|
Written by JD Johannes
|
|
Tuesday, 16 September 2008 |
The Obama campaign is out of the gate running an untested ad in some key states.
In their desire to hit back fast and hopefully gain back a measure of control of the OODA loop--the decision making/momentum cycle--of the campaign, they are rolling the dice.
I say they are rolling the dice because this ad has--at the most--been focus grouped and people metered. It has not been subject to a randomization test to determine whether or not it actually converts. As I explained here , focus group results are usally bullshit.
Sometimes in a campaign you have to hit back fast, but this ad could have waited to be tested.
How big of a gamble is it to run an untested ad?
Lets take Missouri for example.
One thousand Gross Ratings Points, which is actually how you buy TV time, costs about $180,000 in the Kansas City market. St. Louis is $225,000, Springfield $95,000, Columbia/Jeff City $55,000, Cape Girardeau $55,000, St. Joe, $25,000.
(These rates are based on the last time I bought big in Missouri and if he already had reserved time. If he is buying additional time, double the number.)
So, just in Missouri he is dropping a minimum of $635,000.
Multiply that by say 8 other key states and he is dropping $5million on this untested ad.
That is the gambling portion of the decision to run the ad.
The other problem is the price of gas and oil.
As of the moment I am writing this, RBOB gas is trading at $2.47/gallon. Which means that the pump price in many places will soon be at or below $3.00 a gallon.
Compared to June and July, most people now have an extra $25 a week in their pocket. Not a lot individually, but spread out over 100million drivers, that is $2.5Billion dollars a week being redirected back into the domestic economy.
Combined with the drop in other food based commodities $3Billion a week have been freed up.
Now, $3Billion is a blip on the U.S. economy. But over the course of a few weeks, it will add up to something noticeable.
The reduced fuel prices also give more breathing room to businesses that move things via truck or rely on inventory/materials moved by truck (which is just about every business in America.)
This is where the Obama campaign could bump into the believeability bubble.
An ad will convert only if there is intensity and believeability.
With gas and food prices falling, people will find more dollars in their pockets.
Only a tiny fraction of the public will feel any direct effect of the Wall Street melt down. The broader segment will be people who see their stock portfolio drop. Half of those people will properly assign blame, the other half will side with Obama.
But everyone will have a few more dollars in their pocket. Which brings the intensity/believeability disconnect into play.
Obama's hope is that the media is loud enough to get people to believe that despite what is happening to their own wallet, the sky really is falling.
If people believe their wallets, Obama wasted $5million and a message week.
If they believe the media, the bet will have paid. But the ad in question really needs 2,000 points or two message weeks to sink in.
McCain can have an easy counter--gas prices are falling, claim the credit from the "drill-baby-drill." Test the ad to death make sure it converts. Tie the ad to personal experience of the voter, not distant and frightening headlines. Or, bap Obama even harder on an unrelated subject with an that has already been tested and proven to work.
|
