Routledge Handbook of Political Advertising

Christina Holtz-Bacha, Marion R. Just

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317439776
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This Handbook provides the most comprehensive overview of the role of electoral advertising on television and new forms of advertising in countries from all parts of the world currently available. Thematic chapters address advertising effects, negative ads, the perspective of practitioners and gender role. Country chapters summarize research on issues including political and electoral systems; history of ads; the content of ads; reception and effects of ads; regulation of political advertising on television and the Internet; financing political advertising; and prospects for the future. The Handbook confirms that candidates spend the major part of their campaign budget on television advertising. The US enjoys a special situation with almost no restrictions on electoral advertising whereas other countries have regulation for the time, amount and sometimes even the content of electoral advertising or they do not allow television advertising at all. The role that television advertising plays in elections is dependent on the political, the electoral and the media context and can generally be regarded as a reflection of the political culture of a country. The Internet is relatively unregulated and is the channel of the future for political advertising in many countries

Part I

General Perspectives

1

Ample Opportunities – Mostly Regulated

Political Advertising Across the World

Christina Holtz-Bacha

With the spread of television in the 1950s and its growing importance in society, the new medium also became attractive for electoral communication. From the outset in 1949, US television was held in private hands and survived on revenues from advertising. Campaigners in the US were quick to incorporate television into their strategic repertoire. The 1952 presidential campaign saw the advent of electoral ads on television.

Whereas Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and his strategists from Madison Avenue readily embraced the new campaign instrument, the Democratic contender Adlai Stevenson had difficulty adapting to television and openly expressed his reservations against television advertising: “I think the American people will be shocked by such contempt for their intelligence. This isn’t Ivory Soap versus Palmolive” (Museum of the Moving Image, 2012).

In the US, television ads developed into the most important means for directly speaking to the voters. With each race, campaigners spent more and more money on television advertising. Even after the introduction of the Internet and social network sites, which also allow candidates to address voters directly and with more individualized messages, more than half of the campaign budgets still go into television advertising (see e.g., Bachman, 2011; Kurtzleben, 2015).

Even though the use of television spots started in other parts of the world at about the same time or soon after, they did not acquire the same relevance as in the US. Reservations about promoting politics in commercials, just as Adlai Stevenson expressed them, were common and are still reflected today in the restrictions for electoral advertising in most parts of the world. The “anything goes” principle also led to the emergence of a specific culture of political advertising in the US. This culture is first of all influenced by the fact that there are no restrictions on political commercials. Political actors can purchase as much broadcast time as they can afford. There is no limit to a certain time period, as for instance the last weeks of a campaign. In addition, the political and the electoral system have contributed to the specifics of US electoral advertising. The candidate-focused electoral system together with long campaigns, primaries and fierce competition even within the same party leads to material battles fought over the media and swallowing enormous amounts of money. The personal competition is also a reason for the vital role of negative advertising in the electoral race. Finally, the commercial media system and the fact that broadcast time had to be paid for from the beginning, brought about a dominance of very short ads.

In Western Europe, where in some countries electoral advertising on television was introduced at about the same time as in the US, the development was different. Skepticism toward promoting politics just like soap persisted and is one reason for the more or less extensive regulation of political advertising on television in European countries. Most of the West European countries featured a monopoly of public service broadcasting until the introduction of commercial broadcasting in the 1980s. The public service philosophy has also left an imprint on the conditions for electoral broadcasts in radio and television and the substantial, if not dominant, role of the public service broadcasters in many West European countries still shapes the handling of political advertising in the region. In contrast to the US and with the exception of France, these countries have parliamentary systems making parliamentary elections the most important race in most of Western Europe. The electoral systems focuses on parties, which nevertheless does not preclude a prominent role for the party leaders in the campaign.

For instance, in the UK, Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) first appeared on television during the 1951 parliamentary election campaign. Lasting 15 and in the next elections even 20 minutes these first party broadcasts were lengthy presentations and do not bear much relation to today’s political advertising (Padmanabhan, 2015). The term, that is still used for the parties’ electoral advertising on radio and television today, reflects the different approach to campaign broadcasts taken in the UK. From the beginning, first on radio and later on television, broadcast time for PEBs had to be provided free of charge and could not be purchased. Parties using the broadcast media to present themselves to the electorate was seen as part of the media’s information function rather than as disdainful advertising.

The same was true for Germany, which actually derives its public service broadcasting from the British who, together with the Americans, introduced the model during the occupation after World War II. Electoral spots first appeared on television in the 1957 parliamentary election campaign and the only television channel existing at that time had to provide free airtime for the parties (Holtz-Bacha, 2000). Early on, the German Federal Constitutional Court got involved in disputes over the right of parties to advertise on television. From the beginning, the Court emphasized the opportunity for parties to present themselves to the electorate in order to provide voters with the information they needed to make up their minds.

