What Facebook Isn’t Saying About Trump and Clinton’s Campaign Ads

It’s also unclear which types of messages and targeting correspond with what pricing. An ad targeted at a custom list of voters will have a higher CPM than one with a national audience, for instance. The chart does not show what the Clinton and Trump campaigns would have paid for an apples-to-apples ad buy. In fact, that may ultimately be impossible to tell, given how many variations are at play in terms of who the campaigns are trying to reach, where they’re trying to reach them, and what they’re trying to get out of them.

Finally, it doesn’t take into account the organic reach these ads received by way of Facebook users sharing them with their own networks. Campaigns don’t have to pay for that, but it can radically expand the number of people who are seeing an ad depending on how viral it becomes. If the Trump campaign’s organic reach was dramatically higher than Clinton’s, it stands to reason that it would be more willing to pay a higher rate upfront.

“A CPM price isn’t the metric we’re measuring success against,” said one Republican digital operative familiar with the Trump campaign.

If there’s one thing former staffers on the Trump and Clinton campaign agree on, it’s that they took markedly different approaches to advertising on Facebook. President Trump’s campaign ran a large fundraising operation on the platform; as Parscale told WIRED shortly after the 2016 election, the campaign raised the bulk of its $250 million in online fundraising there.

That type of ad inherently drives clicks and shares because it contains an explicit request. Facebook’s algorithms like clicks and shares, giving those ads a boost. “The stuff you do for fundraising is fun and engaging. It’s like, ‘win a dinner with Trump!’” said another former digital operative who worked with the Trump campaign.

The majority of the roughly $70 million the Trump campaign spent on Facebook was for so-called “direct response” ads that ask people to take an action like, for instance, donating. According to these sources, that meant team Trump was OK with spending more to reach critical voters, because they were more likely to donate.

funny postget more
get more info
get more information
get redirected here
get the facts
go here
go now
go right here
go to the website
go to these guys
go to this site
go to this web-site
go to this website
go to website
going here
great post to read
great site
had me going
have a peek at these guys
have a peek at this site
have a peek at this web-site
have a peek at this website
have a peek here
he has a good point
he said
helpful hints
helpful resources
helpful site
her comment is here
her explanation
her latest blog
her response
here are the findings
his comment is here
his explanation
his response
home page
hop over to here
hop over to these guys
hop over to this site
hop over to this web-site
hop over to this website
how much is yours worth?
how you can help
i loved this
i thought about this
i was reading this
image source
in the know
informative post
investigate this sitekiller deal
knowing it
learn here
learn more
learn more here
learn the facts here now
learn this here now
like it
like this
linked here
listen to this podcast
look at here
look at here now
look at more info
look at these guys
look at this
look at this now
look at this site
look at this web-site
look at this website
look here
look these up
look what i found
love it
lowest price
made a post
made my day
more about the author
more bonuses
more help

The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, ran a more balanced operation, splitting its money between fundraising ads, persuasion ads that tried to convince people to vote for Clinton, and get-out-the-vote ads that aimed to get people to the polls. “Our program was broader, with more video persuasion and mobilization ads targeting voters in battleground states in addition to fundraising,” says Jason Rosenbaum, Clinton’s former director of digital advertising.

The key difference is that the Trump campaign experimented with ads on Facebook in a way no campaign had ever done before, running up to 175,000 variations of the same ad in a single day. As one Republican digital operative who worked closely with the campaign put it, “Trump was trying everything you could do on Facebook. He had some ads that were less expensive media and also some that were more expensive media.”

In fact, according to one source, the cheapest ad the Trump campaign placed was one urging voters to text Trump to 88022, hardly an incendiary message, though it’s not clear what other factors played into the cost. That one came with a CPM rate of less than 20 cents.

The chart Bosworth shared doesn’t reflect these lows or highs. Without visibility into how the content, targeting, and format of the ads correlates to pricing, it’s impossible to know whether all that Twitter outrage this week was justified.

Facebook has said it will launch an ad transparency tool that will house all of its political ads along with information on who’s paying for them, who they’re targeting, and how much it costs, among other things. But that won’t be ready until spring.

Political Ads Online

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.