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.
Miami-Dade County, which has traditionally supported Democrats, favored the Republican party for the first time since 1988.
Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.
Popular vs. emerging digital platforms
Harris honed in on spending the majority of advertising dollars on Google, Facebook and Instagram, while Trump doubled down on YouTube and Twitch.
The targeting restrictions Meta places on political ads influenced Trump’s choice to dedicate fewer ad dollars to their platforms.
Gen Z was a crucial demographic in this election cycle. The Trump campaign targeted Gen Z voters who don’t engage with traditional politics by livestreaming rallies on Twitch.
While this approach drew criticism from some quarters, it showcased an ability to adapt by leveraging emerging digital platforms.
In contrast, the Harris campaign centered its strategy for reaching younger voters around Snapchat and TikTok.
Trump also relied heavily on X, which is not surprising. Bypassing the media, Trump communicated directly with his supporters and responded to their concerns.
The controversial nature of his unfiltered posts kept his base energized, despite raising concerns about increasing societal divisions.
Either way, his direct communication style drove a sense of authenticity that effectively helped shift the undecided to his side.
Harris’ team didn’t allot dollars on X, where many Trump supporters and moderate voters turn for information.
Penetrating Gen Z through podcasting
Podcasting emerged as a powerful tool during the presidential election, allowing both candidates to connect with listeners on a more personal level.
Trump’s three-hour interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience” showcased his conversational style, while Harris appeared on the popular advice and comedy podcast, “Call Her Daddy.”
With audiences craving meaningful content, podcasting proved to be a valuable asset in humanizing each candidate, reaching voters beyond traditional politics.
Taking this approach a step further, Trump’s campaign took an out-of-the-box approach, partnering with social media influencers like Logan Paul and Adin Ross to target younger, often indifferent voters.
By appearing on popular streams and collaborating with digital personalities, they sought to engage often apathetic young voters and generate excitement beyond traditional political outreach.
What it all means?
The 2024 election demonstrates that winning isn’t just about spending; it’s about understanding your audience and meeting them where they are.
Embracing streaming platforms and localized targeting can resonate more deeply with key demographics. As the digital landscape evolves, those who adapt will reap the benefits. It’s a critical lesson for future campaigns.
Contributing authors are invited to create content for Search Engine Land and are chosen for their expertise and contribution to the search community. Our contributors work under the oversight of the editorial staff and contributions are checked for quality and relevance to our readers. The opinions they express are their own.