Case Study 25.1: The Air War in Garza-Whitfield — Television Strategy Under Resource Constraint
Background
With eight weeks remaining in the Garza-Whitfield Senate race, Nadia Osei faces a resource allocation problem that is familiar to any analytics director on a competitive campaign with a resource disadvantage: how to maximize impact when your opponent is outspending you.
Total television spending by the end of the race will look roughly like this: - Whitfield campaign + aligned outside groups: approximately $7.2 million - Garza campaign + aligned outside groups: approximately $4.3 million
The spending ratio is 1.67 to 1 in Whitfield's favor—a significant but not insurmountable disadvantage. In competitive Senate races where the spending ratio is 2:1 or greater, underfunded campaigns typically lose unless the political environment is strongly favorable to their party. At 1.67:1, resource strategy matters.
This case study follows the strategic decisions made in the final eight weeks of the race's television advertising program.
The State's Television Market Geography
The state has four television markets that collectively cover the registered voter population:
| Market | Reg. Voters | Cost/GRP ($) | Garza Lead (week 12 poll) | Key Voter Segment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital City | 287,000 | 1,850 | +11 (Garza leads) | College-educated, government workers |
| Suburban Metro | 394,000 | 2,340 | −2 (Whitfield marginal lead) | Suburban families, mixed suburbs |
| Mid-State | 218,000 | 1,020 | −4 (Whitfield leads) | Working-class, manufacturing |
| Rural Southern | 103,000 | 420 | −14 (Whitfield strong) | Rural, older, culturally conservative |
Total registered voters: 1,002,000
Week 12 Intelligence: The Whitfield Ad Buy
Through commercial ad monitoring, the Garza campaign's media intelligence identifies the following Whitfield advertising pattern in weeks 11-12:
Whitfield Campaign: - Suburban Metro: 520 GRPs/week (crime contrast) - Mid-State: 380 GRPs/week (economic anxiety/positive) - Capital City: 160 GRPs/week (biographical) - Rural Southern: 120 GRPs/week (base maintenance, minimal)
Citizens for Public Safety PAC (Whitfield-aligned): - Suburban Metro: 340 GRPs/week (crime negative) - Mid-State: 220 GRPs/week (crime negative) - Capital City: 0 GRPs/week - Rural Southern: 0 GRPs/week
Total Whitfield-aligned GRPs/week: - Suburban Metro: 860 - Mid-State: 600 - Capital City: 160 - Rural Southern: 120
The Garza Campaign's Allocation Decision
Nadia and the campaign manager sit down with $780,000 left in the television budget to deploy over eight weeks. (A healthcare-aligned outside group is running additional advertising in Capital City independently, at approximately 200 GRPs/week, but the campaign cannot coordinate with it.) The campaign needs to allocate the $780,000 across markets and weeks.
Option 1: Proportional Defense
Match Whitfield's GRP distribution proportionally—advertising in all four markets at a fraction of his intensity. Given the budget, this means running at roughly 38-40% of Whitfield's GRP level in each market.
Estimated cost: $780,000 (approximately $195,000 over 8 weeks, which is $97,500/week)
Projected GRP levels: - Suburban Metro: 330 GRPs/week - Mid-State: 230 GRPs/week - Capital City: 60 GRPs/week - Rural Southern: 46 GRPs/week
Option 2: Market Concentration
Concede Rural Southern entirely (Whitfield's strongest market), reduce to symbolic presence in Capital City (already favorable to Garza), and concentrate resources on Suburban Metro and Mid-State, where the race is most competitive.
Projected GRP levels: - Suburban Metro: 520 GRPs/week - Mid-State: 360 GRPs/week - Capital City: 0 GRPs/week - Rural Southern: 0 GRPs/week
Estimated cost: $780,000 (approximately $97,500/week)
Option 3: Asymmetric Issue Play
Concentrate almost entirely on Mid-State with a heavy economic message (fighting Whitfield's crime frame on his secondary issue terrain, where Garza is more competitive) while using minimal Capital City buys to keep the Garza coalition engaged. Abandon Suburban Metro to Whitfield's dominance.
