As the 2024 presidential election approaches, many voters, including 19-year-old Hayden Cook from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, have already made their electoral choices. However, despite his best efforts to limit exposure to political ads—by using a YouTube blocker and opting out of cable TV—Cook finds himself inundated with advertisements daily. “It’s still so constant,” he remarks, noting that his short commute often includes multiple ads on the radio.
This election cycle is expected to witness an unprecedented expenditure of over $10 billion (£7.6 billion) on political advertising, marking a 20-25% increase from the previous record set in 2020. A significant portion of this spending will target a select few battleground states, with nearly $1 billion earmarked for Pennsylvania alone.
According to AdImpact, Pennsylvania is projected to attract around $935 million in political ad spending this year. This includes approximately $450 million dedicated to the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Notably, this figure excludes the extensive free media coverage candidates receive while campaigning in the state.
For political enthusiasts like Cook, the continuous flow of advertisements is both amusing and perplexing. His family’s home has received numerous mailers from conservative groups, despite their Democratic affiliation. “It’s absolutely non-stop,” Cook says. “It’s everywhere.”
In stark contrast, the UK’s election campaigns are strictly regulated, limited to 25 working days with capped spending and prohibitions on radio and television advertising. This difference makes the chaotic nature of U.S. campaigns appear almost absurd, especially considering that many voters, like Cook, have already decided whom to support. Recent polls indicate that only about 3% of voters remain undecided—significantly lower than in previous elections.
Despite the overwhelming ad presence, polls reveal a close race between Trump and Harris, with many voters expressing dissatisfaction with their options. Erika Fowler, a professor of government at Wesleyan University, emphasizes that while advertising may not significantly sway most voters, it can be crucial in close races. “If the margin is in play, it matters a lot to the overall outcome,” she explains.
Ad Spending Trends
If financial backing determined election outcomes, Harris would have a clear advantage. Her campaign has consistently outperformed Trump’s in fundraising, starting September with $235 million compared to Trump’s $135 million. In August, Harris’s campaign spent about $135 million on advertising, while Trump managed only $57 million.
However, electoral success relies on more than just financial resources. In the past two elections, Trump was also outspent but leveraged media coverage to close the gap. Since Harris became the Democratic nominee, she has received significant free media attention, further enhancing her visibility.
When considering the spending of outside groups, the gap narrows between the candidates. Geoff Pereira, head of content and insights at Media Radar CMAC, points out that Trump’s strategy may rely on his historical experiences and close polling, suggesting he believes ads won’t be the decisive factor.
The Risks of Political Advertising
Research indicates that candidate advertising can boost turnout among supporters, which is critical in closely contested states like Pennsylvania. However, if not executed strategically, political ads can backfire. Professor Cameron Shelton’s studies from the 2012 and 2016 elections reveal that ads can sometimes motivate opposition voters as much as their intended targets. “Ads don’t persuade,” he states. “They amplify pre-existing beliefs and can polarize opinions.”
Currently, Harris’s campaign is running over 300 ads targeting Pennsylvania voters, while Trump’s campaign has only 22. Most of Harris’s ads appeal to younger demographics and women, while both candidates are investing heavily in traditional television to reach older voters.
Recent ads have focused on issues pertinent to each candidate’s base, such as immigration for Trump and healthcare for Harris. However, as the election nears, economic concerns—a traditional strength for Republicans—are becoming a focal point for both campaigns.
In Pennsylvania, Trump has criticized Harris’s past stance on fracking, which plays a crucial role in the state’s economy. Meanwhile, Harris’s ads aim to sway traditional Republicans and rural voters by highlighting Trump’s policies that favor the wealthy.
Amid the constant stream of political messaging, some voters like 36-year-old Tim Anzelone from Pittsburgh are already weary of the ads. He recently hosted an NFL watch party, intentionally muting the TV during commercial breaks to avoid political discussions. Despite his decision not to disclose his voting choice, he believes the ads are a waste of resources: “The ads definitely don’t sway me at all.”
Looking ahead, Shelton predicts a future where advertising targeting becomes even more precise, potentially deepening America’s political divide. “My sad projection is that we’ll become more siloed and polarized,” he warns. “We’re likely to see ads that reinforce our beliefs, further entrenching divisions between us.”
As the 2024 election unfolds, the landscape of political advertising continues to evolve, presenting challenges and opportunities for candidates as they navigate an increasingly complex electoral environment.
