Hello. Happy Sunday. Welcome to another edition of Doomscroll - your favorite newsletter covering all things digital on the right. Let’s get to some scrolling.
This week’s Doomscroll is sponsored by WinRed.
Thanks to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about why Democrats (like AOC) spend way more way earlier to boost their profiles and grow their lists. Here are some of the comments I got:
Because Republicans invested in list building in 2019 and the early 2020’s. We invested earlier, and dems have been trying to catch up ever since. Also we’ve figured out the math behind the correlation between list building and fundraising to a degree that the other side hasn’t yet. Also look at AOC’s prospecting ads - they are not good list building ads. They’re generic and only pulling in the most grassrootsy boomers possible. These people won’t be donating on her house file later. On the flip side, her hard ask/ donate ads are fantastic. Direct to camera, asking small amounts... this is what we should be doing. Optimizing for cost-per-donor, which will give her much higher-quality leads and a high potential for repeat donors.
Democrats have a much more organized structure and databases in place when it comes to both fundraising and grassroots. They are much more willing to share information, campaign-to-campaign and organization-to-organization, than Republicans are.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of candidates in today’s political environment on the Republican side think they’re just going to win if they get the Trump endorsement, so they’re unwilling to spend or do what’s necessary to win their elections. I also think a lot of consultants on our side are too afraid to spend money early on to reap the benefits later.
I think all three of these comments make great points, so thank you to whoever submitted them! My only pushback to the first one is that just because we invested in list-building in 2020, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be an ongoing effort. Keep growing, is what I always say! Also, I wish you had fleshed out that bit about the math behind the correlation between list building and fundraising a little more. I think I get what you’re saying, but why do you think the left hasn’t gotten there yet? Just some follow-up questions if you’re reading this and want to respond :)
I’ll end with this: The more I think about this problem, the more I wonder if it isn’t also a candidate problem. Do we think AOC’s consultants pushed her to spend money like this or did she push her consultants? I’m confident it’s AT LEAST a bit of both, which reflects a problem on our side that I think gets overlooked a lot: Our candidates are different. They’re less online. They’re maybe older. They’re less interested in the vibes and perhaps over-rely on their bio and policy positions. Message does go a long way, and maybe back in the day Joe Smith from Georgia could win a Congressional race because he flew a military helicopter in Afghanistan or spent 20 years prosecuting drug dealers. Today? Bios don’t win races. Progressive candidates get that. Maybe ours don’t and so there’s no pressing consultants to come up with strategies that involve spending more and spending early. Just a theory. Could be wrong.
This week’s One Question is about ethics. GROAN. We want them. We need them (right?!). I became a little obsessed a few days ago with this story about how New Jersey Democrat gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill didn’t get to walk at her Naval Academy graduation because she didn’t turn in her cheating classmates. Immediately, the Sherrill campaign tried to deflect the story by accusing the Trump Administration of weaponizing the power of the federal government to go after a political opponent. FFS. Anyway, the more this story played out, the more fascinating it became. Apparently an operative working for the Jack Ciattarelli campaign submitted a request to the National Archives to get whatever he could of Sherrill’s military records (classic, standard move). The tech at the National Archives handling the request accidentally released TOO MUCH INFORMATION, including Sherrill’s SSN, address, insurance information, etc. That is a big effing deal. But amid all the information was the bit about the graduation. It seems to me that, despite Democrats’ strong objections, there was no weaponization. No illegal obtaining of information. They submitted a standard request, but got back too much private data. They handed some stuff over to a news outlet. That news outlet asked questions. A story was written. That’s not the fault of the Ciattarelli campaign. And according to a reporter from the New Jersey Globe, the story about the cheating scandal did not come from the files that were improperly released. So…the bit about the cheating is fair game, no? We may never know if the erroneous release of the full record was an honest mistake or not. But in this case, I’m really not sure it even matters. That’s what I think, anyway.
