[...]

Political parties and candidates frequently reserve advertising time in advance to obtain a lower price from television stations than might be available later. Final decisions on spending are normally made closer to the elections.

According to SSP, Michigan's 7th District is getting $1.5 million of the $35 million total. That puts us in a tie with Florida's 16th District for the sixth largest amount being spent of the 31 races being targeted. This is, perhaps, because of the high cost of advertising in our district, as I've highlighted before.

Just because they're reserving $1.5 million doesn't mean they'll use all of it, and it doesn't mean that they'll only spend that much. This is just another indicator that we're going to be in a top-tier and very expensive race.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, Advertising, DCCC, Media Markets

Last week, I briefly examined the media markets which cover the 7th District and commented on their cost, wondering what role it would play in the race. You may recall this handy map:


Inspired by the same FiveThirtyEight.com post, Swing State Project blogger Crisitunity created what he calls the "Bang-for-the-Buck Index" of House races. As he explains:

Time for the thrilling conclusion to the Bang-for-the-Buck Index, begun yesterday with the Senate installment. Follow the link for full methodological nitty-gritty, but the main thing that you need to know is that this index shows which races are the cheapest media-wise (and thus where one netroots dollar gets stretched the furthest). This list covers all House races that Swing State Project projects as Dem pickup opportunities.

The middle column lists every media market that needs to be utilized in order to blanket the district, and the number next to each market is the number of thousands of TV households in that market. The more TV households, the more expensive the market. (When a market only grazes a small part of the district where there's no major population center, I've deemed the market negligible, assuming that a smart media buyer wouldn't use that market.) The number in the right column is the sum total of the thousands of TV households in all markets in the district, which provides a relative number that indicates how expensive a media campaign in that district is.

As you'll see, there's a huge amount of variation, depending on the number of 'wasted eyeballs.' The wasted eyeballs problem becomes huge in suburban districts in major metropolitan districts, where you may be paying to advertise to people in the adjacent 10 or 20 districts as well.

In his index of competitive House races, his entry for Michigan's 7th District is:

MI-07

Detroit (1,936) Toledo (427) Lansing (257) Grand Rapids (732)

3,352

In other words, in our district, advertising in all four markets which cover us is the equivalent of advertising to 3.3 million television households. For comparison, the Philadelphia market is only 2.9 million television households, while Chicago's market barely edges us out, with 3.4 million television households. As he stated in his post, the more households, the more expensive it is.

This makes the 7th District the 15th most expensive district in Crisitunity's list (with about 80 districts on the list as possible Democratic pick-ups), mainly following districts covered by the New York (7.4 million), Los Angeles (5.5 million), and Chicago (3.4 million) markets.

As Crisitunity continues:

You may have also noticed a number of predominantly rural districts that should theoretically be cheap but in fact are very expensive; MI-07 and NC-08 are key examples, each of which are kind of located between major cities and wind up biting a corner out of a bunch of different markets. Poor PA-05 is the perhaps the worst example; it doesn't even have any TV stations in its boundaries, but it takes bites out of about 8 surrounding markets. Districts like these, again, are probably dealt with creatively, with buys in some TV markets and more focus on cable and other media.

As with the previous post on this subject, I don't have a profound conclusion on this, but it's something I find interesting.

As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: 2008 Speculation, Advertising, Fundraising, Media Markets

One of the most interesting political resources to emerge this year has been FiveThirtyEight.com, an election projection blog focusing on the presidential campaign. The site is run by Nate Silver (formerly blogging as "Poblano"), a professional statistician who took the tools of his day job-- analyzing baseball statistics-- and applied them to the presidential race.

Over the weekend, Nate took a look at television advertising in the presidential race, and whether or not it was efficient to advertise in certain states. As an example, suppose John McCain wanted to contest New Jersey. Because of the nature of television markets in that part of the country, McCain would need to spend money on ads in the New York and Philadelphia markets in order to cover the entire state. However, New York and Philadelphia are expensive and will cover a lot of non-New Jersey voters, so McCain would be wasting money on an inefficient state.

A similar problem faces Barack Obama with trying to win Virginia, as much of northern Virginia is covered by the Washington, DC market. However, that market also covers Maryland and DC itself, so a side effect of Obama targeting Virginia is unnecessary advertising in places where he shouldn't have to spend money.

This got me thinking about Michigan's 7th Congressional District and the challenges it presents for television advertising.

Of the 210 Designated Market Areas, there are four which cover the 7th District: Detroit, Lansing, Toledo, and Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek.


The map above shows each of the different media markets, with approximate boundaries of the 7th District drawn in. It's worth noting that there is some overlap. For example, in the Lansing market, Toledo's WTOL and WTVG are "significantly viewed out-of-market broadcast stations," as are WWMT and WOOD out of Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo/Battle Creek. However, there's no one market which covers everyone in the district.

So how do you advertise in that? If you want to make sure you reach everyone everywhere, you've got to advertise in all four markets. But is it really worth it to have your ads also be playing in Muskegon, Michigan and Findlay, Ohio at the same time?

Normally, this is the point where I would find some sort of conclusion, but I don't have one. It could be that, because of the difficulty and cost to effectively advertise, the incumbent has the advantage. At the same time, if Mark Schauer is going to continue to out-raise Tim Walberg, any advertising war between them could lean toward Schauer, who might feel free to advertise in the Toledo or Detroit markets. But then, that's just speculation on my part.

Anyway, I thought I would share something I found interesting. I'll be eager to see how the candidates spend money on advertising closer to November.

Labels: Advertising, Fundraising, Mark Schauer, Media Markets, Tim Walberg