The fight over political advertising | Friday Finds Issue 44

The pros and cons of political advertising

Campaigning is expensive and in today's world candidates shell out millions and millions of dollars on digital advertising. In 2016, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton spent $81 million on Facebook ads. And, as we approach 2020 elections, candidates have already spent $63 million marketing themselves on Facebook and Google. The numbers are crazy, but recently Twitter and Google made commitments to ban or restrict advertising on their platforms. While some people applaud these moves, others claim that it restricts free speech and could hurt the democratic process in developing countries. It's a tough and confusing topic, so I thought we could dive into this argument.

A brief history of political advertising

In the 1950s, Eisenhower was one of the first politicians to use TV as a medium to spread his message to the American public. Then in the 1960s, candidates used TV ads to shock and scare the public into going to the polls (remember the girl with the daisies??). Since then, ads have become more negative and more focused on the competition. For a long time, TV was the platform of choice for politicians. They were able to measure how many people were seeing their ads and target their messages based on demographic of who was watching (i.e. the audience of the Hallmark channel may be different than the audience of ESPN, so which channel you pick and what you say would depend on your goal and who you're trying to reach).

But then came digital...

Digital changed the whole ad game. Rather than spending $200,000+ on a 30s spot (aka a thirty-second commercial), advertisers could spend a fraction of that and reach a much more accurate audience. They also started buying ads programatically, which allowed to optimize their targeting, creative and messaging in real time. And, they can have dynamic creative that changes based on who they're targeting. For example, if a candidate is showing an ad to an environmentalist, they could cater their messaging to say negative things about the competition's environmental views. Digital advertising also allows them to unlock a ton of data around their ad performance and helps them better understand their audience's demographics and motivations.

Sounds creepy. Are there any reasons this shouldn't be regulated?

It is a bit creepy, yes. But, there are some arguments against regulation, such as:

• Incumbents have a lot of money and a large megaphone to spread their messages. More accessible advertising means more people are able to have a voice and share their view. And, ultimately, that more underdogs have a chance to challenge career politicians.
• Many digital platforms are global. Facebook, for example, has 270 million users in India, 130 million users in Indonesia, 120 million users in Brazil and 68 million users in the Philippines. A ban on political ads might be good for some countries and bad for others.
• Advertising is a form of free expression. Limiting this in any way could be seen as undemocratic and may start us down a long, dark road. (This is Facebook's favorite argument.)
• Regulations and content moderation is subject to human bias. Creating regulations that are not subjective will be challenging.

Eh, okay. I guess. Gimme the arguments for regulation.

With Twitter and Google committing to more regulation, many people are calling for other platforms (hi, Facebook - we're talking about you) to do the same. Some of the arguments for regulation are:

• Some platforms (cough Facebook cough) don't send their ads to fact checkers, resulting in a huge amount of fake news. For example, the Trump campaign released a fake ad against Biden earlier this year.
• The speed of digital also means that fake news can spread fast and far.
• Freedom of speech does not include the right to deceive. The First Amendment’s protection of political speech assumes that deceptions will be exposed and then rejected in the marketplace of ideas. But, digital media allows politicians to circulate false claims only among the people who will be most receptive to them and therefore there is little chance that the veracity of those ads will be openly debated.
• While the platforms claim to be neutral, the algorithms that decide what content gets promoted are not. This means that we're being shown content based on the bias that is embedded in the algorithms that these platforms run off.
• TV ads are regulated by the FCC but social media platforms are self-regulated. As a result, political ads on TV require mentioning in the ad the name of the group purchasing the commercial time. This isn't required on digital platforms and therefore there can be a cloak of secrecy on ads on social networks.

The battle over political ads is a complex one and, unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be figured out anytime soon. But, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think political ads should be regulated? Why? Hit reply and let me know what you think!

Gold Stars:

• Easy Jet will be the first airline to operate net-zero carbon flights across it's entire network by offsetting all jet fuel emissions.
• Paper coffee cups just got a makeover. Unocup created a takeaway coffee cup that doesn't need a plastic lid.
• Burger King is phasing out plastic toys in their kids meals as part of their effort to reduce single-use plastic. They're also collecting old plastic toys and recylcing them into playground equipment and reusable table trays.
• Kroger is growing produce in-store. They've partnered with Infarm to provide customers with access to fresh greens.
• California announced that it will no longer buy vehicles from brands that supported Trump's move to prevent the state from setting stricter tailpipe emission standards.

Yikes:

• A major vulnerability was discovered in Android smartphones that allows hackers to take photos and record voices without user permission. (this has supposedly been fixed).

Quick Tidbits:

• Victoria's Secret has CANCELLED their annual fashion show as part of their effort to "evolve the messaging" of the company.
• The wellness trend isn't just for humans. Former Casper execs are launching a new Direct-to-Dog wellness brand. Looks like Lilac might be getting some new food.
• Chobani is embracing the plant-based trend. They're releasing their oat milk yogurt, aptly named Oat. 
• Investors are wild for bacteria. Microbiome startups are expected to secure $3.3 billion in funding, making it one of today's hottest trends in health.
• Need holiday gift ideas? Don't fret. Goop released their annual holiday gift guide. Because $34 toilet paper is the gift everyone really wants.
• Netflix may become an all-original streaming service in the next few years (or so).
• Tidying-up queen Marie Kondo is launching a line of organization products; sparking joy in cynics everywhere and leaving us wonder why we have to buy stuff to get rid of stuff.
• Tesla unveiled it's cybertruck at the LA Auto Show earlier this week and it looks like it's ready to be the official truck of Mars. 
• PayPal just purchased Honey, the browser extension/mobile app for finding coupons, for a sweet $4 billion, giving PayPal access to A LOT of opt-in data.

On my GoodReads:

Sticking with my advertising theme this week, I just downloaded Contagious: Why Things Catch On. If you're interested in understanding how things (messages, viruses, memes, etc) spread, this book is for you. 

Written by Wharton marketing professor, Jonah Berger, this book combines research and stories to help explain how things catch on. This is something I'm particularly interested in, so I'm really excited to give this a read this week!

Buy it here

PS: if you, like me, feel bad buying paper books all the time I highly recommend downloading Libby (e-books app, but you have to get a library card which you can normally do online) or buying used books on Amazon.