Voters make decisions before they're in the booth—by going
online. To understand the influence of digital media and online video in the
2016 elections, Google partnered with two leading political consultants to
survey primary voters. Here, they discuss what the results mean for marketers.
Put Google research and insight behind your thinking
SUBSCRIBE This election cycle, people are increasingly going online before
going to the polls. In the first two months of the year, the average registered
voter gearing up for Super Tuesday researched the primary election online 85
times.1 And in just the last year, people have watched over 110M hours of
candidate- and issues-related video on YouTube. To learn more about how
registered voters educate themselves on the facts, candidates, and issues before
the primaries, Google partnered with political consultants Julie Hootkin and
Dr. Frank Luntz. As executive vice president at Global Strategy Group (GSG),
Julie has been a consultant to members of Congress, governors, and mayors
across the United States, and leads her firm's corporate impact practice, which
helps businesses navigate the issues of the day. A preeminent pollster, Frank
has been featured on major broadcast networks and is the founder of Luntz
Global Partners, which consults Fortune 500 companies and political campaigns
alike.
Recently, I spoke with Julie and Frank about key findings from
this research and the implications for both political and brand marketers. How
is voter behavior in this election cycle different from four years ago? Frank:
As of this year, people are spending 40% more time online than on TV.3 Think
about that. They know that digital platforms, whether desktop or mobile—from
news websites to Google Search to YouTube—deliver far more convenience than
traditional media. In political campaigns, television is still powerful, but
voters believe it provides too much spin, too many half-truths, and too little
detail. Digital empowers voters to find the precise information and facts
they're seeking. They decide the search terms, the content, the time, the
length, and well, everything else. As one Iowa Republican voter in our focus
group said, "We're more informed than we've ever been because of the
internet."4 We also see this in campaigns for consumer products, financial
services, and every other category brand marketers care about. Today's voters
are spending more time online, almost two hours for every hour spent watching
TV. Julie: We're living in an on-demand world. With just the touch of a button,
we can watch a movie, order groceries, and hail a cab. Just as easily, we can
visit a candidate's website, watch a campaign video on YouTube, and fact-check
a candidate's position on Google. People are "on" 24/7, thanks in
large part to their smartphones. For political campaigns, this means today's
voters are more connected than ever before. They are spending more time online,
almost two hours for every hour spent watching TV,5 and they are increasingly
relying on their mobile devices to provide them with answers to their questions
in real-time. Almost 60% of elections-related searches are now coming from
mobile devices, representing nearly 3X growth since the last presidential
election cycle.6 As a result, campaigns—and brands—have an unprecedented number
of opportunities to inform, engage, and persuade voters through digital
communications. How are voters engaging online vs. with traditional media?
Julie: Sometimes it feels like we are trapped in a debate that pits traditional
against digital, but the truth of the matter is, it's not a zero-sum game. This
goes for both political campaigns and brand marketing: TV is good for some things,
and digital is good for others. TV continues to play an important role in
introducing candidates to voters, particularly early on in the campaign cycle.
But as voters move through the decision-making process and Election Day
approaches, digital plays an increasingly important role. Why? We heard from a
lot of voters that they don't feel like they get the full story from TV—anyone
who's ever written an ad script can tell you, you can only fit about 76 words
in a 30-second spot. Voters want more, and they find it online. People will
watch content that matters to them—regardless of length. Frank: Voters
generally dislike and distrust the over-the-top negative political ads they see
on television. Don't get me wrong—they still make an impact. But the 30-second
or 60-second spot is not as persuasive and informative as it once was. As an
Iowa Democratic voter in our focus group put it, "TV ads don't tell you
enough. They're a good starting point, but they're not a good way to make a
decision."4 That's why voters turn to search, news sites, candidate sites,
and YouTube to find the full, unedited story and unbiased facts for themselves.
What kinds of videos resonate with voters—and with viewers in general? Julie:
On the internet, viewers give you license to ignore the traditional guidelines
that are often associated with campaign content. It's not just the 15-second,
the 30-second, or the 60-second ad. It could be a two-minute, a six-minute, or
even an eight-minute video. When it comes to content, authenticity is paramount
for all types of campaigns, for both brands and candidates. Voters in
particular really want to see the behind-the-scenes stuff that ended up on the
cutting room floor.
Frank: The most engaged voters are seeking out more
information, not less. But campaigns must capture voters' attention within the
first 5-10 seconds—or, like viewers do with television advertising for any type
of brand—they'll move on. But if it's credible, if it's interesting, people
will watch content that matters to them—regardless of length. Any other
important takeaways for marketers? Frank: Whether you're pitching a candidate
or company, a politician or a product, you have to engage people where they
are. Traditional platforms are on the decline, but digital is thriving. That's
where consumers spend most of their time. It's where they turn to for facts, reviews,
and information. Marketers must meet their consumers where they actually are at
those critical campaign moments—not where they hope they'll be. Julie: The
marriage of business and politics has given marketers an opportunity to expand
their communication channels, connect with consumers on new terrain, and get
credit for it. According to our study, 78% of Americans say corporations should
take action to address issues facing society, and 88% believe that corporations
have the power to influence social change. So brand marketers, get online and
join the conversation. Your customers will thank you for it. For more of
Julie's and Frank's perspectives, especially about the similarities between
brand marketing and political campaigns, check out "Letter From the Guest
Editors: Julie Hootkin and Frank Luntz."
Sources
1 Google/Greenberg
Strategy, "Presidential Politics — Understanding the Primaries,"
U.S., base: registered voters in early primary states, n=1,229, Jan.–Mar. 2016.
2 Google
Data, U.S., classification as election "candidates" and
"issues" was based on public data such as headlines and tags, and may
not account for every such video available on YouTube, Apr. 2015–Feb. 2016.
3 eMarketer,
"Average Time Spent per Day with Major Media by U.S. Adults,
2013–2018," Apr. 2016.
4 Google/Frank
Luntz Global and Global Strategy Group, focus group at Des Moines, Iowa, U.S.,
base: 27 Democrats and 27 Republicans intending to vote in the Iowa caucus
possessing varying comfort levels with technology and a mix of political
ideologies, Jan. 2016.
5 Google/Greenberg
Strategy, "Presidential Politics — Understanding the Primaries,"
U.S., base: national sample of likely registered voters, n=3,118, Dec.
2015–Jan. 2016.
6 Google
Data, U.S., searches from Politics and Elections category, Jan.–Apr. 2016 vs.
2012.
