How to make the best billboard advertisement for the election in 2016
The Trump campaign has spent millions of dollars on ads across the country, with a big focus on making sure its message resonates with the electorate.
Now, a new study from Harvard University is asking what kind of advertising might work best in this election year.
The study, titled “The Great Advertising Election,” comes as Trump and the GOP are trying to rally voters behind their ticket.
The study looked at a variety of advertising strategies, from direct mail to social media and billboards to focus groups to get a sense of how to get the most bang for the buck.
The findings were presented Tuesday at a conference on advertising in Washington, D.C. The Harvard study comes on the heels of a similar study released in June that found that Trump has been able to get big-name actors to speak at campaign events.
“It’s going to be very interesting to see what sort of message is communicated through the use of ads,” said Jonathan Adler, the lead author of the Harvard study.
The survey found that the majority of people said they liked seeing the candidate’s name and face on billboards, but that only a small percentage of them would pay to see his or her name and image on billboards.
“There are some who would be interested in seeing a picture of their candidate’s face and then seeing it on a billboard,” Adler said.
“But it’s not as popular as seeing him on a television broadcast or an ad on a TV station.
And it’s very rare for that to work well.”
The study focused on direct mail.
Adler said that people were most interested in hearing the candidate talk about a specific issue.
But that didn’t always work, as people were more likely to want to see pictures of the candidate.
The majority of voters were also more likely than the public at large to want a photo of the president, which led to more ads focused on the image of the man on the screen rather than the candidate himself.
“The more direct a message is to the public, the better,” Adlers said.
That may be a big difference in 2016 compared to other elections.
In the 2008 and 2012 elections, for instance, a lot of the advertising that was directed to the American public was focused on candidates.
But in 2016, Trump’s campaign spent millions more to reach out to the electorate and create a more positive message.
“This is a very different time than 2008 or 2012.
And we know that direct mail is still very popular, but it’s much more difficult,” Adelson said.
“The way we communicate is through social media.”
While there is plenty of data on direct message advertising, the research team at Harvard said they needed to focus on a subset of the messages that work best to get people to the polls.
The group also looked at what type of advertising people are most likely to pay to view.
“In a typical election, voters pay for their own ads and for some people, they also pay for some other services,” Adellers said.
In other words, it’s the person who pays for the ads that is the key to making a difference in the election.
The team was able to find that people are willing to pay more for advertisements that focus on issues like climate change, guns, and trade.
But the researchers also looked into whether people are interested in the candidate themselves.
They found that there was a huge variation in the quality of ads that people liked.
For instance, people were willing to spend $1.9 million on ads that focused on Trump, but the average value of the ads was $2.3 million.
People were willing pay more money for ads about guns, but there was also a high level of dissatisfaction with ads that highlighted the candidate as a bully.
The researchers said they found that advertising about Trump, and other issues, may help boost turnout, but is unlikely to sway undecided voters who are more likely not to have a vote.
The research team is currently working on further studies looking at the specific messages that are most effective at getting voters to the polling booths.