Is Facebook the Holy Grail of Political Advertising?

The social network at the center of American digital life could become the epicenter of the presidential race.

Web-King: The succession race is on.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Shane Goldmacher
June 12, 2015, 1:01 a.m.

Iowa, New Hamp­shire, and South Car­o­lina have marked the route to the White House for more than a gen­er­a­tion. But in 2016, the path to the pres­id­ency will run through new ter­rit­ory — your Face­book news feed.

As the race be­gins in earn­est, the world’s largest so­cial net­work is emer­ging as the single most im­port­ant tool of the di­git­al cam­paign, with con­tenders as dif­fer­ent and dis­par­ate as Hil­lary Clin­ton and Ben Car­son, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, all in­vest­ing in the plat­form already.

Thanks to power­ful new fea­tures un­veiled since the 2012 cam­paign, Face­book now of­fers a far more cus­tom­ized and soph­ist­ic­ated spli­cing of the Amer­ic­an elect­or­ate. And, for the first time in pres­id­en­tial polit­ics, it can serve up video to those thinly tar­geted sets of people.

That un­pre­ced­en­ted com­bin­a­tion is inch­ing cam­paigns closer to the Holy Grail of polit­ic­al ad­vert­ising: the emo­tion­al im­pact of tele­vi­sion de­livered at an al­most at­om­ized, in­di­vidu­al level. It makes the old talk of mi­cro-tar­get­ing soc­cer moms and NAS­CAR dads sound quaint.

Meet Hillary Facebook

“I can lit­er­ally bring my voter file in­to Face­book and start to buy ad­vert­ising off of that,” says Zac Mof­fatt, who was Mitt Rom­ney’s di­git­al dir­ect­or and whose firm now works for Rick Perry’s cam­paign and Scott Walk­er’s su­per PAC.

“We use Face­book more than any single tool,” says Wes­ley Done­hue, a top di­git­al strategist for Marco Ru­bio, speak­ing about both his polit­ic­al and cor­por­ate cli­ents. “The level of tar­get­ing has got­ten so soph­ist­ic­ated, al­low­ing us to drive dif­fer­ent mes­sages to dif­fer­ent audi­ences. I mean, the amount of con­tent we’re pump­ing out on Face­book right now is just un­be­liev­able.”

With 190 mil­lion Amer­ic­an users, Face­book’s wealth of in­form­a­tion about its mem­bers is un­matched: iden­tity, age, gender, loc­a­tion, pas­sions — much of which is coughed up vol­un­tar­ily. But it doesn’t end there; Face­book has a far more com­plete pic­ture of its mem­bers than even what they’ve typed in them­selves. Through part­ner­ships with big data firms, like Acx­iom, the site lay­ers on a trove of be­ha­vi­or­al in­form­a­tion, such as shop­ping habits.

What that means is that Face­book, with its reach across a huge swath of the U.S. elect­or­ate, can pin­point in­di­vidu­al voters at the most gran­u­lar of levels. And that’s why cam­paigns are buy­ing their way in, re­shap­ing not only cam­paign budgets but how the polit­ic­al battle it­self is fought and won.

“The secret is out,” says Alex Ska­tell, an in­flu­en­tial GOP di­git­al strategist who is not af­fil­i­ated with any 2016 cam­paign. “Face­book is kind of the first place people go now.”

(RE­LATED: Web­sites Are Already Selling Out of Ad In­vent­ory for 2016)

ALREADY, DI­GIT­AL op­er­at­ives are mod­el­ing the uni­verses of likely Iowa caucus-go­ers and po­ten­tial New Hamp­shire primary voters and up­load­ing those mod­els in­to Face­book. Then, they match them with Face­book pro­files of ac­tu­al voters in those states. (Strategists say match rates can run as high as 80 per­cent.) It’s a power­ful fea­ture — cus­tom-design­ing the audi­ence for your ads to co­in­cide with the voter rolls — that didn’t ex­ist four years ago.

“We are guar­an­tee­ing you will reach the right per­son at the right time and elim­in­ate the waste that you might find in email mar­ket­ing, cer­tainly in TV ad­vert­ising,” says Eric Laurence, who is in charge of polit­ic­al ad­vert­ising on Face­book. “That’s really the power of Face­book tar­get­ing.”

The pre­ci­sion and price of such spots, to bor­row a fa­vor­ite Sil­ic­on Val­ley aph­or­ism, threatens to dis­rupt the way cam­paigns are run, cut­ting down on in­ef­fi­cien­cies and demo­crat­iz­ing some of the data and tar­get­ing leaps pi­on­eered by the Obama cam­paigns.

