WEBVTT - Do Political TV Ads Really Change Minds?

0:00:01.890 --> 0:00:07.950
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to BrainStuff, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey, BrainStuff. Lauren

0:00:07.970 --> 0:00:14.400
<v Speaker 1>Vogelbaum here. The 2026 United States midterm elections are fast approaching.

0:00:14.740 --> 0:00:16.720
<v Speaker 1>And if you live in a state with a hotly

0:00:16.780 --> 0:00:21.440
<v Speaker 1>contested race, you're probably being blasted by political TV ads.

0:00:22.590 --> 0:00:25.650
<v Speaker 1>As of late September, campaigns across the United States are

0:00:25.690 --> 0:00:30.350
<v Speaker 1>projected to spend a total of $ 11. 6 billion on advertising

0:00:30.550 --> 0:00:34.070
<v Speaker 1>on TV, in print, and online by Election Day in November,

0:00:34.430 --> 0:00:38.699
<v Speaker 1>according to the intelligence firm Ad Impact. That's far more

0:00:38.740 --> 0:00:42.760
<v Speaker 1>than the 2022 midterms, which came in at just $ 8. 9 billion,

0:00:43.140 --> 0:00:46.199
<v Speaker 1>and even the 2024 presidential cycle, which came in at

0:00:46.200 --> 0:00:51.260
<v Speaker 1>$ 11. 2 billion. This year's record spending on television and other

0:00:51.320 --> 0:00:54.240
<v Speaker 1>types of political ads reflects the high stakes of the

0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:59.260
<v Speaker 1>2026 midterms. The Republicans hold both chambers of Congress by

0:00:59.340 --> 0:01:03.610
<v Speaker 1>slim majorities, the Senate by 53 versus 45 seats, and

0:01:03.710 --> 0:01:09.270
<v Speaker 1>the House of Representatives by 218 versus 212. That means

0:01:09.290 --> 0:01:11.470
<v Speaker 1>that the Democratic Party needs to gain a net of

0:01:11.610 --> 0:01:14.150
<v Speaker 1>only four seats in the Senate and three districts in

0:01:14.170 --> 0:01:18.819
<v Speaker 1>the House to win majorities. Back in 2022, during the

0:01:18.860 --> 0:01:23.479
<v Speaker 1>last and also blisteringly contested midterm cycle, HowStuffWorks spoke with

0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:27.270
<v Speaker 1>Christopher Warshaw, now a political science professor at the McCourt

0:01:27.330 --> 0:01:32.410
<v Speaker 1>School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. He said, campaigns

0:01:32.490 --> 0:01:35.350
<v Speaker 1>hope that by buying a few extra thousand ads, they

0:01:35.370 --> 0:01:37.970
<v Speaker 1>can put their candidates over the top and win control

0:01:37.990 --> 0:01:40.959
<v Speaker 1>of the government for their party. the American public is

0:01:41.020 --> 0:01:44.699
<v Speaker 1>more polarized than ever before, but there's still this swath

0:01:44.740 --> 0:01:47.960
<v Speaker 1>of independent voters in the middle who are trying to decide.

0:01:50.220 --> 0:01:53.940
<v Speaker 1>And political ads, despite how annoying and even stressful they

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:57.890
<v Speaker 1>can be, have proven effective, especially in the tightest races.

0:01:58.970 --> 0:02:02.450
<v Speaker 1>A bombardment of ads doesn't necessarily turn people off, but

0:02:02.510 --> 0:02:05.810
<v Speaker 1>research has shown that the 1,000th ad is basically no

0:02:05.870 --> 0:02:10.380
<v Speaker 1>less effective than the 10th. Take the 2016 and 2020

0:02:10.380 --> 0:02:15.150
<v Speaker 1>presidential elections, for example. The 2016 election was decided by

0:02:15.250 --> 0:02:19.150
<v Speaker 1>razor-thin margins of victory for Republican candidate Donald Trump in