But this whole story raises an interesting question about the role of ethics on a political campaign. If a campaign incorrectly obtains information about an opponent that could be potentially damaging but is also supposed to be private…does that campaign have an ethical duty to not use it? Or is all fair in love and politics? Answer away, my friends!
The above quote is from a letter Anne Wall, head of federal government affairs and public policy at Google, sent to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson in response to his complaint about Google using Netherlands-based SURBL to flag certain emails as spam. It seems like Google’s action here has put a nice bow on the whole WinRed/Google/SURBL drama that consumed much of our fundraising ecosystem a few weeks ago. At least for now, anyway…
—5 Things I’m Watching in the Ad Space
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about a case study from IMGE in which they experimented with using one ad exchange for CTV buying. This week, I saw another case study from a firm (Cross Screen Media) that did a similar test with Magnite’s ClearLine. The results? More reach of persuadable voters and fewer fees. Success. So…is narrowing down the ad supply pathway an emerging trend in the programmatic ad space this cycle? Methinks it might be, which got me thinking: What other trends/things should we be paying attention to in the ad space heading into the Midterms? I’ve got 5 things I’m watching:
How the SSP’s are getting into the DSP game. The aforementioned ClearLine is a great example of this. Now that ad buyers are starting to really hone in on ad fraud and fees to cut down on waste, SSP’s are realizing they can capitalize on that to trim the fat in the ad delivery process. Will this become a dominant method for ad buying this cycle? And if so, what does it mean for the StackAdapts and Trade Desks of the world?
Who’s actually doing CTV buying: TV guys are digital? We all know there’s constant tension here, but there really shouldn’t be. As someone who lives and breathes digital I think you all know what my opinion on this is. TV buyers should stay in their lane - but will they? Honestly, this question is becoming less about big-picture hypotheticals and more about efficiency and money. Does a buyer who’s spent a career buying points in a DMA know what it even means to boost reach on CTV without wasting budget? Every dollar in a media plan matters, and I just don’t know TV guys are best equipped to handle these budgets. Sue me.
The new attention metrics. Will digital teams start tracking and reporting new kinds of metrics this year? I want to say….yes. I’m talking engagement metrics beyond link clicks. Think hover rates, time spent on page, ad share of screen, skippable video completion rates, etc etc. The more we can prove our ads are driving all kinds of engagement, the better. Doesn’t have to always be clicks. And on a related note - if and how creative teams embrace more high-impact ads to drive these kinds of metrics.
Who utilizes audio. I still think audio is under-utilized in our space, and I’m as guilty as anyone here and will be looking for ways I can test this medium more this cycle. I *think* (I know I’ve seen data on this but it is eluding me right now) that audio inventory is relatively cheap and delivers pretty meaningful results. We all know podcast consumption is through the roof and targeting capabilities are on par with just about any other platform. So again…why don’t we do this more? If you’re working on media plans that include audio (or are planning to) drop me a line and let me know!
If anyone screws up the influencer game. Ok…Imagine the doomsday scenario: You partner with an influencer and in their post they go off the rails. Off script. Mess up the message. I know 2024 was the Influencer Election (or was it 2022??), and maybe we haven’t seen a major hiccup here yet, but it’s only a matter of time, right? I’m not an influencer-campaign-hater by any means, but from all my conversations over the years with consultants (and even some digital directors) about this, there’s so much unease and nervousness over using influencers that I have to believe they’re on to something. Yes, there could be some good potential in this space but also: It’s risky to hand control of your political message over to someone who isn’t in politics. The disclaimer situation is still murky at best. Results are hard to measure. Etc, etc. Whether it happens on the left or the right, someone’s bound to screw up - even beyond that lefty revolt I talked about a few weeks ago.
