Spending money on the spot - advantages of early political expenditures - 24 Winning Ideas

Early Expenditures Upset Conventional Wisdom, but Pay for Themselves

Three weeks from election day, I called state Sen. Jim Greenwood and said, "I want to be the first one to address you by your new title, Congressman Greenwood."

Laid out in front of me, of course, were the results of our brushfire poll that showed a virtual dead heat between Democratic incumbent Peter Kostmayer at 40 percent and Greenwood at 39 percent. Just as importantly, Kostmayer's favorable-to-unfavorable ratio stood at barely 1:1. Perhaps even more significant was that Greenwood had pulled ahead of Kostmayer among working women by more than 10 points.

I told Greenwood that if the dollars were raised for a sustained effort, this campaign was his.

The problem was that there were no dollars. And that's because we took every dime we had, a total of $110,000, and spent it on late September and early October television in the expensive Philadelphia market. It was a risky but crucial decision.

"The Spot," as we grew to call it, portrayed Kostmayer as seriously out of touch with such average daily concerns as paying taxes and bills and worrying about jobs. It showed a working mother tending to her kids in the morning, rushing off to her job, eating dinner with her family, paying bills with her husband, and putting her young daughter to bed. After proclaiming that only Jim Greenwood understands her needs, she closes by saying: "I'm not sure Peter Kostmayer will ever get it."

By going against the grain of 1992's conventional wisdom -- which was to save money until the end in order to influence a late-deciding electorate -- we took control of the agenda.

Our risk soon yielded a promising result. Suddenly, a campaign that had been down 20 points in June now took on renewed life. Volunteers came out of the woodwork, and we began raising money at a clip of $10,000 per day.

The sudden surge in fundraising enabled the campaign to execute its planned telephone-driven mail effort to the fullest extent and then go back on the air for the final 10 days.

The mail was essential because it zeroed in on Republicans and Independents who had been identified by issue and candidate preference during the quiet weeks of early summer.

With the "Big Mo" on our side, two more key decisions loomed for the campaign. The first was whether to go positive or negative on television down the stretch. The second was what to do about Kostmayer's blistering attacks on Greenwood's Social Security position.

Although some in our camp wanted to continue driving the negatives on Kostmayer and put him away, we decided on a positive, upbeat spot. It showed Jim Greenwood speaking to a rally of exuberant supporters and spending time with his family while the announcer read excerpts from the Philadelphia Inquirer's endorsement.

Kostmayer's desperate pitch that Greenwood wanted to ruin Social Security -- a damaging attack if believed by senior citizens -- was answered by Greenwood's mother, Alice Greenwood. She wrote a highly personal letter to all seniors that brought shame on Kostmayer for stooping so low as to scare seniors. She saved her best line for the end: "Jim Greenwood will never vote to end Social Security. I'll make sure of it."

Kostmayer was also using radio to blast Greenwood on Social Security. We responded, dollar for dollar, with the same message we had used in the mail. Interestingly, this was the only radio we bought during the entire campaign.

Though I was the first to call Greenwood "congressman," the results on Nov. 3 guaranteed I won't be the last.

David Welch is president of David Welch Associates, a general/media/direct mail consulting firm in Arlington, VA.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group