Editor's note: Here's the 23rd installment of the 2016 Presidential Campaign Ad Scorecard. The chart below represents a collaboration between the Ad Age Datacenter -- specifically, Kevin Brown, Bradley Johnson and Catherine Wolf -- and Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). Some context from Simon Dumenco follows. --Ken Wheaton
First, in case you missed our previous Campaign Scorecard: "The Ad-Spending Gap Between Clinton and Trump Just Got Even More Insane."
Second, let's rewind a bit further, to a June 29 Associated Press report, to get Donald Trump's view on advertising in this race: "I don't even know why I need so much money. You know, I go around, I make speeches, I talk to reporters. I don't even need commercials, if you want to know the truth."
This week, with four days of wall-to-wall cable news coverage and major-network primetime coverage of the Republican National Convention, spending zilch on ads and relying on so-called earned media makes sense. But will that approach work going forward?
Pro-Hillary Clinton PACs have an entirely different strategy:
|1||Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, Fla.||$8,267,444|
|3||Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), Fla.||$7,635,858|
|5||Cleveland-Akron (Canton), Ohio||$5,792,903|
|Total top 10||$58,315,422|
Booked advertising spending on TV, cable and radio (subject to change) by PACs supporting Hillary Clinton from Aug. 4, 2016, through Nov. 7, 2016, as of July 21, 2016.
Chart by Ad Age Digital Content Producer Chen Wu