A Facebook friend chuckled recently, “Newt Gingrich buys full-page newspaper ad in New Hampshire criticizing Romney. Yeahhhh: I suppose if proposing those seven 3-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates hasn’t won over the voters, full-page ads like it’s 1988 should do the trick.”
As retro as it may seem, the full-page ad might provide a decent amount of bang for the buck, if it gets enough attention and is repeated in enough media outlets. The ad did get about 310 mentions online.
According to the advertising department of the New Hampshire Union Leader, the ad ran in black & white in the print edition and cost $4,624.20. If a similar full-page ad runs in the Sunday edition, it will cost $4,907.70; adding color as in the version above would cost $615 beyond the listed fees. The weekday circulation of the Union Leader is 45,536; circulation for the Sunday paper is 64,068.
Longshot Republican candidate Buddy Roemer listed the cost of various forms of advertising in New Hampshire in a recent fundraising e-mail:
It costs:
$1100 for one 30 second TV ad here in New Hampshire
$75 for one 60 second radio ad
$3.50 for one yard sign
$440 for 1000 stamps for mailings
$500 for an email blast to NH voters
$1500 for an auto-dial to NH voters
$2000 for GOTV activities
Presuming the Roemer figures are correct, the Union Leader ad cost the Gingrich campaign the equivalents of four television ads, 61 radio ads, or postage for 10,509 pieces of direct mail. (A friend in the political world told me he found considerably lower TV ad rates for a 30-second ad: $310 per “point”* for the Boston television market (which reaches into New Hampshire), $98 per “point” for the Portland, Maine market, and $82 per “point” for the Burlington, Vermont market.)
I suppose the coming days will show whether it was worthwhile, but it’s easy to wonder whether newspaper advertising can move votes the way television advertising does . . . or whether it’s just preaching to the choir (the Union Leader endorsed Gingrich fairly early).
Newt is putting the same message on television this morning:
* UPDATE: What is a point? A friend in the political communications world sends along this explanation:
Gross rating point (GRP) is a term used in advertising to measure the size of an audience reached by a specific media vehicle or schedule. It is the product of the percentage of the target audience reached by an advertisement, times the frequency they see it in a given campaign. For example, a TV advertisement that is aired 5 times reaching 50% of the target audience, it would have 250 (GRP = 5 × 50%) i.e., GRPs = frequency × % reach. To arrive at your total gross rating point s, add the individual ratings for each media vehicle you are using. You can also calculate GRP by dividing your gross Impressions by the population base and multiplying the answer by 100. GRPs are also used by broadcasters to sell their advertising space to potential customers.
Newt is the true conservative. None of that new-fangled tweety-bird stuff for him, but good old-fashioned Lincoln-Douglas debates, full-page advertising, and this weekend he'll chop down a tree in Manchester and climb up on the stump to make a speech.
Experienced campaigners know that no single method of reaching voters is 100% successful. That is why there are so many different methods. One tries to compass the media universe.
All of these, however, fail to equal the most effective way to reach voters, which is, coincidentally, the cheapest: The candidate or a surrogate knocking on one's front door.
Negative campaigning is okay, I guess, until Gingrich says (to paraphrase) , "well, I am not rich and I don't own a second home in New Hampshire, like some rich people in this race."
That is a Democrat speaking. It is class warfare at its sickest.
Just saying there was a reason Gingrich surged so late and after others.
Same argument goes for Santorum. Why the late surge if he is so viable? I do like Santorum, though, but I want a guy who can win. Santorum did good with O'Rielly last night.
This is a great strategy. It's like a direct marketer using the fax machine ... because "no one" does that anymore. Means he's the only one on it. Five minutes after the TV ad, if that, they don't even remember the ad. It's less for online clicks.
Obviously multi-channel marketing is the overall plan, but a print ad, all by oneself, with a retro feel to the technorati, and a perfectly-good-ad feel to older voters who still read their paper first, this is pretty cool.
Plus which, I'm sure the message is being repeated online as well -- not just the story of ad, but the ads themselves.
Newt Gingrich is a disaster. His self serving nature is vivid.
And it is obvious, as he feels he can go after Romney under cover of the superficial fashion which deems someone acceptable amongst us - which is greatly enabled by the very poor offering from the sideline professional crowd.
Gingrich is no Reaganite. He only has himself to blame, especially his 1.8 Million in graft from Fannie and Freddie.
So many are losing credibility in this Primary from the once sound side, it is incredible to watch the fashionable following sink. It isn't conservative.
Now we see some overtly selling Rick Santorum. We all know Rick from his 17 years in Washington very well. The hype is again romanticizing in a desperate effort to create a new fantasy. It is obvious, overt, and obtuse. Some just don't learn.
Newt is the true conservative. None of that new-fangled tweety-bird stuff for him, but good old-fashioned Lincoln-Douglas debates, full-page advertising, and this weekend he'll chop down a tree in Manchester and climb up on the stump to make a speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly if he can get his fat you know what up there.
He's just embarrassing himself with these fit of piques Mr I'm above it all and will only run a positive campaign.
No Newt is good Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExperienced campaigners know that no single method of reaching voters is 100% successful. That is why there are so many different methods. One tries to compass the media universe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of these, however, fail to equal the most effective way to reach voters, which is, coincidentally, the cheapest: The candidate or a surrogate knocking on one's front door.
Negative campaigning is okay, I guess, until Gingrich says (to paraphrase) , "well, I am not rich and I don't own a second home in New Hampshire, like some rich people in this race."
That is a Democrat speaking. It is class warfare at its sickest.
Just saying there was a reason Gingrich surged so late and after others.
Same argument goes for Santorum. Why the late surge if he is so viable? I do like Santorum, though, but I want a guy who can win. Santorum did good with O'Rielly last night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt doesn't have to spend the money. He just has to make the ads and leak them to the press and voila, better coverage at no cost. Brilliant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a great strategy. It's like a direct marketer using the fax machine ... because "no one" does that anymore. Means he's the only one on it. Five minutes after the TV ad, if that, they don't even remember the ad. It's less for online clicks.
Obviously multi-channel marketing is the overall plan, but a print ad, all by oneself, with a retro feel to the technorati, and a perfectly-good-ad feel to older voters who still read their paper first, this is pretty cool.
Plus which, I'm sure the message is being repeated online as well -- not just the story of ad, but the ads themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gingrich is a disaster. His self serving nature is vivid.
And it is obvious, as he feels he can go after Romney under cover of the superficial fashion which deems someone acceptable amongst us - which is greatly enabled by the very poor offering from the sideline professional crowd.
Gingrich is no Reaganite. He only has himself to blame, especially his 1.8 Million in graft from Fannie and Freddie.
So many are losing credibility in this Primary from the once sound side, it is incredible to watch the fashionable following sink. It isn't conservative.
Ann Coulter is right again:"The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."
Now we see some overtly selling Rick Santorum. We all know Rick from his 17 years in Washington very well. The hype is again romanticizing in a desperate effort to create a new fantasy. It is obvious, overt, and obtuse. Some just don't learn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on one's written record, the only person who comes to mind as "obvious, overt, and obtuse" is Old Fan...obsessive comes to mind too
Seriously, your comments are a bore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse