Study: More Money, More Media Coverage Lead to More Negative Political Ads

A study published in the May-June issue of Marketing Science has found that big budgets and media saturation are among two key contributing factors to negative campaign advertising.

In "The Seeds of Negativity: Knowledge and Money," co-authors Mitchell Lovett, an assistant professor of marketing at the Simon Graduate School of Business at the University of Rochester, and Ron Shachar, professor at the Arison School of Business, Israel, and a visiting professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, followed U.S. House of Representative races in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and found that "negativity indeed increases in both voters' knowledge and the candidate's budget." Or, in the non-academic English used in the press release, "if voters know little about each candidate, the advertisements will generally focus on a candidate's positive attributes. But a candidate with deep pockets or media saturation is much more likely to turn to attack ads." Early in the election, a candidate will introduce himself and let voters get to know him. In a non-competitive race, as in Eliot Spitzer's race for governor of New York in 2006, the candidate can continue to take this approach. But, as is more often the case, once the race becomes competitive and voters achieve a baseline knowledge of all candidates -- thanks to previous advertising or to media coverage -- something must be done to cut through the clutter. So the fur begins to fly.