1. Deb Goldberg: well, we actually do not know exactly how much she plans to spend on TV advertising, because I believe her campaign has not said so. However, given that at the end of July she had 1.9+ million on hand, we can guess that she will spend approximately $2 million on ads, give or take a couple of hundred thousand.
2. Andrea Silbert: $530,000. According to a press release received today from the Silbert campaign, they
will air two new television ads today. The ads, which are Silbert’s first of the campaign and were created by noted media specialist Tad Devine, are entitled “Andrea Silbert: The Jobs Candidate,” and “14,000 Jobs.” They will air today and take a hiatus for the Labor Day holiday. They will return to the airwaves on Tuesday, September 5th through the September 19th primary. The ads are part of an approximately $530,000 media buy designed to ensure that Silbert’s message reaches Democratic and unenrolled primary voters.
According to an article in today’s T&G,
So the mayors campaign, which had $391,234 in the bank at the end of the most recent reporting period, Aug. 16, was able to plunk down about $400,000 for media for a longer run than the mayors advisers had anticipated. Besides the network booking fees, the campaign paid Mr. Patton-Spruill, the director, about $20,000.
After incurring those costs plus other fees for the services of media buyer Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor, the campaign has only about $80,000 left, Mr. Ferson said.
Another interesting piece from the article:
In one of the two versions of the ad, a group of elementary school pupils behind a beaming Mr. Murray chant: Hurry, hurry, vote for Murray.
In the other version, the candidate declares: Im in a hurry to get Massachusetts working again. I hope youll give me the chance.
Hoss Analysis: remember that with all of these amounts, a portion goes to the consultants, so each of their amounts that is actually spent on tv ads is less than the total amount put out there.
That said, this is overall an impressive bunch of media buys for a downballot race, particularly Silbert’s buy and, to a lesser extent, Murray’s.
Regarding Silbert, the following are especially impressive:
A) Her ability to spend more money on TV than either 2002 LG candidates Pines or Slattery, even though they were both much more established politicians at the time. She’s also buying more time than any of the Treasurer candidates did in 2002. Again, impressive, given that that group had both established politicians (Cahill, Cahill and Murphy) and a guy that was an ultimate insider and kicked in 100K+ of his own dough (Segel).
B) Her ability to have conserved enough resources to be able to spend this much.
Regarding Murray, it’s impressive that he’s been able to pull together a larger media buy than Pines or Slattery, but it’s surprising overall that he didn’t raise more given his position as an elected official. I know he’s allegedly putting together a field operation, but as I’ve said constantly, I’ll believe it when I see it. I also know that some say “he got into the race late.” Baloney. He’s known he was running for years, and for him not to have stocked up more funds prior to getting in the race was foolish. Or, if it was not foolish, then his failure to raise more since he did get in isn’t impressive – and yes, I know he’s “raised more since he got in than anyone else.”
Also, it appears that Murray’s people have bought into the “remember a rhyme” school of political ads a la Tim Cahill. But “Hurry Hurry Vote for Murray”? Uhhh…
Lastly, I’ll say this: usually the candidate that accumulates and spends the most wins. In this race, Deb Goldberg’s inherited wealth positions her as the leading candidate to do that now. However, given that she has not gotten a ton of attention, and given that her ads are not particularly memorable, she is less of a favorite than she could have been. Silbert and Murray are still in this thing, and as we all know in politics, anything can happen.