Skip to main content

Accessing information about interest group advertising content

Abstract

Interest groups scholars often want to track the political involvement of groups through their advertising, but there is no one source that covers the universe of advertising. We report here on three of the most commonly used and comprehensive data sources on group-sponsored advertising in the USA, noting the strengths and weaknesses of each. These data sources are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Web site, the Wesleyan Media Project, and the Facebook ad library. We focus on both the completeness of the information provided and the ease of accessing the information. We conclude that the strengths of each database differ. FCC data are good for a comprehensive view of a particular state or media market. WMP data are great for information on television spending and content, while the Facebook library, in spite of bugs, provides the best data on digital ad spending and content.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the early years of each project, Kantar/CMAG only provided storyboards of the ads.

  2. 2.

    For example, the WMP posts ICR statistics at the end of each codebook, starting with the 2012 data. In 2016, for the congressional and down-ballot data, the weighted kappa on tone was 0.913, and it was 0.919 for sponsor. Kappas on issue coding vary significantly, but for many high-frequency issue mentions, such as taxes, they are above 0.8.

  3. 3.

    Another limitation is that each media market in the country is either a “discovery” or a “non-discovery” market. Discovery markets have technology that allows them to compare new sound wave patterns from ads to the existing database of ads. If the ad is new, then it adds it to the database. Markets that do not have this capability can only record instances of ads that are already in the system. See https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/discovery-markets/ compiled by WMP’s Laura Baum for further description of the issue.

  4. 4.

    WMP has focused its coding on presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial ads. Down-ballot ads, for the most part, are not coded.

  5. 5.

    In November 2019, Twitter announced that it would no longer allow political campaigns to pay for ads on its platform.

  6. 6.

    This criterion only applies outside of the USA because online advertising inside the USA is unregulated save for entities that must report their spending to the FEC, which are already covered under the first definition.

  7. 7.

    Note that the public-facing Web-searchable interface and the API operate independently and therefore can return different numbers.

  8. 8.

    Facebook announced that in November 2019 it would begin testing a fourth product with researchers: a database that would “enable them to quickly download the entire Ad Library, pull daily snapshots and track day-to-day changes.” See https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/update-on-election-integrity-efforts/ (Accessed October 27, 2019).

  9. 9.

    Advertising deemed to be political according to Facebook’s definition that does not contain a disclaimer will be flagged and prevented from further impressions until the disclaimer information is provided. Ads that ran without disclaimers still appear in the ad library, and spending on these ads still appears in the Ad Library Report.

References

  1. Baum, L. 2017. Supreme Court Elections: How Much They Have Changed, Why They Changed, and What Difference It Makes. Law & Social Inquiry 42 (3): 900–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edelson, L., Dey, R., Sakhuja, S., and McCoy, D. 2019. An Analysis of United States Online Political Advertising Transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04385.

  3. Fowler, E.F., M. Franz, and T.N. Ridout. 2016. Political Advertising in the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fowler, E.F., T.N. Ridout, and M. Franz. 2017. Political Advertising in 2016: The Presidential Election as Outlier? The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 14 (4): 445–470.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fowler, E.F., L.M. Baum, E. Jesch, D. Haddad, C. Reyes, S.E. Gollust, and J. Niederdeppe. 2019. Issues Relevant to Population Health Messaging in Political Advertising in the United States, 2011–2012 and 2015–2016. Milbank Quarterly 97 (4): 1062–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fowler, E. F., Franz, M., Martin, G., Peskowitz, G., and Ridout, T.N. 2019b. “Political Advertising Online and Offline.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

  7. Fowler, E.F., M. Franz, and T.N. Ridout. 2020. The Blue Wave: Assessing Political Advertising Trends and Democratic Advantages in 2018. PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (1): 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Franz, M., E.F. Fowler, and T.N. Ridout. 2016. Loose cannons or loyal foot soldiers? Toward a more complex theory of interest group advertising strategies. American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 738–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McGehee, M., & Moran, R. E. 2016. Who’s Behind That Political Ad? The FCC’s Online Political Files and Failures in Sponsorship Identification Regulation. [online] Campaign Legal Center. www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document/whos-behind-political-ad

  10. Moshary, S. 2015. Price Discrimination across PACs and the Consequences of Political Advertising Regulation. Working paper, Department of Economics, MIT.

  11. Newell, J. 2018. Political Advertising Saturation in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. Journal of Political Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1513384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Newell, J., and J.L. Blevins. 2018. Transparency in Political Advertising: Assessing the Utility and Validity of the FCC's Online Public Inspection File System. Journal of Information Policy 8: 417–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Oxenford, D. 2018. Beware of the Political File Obligations in this Hot Political Advertising Year. Broadcast Law Blog. www.broadcastlawblog.com/2018/10/articles/beware-of-the-political-file-obligations-in-this-hot-political-advertising-year/

  14. Rogers, T., and J. Middleton. 2015. Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are. Political Behavior 37 (3): 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenberg, M. 2019. Ad Tool Facebook Built to Fight Disinformation Doesn’t Work as Advertised. New York Times, [online]. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/facebook-ad-library.html

  16. Terry, C. 2017. Candidate Appearances, Equal Time, and the FCC's Online Public File Database: Empirical Data on TV Station Compliance During the 2016 Presidential Primary. Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology 25 (2): 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Wesleyan Media Project acknowledges support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Democracy Fund and Wesleyan University. The views presented herein are solely those of the authors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Travis N. Ridout.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franz, M.M., Fowler, E.F. & Ridout, T.N. Accessing information about interest group advertising content. Int Groups Adv 9, 373–383 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00083-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interest groups
  • Political advertising
  • FCC
  • Wesleyan Media Project
  • Facebook