Gaming The News

The question of whether the political press is fair has been debated since the founding of the Republic. Never has a candidate admitted to having received favorable treatment and it is common for both candidates in the same campaign to squeal simultaneously about bias. Even Barack Obama, whose lopsided advantage with the news media this year was actually quantified by researchers, frequently cried foul. That he was not vaporized for doing so casts doubt upon the existence of God.

Nevertheless, it proves that the relationship between politicians and the press remains properly and fundamentally antagonistic. But is it really?

Remember all of those campaign ads that you saw during the presidential race. It seemed as if the campaigns were releasing a new ad every single day.

But it may (or may not) surprise you to learn that many of those ads never actually aired anywhere -- except, of course, as content in your evening newscast.

That’s right.

There was never actually money spent to air a surprisingly large number of the presidential campaign ads.

And this only makes sense. Why would the campaigns spend actual money on ad time when they don’t have to?

In other words: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Just think about the hours upon hours the punditry spent “analyzing” the advertisements.

Remember that controversial Barack Obama ad that said John McCain couldn’t use a computer? Well… according to research from TNS media, it never actually aired as a TV commercial – only as fodder for the punditry. The same can be said for countless John McCain spots including the now infamous “Celebrity” ads.

Ok, well… THE Celebrity ad aired. But only after it aired on the 24/7 news machines first. And as for the sequels? There were four. But only two of them actually saw any airtime at all.

Don’t think that this trend took hold only in the general election though. Hillary’s 3am aired fairly heavily. Barack Obama’s 3am ad (the response) was only released to pundits and news organizations yet received nearly as many GRP’s (Gross Ratings Points) in coverage as the paid schedule for Hillary Clinton.

Add to this John McCain’s 3am ad – the one that he released after Barack Obama announced his VP pick (not Hillary). It never had an ad buy behind it either, yet that ad ran ad nauseum until, later in the day, the McCain camp released the anti-Obama ad which used Joe Biden quotes throughout to help introduce America to Senator Obama’s new VP pick.

Let’s face it, earned media, or free media, is the real mothers milk of politics. Very few campaigns can raise enough money to make substantial television buys. That's especially true for local campaigns and its usually true for all but the biggest statewide or national campaigns.

Most often campaigns will manufacture a media event - a press conference, or a rally, or some other public activity designed to make news.

The presidential campaigns have taught us a slightly new trick though. Releasing new and controversial pseudo-spots has become a way to generate news without the hassle of having to make any. This is the new unmanned drone of political warfare.

What's more, many in the press may actually be in on the gag.

Larry Weitzner is the CEO of Jamestown Associates, a full-service political consulting firm headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey (with offices in Washington and elsewhere). He’s a top notch strategist with a reputation for winning the tough races.

According to Weitzner, reporters and editors know that most of the digital ads clogging up their in-boxes are intended more for buzz than broadcast.

"They'll usually ask whether we’re spending money on the spot or where we’re running it, but they know the deal,” says Weitzner. “They need the content, so it’s about feeding the beast.”

So how does it work?

1. Start with the understanding that all news outlets are overworked and starving for new content. The easier you can make it for them to cover a story the better. Providing the video and audio content (in the form of your “newly released ad”) is a no-brainer. Finding some pundit or pundits to gab about it on the set is an even bigger no-brainer.

2. Even if the pundit rips your spot, it really does not matter. Your spot aired for free and got two to three minutes of talk time in the content of a news show. That talk time is way more valuable than any of the actual commercial time you could buy in any newscast. Not only that, the audience is going to watch your spot and formulate their own opinions about it – irrespective of what the talking head says. From a purely branding perspective, the talking head is just filler; it’s something that takes up the time between commercials.

3. Realize that most media organizations have a solid brick wall (becoming thinner by the minute) between the News department and the Sales department. In practical terms, this means that most reporters don’t have any grasp at all on what exactly is the difference between a real TV commercial and what amounts to be a video news release masquerading as a TV commercial. Most reporters honestly do not know the questions to ask.

4. Newsrooms gravitate toward stories that are controversial or funny or both. This is why John McCain’s “Celebrity” ads got so much news time. Never mind the fact only something like two of the four or five that were released ever saw a media buy; all of them made news – ALL OF THEM.

5. The size of the campaign does not matter. It’s the “newsiness” of the spot. If you’ve got an attention getting spot that is well produced and will raise people’s eyebrows, send it to the news agencies with a release. If you don’t have the spot – call someone who can create one for you.

6. The last and perhaps most important part of deploying this tactic is for those of you who actually have a media buying budget. For you, releasing pseudo-spots to news organizations is a great way to test the waters before you actually place a buy. Let them air it for free first. Then, depending on the reaction to the spot, you can actually pay for the ad time.


Now, the magic question of all of this is whether or not this strategy has a shelf life. That all depends on the answers to two questions:

QUESTION 1: How soon will media outlets catch on?

ANSWER: My guess is that most local media outlets have no idea this has been going on (unless, of course, they are reading this issue of Politics Magazine). Not only that, unless this becomes big, public news, they won’t

QUESTION 2: Even if they do catch on, will they care?

ANSWER: Those that do know about it – well – they clearly don’t care.

Good luck.