0:02:19.210 --> 0:02:24.570
<v Speaker 1>battleground states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2020, Joe

0:02:24.590 --> 0:02:27.970
<v Speaker 1>Biden and the Democrats spent heavily on political TV ads

0:02:28.090 --> 0:02:32.700
<v Speaker 1>in those same battleground markets. As Election Day 2020 approached,

0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:36.960
<v Speaker 1>pro-Biden TV ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads by the thousands in

0:02:37.020 --> 0:02:42.560
<v Speaker 1>key markets, and Biden won the day. Back in 2022, Warshaw,

0:02:42.660 --> 0:02:45.140
<v Speaker 1>along with two other researchers, published a study in the

0:02:45.180 --> 0:02:48.520
<v Speaker 1>journal American Political Science Review that looked at data from

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:50.080
<v Speaker 1>more than 2,250 U.S. elections from the years 2000 through 2016,

0:02:50.060 --> 0:02:58.500
<v Speaker 1>not just presidential races. They found that for every additional

0:02:58.620 --> 0:03:02.340
<v Speaker 1>thousand TV ads that a campaign runs compared to its opponent,

0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>it can capture 0.2 percentage points more of the vote.

0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:11.000
<v Speaker 1>And the results of the 2020 presidential election seemed to

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:14.780
<v Speaker 1>bear this out, with small but significant swings happening in

0:03:14.900 --> 0:03:20.540
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. However, it's a complicated equation. In the

0:03:20.540 --> 0:03:25.489
<v Speaker 1>2024 presidential election, The volumes of ads that were pro-Harris

0:03:25.550 --> 0:03:31.339
<v Speaker 1>versus pro-Trump were very close. Pro-Democrat groups spent more on advertising,

0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:37.900
<v Speaker 1>nearly 1.8 billion versus pro-Republicans 1.4. But neither the numbers

0:03:38.020 --> 0:03:40.700
<v Speaker 1>of ads nor the sheer money spent could win the

0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:45.190
<v Speaker 1>election for Harris and the Democrats. Warshaw and colleagues did

0:03:45.250 --> 0:03:48.110
<v Speaker 1>find that TV ads had a much greater effect on

0:03:48.190 --> 0:03:52.810
<v Speaker 1>down-ballot races compared to presidential contests. three times greater for

0:03:52.850 --> 0:03:56.670
<v Speaker 1>Senate races, four times greater for gubernatorial races, and 12

0:03:56.670 --> 0:04:00.030
<v Speaker 1>times greater for the more obscure races like state treasurer.

0:04:01.150 --> 0:04:04.250
<v Speaker 1>The reason may be that political TV ads function to

0:04:04.330 --> 0:04:08.420
<v Speaker 1>convey some sort of new information to the voter. Warshaw said,

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:11.580
<v Speaker 1>At the presidential level, ads don't give you much new

0:04:11.620 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 1>information that you didn't already have. We already knew so

0:04:14.900 --> 0:04:18.860
<v Speaker 1>much about Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Whereas the races

0:04:18.940 --> 0:04:22.080
<v Speaker 1>for the House or Governor or Senate people are following

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:25.610
<v Speaker 1>those a lot less closely. Voters might not know anything

0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:31.330
<v Speaker 1>about those candidates beyond their party affiliation. For that target

0:04:31.350 --> 0:04:35.250
<v Speaker 1>demographic of undecided voters, any new information provided by a

0:04:35.290 --> 0:04:37.990
<v Speaker 1>TV ad about a state or local race could swing

0:04:38.029 --> 0:04:41.940
<v Speaker 1>them in the campaign's desired direction. This is also a

0:04:41.980 --> 0:04:44.500
<v Speaker 1>lesson for political donors who want the most bang for

0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:47.600
<v Speaker 1>their buck. A donation to a presidential campaign is a

0:04:47.820 --> 0:04:50.190
<v Speaker 1>drop in the bucket, but that same donation to a

0:04:50.210 --> 0:04:53.910
<v Speaker 1>down-ballot race could buy more ads that actually influenced the outcome.

