Stomping Grounds: Does broadcast TV still work?; Drones and more drones; and low-turnout runoffs

New Jerseyans aren’t always civil, but it’s still possible for a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican to have a rational and pleasant conversation about politics in the state. Dan Bryan is a former senior advisor to Gov. Phil Murphy and is now the owner of his own public affairs firm, and Alex Wilkes is an attorney and former executive director of America Rising PAC who advises Republican candidates in New Jersey and across the nation, including the New Jersey GOP. Dan and Alex are both experienced strategists who are currently in the room where high-level decisions are made. They will get together weekly with New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein to discuss politics and issues.

Ken Martin, a candidate for Democratic National Chairman, took an unusual shot at the Washington, D.C., consultant class last week, saying their advice to steer candidates to spend excessively on broadcast TV is linked to their own profit incentives and not winning elections.  Is he right?

Alex Wilkes: There’s no doubt that the Democratic Party needs to do a full accounting of how its campaign resources were spent. I love good optics just as much as anyone, but 100,000 dollars on a single stage during a 90-day campaign – among other outrageous expenses – is just insane. If the party ever wants some of its major contributors to give again, heads need to roll.

That being said, I do think that in the aftermath of a losing campaign there will always be accusations that one type of vendor fleeced the contributors. Sometimes that’s true, but I’ve also seen that charge offered in bad faith. Like if you’re a mail guy, of course you might level an accusation that there was too much tv – and same for digital, polling, and everyone all down the line. I can safely say this because I don’t have ownership interest in those verticals (anyone looking for a partner so my kids can one day go to college?).

The bottom line: the Democrats lost because they pulled a last-minute stunt after hiding a senile President from the American people and replaced him with an even worse candidate somehow, who then ran a terrible campaign. All of the Democrats’ money and all of the Democrats’ money would never have been able to put Kamala back together again.

Dan Bryan: I can’t speak to the motivations, but Martin is completely right about the Democratic Party’s overreliance on broadcast as the cornerstone of their campaign strategy.

It’s become a bit of a religion in DC – “broadcast” is treated like the crown jewel of any media spend, and anything and everything in your campaign should be sacrificed at the altar to ensure broadcast is paramount. Yes, in theory, broadcast still gets you more eyeballs than any other means of communicating, and it should still play a role moving forward. But there are plenty of problems with it.

In the final weeks of an election, when campaigns should be concerned about stretching their dollars and ensuring efficiency in their communication and targeting, their main mode of communication is both wildly expensive and completely inefficient. Buying broadcast time in the New York media market means that anywhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the audience seeing your ad doesn’t even live in New Jersey, and more than half in the Philly market.

 

Consumption habits have also changed dramatically. Who even watches TV commercials anymore? Sorry for being anecdotal, but I know my grandmother watches almost every Yankees game on TV. She is the exact demographic that political consultants think they’re reaching with a broadcast buy. But there’s a small problem with that – she hasn’t watched a commercial in years. When the ads come on, she’s on her iPad or her phone, just like the rest of us. Again – do you know anyone that sits and watches TV commercials anymore? Me neither – so why are Democratic campaigns relying so heavily on them?

Compare that, for instance, to 15-second unskippable pre-roll on Youtube. It’s just short enough that you’ll sit there and watch it, and just long enough to get your message across. It’s more efficient, and it’s more targeted than a broadcast buy. Youtube audiences range young and old, across all demographics. Tack on streaming services (Spotify, Hulu, etc) and all of a sudden we’re dangerously close to reaching people where they really are in 2024.

So why the continued overreliance on broadcast? I think the idea that media consultants are prioritizing their profits over what’s best for the campaign is overly cynical (or maybe I’m overly naive). They want a winner as much as the candidate does. I think this is just a classic case of “this is what we’ve always done” – you don’t get blamed for losing while utilizing the conventional wisdom, but you’ll get blamed if you go against it.

Democrats must rethink the way their campaigns communicate. There will always be a role for broadcast, but if we continue to rely on it while Republican strategies leap light years ahead of us, we’ll continue to lose.

The story people are talking about in New Jersey is the sudden sightings of drones. Despite reports confirmed by Governor Murphy and the New Jersey State Police, a spokesman for the National Security Council said they can’t corroborate those reports.  As communications professionals, what would you advise elected officials to be doing?

Dan: This story has penetrated with the public in New Jersey unlike any in a long time. It’s a go-to for casual conversation with friends and neighbors, and every gathering this holiday season will feature a drunk uncle’s take on what’s *really* happening out there.

Anytime the public is this concerned with an issue of this magnitude, elected officials have to engage. But it’s OK to admit what you know for certain, and what you don’t. Be upfront with the public and you’ll build trust – jump to conclusions and be proved wrong, and you lose it, likely for good.

Show the public you’re taking the issue seriously and keep them informed as best you can. And be 110% sure of the information you’re putting out.

 

Alex: I don’t even know how to advise someone on communications when they are seemingly unaware of what it means to be a human being.

First, there’s the Biden Administration’s insulting strategy of gaslighting the American people into thinking that we’re making it up, like John Kirby, or Secretary Mayorkas suggesting that these are toys we’ve obtained at our local 7-11.

Second, there’s Governor Murphy and the tightly-scripted Democratic candidates for Governor who appear to have zero intellectual curiosity about what’s happening here.

In short, if you lie to people and you look dumb doing it, there’s no communications strategy that can help you.

Assemblyman Brian Bergen, a former Army helicopter combat pilot, said he walked out of a State Police briefing for legislators on drones feeling more concerned and less informed than when he walked in.  What kind of risk do public officials take when they brief on matters when they’re not certain of the facts?

Alex: There are three possibilities here.

First, that this is some sort of government-sanctioned exercise. If that’s the case, the incoming Trump administration needs to drill down on the cost-benefit analysis that was made for needlessly terrorizing civilians and creating a panic.

Second, that this is a government-sanctioned mission critical to our national security. If this is true, it might be unpleasant, but this area sustained the worst terrorist attack in our country’s history. Dan and I grew up under shifting terror threat levels and briefings from government officials about ongoing investigations or foiled plots. It’s the awful reality in which we live that there are bad people who hate America. New Jerseyans and New Yorkers can handle it.

Third, that this is a threat – foreign or domestic – that we have not yet identified. This is a terrifying possibility, but again, well-dispensed updates to the public and top-notch briefings for public officials is the way to go here. The half-assed gaslighting and shoulder shrugging is not.

Dan: Briefing the public on a matter you’re unsure of is a massive risk. Government officials should be clear about what they know, and what they don’t.

They can’t control stunts like that of Assemblyman Bergen, who just happened to walk out of the hearing to a throng of cameras (what a coincidence!). But they can control the message they send to elected officials and the public: this is our objective, this is what we know, this is what we don’t, and these are our next steps.

The public’s trust is earned over years, and lost in a heartbeat. In situations like this, measure twice and cut once.

Trenton held a runoff election for a South Ward city council seat on December 3 and turnout was just 9% in a race where the margin of victory was just one vote.  New Jersey had twelve election days in 2024 and many of them seem designed to not attract voters.  Is there a better way, or is electing people to office with 91% of the electorate staying home acceptable?

Dan: I’m not a fan of runoff elections in general, but having a runoff election in the middle of the holiday season is completely insane.

So the better way is one of two things: move to winner take all, or try ranked-choice voting. Both options are far preferable to forcing campaigns to run another election, and voters to vote twice in a month.

Alex: Should government make elections as accessible and well-publicized as possible? Of course. But this is a free society and choosing not to vote is a valid option.