Nathan Greenberg

Nathan Greenberg

Insight on marketing, advertising, politics, and parenting

Nathan Greenberg
  • Home
  • About Nathan
    • Brief Bio
    • Social Media
    • Website Columns
    • ProActiveDads
  • Marketing
  • Advertising
  • Politics
  • Social Media
  • SEO/SEM
  • News

Archives

Blog categories

Tag Archives: Obama

2012 election
Read more..

Election Advertising Failing for Presidential Candidates

2012 election advertisingRoughly a month and a half until the November election in America. Seven weeks until the final, irreversible decision (unless the Supreme Court steps in again) is made by the People. In our current age of hyper-partisan rhetoric, unparalleled political vitriol, and record-breaking campaign spending, it is interesting to see that some Americans are still undecided. But not many. And they probably aren’t truly undecided. And they won’t be swayed by election advertising in the next two months.

National Election Advertising is Pointless

The latest polling shows that only two percent of likely voters in America are undecided. However, I believe this race will ultimately be decided by a three-to-five point margin. The 2000 election taught us that our Electoral College system and a partisan Supreme Court negate the importance of a national popular vote. Instead, elections are decided by up to seven or eight “battleground” states like Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Michigan. It is there that the undecided vote matters. Neither of the campaigns care about the undecided voters in Mississippi or California. Those states are already heavily leaning towards Romney or Obama, respectively. But if you think the race will come down to a 51%-49% decision, and it will be based on less than 1% of the voters in one or a few battleground states, and you have far more money for election advertising than is necessary for a national campaign, spending thousands of dollars to buy a single vote makes sense.

You Can’t Win ‘Em All

The “undecided” voter is usually not undecided. That’s my anecdotal analysis, but I think its important in this discussion.  If you read some of the myriad of articles written about the undecided vote, the participants usually say something like, “I like what Romney stands for and I’m glad he’s anti-abortion and can help fix the economy and is a strong family man…but I just don’t trust him.” Does that sound undecided to you? Not me. That sounds like a person who has a favorite candidate but doesn’t like 100% of their character.

Another key issue with an undecided voter is the litmus test. Are they “one-issue” voters who, despite their qualms with a particular candidate, still have that one topic on which they can’t accept the other side? These are usually abortion, gun ownership, the environment, immigration, the military, or “big government”. These folks may publicly claim to be undecided or leaning in one direction, but when they hit the voting booth, there is no chance of earning their vote if you don’t match their views on that hot button issue.

How Can Anyone Be Undecided Now?

Despite the massive overflow of election coverage and more than $1 billion spent on political advertising already, it is still possible to be undecided. These voters are genuinely torn on two issues: the economy and society. They are tough to pigeonhole in a party, especially when the two biggest parties remain in the grip of their fringe elements. The undecided voter is probably a fiscal conservative and social liberal (or vice versa). They liked Obama in 2008 but aren’t happy with the economy after four years. This is especially true of anyone who voted for Obama in ’08 but is now unemployed or underemployed. People have a tendency to vote their wallet.

Another group of undecided voters are the genuinely disenfranchised. They don’t like the choices but they may still vote. They aren’t a fan of either candidate and they have been turned off by the political process. Too extreme, too rich, too negative, or too corrupt, there is no shortage of reasons for them to view this whole thing with sour grapes. Some polls may still include them as “likely voters” because they have voted in most or all previous Presidential elections during their lifetime and/or they answered “yes” when asked if they were a likely voter on a screening questionnaire.

When these “likely voters” wake up on Election Day, they may not even hit the polls. They would be another example of failed election advertising. Literally thousands of dollars were spent on their vote and they have no intention of casting it. In fact, it was most likely the tone of the ads, not the frequency in swing states that turned them off and they got to see and hear that negativity thousands of times.

So what is a candidate to do?

On one hand, the Romney and Obama camps could drastically reduce their  ad spending, change the tone of their message, offer real information about their plans to voters, and spread knowledge about the unique benefits of American democracy and why citizens should participate. Call me cynic, but I don’t see that happening.

If anything, you will see the campaigns spend as much money as possible, increase the negativity of their message, continue to distort facts and ignore their own Presidential goals, completely disregard the greatness of American democracy, and then hope they win. Election advertising has the unfortunate element of being a winner-take-all battle. If you lose, you don’t become Vice President like you did before the 12th Amendment.

My sympathies go to those battleground state residents who must endure the next seven weeks of media torture as they hear attack ad after attack ad. Ninety-eight percent of them already know who they will vote for and there is a strong chance the other two percent won’t be changing their minds or won’t vote at all. So much of this election advertising is for naught.

September 19, 2012 Nathan Greenberg 1 Comment

Obama Promises an End to the War

There are quite a few ironies with this clip. The first is that President Obama just ordered 30,000 more troops to war. Okay, easy to see the broken promise. But that is why Andrew and I (former co-hosts of The Onramp Podcast) had a term for such things: CPT. Campaign Trail Promise. They meant nothing more. The Patriot Act is still in full force. The FISA courts are still sidestepped. We still kidnap suspects and send them to foreign countries for torture. Guantanamo Bay is still open. The White House still uses the “state secrets” defense. We didn’t sign on to the International Land Mine Ban.

And we are still fighting two wars. So, “ending the war” wasn’t the first thing Obama did. But there was a caveat you may not have noticed in the clip. He said “you can take that to the bank.” He wasn’t lying. You could. Unfortunately, the banks were bankrupt and the government gave them more than $1 TRILLION of our taxpayer loaned money.

Finally, we shall not forget perhaps the biggest irony, in light of recent events. President Obama -the man who just ordered 30,000 more American soldiers into battle- won the Nobel Peace Prize.

December 5, 2009 Nathan Greenberg 2 Comments

Recent Posts

The Internet Isn’t Free

Newsflash: The internet isn’t free. Recently, a company called AdTrap announced that they have devised a method of blocking nearly all advertisements online. From Google (including YouTube) [...]

More Info
Benefits and Challenges of Being an Entrepreneur

Benefits and Challenges of Being an Entrepreneur

“You must love being your own boss.” “It must be great running your own company.” “I bet you make a lot more money now that you’re the boss!” “A [...]

More Info

Gave My Notice at Moss Bros. Auto Group

I'll be leaving Moss Bros. Auto Group in two weeks for a great new opportunity.

More Info

Quote About Life and Advertising

When will the truth come into season?

More Info
  • About Nathan
    • Brief Bio
    • Social Media
    • Website Columns
    • ProActiveDads
Powered by WordPress | theme SG Simple