A study conducted by released recently has concluded that messaging in advertising played a key role in the election results, specifically the personal tone taken on by the campaigns, the Daily Mail reports.
Clinton’s advertisements were ‘devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests’ and urge ‘caution in concluding that television advertising is no longer effective’.
The report, titled “Political Advertising in 2016: The Presidential Election as Outlier?” stated that the study was conducted to see what the effects of advertising had on the election, specifically how Clinton’s poll numbers never improved, despite spending much more on advertising than Trump.
One of the conclusions that were made was that Clinton may have been too personal in the attacks and lacked talking about policy in the ads.
The Daily Mail reported:
The study found that only about 25 percent of Clinton’s advertising focused exclusively on policy, compared to the 70 percent of Trump ads that discussed just policy.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s team devoted more than 60 percent of its ads to ‘personal’ issues such as candidate characteristics.
About 10 percent of Clinton ads and 15 percent of Trump ads focused on a mixture of policy and personal.
For comparison, in 2012 the percentage of both Obama and Romney ads that focused exclusively on personal issues was no more than 10 percent.
And in 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, hardly any ads were devoted to exclusively ‘personal’ issues.
The Project, which is housed at Wesleyan University in Connecticut and analyzes all broadcast ads from politicians, illustrates how the 2016 campaign featured significantly fewer advertisements than 2012’s cycle, in which Barack Obama won a second term by defeating Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
The cycle last year featured just under 600,000 advertisements in the top 75 media markets, compared to more than 900,000 in 2012 and slightly more than 600,000 in both 2008 and 2004.