(RE­LATED: Sign up for Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s TwentySix­teen news­let­ter

A statewide tele­vi­sion buy in Iowa, for in­stance, reaches more than 3.1 mil­lion po­ten­tial view­ers. But only 121,000 people ac­tu­ally turned out at the Re­pub­lic­an caucuses in 2012. So in­stead of blanket­ing the state, Face­book al­lows cam­paigns to tar­get only those who they be­lieve to be likely caucus-go­ers and then to frag­ment that uni­verse fur­ther in­to a thou­sand smal­ler sub­sets. One ad could run to stu­dents at the Uni­versity of Iowa and an­oth­er to those at Iowa State. Or just alumni. Or fe­male alumni. Or alumni who “like” Rush Limbaugh. In Des Moines.

“Think about how power­ful this is. This is so, so power­ful, and I hon­estly think it’s still un­der­used,” says Vin­cent Har­ris, Paul’s chief di­git­al strategist. “And it’s cheap. It’s so cheap. I am get­ting Face­book video views for one cent a view — one cent a view! … It’s a fun­drais­ing tool, it’s a per­sua­sion tool, and it’s a [get-out-the-vote] tool. It’s a way to or­gan­ize, too.”

“Face­book is ac­tu­ally everything,” Har­ris adds. “And this is what scares people.”

AT THIS PHASE, the cam­paigns are mostly min­ing Face­book for new donors.

“Any na­tion­al cam­paign that we work with, we re­com­mend Face­book ad­vert­ising as part of ac­quis­i­tion strategy,” says Kee­gan Gou­d­iss, a Demo­crat­ic di­git­al strategist whose firm, Re­volu­tion Mes­saging, is help­ing the Sanders team. Gou­d­iss says pro­spect­ing for donors through Face­book typ­ic­ally pays three-to-one — that is, three dol­lars raised for every dol­lar in­ves­ted, though the pay­out of­ten can take as long as 12 months.

In a re­mark­able stat­ist­ic Face­book likes to tout, the 2013 cam­paign of Terry McAul­iffe for Vir­gin­ia gov­ernor, run by Robby Mook, now Clin­ton’s cam­paign man­ager, im­me­di­ately re­covered a whop­ping 58 per­cent of its Face­book ac­quis­i­tion costs by link­ing new email sub­scribers to on­line con­tri­bu­tion forms.

Stand with Rand Facebook

That kind of re­turn on in­vest­ment is why Clin­ton uses Face­book to pro­mote a con­test to meet her, Sanders asks people to en­dorse his plat­form, Paul touts a “fili­buster starter pack,” and Ted Cruz searches there to sign up “cour­ageous con­ser­vat­ives.”

Face­book won’t be the only di­git­al be­hemoth that gets a rev­en­ue boost from polit­ic­al spend­ing in 2015 and 2016. Google, one of Face­book’s chief rivals for cam­paign dol­lars, is ex­pec­ted to garner big sums, es­pe­cially with its pre-roll ads on You­Tube, in­vent­ory for which is already run­ning low in Iowa and New Hamp­shire. A rising tide, after all, lifts all boats, and For­res­t­er Re­search pro­jects that total spend­ing on di­git­al ads — for all Amer­ic­an ad­vert­isers, not ne­ces­sar­ily those in polit­ics — will over­take tele­vi­sion in 2016. But when it comes to know­ing its audi­ence, cam­paign strategists say Face­book re­mains king. “You’re just not go­ing to find that level of data with any oth­er ad net­works,” Ska­tell says.

Al­most every ma­jor con­tender or their PAC has already bought Face­book ads this year. One reas­on is how pre­cise cam­paigns can be. Paul’s team is try­ing to gath­er email ad­dresses for po­ten­tial Iowa voters. So the cam­paign is run­ning Face­book ads “to people who we know are likely caucus-go­ers, who like Rand Paul’s page, for ex­ample, and whose email we don’t have,” Har­ris says.

Na­tion­ally, Paul re­cently ran a t-shirt design con­test, and it garnered more than 10,000 votes, mostly through Face­book, and thus a treas­ure trove of data and email ad­dresses for the cam­paign. “If you voted for the t-shirt that came in second, guess what, now you’re see­ing an ad for that t-shirt, and people are buy­ing it,” Har­ris says. The goal is to turn clicks in­to con­trib­ut­ors. (The win­ning design reads, “The NSA knows I bought this Rand Paul t-shirt.” Iron­ic­ally, the Paul cam­paign now knows if you clicked on it, voted for it, or bought it.)

