The election highlighted the distinct campaign strategies employed by both presidential candidates.
Advertising accounted for the largest portion of spending in each campaign, with Vice President Kamala Harris outspending President-elect Donald Trump by $460 million.
Harris allocated $346 million to radio, TV and digital ads, while Trump spent $147 million, according to existing FEC filings.
However, ad-tracking firm AdImpact reports that true ad spend will be even higher, with Harris allocating an additional $647 million and Trump $273 million by Election Day.
The total combined spend is projected to be in the range of $11 billion – the most spent to date during a U.S. election.
This outcome underscores that effective advertising is more than just budget; it’s about where you spend and how you target your message.
Let’s examine the pivotal moments that characterized each candidate’s marketing approach and the implications on the future of digital advertising.
Messaging and ad spend failures
Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin were at the forefront of both campaigns’ digital targeting strategies as they zeroed in on swing states.
Harris’ digital and television advertising was designed to blanket each state. On the other hand, Trump’s team laser-focused their strategy to a more localized level.
The Trump campaign brushed off the idea that they needed to match Harris’ advertising efforts, labeling her strategy as an “overinvestment.” Yet, in the battle for the world’s most critical position, can you truly overinvest?
“Ads supporting President Trump reach more people than Harris ads. Her campaign scatters funds carelessly because they have no idea how to run a winning campaign,” a Trump campaign representative told CNBC.
Faced with the challenge of effectively locating relevant voters and communicating the right messages to influence their decisions, the Trump campaign applied lessons learned from his earlier win against Hillary Clinton, honing in on using targeted segmentation and emotionally resonant personalized messages.
Conversely, the Harris campaign employed a broad, uniform messaging strategy, similar to Clinton’s unsuccessful approach in 2016. While both candidates focused the majority of their ad spend in battleground states, targeting played a major role in how advertising was dispersed within those areas.
Democratic and Republican advertisements aired a combined 927,000 times between July 22 and Nov. 1 across CTV and OTT platforms, with Democratic advertisements holding a 43,000 airing advantage over Republican ads, According to AdImpact.
Of the ads that aired, the Democrats focused 59% of their overall airings to battleground states. The Republican party focused 89% of their ads on the same battleground states.
The programmatic era
CTV and OTT offered immense reach, accessing over 150 million households, including younger demographics. This broad appeal explains why both candidates prioritized these platforms for most of their ad spend.
Harris invested heavily in this strategy, securing spots during NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB events and prime-time shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Survivor, Abbott Elementary and The Golden Bachelorette.
The Trump campaign adopted a more video-centric approach, allocating funds across YouTube and OTT platforms like Hulu, Spotify and Roku.
Ultimately, success hinged on two factors:
Effective, simple messaging.
Targeted audience reach.
Beyond cost-effectiveness, programmatic advertising enables deep geo-fencing targeting, surpassing Google location targeting limitations.
Trump leveraged this capability to tailor his message to specific populations, including Hispanic Americans, using the mantra “Trump Will Fix It.”
While both candidates advertised heavily in Pennsylvania’s Puerto Rican counties, Trump took a more pointed approach.
He targeted ads on Univision, particularly during his town hall, to reach Tejano communities in Texas and Cuban populations in Florida, especially Miami.