Advertising has played a role in politics since the beginning. It has more recently changed with technology. In 2004 microtargeting was used by political campaigns. Microtargeting is a specific type of marketing where companies use data gathered about the consumer to target the consumer’s preferences, identifying exactly how to market to the individual. Microtargeting is used by marketing companies to push products, candidates, and ideas. We see this form of marketing used in political campaigns more and more. Candidates use microtargeting to identify supporters and push information to them, ultimately hoping they will turn out to the polls to vote for them.

“Personality and susceptibility to political microtargeting: A comparison between a machine-learning and self-report approach” was an interesting article that explained the use of psychographic-based political marketing. They say there is little empirical evidence to show how effective it is but it is beyond effective and can be unethical. The researchers explained their study where they kept track of how psychographic-based political marketing affected how someone responded with their feelings or rationale. This is appealing to someone’s emotion versus rationale. The study also tracked how microtargeting affected people overall. They used two approaches: The machine-learning approach and the self-report approach. 

Microtargeting is personality appealing. Some personalities are more susceptible than others to this type of marketing. They found people who were more open, easily convinced, and on average more uneducated were more susceptible to political microtargeting. Marketing companies predict human characteristics and behavior with previously gathered data from each specific user. Advertisers target vulnerable users and target them with political advertisements trying to sway them. There are no regulations on political advertising in the United States so the advertisement could say anything. This is seen as unethical because they are taking advantage of vulnerable people and sometimes spreading lies about the opposite party. The United States has no laws against data protection unlike Europe, and the technology companies gathering the data are not that transparent. They do not really disclose how much data they gather and how long they store it. This can be a concern if there are hackers and there is a data breach and personal information is exposed. We learned how this technology is mostly used by Republicans in the United States since they placed the highest bid on the technology that gathers the data and caters to the user on a micro-scale.  

Basically, it is hard to tell the exact findings from this study but there are negative findings. Some research found political microtargeting helped people like a candidate more. There was a lot of evidence that showed political microtargeting normally had negative advertisements attacking the opposite party. Microtargeting is very successful and can sway people’s opinions, votes, and in the end elections. They are hard to explain with data but there were negatives to microtargeting. A lot of people think it is negative and they influence votes and manipulate elections in unfair ways. 

An article on a study called “The Condition Effects of Microtargeted Facebook Advertisements on Voter Turnout” tangles with the ethics of Facebook being involved in political advertising. There is a lot of scrutiny over Facebook being involved with political advertising because of how big of a reach they have and the amount of data they have on people, so the amount they know about their users. The paper talks about an experiment during the 2018 United States midterm election in Texas. Advertisers targeted competitive congressional districts like advertisements having to do with issues such as abortion. They were typically a very visual advertisements meant to appeal to the user and what they already somewhat believed. 

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on Facebook advertisements for United States elections each. Facebook faces harsh scrutiny because of its impact on voter behavior. No one is ever really going to stop using Facebook, so they will continue to gather data about them and target them with political advertisements. There is also evidence during election seasons that Facebook advertisements shift to politics. They are issue-oriented advertisements and are micro-targeted using voter file data that was uploaded to Facebook with the custom audiences tool. 

In the end, it is hard to find data that shows that microtargeted political advertisements changed voter turnout. It is probably because causation does not equal correlation and it is hard to tell what affects voter turnout specifically because there are several variables that contribute. The team found advertisement displays increased Republican voter turnout in the targeted competitive congressional districts. The team also found that Facebook can independently influence voter turnout. In 2010, Facebook launched its “I Voted” campaign. Facebook users would post when they voted, which drastically increased voter turnout and showed Facebook's influence and how people have a fear of being left out. People believe political advertising on TV is successful probably because of the widespread mainstream appeal. Microtargeting is successful because of the amount of data Facebook has gathered on its users and how Facebook can tailor each advertisement to each user. Email solicitations were found to be useless and a waste of campaign money, probably because it is a less direct form of communication and is less visual and appealing. Overall, we saw how different forms of modern political advertising occur and what effects they have on voter turnout.

The first example of political advertising was the political advertisement “Daisy” which aired in 1964 and is maybe one of the most famous political advertisements of all time. The commercial aired for President Lydon B. Johnson who became president after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was running against Senator Barry Goldwater who was a conservative and was heavily pushing the anti-soviet thinking. The commercial only aired once but generated enough publicity from being on the news and in newspapers, that a bomb being dropped on the United States became a real fear. Some people really thought a bomb was actually dropped on the little girl, but the camera just cut quickly to a different scene. 

The commercial consists of a little girl picking daisies and she looks up with a frightened look on her face, and the camera zooms in on her eye counting down. Then, an atomic bomb is dropped as though it was dropped on the innocent girl in the field picking daisies. The commercial was supposed to create a fear that the Soviet Union could actually drop an atomic bomb on the United States, and the country had to pick the right person for the presidency to combat this issue. 

