Political Advertisers: Find the Balance Between Data and Intuition

We’ve seen plenty of stories about the differences in advertising strategies and tactics used on the left and the right of the political aisle. Media consumption, media mixes, platforms and content creators are all discussed regularly. 

But underlying these discussions of strategy and tactics, there lies a larger point that is, ultimately, holding Democrats back: the balance between how intuition and data are used in shaping advertising strategies.

From their conception, advertising and public relations have been treated as equal parts art and science. However, with the proliferation of data, the trend has been to treat them more solely as a science. This has led to pursuing the idea that through enough data and robust analysis methodology, the process of advertising can be made an objective one.

However, as advertising legend William Bernbach famously said, “advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be, not a science, but an art.” History is ripe with examples to support Bernach. 

Public relations pioneer and propagandist Edward Bernays is one such example, fusing Freudian psychology with advertising in the early 20th century. One of his more notable campaigns was his “torches of freedom”, which cynically capitalized on women’s fight for equality to double the potential market for the cigarette industry. 

This campaign would not have been possible without a bold hypothesis that was then put into practice and tested. It’s that willingness to both make and put into practice a bold assumption that is so glaringly missing from the niche of Democratic politics in the larger advertising world. 

In the current world of Democratic advertising, assumptions must first be backed by data, especially if they don’t align with the way things are currently done. It’s an inversion of the scientific method where the hypothesis is discredited before it can even be tested. Without making and then testing a new assumption, there is no way to get the desired supportive data. What results is a feedback loop that is stuck, resistant to new ideas or attempting to break the mold. 

The political right, by contrast, is much less hamstrung. Their approach is more analogous to that of the private sector, where winning and generating revenue are the end goal, and the means are in service of that end. This liberates them to take more chances and be less risk averse. 

The Trump team’s 2016 Project Alamo Facebook campaign is a perfect example of this. Gary Coby, director of advertising at the Republican National Committee, said, “On any given day, the campaign was running 40,000 to 50,000 variants of its ads, testing how they performed in different formats, with subtitles and without, and static versus video, among other small differences. On the day of the third presidential debate in October, the team ran 175,000 variations” –  an approach he claimed to be “A/B testing on steroids.” 

One could say this is a scientific, data-driven approach. And it surely is. But determining what ads to start with, then how to define success, then what ads to test next all require quick judgement calls that are imbued with subjectivity and intuition.  

Republicans are doubling down further on this approach with the adoption of artificial intelligence. As Axios recently reported, Republicans are now using AI to both understand how people feel about a topic and quickly shape a winning message in response to it. 

By comparison, Democrats are struggling to overcome the same sense of analysis paralysis, where no one feels empowered to make and test an assumption. Then, even if they do, the findings are often diminished if they run counter to the maintenance of the status quo. 

Advertising is rooted in the marriage of art and science, in experimentation and rapid adaptation. You need both to be successful. Democrats became subservient to all things left brain – to science and to data. But all science begins with a hypothesis and someone willing to dare, try out a new idea and put it into practice. 

From Bernays and Ernes Dichter, who married the fields of psychology and advertising, to Bernbach and David Ogilvy, who pushed things forward with their focus on emotional resonance and brand loyalty, all great advancements have been rooted in new, transformative ideas – ideas that were tested, iterated upon and adopted into practice. Without these ideas and our willingness to test them, we’re left with more of the same. 

Discounting every new idea because it’s not based on data is creating the very problem that the left keeps seeking to solve. Advancements in algorithms, machine learning and AI will never replace the need for a hypothesis. A hypothesis, to some extent, will always be based on a very unscientific word that we need to start embracing again: intuition. 

Zach Adams is the director of client partnerships for politics and public affairs at VDX.tv.