Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    The Air War versus The Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in US Presidential Elections
    04 Dec 2014Working Paper Summaries

    The Air War versus The Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in US Presidential Elections

    by Doug J. Chung & Lingling Zhang
    For United States presidential elections, mass media advertising has been referred to as the "air war" while targeted personal selling is the "ground game." Firms, too, increasingly use both mass media advertising and targeted personal selling to successfully promote products and brands in the marketplace. In this study, the authors jointly examine the effect of mass media advertising and personal selling in the context of US presidential elections. By linking various campaign activities to county-level vote results, the authors are able to offer a more comprehensive identification of the causal effect for campaign activities compared to existing studies on this topic. The results generate insights into the effectiveness of each campaign activity for different voter segments. For example, field operations are more effective for voters with stronger baseline partisan preferences, while advertising from the presidential candidates is more effective among those who are more on the margin. Overall, findings show that political campaigns play an essential role in the outcome of elections. This is contrary to the "minimum effect of campaigning" view held by some pundits, who claim that most voters already have their minds made up and, hence, campaigns barely move the needle in terms of voting results. Such findings may help firms in allocating resources across and within channels. Key concepts include:
    • Advertising can play a critical role in a close election-but not when one party has a big advantage.
    • While candidates' own ads are found to be more effective for voters with weaker baseline partisan preferences, the opposite is true for PAC ads.
    • In the United States-and prompted by a tremendous increase in campaign spending-both political strategists and the general public have engaged in a heated discussion about the effect of campaign activities on actual election outcomes.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    Firms increasingly use both mass-media advertising and targeted personal selling to successfully promote products and brands in the marketplace. In this study, we jointly examine the effect of mass-media advertising and personal selling in the context of U.S. presidential elections, where the former is referred to as the "air war" and the latter the "ground game." Specifically, we look at how different types of advertising―candidates' own ads vs. outside ads―and personal selling―in the form of utilizing field offices―affect voter preferences. Further, we ask how these various campaign activities affect the outcome of elections through their diverse effects on various types of people. We find that personal selling has a stronger effect among partisan voters, while candidates' own advertising is better received by non-partisans. We also find that personal selling accounted for the Democratic victories in the 2008 and 2012 elections and that advertising was critical only in a close election, such as the one in 2004. Interestingly, had the Democrats received more outside advertising in 2004, the election would have ended up in a 269-269 tie. Our findings generate insights on how to allocate resources across and within channels.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: October 2014
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 15-033
    • Faculty Unit(s): Marketing
      Trending
        • 28 Mar 2023
        • Research & Ideas

        The FDA’s Speedy Drug Approvals Are Safe: A Win-Win for Patients and Pharma Innovation

        • 25 Jan 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

        • 23 Mar 2023
        • Research & Ideas

        As Climate Fears Mount, More Investors Turn to 'ESG' Funds Despite Few Rules

        • 01 Mar 2023
        • What Do You Think?

        How Much Does 'Deep Purpose' Matter to the Bottom Line?

        • 25 Feb 2019
        • Research & Ideas

        How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

    Find Related Articles
    • Marketing Strategy
    • Government and Politics

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College