Previously political advertisements had no substance. Examples were the Kenndy commercial with the jingle repeating “Kennedy” over and over. Nixon’s political commercials were just him sitting at his desk talking. They did not grab people’s attention, they were simple and did not have much substance. This is also probably the first example of political attack advertisements, which attack what the other side has to say or the person they are running against. 

Bill Moyers was the person in charge of coming up with a political commercial for President Lindon B. Johnson. He was told to make a commercial that showed Lindon B. Johnson acknowledging Barry Goldwater’s concerns with the Soviet Union. After the commercial aired and President Johnson saw the effect of the commercial, he was furious. His goal was not to overly scare the public, but rather acknowledge people’s concerns with the Soviet Union and show he was aware and would do something about the situation. Even though the commercial was not received by the public like President Johnson wanted it to be, it would still help him win the presidential election. 

The next example of political advertising is the political advertisement from  President Reagan’s campaign team for the 1984 presidential election called “Morning in America.” His campaign team hired two Hollywood actors for the commercial and an advertising company. The advertising company was known for folky, warm, and calming advertisements like a famous Cabernet advertisement they produced. President Reagan understood advertisements very well and it all traced back to his acting career. He knew the lighting and the acting with his personality and facial expressions. He came to his campaign team and asked for a high-production commercial, not just an average political commercial from the period. Along with these two actors, the production team, and Reagan’s bright and warm personality, it would help connect with the audience to help tell the story. 

The commercial consists of different shots of everyday people going about their lives on a regular morning in America with Reagan’s voice narrating over the video clips. Reagan talks about how with him in office the country is stronger and better, but he does not go into great detail or talk about any policies. The commercial ends with President Reagan in his office looking very professional with his wife. This makes him look strong and trustworthy and like a family man. 

The commercial was designed to appeal to the little amount of hope people had for the country. In the early 1980s, the country was not in a good place with high inflation rates and a poor economy. People were also scared of the Iranian hostage crisis and the threat of the Soviet Union dropping a bomb on the United States. It was successful in appealing to these people who felt this way. Others were mad at President Reagan because he was running on our country’s symbols and patriotism. It was the highest-production political advertisement at the time and it really set a standard, but it proved its success in the presidential election. 

Political advertising is a very controversial subject, especially in the United States. There is little to no regulation so people can say whatever they want and slander an opposing party or leader in any way they want. Political advertising used to be fairly harmless because they did a poor job of keeping people’s attention and they were not able to easily see people’s opinions. With newer technology, production and quality have gone up. Advertising companies are even tailoring advertisements to different groups of people based on data about them. This can be data like what their interests are, what their tendencies are, who they are politically aligned with, what issues they care about, and where they live. With all of this data and more advertisers can cater to each person more effectively and have a chance of swaying their opinion. People’s minds might be changed and it even is not based on any facts, it could all be made up. Facebook plays a big role in today’s political advertising with its microtargeting political advertisements. They face a lot of scrutiny because of the vast amounts of data they possess. The microtargeted advertisements can be dangerous if they are used by the wrong people because we have seen how people can easily be swayed to a different side and have their opinions changed. These advertisers also target people who are more susceptible which is seen as unethical. In all, people do not like political advertising. There are no regulations and it can be scary, but it seems as though advertisers are only getting better and this can be a concern for our privacy and our democracy as a whole.

Caldwell, L. A. (2016, July 12). Six political ads that changed the game. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/six-political-ads-changed-game-n607281

This source showed the most influential political advertisements. I was able to learn about the history of the advertisements and why they were so meaningful.

Time Inc. (2008, September 22). Top 10 campaign ads. Time. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1842516_1842514_1842575,00.html

This source again helped me go into more depth on what commercials were good examples for my paper. I used this to go into more depth on how the public received the advertisements. 

Wheaton, K. (2023). FIFTY YEARS AGO, ‘DAISY’ USHERED IN NEW AGE OF POLITICAL ADS . Minneapolis. Retrieved December 12, 2023,.

This source really went into detail about President Johnson’s political advertisement “Daisey.” It went into detail on how it was made and received by the public.

Wintersieck, A., & Keena, A. (2023, December). Ask and You Shall Receive: The Effects of Negativity and Fundraising Appeals on Facebook. Minneapolis. Retrieved December 12, 2023,.

This source talked about the negatives of advertising on Facebook. It talked about how their advertising works and why they are so controversial.

Zarouali, B., Dobber, T., & Schreuder, J. (2023). Personality and susceptibility to political microtargeting: A comparison between a machine-learning and self-report approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 151. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/science/article/pii/S0747563223003758 

This source talks specifically about microtargeting in political adverting. It talks about how microtargeting works, who they target and why, what information they use, and how effective it is. They also touch on how it is generally thought of as unethical.