The End of TV Ads?

This is an important question. -Patrick

Steven Stark of The Boston Phoenix wrote an op-ed today on "Why TV Ads Are a Waste of Money".

The article was all over the place and failed to make a coherent point. He begins by saying that the "era of TV advertising in presidential general elections is over" because it is a "victim of a new media age," and yet, those ads have never been important in general elections "as opposed to the primary process." This left me with several questions:

Are ads in presidential primaries really more effective and more important than ads in a general election matchup? There are obvious differences between the two processes, and one might think that TV ads are tailored to both the state with an upcoming primary along with what the controversy of the week seems to be that needs to be responded to. But TV ads in the general can be tailored for specific states as well. Stark never explained why there is a difference in importance.

(Assuming there is a diminishing effectiveness), is the diminishing effectiveness of TV ads really a result of the rise of new media? The problems that Stark points out with presidential TV ads (lack of creativitiy, lack of "product to sell", etc.) seem to be problems associated with TV ads themselves and the medium that they are on. Sure, the Internet and TiVo have changed the way advertisers think, but Stark provides no real cogent explanation of whether new media is a cause or catalyst of the downfall of TV ads (if there is a downfall).

Are TV ads still important for down-ticket races or have they become a victim of new media as well? I guess one can answer this question by saying it matters where the race is. A Congressional race for an at-large seat from Alaska is obviously different from a Congressional race for a district in Manhattan. But using Stark's logic, the era of TV ads might be over for statewide and local races as well. Are they?

Answers? Thoughts?

- MM