0:04:55.130 --> 0:04:58.530
<v Speaker 1>Television advertising has been part of the presidential election landscape

0:04:58.670 --> 0:05:03.390
<v Speaker 1>since 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower's team hired the Madison Avenue

0:05:03.550 --> 0:05:06.550
<v Speaker 1>ad man who also came up with the Eminem's Melt-in-Your-Mouth,

0:05:06.630 --> 0:05:11.549
<v Speaker 1>Not-in-Your-Hand campaign. At that time, only around 35% of American

0:05:11.589 --> 0:05:14.980
<v Speaker 1>homes even had a television. And there was serious debate

0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:17.740
<v Speaker 1>about whether it was appropriate for political candidates to run

0:05:17.860 --> 0:05:22.910
<v Speaker 1>ads on TV at all. Eisenhower's opponent, Adlai Stevenson, felt

0:05:22.990 --> 0:05:31.040
<v Speaker 1>that they should be above it. He said, Even TV

0:05:31.190 --> 0:05:35.219
<v Speaker 1>networks like NBC and CBS discouraged the campaigns from buying

0:05:35.339 --> 0:05:38.100
<v Speaker 1>ad time in a move to maintain the dignity of

0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:43.290
<v Speaker 1>the office. But Eisenhower and his TV-inclusive I Like Ike

0:05:43.390 --> 0:05:47.110
<v Speaker 1>campaign wound up winning in a landslide, with the highest

0:05:47.210 --> 0:05:52.250
<v Speaker 1>popular vote total since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936. It wasn't

0:05:52.330 --> 0:05:56.860
<v Speaker 1>until the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race that negative campaign ads debuted.

0:05:57.500 --> 0:06:01.660
<v Speaker 1>The Kennedy team actually pulled a quote from Eisenhower slamming Nixon,

0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>who was Eisenhower's vice president in that 1952 election. And

0:06:06.500 --> 0:06:10.420
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't until the 2008 Obama-McCain race that complex data

0:06:10.480 --> 0:06:13.919
<v Speaker 1>analytics entered the picture, with Obama's team pulling ahead with

0:06:13.980 --> 0:06:18.900
<v Speaker 1>help from ad micro-targeting. Lots of studies have been done

0:06:18.990 --> 0:06:21.830
<v Speaker 1>on the effectiveness of political TV ads over the years,

0:06:22.190 --> 0:06:25.890
<v Speaker 1>and have shown mixed results. It seems that when you

0:06:25.930 --> 0:06:29.150
<v Speaker 1>look at the big picture over time, these ads do

0:06:29.250 --> 0:06:34.860
<v Speaker 1>have limited persuasive power. And the content doesn't necessarily matter.

0:06:35.690 --> 0:06:40.260
<v Speaker 1>All types of ads— positive, negative, partisan, nonpartisan— seem to have the

0:06:40.320 --> 0:06:45.660
<v Speaker 1>same small effect on voting outcomes. Warshaw and colleagues' research

0:06:45.800 --> 0:06:49.540
<v Speaker 1>showed that the largest plausible effect of TV ads influencing

0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:52.460
<v Speaker 1>people to vote for a certain candidate is only one

0:06:52.500 --> 0:06:56.460
<v Speaker 1>to two percentage points. So, if he was consulting a

0:06:56.480 --> 0:06:59.020
<v Speaker 1>campaign on how to spend its money, he said he

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:03.050
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't automatically recommend pouring millions of dollars into television. It

0:07:03.070 --> 0:07:06.490
<v Speaker 1>would depend on the market you're pitching to. A solidly

0:07:06.630 --> 0:07:09.210
<v Speaker 1>red or blue state isn't going to be swung by

0:07:09.270 --> 0:07:12.630
<v Speaker 1>such a small amount. But as we've seen in the

0:07:12.650 --> 0:07:16.180
<v Speaker 1>past few election cycles, there are plenty of contests that

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:20.420
<v Speaker 1>have been decided by less than one percentage point. Your

0:07:20.460 --> 0:07:23.630
<v Speaker 1>vote always counts, even if you feel like you're shouting

0:07:23.670 --> 0:07:29.820
<v Speaker 1>into a red or blue void. But okay, it's 2026.