There are new built-in Face­book tools that can help cam­paigns, too. Can­did­ates can up­load their data­bases of donor emails, find their cor­res­pond­ing pro­files on the site, and ask Face­book to spit out ads to a “look-alike” uni­verse of users whom they haven’t yet pitched for money. Or they can take the sign-ups from an event,  up­load them, and ask to ad­vert­ise to people who look like them. While the best-fun­ded cam­paigns will al­most cer­tainly do some of this mod­el­ing them­selves, Face­book’s “look-alike” fea­ture didn’t ex­ist un­til 2013, and it prom­ises to al­low poorer cam­paigns to tap in­to soph­ist­ic­ated ana­lyt­ics on the cheap.

BY FAR THE BIGGEST de­vel­op­ment for 2016 is video. “Video ad­vert­ising wasn’t around in the 2012 cycle,” says Gou­d­iss. “That’s go­ing to be huge in 2016.”

Face­book says users log about 4 bil­lion video views every day. Already, cam­paigns have taken no­tice that Face­book’s al­gorithm has been push­ing videos em­bed­ded on the site high­er and high­er in users’ news­feeds. (Har­ris says Paul’s videos now get triple the in­ter­ac­tions that more stat­ic posts get.)

“The ex­plo­sion of video on Face­book, we be­lieve, is go­ing to be a huge driver for these can­did­ates,” says Face­book’s Laurence.

In the past, cam­paigns chiefly used Face­book to build lists of their sup­port­ers and then to en­cour­age those people to go to the polls. (Face­book ended the tool Obama lever­aged to have people ask friends in swing states to vote.) But the ad­vent of video turns the plat­form in­to a per­sua­sion play that tar­gets the crit­ic­al pool of un­de­cided voters.

“Face­book is ac­tu­ally everything,” Har­ris adds. “And this is what scares people.”

“Every­body agrees video is king. It makes the emo­tion­al con­nec­tion,” Gou­d­iss says. What’s more, he says, Face­book lets cam­paigns meas­ure that con­nec­tion with likes, shares, and com­ments in al­most real time. “Un­like any oth­er types of on­line video ad­vert­ising, you really get to see how your audi­ence is re­act­ing to the con­tent.”

Polit­ic­al op­er­at­ives have long seen loc­al news­casts as one of the most ef­fect­ive out­lets for TV ads be­cause view­ers are ripe for per­sua­sion as they con­sume the news. In­creas­ingly, Face­book is such an out­let. In a re­cent Pew study, a whop­ping 61 per­cent of mil­len­ni­als said they keep up with polit­ics via Face­book, mak­ing it their top news source. Even 39 per­cent of baby boomers are get­ting polit­ic­al news on the site (though loc­al TV re­mains their top source).

Di­git­al re­mains far from sup­plant­ing tele­vi­sion’s su­prem­acy in the ad budget, but it is an in­creas­ingly im­port­ant sup­ple­ment. “You might have an ad­vert­ise­ment on TV to reach a broad amount of people, but your polling might say, ‘Hey, you’re still weak with this spe­cif­ic niche,’”‰” says Done­hue, the Ru­bio strategist. “Well, that niche is too small to go up on TV, but it’s a per­fect place for us to go and tar­get on Face­book.”

“You’re ba­sic­ally able to treat video the way you were able to treat dir­ect mail,” he says. Only bet­ter. “You can ob­vi­ously meas­ure it and see if people saw it, rather than just throw it in the trash.”

THE CAM­PAIGNS ARE STILL fig­ur­ing out how to tap in­to Face­book’s polit­ic­al po­ten­tial. If, say, MS­N­BC’s Rachel Mad­dow heaps praise on Sanders, should his cam­paign flood that clip to every voter in the coun­try who likes Mad­dow on Face­book? Or, dur­ing de­bates, do cam­paigns re­pack­age an op­pon­ent’s gun gaffe and send it to the site’s Second Amend­ment en­thu­si­asts? Just ima­gine Rom­ney’s “self-de­port­a­tion” clip on auto­play in the Face­book feeds of Lati­nos in every swing state.

“The sky’s the lim­it,” Har­ris says.

In­deed. It in­cludes the pos­sib­il­ity of lay­er­ing Face­book on top of tra­di­tion­al tools — hit­ting  voters in their mail­boxes, on TV, and on iPhones in co­ordin­ated fash­ion. It in­cludes stealth­i­er strategies that ex­ploit the lack of reg­u­la­tions gov­ern­ing dis­clos­ure of who’s buy­ing what in the di­git­al-ad space. It in­cludes achiev­ing something no oth­er ad­vert­ising can — a ven­eer of au­then­ti­city when trus­ted friends are shown “lik­ing” the politi­cian pay­ing for the ad.

These will be the keys for cam­paign mes­sages break­ing through in 2016. And they add up to one thing: “Face­book,” says Mof­fatt, “is the 800-pound gor­illa in the room.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.