4 ms·
The solution is to not allow targeting for political ads. Costs will go up as you'll be competing for same eyes, and you'll have to spend more to reach everyone
by loceng 6y ago
The solution is to not allow targeting for political ads. Costs will go up as you'll be competing for same eyes, and you'll have to spend more to reach everyone you want - plus has added benefit of allowing to see what messaging and narratives opposition is perpetuating.
- mc32 6y agoAnd for those platforms it’s a plus as well (more political ad income) given the poor quality of the average eyeball.
- loceng 6y agoInteresting question arises - does advertising to Republicans or Democrats cost more or less than the other? Either way the mechanism would be good to level the playing field further.
- dsaavy 6y agoThat's a good question, the only thing I could find (and take it with a grain of salt) was that Trump spent $5 per vote compared to Clinton's $10 per vote if you assume all the money they raised was spent. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-spending/at-under-5-each-trumps-votes-came-cheap-idUSKBN1341JR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-spending/at-... It is interesting to think of campaign efficiency (or propaganda efficiency lol) as CPV (cost per vote) to make it parallel to advertising metrics like CPC and CPI.
- codegladiator 6y agoThis will only help existing parties stay in power, and new parties will be doomed to fail.
- loceng 6y agoLook into Andrew Yang's policy proposals - Ranked Choice Voting and Democracy Dollars in particular.
- dsaavy 6y agoIt might be a solution although I think regulating this specific form of political ads would have unintended negative consequences. I think things like hard cap campaign contribution limits (as in overall campaign fundraising cap rather than by donor type) could do more good to even the playing field. And it should reduce the web of "IOUs" that elected officials come into office with.
- sjg007 6y agosuper pacs and citizen united are the problem.
- xxpor 6y agoHow is this even remotely practical? You're only allowed to have political ads on nationally shown TV programs? Choosing to show an ad in Wisconsin and not California is "targeting".
- richardwhiuk 6y agoI think only allowing the advert to be targeted at the level that the campaign is being run in is reasonable. i.e. if you are campaigning for Governor of NY, you can target New York state, but you can't target Manhattan, or Long Island, or men over 50, or people who liked the NRA.
- dillondoyle 6y agothat would kill list building and fundraising which are large digital expenditures. non-presidentials barely spend on digital persuasion but they will spend on fundraising if it raises
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoKilling those things might not be a negative...
- andrewjl 6y agoDoing so would destroy the ability of non-establishment candidates representing salient issues, e.g. police violence in particular communities, from effectively running grassroots campaigns.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoOnly if money remained the engine of political campaigns. But if others can't raise money either, then I think that helps the grass-roots candidates.
- 6y ago
- Nasrudith 6y agoThe choice of what issues to run on is in itself targetting regardless of where it is run. I am not sure what good that would even do given it is already well known that political stances at rallies vary by venue.