Voters Unmoved by Presidential Campaign Ads

From AdAge, May 24, 2004, “Consumers Largely Unmoved by Presidential Campaign Ads”:

“More than half the consumers queried in a new Advertising Age poll conducted by Lightspeed International Research said the blitz of presidential campaign ads had not influenced them and in total, 92% said the ads had not swayed them to change their prospective votes....

The online poll, conducted among 1,653 respondents nationally who have seen ads for both candidates, also breaks out eight battleground states. In those states, which are carrying the bulk of the presidential hopefuls’ advertising, both candidates’ ads are viewed as even less persuasive....

The majority, 60%, of national respondents said Mr. Bush’s ads aren’t focusing on issues they care about, and even more, 69%, said Mr. Kerry’s ads don’t address issues they care about....

To no one’s surprise, two out of three respondents — regardless of state or party — view political ads for the presidential race overall as too negative. And that could work against the candidates, as one-third of respondents said a candidate’s negative ads — rather than sway them to vote for that candidate — may actually influence them to avoid voting for them.

Oddly, while ads from the Bush campaign have mostly attacked Mr. Kerry, who has been running mainly biographical spots, poll respondents saw the challenger’s ads as more negative than Mr. Bush’s. A full 61% of those surveyed said Mr. Kerry’s ads were more negative in the national sample vs. 54% for Mr. Bush.

The reason may be that Democratic groups such as Media Fund and MoveOn.org have been running anti-Bush attack ads and the comments about the negative Kerry ads apparently reflect those ads rather than those from the campaign itself. In fact, among the general population, respondents were equally split on whether they could distinguish ads between candidates or public interest groups. (Respondents in Florida and Ohio were more likely to be able to distinguish the two.)

In some battleground states, however, the results ran counter to the national results. In Michigan and Minnesota, more people found Mr. Bush’s ads negative than they did Mr. Kerry’s.

Even though the election is a little over five months away, already 55% of respondents believe there is too much political advertising.

They are also largely unimpressed with the largesse. Half of respondents on a national basis said Mr. Bush’s ads don’t clearly state his position; Mr. Kerry fared worse, with 70% responding that his ads don’t clearly do so.”

From the data, it seems voters are craving more information and less rhetoric. And might MoveOn’s celebrated Bush in 30 Seconds ads be doing more harm than good? (Though, might Ad Industry professionals have something against ads produced by “amateurs”?) I wonder how these figures compare with past presidential elections.

Still even 8% of several million is several thousand voters who might tip a another close election. But then we also that know what users say is not always what users do.

The article does not elaborate on the methodology or link to an example of the online poll. I’m wonder how the poll addresses ads that put forward a substantive critque of the candidates — in other words “negative” ads that do address issues.

But really, “voters” as “consumers”? Wow.