So there you have it: 5 things I’ll be watching in the ad space this year and next! What’d I miss? Drop me a line and tell me: itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com
—Palmetto Primary Problems
Ya’ll: I told you the South Carolina gubernatorial primary was gonna get nasty. This week, a group with reported ties to Attorney General Alan Wilson released a microsite called 2FacedMace.com. You guys. You know how I love a good microsite. This one is pretty darn good, and the “Name that Nancy” ad is kind of hilarious. Brilliant, even. Nicely done. The whole thing telegraphs the main line of attack against the Congresswoman from the Low Country: that she’s an ideological chameleon who changes positions depending on which way the wind’s blowing (or the cameras are pointing). But hey - Nancy can dish it, so she should be able to take it! Right? Maybe. There’s also a feud brewing between Team Mace and Team Evette. Rumor has it the pro-Pamela Evette super PAC jumped the gun on implying that incumbent Gov. Henry McMaster would be endorsing his Lieutenant. McMaster is (reportedly) pissed. So is…Team Mace? So is Team Wilson. Anyway, you can watch the ad in question here. TBH I don’t see what the big deal is. The ad pulls from publicly available video of McMaster saying very nice things about Evette. I think it’s fair game and literally any campaign would use these kinds of clips to their advantage. ::shrugs:: But who doesn’t love the drama?
The WinRed Effect:
$5.6B Processed for Republicans
From 8.8M grassroots donors
97% of Winning Campaigns Use WinRed
🗣️ YouTube is reinstating accounts that it had suspended over “misinformation” related to 2020 and COVID-19. I find the timing of this to be very interesting, but not totally sure what to make of it. While everyone’s losing their shit over the Trump Administration having a hand in “silencing” Jimmy Kimmel, it’s been very clear to any casual observer for a LONG TIME that the Biden Administration went after tech companies and pressured them to remove speech they didn’t like. Can we just agree it’s all bad?
🤳 Instagram has now reached 3 billion active monthly users.
💻 Campaign Trend has a nice summary of Zero-Click Search.
🛍️ Interesting: Retail spending on social media ads ended up being higher this year than earlier predictions.
🇨🇳 There’s a TikTok deal. Read about it if you must.
💸 Hootsuite has a new guide for X ads in 2025. Some helpful info.
Former White House aide, Morgan Murphy, is jumping in the Alabama Senate race.
The Michigan GOP gubernatorial primary is starting to get interesting. Definitely keeping an eye on this one.
Rep. Tom Tiffany has entered the race for governor in Wisconsin.
Speaking of Wisconsin, businessman Bill Berrien just dropped out of the race because…he was following porn writers on Medium?
Iowa State Rep. Shannon Lundgren is running for Ashley Hinson’s congressional seat. So is former Rep. Rod Blum.
Virginia State Sen. Bryce Reeves is running for Senate to take on Mark Warner next year.
Politico ran a story this week about the GOP campaigns that are starting to mention Charlie Kirk in their ads. Eh.
Meta is looking for a Partner Manager, Government, Politics, and Advocacy. Job description here.
Love streaming? Samba TV is looking for a Director, Political Business Development and Data Partnerships. Job description here.
Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com
From the other side of the aisle:
So…Civic Shout’s Josh Nelson highlighted this fundraising email from David Hogg and Leaders We Deserve on his LinkedIn as being SO powerful. And…I could not have a more opposite reaction. This email is disgusting. Seriously. When lefty psycho violence is on the uptick and a major conservative cultural figure was just assassinated…you’re gonna send out an email about “right-wing extremism” that imagines your own assassination? WTF. I alway knew Hogg had problems, but this is some next-level shit.
From the other side of the tracks:
I enjoyed this read about how the famous “Got Milk” campaign wasn’t enough to drive consumption of milk. Lesson here: Name ID isn’t everything! Here’s a nugget:
The campaign was everywhere. According to reports, at one point, Got Milk had bolstered up to 90% awareness in the market. Wow. However, despite its popularity, the campaign only managed to increase milk consumption by 2%, against a budget north of $100 million per year.
Brutal.
Before you go…
Did you answer this week’s One Question? It takes five seconds!
Access the Doomscroll archive here.
Consider forwarding Doomscroll to your friends!
