Synopsis: The US election is predicted to be a huge success for the media, with over $11 billion of political spend estimated in 2016.
Social media will be one of the major new areas of spend. But will all the flashy ads really make a difference to the new generation
of voters? A generation that is more concerned with what people (and brands) stand for, rather than how much money they have.
Opinion Editorial by Carl Freer
What if there was a way that politics could go back to being about the issues rather than the dollars? What would happen if each
candidate was given a ceiling of $1m for marketing, and media owners were regulated? Contributions could be spent on their
manifesto issues, so politicians could literally put their money where their mouth is and contribute to fixing real problems. Perhaps
this would bring democracy, representation and accountability back to politics.
Mediacracy was first coined in 1974 by writer and political commentator Kevin Phillips for the title of his book ‘Mediacracy: American
Parties and Politics in the Communication Age’. Since then, the concept has been popularised and used to discuss the impact of media
on both voting behaviour and cultural trends, particularly in the United States.
Election campaigns in the United States have been known to be expensive for the longest time. The presidential election in 1896 saw more
spending than the four next-most expensive presidential elections combined. According to Mark Hanna, the then-senator of the 1896 presidential election campaign, “There are two things that are important in politics. One is money, and I can’t remember
what the other one is.”
In 2012, Candy Crowley, CNN’s chief political correspondent was called out for being biased for her commentaries during the elections
debate. Crowley’s behaviour as a commentator was deemed unethical and biased towards her favoured political party and have
enraged many journalists, particularly Daniel Greenfield, who claimed “Journalism is dead. Mediacracy is the new model. Mediacracy
is not interested in truth or facts, only in power.” He further emphasised, “Mediacracy is strangling democracy, and restoring a healthy
democracy and the integrity of the political process requires confronting the threat of Mediacracy head on.”
Today’s presidential election campaigns are no different either. The media circus in the lead up to the US presidential
election next year is already in full swing, and the only people getting excited about it are Donald Trump and the ad
agencies. In fact, media moguls are already licking their lips in anticipation of huge profits next year, driven by political ad spend.
It is predicted that political ad spend for 2016 will exceed $11.4 billion. While some of this spend will be on new media platforms
(approximately 10%), the majority will continue to be spent in traditional channels. So be prepared for your television to be
bombarded with images of baby-kissing politicians. The mediacracy is here.
In the past 2012 presidential election campaign, both president Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spend close to a total of more
than $1.7 US Billion on media coverage. Both were reported to spend a combined $30.33 every second on rallies, banners and
TV ads. According to the data provided by the Federal Election Commission, the large expenditure figure breaks down into
$2.6 million every day, $79 million per month.
The real question is, even with all the fancy bells and whistles, does this media spend actually make a difference, particularly to
the new generation of voters? After all, millennials are already less interested in US politics than Gen X or Baby Boomers, so
candidates will have to work even harder to attract their attention, and get them to the polling booths next November. While,
like all generations, millennials are not a homogeneous group, there are some specific political issues that attract their attention,
including equality and climate change. As a generation, they’re more concerned with what people (and brands) stand for,
rather than how much money they have to spend, which raises interesting questions about how candidates could approach
their election campaign.
What if politics took a leaf out of the millennial playbook, and focused on the issues at hand rather than the campaign trail?
What if the potential advertising spend, of over $11 billion, was capped to just $1m per candidate? And of course restrictions
will be placed on media outlets to prevent them from providing discounts or other incentives.
This would change the entire political landscape. Not only would politicians need to think very carefully about where each and every dollar
was spent in the media, but they’d also have a huge pot of funds left over to address the real issues.
For every dollar contributed to Obama’s campaign in 2012, 60% went to ad spending; what if that had gone straight into Obamacare
or gun control instead?
Let’s just stop for a moment and imagine what the world would look like if candidates spent over $11 billion on actually addressing
their manifesto issues in 2016. If the funds were diverted from media spend towards poverty alleviation, then over 4 million Americans
could be brought up to the poverty line. Alternatively, the funds could be used to finance climate change initiatives at home and
abroad, reducing greenhouse gas emissions so future generations can breathe easier. The possibilities as to how the funds can be
utilised beyond media, are endless.
By dipping into their sizeable contributions and allocating the funds towards real causes, each candidate could provide real life
examples of exactly how they will impact the lives of Americans for the next 4 years. Rather than blowing hot air and splashing
out on flashy advertising, candidates can then be judged on their ability to execute actual policies, literally putting their money
where their mouth is. More importantly, by demonstrating real initiatives and results, this would put the power back where it
belongs, in the hands of an informed voter, rather than a bloated media mogul.
It’s a radical idea, but perhaps it’s time to bring representation and accountability back into politics. Who knows, we may even
find democracy again too.
About Carl Freer
Carl Freer is a leading inventor and serial entrepreneur with over two decades experience in the technology sector. Swedish by birth,
Carl is a named inventor on over a dozen of patents in the US, Europe, and Asia. Early in his career, he helped Tiger Telematics, Inc.,
grow to a $2.7 billion market capitalization on the back of its games and advancements in handheld gaming technology. Carl Freer’s
latest venture, Aluminaid, was founded 2010. Freer is also a trustee of the Family Tree Foundation, which operates as a crowdfunding
platform that funds orphanages, medical clinics, and children in need.
