- AOL
- Ad networks
- Advertising
- Affiliate Marketing
- Best Practices
- Blogs
- Branding
- CGM
- Careers
- Classifieds
- Content
- Creative
- Design
- Duly Noted
- Games
- IAC/InterActiveCorp
- IM
- Legal & Policy
- Local
- Marketing
- Measurement
- Media
- Microsoft
- Mobile
- MySpace
- New/Cool
- Noteworthy
- Off-Site
- People
- Privacy
- Rich/Streaming/Video
- Search
- Social Networks
- Syndication/RSS
- Viral/Buzz
- Virtual Worlds
- Web Analytics
- Worst Practices
- Yahoo
- YouTube
- agencies
- cannes
- cross-media
- publicis
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Thompson's Web Guy Talks Strategy Post-Battle | Main | The Googling of an Icon »
January 25, 2008
Did Clinton and Obama National Ad Drops Dis the Web?
So, all the news sites are covering the big semi-national ad drops by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. The irony, in this case, I suppose should have been expected: The news sites didn't get any of those ad dollars. From what I could tell in browsing and refreshing countless pages on big national news sites today, including CNN.com, NYTimes.com, WashingtonPost.com, FoxNews.com and Yahoo News, the campaigns have neglected Web ads when it comes to this big national advertising push.
This is purely unscientific, of course. I may not have been served the ads even if they're running, or they may not be targeted to New York City, or they may not be running on any of the sites chosen for the test. Still, I figure if these sites did have some big ad buys in, they wouldn't be running University of Phoenix and Lending Tree ads on homepages and politics sections. They also probably wouldn't serve up the same pre-roll Netflix and Microsoft ads over and over in news and politics video clips. (See the screen grab below of CNN.com's Election Center 2008 section displaying a University of Phoenix ad).
The campaigns most likely realized they'd get so much so-called "earned media" out of hyping up national ad launches, there'd be no point in actually paying for Web media, at least in more prominent placements on those sorts of sites. For instance, NYTimes.com coverage features a video companion piece including snippets of the TV ads.
Posted by Kate Kaye at January 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Digg this!
Add to del.icio.us 
Stumble It!
Comments
Post a comment
- Send us feedback |
- FAQ |
- Technical questions or bug reports? |
- Newsletter problems? |
- Site Map |
- ClickZ RSS feeds
- Incisive Interactive Marketing LLC. 2009 All rights reserved. |
- Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints & Permissions |
- Privacy Policy
The lack of web advertising reflects the mentality of the campaign media people. They are TV types and haven't taken the time to learn the internet. They see it as a fundraising mechanism, period.
But your example of big media sites is naive I believe. It's not the big sites that they should be advertising. Not with state primaries or caucuses. They should be advertising on web based media outlets where they are campaigning.
Obama is having a hard time getting Latino votes: he should be advertising on Latino sites.
McCain should be targeting some financial sites so he can talk about economic policy so he can mitigate Republicans that don't like the fact that he voted against Bush's tax cuts.
All politics is local. Or about core issues. Big media sites time will come later.
Disclosure: in 2004 I worked for one of the presidential campaigns and not much has changed.
Jonathan Trenn January 28, 2008 7:47 PM