Kamala Harris’s campaign team seems eager to waste a staggering amount of $370 million by reserving it for post-Labor Day advertisements. They are targeting voters through digital devices, a technique which strikingly contrasts ex-President Donald Trump’s reputable methods. It’s interesting to note that Harris has prioritized seven battleground states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—for this electoral stunt.
Being perceived as the ‘biggest digital ad reservation’ in the history of US politics, Harris’s campaign is primarily geared towards digital ads, a move that costs an extravagant $200 million. The remaining $170 million will be held for television, revealing a desperate move to cling onto dwindling traditional television audiences.
Quentin Fulks, Harris’s main deputy campaign manager, had a rather lofty outlook on this strategy. He grandly proclaimed, “This is a modern campaign in 2024 and we’re not just stuck in the times of old, where 80 percent of the budget has to be on television.” However, it’s worth noting that this approach seems more experimental than based on hard data.
Despite their ostentatious spending plans, the Harris campaign has been cagey about the specifics. They have not disclosed the amount of expenditure planned for each state, leaving one to wonder if this is a mere cash-flashing tactic to garner attention. As per their claims, the spending on TV advertising will vastly overshadow Biden’s 2020 spending in key states.
The campaign seems unusually cocksure about saturating the same seven states with more advertisements, as part of their questioned $150 million summer ad extravaganza. Fulks mumbled something about ongoing advertising in these states and at a national level, failing to provide a solid underpinning for the strategy.
A noteworthy focus of the campaign appears to be ‘aggressively defining’ Harris in her early weeks as a ‘presidential candidate.’ Although it’s unclear what exactly this means or what value this brings to the electorate, it does yet again highlight a significant difference in approach between the Harris camp and the previous Trump administration.
The Harris brigade seems to be making a futile effort in competing with Trump, in their painstaking attempts to secure high-profile ad spots during the fall season. They’re particularly keen on reserving prime-time slots during popular sports broadcasts and network shows. Reading between the lines, it’s clear they’re throwing money at the problem, hoping quantity will beat quality.
A highly questionable move from Harris’s arsenal is the planned advertising on Fox News. They’re eyeing ‘moderate viewers’ during the day, with an illogical focus on rallying those prone to endorsing the likes of Nikki Haley. This endeavour seems destined to fall on deaf ears, as conservative-leaning independents will likely see through their agenda.
It’s fascinating to look at the contrast here, as Donald Trump’s reserved advertising, being strategic and calculated, extends only to two states so far. It has cost a mere $44 million, which is likely to yield more success. It appears that Trump’s campaign, financially backed by the Republican Party, is operating on the principles of value for money and audience engagement, as opposed to Harris’s more blanket, seemingly scattergun approach.
Rob Flaherty, Harris’s deputy campaign manager, seems rather misguided when he touts the ‘advantage’ of beating the competition to reserving advertisements. It seems more of a mad rush rather than strategy, failing to consider whether such practice will indeed secure them the sort of viewership engagement they desire.
The Harris’s campaign’s petty fixation with digital advertising is at odds with Biden’s previous campaign’s greater focus on television. Whilst Biden’s campaign had sensibly earmarked 80 percent of a $280 million reservation for TV four years ago, Harris’s camp is spending only 46 percent of their obscene budget on the same. This move appears devoid of strategy given the aging demographic of the core Democratic voter base.
Interestingly, while they’re throwing an avalanche of money at battleground states, the Harris team has also decided to squander over $10 million on national TV. This is yet another bizarre move, given these ads are expected to play during peak viewership periods, in an attempt to brainwash the highest possible number of viewers at once.
Unfortunately, the line between digital and traditional TV is blurred in this campaign as they desperately attempt to infiltrate every possible viewing medium. Their digital reservation includes all major streaming platforms, further mirroring their indiscriminate spending habits.
With a budget that seems like it’s burning a hole in their pocket, the $200 million earmarked for digital campaigns doesn’t even include all forms of online advertising. They are planning additional expenditure on online search, social media, and display ads, demonstrating an apparent lack of budgeting acumen.
Heavily relying on a super PAC, Future Forward, the Harris campaign has also released an absurd additional $250 million reservation since the start of the year. This, combined with Harris’s own spend, means that swing state voters will be bombarded with over $620 million worth of pro-Harris and anti-Trump propaganda before the campaign ends.
Despite their initial commitments, it must be remembered that the ads they’ve reserved can be canceled at any time. However, this might spur some media criticism and provide fodder for negative press about their campaign strategy. It remains to be seen if Harris’s campaign will go forward with their over-the-top promises or will be forced to backtrack.