0:07:29.820 --> 0:07:33.500
<v Speaker 1>The way that we consume media is changing fast, so

0:07:33.780 --> 0:07:38.190
<v Speaker 1>is the influence of TV ads changing too? We're going

0:07:38.230 --> 0:07:40.190
<v Speaker 1>to get into that, but first we're going to get

0:07:40.230 --> 0:07:49.760
<v Speaker 1>into a quick word from our sponsors. The research from

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 1>Warshaw and colleagues that we've been talking about looked at

0:07:52.440 --> 0:07:56.420
<v Speaker 1>data from the years 2000 to 2016, a time when

0:07:56.500 --> 0:08:00.320
<v Speaker 1>most American voters watched hours of cable television every day.

0:08:01.010 --> 0:08:04.770
<v Speaker 1>But subscriptions to cable or other paid live TV services

0:08:05.090 --> 0:08:10.990
<v Speaker 1>peaked in 2011, with some 82% of Americans subscribing. Between

0:08:11.030 --> 0:08:14.560
<v Speaker 1>then and now, 46% of Americans have cut the cord,

0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:19.330
<v Speaker 1>and the number is growing every year. As of 2025,

0:08:19.330 --> 0:08:23.470
<v Speaker 1>according to a Pew Research Center report, only 36% of

0:08:23.530 --> 0:08:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Americans subscribed to cable or satellite TV at home. Compare

0:08:28.630 --> 0:08:34.020
<v Speaker 1>that to 83% who watched streaming services. There's obviously some

0:08:34.160 --> 0:08:38.040
<v Speaker 1>overlap there, but 55% of people said that they only

0:08:38.140 --> 0:08:44.080
<v Speaker 1>watched streaming at home. Nevertheless, broadcast TV ads are still

0:08:44.160 --> 0:08:49.520
<v Speaker 1>the single biggest spending category in 2026's campaign advertising, estimated

0:08:49.600 --> 0:08:53.740
<v Speaker 1>to make up some 48% of the aforementioned $ 11. 6 billion

0:08:53.980 --> 0:08:58.110
<v Speaker 1>that's projected to be spent. A rising category of ad

0:08:58.130 --> 0:09:02.250
<v Speaker 1>spending is in the relatively new market for connected television,

0:09:02.710 --> 0:09:06.850
<v Speaker 1>which encompasses ads on streaming services like Netflix and apps

0:09:06.970 --> 0:09:12.220
<v Speaker 1>like YouTube. A relatively small 23% of 2026 campaign ad

0:09:12.260 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 1>budgets are estimated to be going to connected TV ads. However,

0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:20.210
<v Speaker 1>the increase in spending that we're seeing over the 2024

0:09:20.210 --> 0:09:24.130
<v Speaker 1>election cycle is expected to be almost exclusively in this category.

0:09:25.170 --> 0:09:27.589
<v Speaker 1>Digital ads in general have been found to have an

0:09:27.790 --> 0:09:31.590
<v Speaker 1>even smaller effect on voters than traditional TV ads, but

0:09:31.730 --> 0:09:37.190
<v Speaker 1>political advertisers are getting smarter. On ad-supported apps and streaming services,

0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:42.320
<v Speaker 1>campaigns can run hyper-targeted ads based on the subscriber's personal data.