In fact, protecting political advertising from commercial interests has often been the reason for not allowing the purchase of broadcast time on commercial television once most West European countries opened their markets to private broadcasters. In those countries that still do not allow advertising time to be purchased, political advertising is viewed differently from commercials promoting products and services.

The dominance of party-oriented systems in Western Europe also plays a part in the emergence of a different culture of electoral advertising in these countries, particularly where coalition governments are the rule. Parties coming out of a coalition government or envisaging going into a coalition after Election Day will think twice about criticizing a former or future partner. Parties do not want to risk being seen as unreliable. In general, where airtime is given to parties and not to candidates it is up to the parties and their campaign advisers to decide about the advertising strategy, and that may or may not involve the party leader. In addition to parliamentary elections, some of the West European countries hold direct elections for the head of state whose influence on the government and day-to-day politics, however, is different and often reduced to a ceremonial function.

The situation is somewhat different in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe where political changes around the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 led to a democratization process and free elections. Until then, the media and specifically broadcasting had been in the hands of, and under the strict control of, the state. The transformation of the former state-controlled media into public service institutions has mostly not yet brought about independent broadcasting similar to West European systems. In some cases, the development of an independent broadcasting system has even regressed and government intervention has returned.

In contrast to Europe, the Latin American countries mostly feature presidential systems where the head of state is also the head of the government. Until recently, several of these countries were under dictatorial regimes and re-introduced free elections only a short time ago. Whereas the political systems are mostly classified as democratic, independence of the media cannot be taken for granted. In some countries there is a close connection between media ownership and political power as well as, in some cases, a high degree of media concentration. As in the US, the presidential systems in Latin America result in candidate-oriented campaigns.

Negative advertising is a characteristic of US campaign culture (see Chapters 5 and 23, this volume). Attacking opponents has become a necessity in US campaigns and in the most recent presidential races negative ads greatly outnumbered positive ads. The prominence of attack advertising is also a consequence of the involvement of the political action committees (PACs) and super-PACs that spend millions to support candidates on television or the Internet. Because of the risk of a backlash effect on the sponsor, candidates prefer not to appear in negative ads themselves. Candidates do not have to take responsibility for ads they do not produce. In contrast to the US, negativity and attacks, especially on the personal character of an opponent, are not accepted everywhere. As a result, some countries ban negative advertising altogether.

Regulatory Aspects

Regulation of political advertising takes many different forms. In democratic systems with electoral competition, political advertising in newspapers, on radio, television and more recently the Internet is usually regarded as a legitimate instrument for parties and candidates to promote themselves. Nevertheless, even in established democracies, political advertising, particularly on television, is regulated in one way or the other. Some countries such as Denmark, Norway and Switzerland, though scoring high on democracy or freedom indexes (e.g., Puddington & Roylance, 2016, pp. 20–24), do not allow political advertising on television at all. Other countries make a distinction between political advertising in general and electoral advertising, only permitting the latter to give contenders the opportunity to present themselves to the electorate but keeping political or any kind of ideological advertising off television.

In fact, one reason for not allowing political advertising on television are reservations of the same kind, as Adlai Stevenson argued. “Selling” politics just as any other commercial product and submitting it to marketing is regarded as inappropriate and therefore harmful to the image of politics. In particular, negative advertising and attacks on opponents are often seen as detrimental to the world of politics. Such concerns first and foremost apply to television because of the presumed effectiveness of the audiovisual medium.

With reference to freedom of expression as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe (CoE) has repeatedly made political advertising an issue of its recommendations on free and fair elections for its 47 member states. For instance, in its “Code of good practice in electoral matters” the CoE’s European Commission for Democracy through Law (often called the Venice Commission) emphasized the importance of providing all electoral contenders with equal opportunities for advertising. The Commission also recommended promoting legal provisions to ensure minimum access to advertising on privately owned audiovisual media as well as airtime on public or state-owned broadcasting. In addition, the Venice Commission mentioned the possibility of limiting party spending, particularly on advertising, on the grounds of equal opportunity (European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2002, pp. 7, 18). The Venice Commissions’ guidelines take up the recommendations made earlier by the CoE’s Committee of Ministers (1999) which suggested the provision of free airtime during election campaigns and balanced conditions for paid advertising, if permitted.

Against this background, equal opportunities for all parties and candidates with respect to advertising on radio and television can also be regarded as an indicator of fair e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Endorsement
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Part I General Perspectives
• Part II Airtime With No Charge for Electoral Advertising
• Part III Purchase of Airtime for Electoral Advertising
• Part IV Airtime With No Charge and for Purchase
• Part V Conclusion
• Index