{"id":4164,"date":"2016-11-07T09:00:48","date_gmt":"2016-11-07T09:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spot-on.com\/?p=4164"},"modified":"2016-11-07T09:00:48","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T09:00:48","slug":"lets-make-this-the-last-year-that-digital-didnt-know-how-to-handle-election-ads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/2016\/11\/07\/lets-make-this-the-last-year-that-digital-didnt-know-how-to-handle-election-ads\/","title":{"rendered":"The Last Year That Digital Didn\u2019t Know How to Handle Election Ads?"},"content":{"rendered":"
This article\u00a0appeared in AdWeek<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Political professionals will use the word “watershed” when they talk about<\/p>\n 2016 for many reasons.\u00a0 For those of us in digital advertising, 2016 is the year spending went from a river to a flood.<\/p>\n But many of the boats lifted in this rising tide were piloted by inexperienced captains. Their na\u00efvet\u00e9 has created potentially dangerous currents for those of us who respect free speech in political discourse\u2014no matter how critical or sometimes harsh it is.<\/p>\n With a projected $1 billion on the table for online ad buys before elections started, it was clear that campaigns were going to buy a lot more advertising on mobile phones, tablets and computers. And spend they did. It’s estimated that Facebook alone took in $300 million in political ad dollars.<\/p>\n There’s more on the way. My firm, Spot-On<\/a>, recently surveyed political campaign managers and ad buyers. Almost 60 percent characterized the digital market as “an emerging channel that I want to understand better”. The same number said they had increased their spending this year, some by as much as 25 percent.<\/p>\n But this tsunami of cash has triggered behavior illustrating just how unprepared\u2014and silly\u2014online publishers get when faced with questions about political ads.<\/p>\n Facebook CEO Marc Zuckerberg intervened to stop his employees from labeling Donald Trump’s comments as “hate speech,” but similar discussions are occurring outside that walled garden. Across the Internet, online publishers are making arbitrary and capricious demands on political advertisers.<\/p>\n Here are just a few examples:<\/p>\n Candidates want to be online because that’s where voters are spending time. But outlets should not be in the business of picking winners by deciding the quality, nature or tenor of political ads.<\/p>\n With his eye on Facebook’s bottom line, Zuckerberg put down a “mini-mutiny” about Donald Trump’s comments. He made the right decision. But who’s going to tell the ad\/ops guy at tronc that Jerry Brown’s endorsement is public record? Can we expect the same treatment for a Republican candidate? Who’s going to challenge the faceless review process that labeled “Just like Donald Trump” as a negative statement? Clearly Trump’s children would disagree and my bet is they use Spotify (or used to\u2026).<\/p>\n As things stand now, it’s up to each campaign to argue the law and navigate unchartered waters. Frustration abounds.<\/p>\n There’s a solution. Online publishers can imitate cable companies. Cablers are not required to observe the Federal Communications Commission regulations for political ads. But they do. During election season, cable and broadcast have similar pricing structures, standards and review processes. Every political ad maker knows how it works\u2014one reason political money keeps flowing to TV.<\/p>\n The Internet Advertising Bureau<\/a> or Digital Content Next<\/a> could easily bring online parties together to set some basic guidelines and standards for political ad review and placement. Here are some ideas to get them started:<\/p>\n This was a good year to espouse left-center, left-leaning causes, as Spotify, tronc and some Facebook employees clearly have. But political tides ebb and flow. Today’s conventional wisdom can be tomorrow’s punch line.<\/p>\n That’s why it’s important for publishers to act now, to anchor sound business practices that are clear, straightforward and, most of all, fair. The year’s deluge of online ad dollars is clearly a sign of a robust market\u2014with more to come. But it needs to be channeled and managed, soon, while the floodwaters are receding,\u00a0 not as the next high tide of money arrives for a sure-to-be contentious 2018 election season.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This article\u00a0appeared in AdWeek\u00a0 Political professionals will use the word “watershed” when they talk about 2016 for many reasons.\u00a0 For those of us in digital advertising, 2016 is the year spending went from a river to a flood. But many of the boats lifted in this rising tide were piloted by inexperienced captains. Their na\u00efvet\u00e9 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-spotlight"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spot-on.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n