0:09:42.340 --> 0:09:47.300
<v Speaker 1>Not all streaming platforms currently allow political ads, but for

0:09:47.340 --> 0:09:50.530
<v Speaker 1>those that do, two people who live on the same

0:09:50.590 --> 0:09:53.630
<v Speaker 1>block and watch the same show could be served different

0:09:53.690 --> 0:09:57.510
<v Speaker 1>campaign ads based on all kinds of household data, including

0:09:57.590 --> 0:10:02.480
<v Speaker 1>the resident's age, sex, race or ethnicity, voting record, party affiliation,

0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 1>or even the home's estimated market value. This might be

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.900
<v Speaker 1>key because research has shown that campaign ads tend to

0:10:10.980 --> 0:10:16.530
<v Speaker 1>reinforce or confirm viewers' existing biases. That, for example, showing

0:10:16.570 --> 0:10:21.310
<v Speaker 1>a pro-Republican ad to self-identified Republicans will mobilize them to

0:10:21.429 --> 0:10:25.590
<v Speaker 1>vote Republican. But that showing the same ad to self-identified

0:10:25.670 --> 0:10:30.150
<v Speaker 1>Democrats will backlash, mobilizing them to vote against the Republican.

0:10:31.250 --> 0:10:35.990
<v Speaker 1>So ad targeting could come really in handy for maximizing mobilization,

0:10:36.309 --> 0:10:41.439
<v Speaker 1>minimizing backlash, and perhaps most importantly, reaching those undecided voters.

0:10:42.809 --> 0:10:47.740
<v Speaker 1>And campaigns are getting really granular. Obviously, not every ad

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:50.260
<v Speaker 1>is going to resonate with every audience, but it's not

0:10:50.300 --> 0:10:54.900
<v Speaker 1>just preferences for positive versus negative campaigning or issues versus

0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:59.569
<v Speaker 1>personality anymore. Research has shown that as of the past decade,

0:10:59.990 --> 0:11:02.630
<v Speaker 1>a lot of traditional wisdom about what makes a campaign

0:11:02.670 --> 0:11:07.650
<v Speaker 1>successful has gone out the window. Instead, it increasingly seems

0:11:07.730 --> 0:11:11.110
<v Speaker 1>that every demographic of voters going into every race has

0:11:11.170 --> 0:11:15.470
<v Speaker 1>its own priorities and preferences. Big money is now going

0:11:15.510 --> 0:11:21.190
<v Speaker 1>into experimentation with different iterations of campaign ads. In such

0:11:21.210 --> 0:11:25.170
<v Speaker 1>a fractured and contested political environment, you can run from

0:11:25.230 --> 0:11:29.670
<v Speaker 1>campaign ads, but you can't hide. Of course, all of

0:11:29.710 --> 0:11:31.630
<v Speaker 1>the ads in the world won't make a difference if

0:11:31.670 --> 0:11:35.020
<v Speaker 1>you don't actually vote. Look up your state or local

0:11:35.059 --> 0:11:37.559
<v Speaker 1>elections office and make sure that you're registered and know

0:11:37.620 --> 0:11:40.520
<v Speaker 1>how to vote, either via a mail-in ballot or in

0:11:40.580 --> 0:11:44.900
<v Speaker 1>person during early voting or on election day. There are

0:11:44.950 --> 0:11:47.830
<v Speaker 1>a few scams out there right now, so be sure

0:11:47.870 --> 0:11:51.370
<v Speaker 1>that the website you check has an address that ends in. gov.

0:11:56.250 --> 0:11:58.890
<v Speaker 1>Today's episode is based on the article, Do Campaign TV

0:11:59.050 --> 0:12:03.010
<v Speaker 1>Ads Really Change Voters' Minds? on HowStuffWorks.com, written by Dave Ruse.

0:12:03.710 --> 0:12:06.310
<v Speaker 1>BrainStuff is a production of iHeart Podcasts in partnership with

0:12:06.330 --> 0:12:10.020
<v Speaker 1>HowStuffWorks.com and is produced by Tyler Klang. For more shows

0:12:10.040 --> 0:12:13.780
<v Speaker 1>from iHeart Podcasts, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or

0:12:13.850 --> 0:12:15.590
<v Speaker 1>wherever you listen to your favorite shows.