Projected GRP levels: - Suburban Metro: 0-80 GRPs/week - Mid-State: 580 GRPs/week - Capital City: 120 GRPs/week - Rural Southern: 0 GRPs/week
Estimated cost: $780,000
The Message Decision
Simultaneously with the market allocation decision, the campaign must decide what message to run. The message testing research (from Exercise 25.3) produced the following ranked results for the three response spot options among target voter segments in Suburban Metro and Mid-State:
| Spot | Suburban Metro Result | Mid-State Result |
|---|---|---|
| A (Context) | +2.1pp (soft) | +1.4pp (soft) |
| B (Character) | +3.4pp (strong) | +2.8pp (strong) |
| C (Pivot) | +1.2pp (weak) | +3.1pp (strong) |
The divergence between markets is analytically interesting: the Character spot performs well everywhere, but the Pivot spot performs much better in Mid-State (working-class, manufacturing) than in Suburban Metro (mixed suburban). This suggests the economic security reframe resonates more with Mid-State voters whose direct economic anxieties make healthcare/economic security framing more applicable, while Suburban Metro voters respond more to the social proof of law enforcement endorsement.
The Creative Compromise
The campaign's media team proposes a two-spot strategy: run Spot B (Character) in Suburban Metro and a modified version of Spot C (Pivot) specifically calibrated to Mid-State economic concerns in that market. This is both a message optimization and an implicit endorsement of the Market Concentration allocation (Option 2), since running two different market-specific spots makes proportional defense across four markets more resource-intensive.
What Happened: The Final Eight Weeks
The Garza campaign implemented a modified Option 2 with elements of Option 3:
- Capital City: 80 GRPs/week (minimal, keeping brand presence without significant investment in a market they expected to win)
- Suburban Metro: 420 GRPs/week (Spot B, Character)
- Mid-State: 380 GRPs/week (Spot C modified, economic pivot)
- Rural Southern: 0 GRPs/week (full concession)
Cost vs. Whitfield-aligned total: - Suburban Metro competitive ratio: Garza 420 vs. Whitfield-aligned 860 GRPs/week (ratio: 0.49) - Mid-State competitive ratio: Garza 380 vs. Whitfield-aligned 600 GRPs/week (ratio: 0.63)
The Garza campaign was outgunned but not absent in the two markets that would decide the race.
End-of-Race Results and Assessment
The final vote outcome in each market:
| Market | Garza Vote Share | Whitfield Vote Share | Pre-campaign Baseline (Garza) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital City | 57.2% | 42.8% | 58% (expected) |
| Suburban Metro | 49.1% | 50.9% | 47% (pre-ad) |
| Mid-State | 44.7% | 55.3% | 43% (pre-ad) |
| Rural Southern | 35.4% | 64.6% | 36% (pre-ad) |
Overall result: Garza won statewide by 0.8 percentage points. Whitfield's victory in Suburban Metro was narrower than predicted; Garza's improvement in Mid-State exceeded projections.
Discussion Questions
1. Evaluate the three allocation options (Proportional Defense, Market Concentration, Asymmetric Issue Play) using the research literature on advertising effects. For each option, what does the research predict about its effectiveness? Which option does the research most clearly support, and why?
2. The vote outcome shows Garza improved over her baseline in Mid-State by 1.7 percentage points and in Suburban Metro by 2.1 percentage points, despite being significantly outspent in both markets. Using the Gerber et al. findings on advertising decay and the Kalla-Broockman findings on average persuasion effects, how much of this improvement can we plausibly attribute to advertising, and how much might be attributable to other factors? What data would you need to make a more confident attribution?
3. The two-spot creative strategy (different spots in different markets) requires logistical complexity and additional production cost. Under what conditions is this type of market-specific creative optimization likely to be worth the added cost, and under what conditions would a single strong spot performing reasonably in both markets be a better resource allocation?
4. The Garza campaign fully conceded Rural Southern market (0 GRPs). The chapter discusses research suggesting that below-threshold advertising (fewer than 3-5 exposures) may be ineffective. Does this research support conceding Rural Southern entirely, or does it suggest some minimal presence might be valuable? What additional information about Rural Southern voters would change your answer?
5. The "competitive ad environment" concept measures each side's GRP total against the other's. The Garza campaign achieved competitive ratios of 0.49 in Suburban Metro and 0.63 in Mid-State—substantially outgunned in both markets. Yet Garza improved in both markets. What explanations, consistent with the advertising research literature, could account for this outcome? Identify at least three distinct mechanisms.
6. Looking at the final vote totals: Capital City performed approximately at Garza's pre-campaign baseline (she won it by roughly her expected margin), while Mid-State significantly outperformed. The Garza campaign invested more per persuadable voter in Mid-State than in Capital City. What does this outcome suggest about the campaign's resource allocation decision? What would a post-race analysis say about the value of the Capital City investment versus the Mid-State investment?