Donald Trump’s Digital Campaign Director Spent Half What Clinton Did

Hillary Clinton had an obvious advantage over Trump in two aspects, the money and the workforce at her disposal. It was not unexpected to see her spend more than double of what Donald Trump spent on his presidential campaigns. Clinton’s digital campaign was backed by several millions of dollars while Trump did not believe much in ads.

Unlike Clinton, Trump did not set out to hire a large team of professionals to manage his campaign.

Clinton tried to target the youth through Facebook and other social media. Her hundred plus strong team aggressively handled the social media campaign. While Clinton was spending her money on digital campaigns, Trump took to the traditional mediums. This does not mean that he did not use any social media. Instead, he was spending categorically. He hardly spent any money in states where Clinton had spent a fortune. While he only spent in those states where he had a majority.

Clinton tried to target the youth through Facebook and other social media.

 

$1500 Trump Website Generated $90Million Campaign Fund

Trump’s digital director, Brad Parscale, was experienced and a close confidant of Trump. When he was hired for creating a website for Trump’s presidential campaign, he demanded only $1500. Later, through hard work and smart use of resources, he ended up earning $90 million. Unlike Clinton, Trump did not set out to hire a large team of professionals to manage his campaign. He had a small team that comprised of close friends and people who had been working with him for a long time. This resulted in substantial efforts by them on a personal level.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, endorses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

Trump’s victory without spending the big buck can be credited to the fact that he used data very efficiently. He did not go about spending money in every state. He never wanted to target the masses. His team and he knew that for winning only a concentrated effort on a specific section of the society was enough. To do that he did not have to spend much, but he achieved his target.

 

Using Data Efficiently

By using the available data, he knew which areas and sections to target. This did the trick. While Clinton’s efforts were distributed and Parscale says that they had to work long hours and they had to learn many skills to handle the campaign appropriately. The team used to go through around 50,000 to 60,000 ads daily and screen them for their efficiency. They minutely went through every ad and customised it to reach out to voters as they had to maximise the effects. They tailored every aspect of those ads so that they had the desired results. Due to these persistent efforts the digital campaign was a huge success without any huge investment.

Parscale says that they had to work long hours and they had to learn many skills to handle the campaign appropriately.

$39Million on TV Ads, $29Million on Digital Campaign

Regarding spending, Trump spent close to $39 million to air ads on TV and another $29 million on Parscale’s firm for consultation and for handling the digital campaign. Another payment was for a TV closing ad of two minutes that depicted Trump and the photos of his rallies. That ad was effective, according to Parscale. All these amounts look paltry when compared to Clinton’s spending on digital campaigning. She spent nearly $140 million on these campaigns. She took to Facebook and several other social media sites and TV too.

$66Million Out Of Trump’s Pocket

While Clinton’s fundraisings were filling the campaign’s accounts, Trump had to spend $66 million from his pocket. The business-minded Trump was able to squeeze out the maximum benefit from his available funds. He had an advantage over Clinton in this matter.

The minor expenditure by Trump also is due to his prior publicity. He did not need to spend so much on TV commercials to popularise himself. While Clinton had wealthy backings, Trump had his popularity and his business-oriented thinking.

The End Result

Overall, Trump made calculated moves to ensure that his investments bore fruit while Clinton was spending on every available resources and opportunity. Maybe if she had not faced any troubles like the leak, during the election, she might have gone easy on the promotions. Trump’s campaigns were better managed, and he knew what he had to do to win. He was clear on his objective, and all these factors contributed to his low levels of expenditure and a better digital campaign than his opponents.

Know How Much Clinton Spent On Media

During the last few days before the elections, the opinion polls showed that the race was going to be close. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both going at their own pace and strategy. The presidential campaign of Clinton did not shy away from spending on media, including TV ads. Clinton spent about $117 million by November, while Trump had spent $700,000.

This $117 million was just a fraction of the whopping $1 billion spent by her and her supporters on her campaign.

A Whooping $1B Election War Chest

This $117 million was just a fraction of the whopping $1 billion spent by her and her supporters on her campaign. By June itself Clinton had spent $181.6 million, and Trump had spent $56.5 million. It is enough to show how Clinton outspent Trump on almost all aspects of the campaign. It is important to note that Clinton brought in $185.5 million through fundraising; Trump was only able to get $13.8 million. To make up for this Trump invested his wealth, about $43.4 million in his campaign.

Clinton employed more than a 100 people to manage her digital campaign.

When talking about the money spent on media, the massive difference between Clinton and Trump is mainly due to the difference in their ideology. In one of the campaigns, Trump asked his supporters if ads worked anymore. While Trump was skeptical in spending money on TV ads and other media, Clinton went all out.

 

$428 Million in Facebook Ads

Clinton employed more than a 100 people to manage her digital campaign. Her primary focus was to reach out to the youths about the age of 20, who were more active on Facebook and other social media. She used Facebook as one of the mediums. The total payout to Facebook for the 2016 presidential election campaigns was estimated to be about $428 million. Evidently, her strategy did not work, and experts say maybe she would have been well off if she had taken a more traditional approach in the states she lost. She had spent $74.8 million by August and about $72 million in the last few weeks alone on her digital and media campaigns, which shows how much emphasis she put into TV ad campaigns. She also spent an additional $16 million in the last few weeks on ads on the internet.

Now the question to be answered is where did this money come

Now the question to be answered is where did this money come. Clinton has an extensive campaign strategy and a group of donors who wrote several checks worth hundreds of dollars. Nineteen percent of her campaign’s money came from four PACs: American Bridge 21st Century, Priorities USA Action, Ready PAC and Correct the Record. The Democratic National Committee and her fundraising committees raised another $750.6 million. Some of the top donors to Clinton’s campaigns were S. Donald Sussman, Haim Saban, and George Soros, to name a few.

$21 Million Spent in Advertising in Just Eight States by July

Now let’s look into her buying efforts. Clinton and her supporters, by July, had spent $21 million in advertising in eight states. The money came partly from her campaign, and the rest was from her major super PAC, Priorities USA Action. In the first week, she and her allies ran about 4000 spots on national TV and broadcast. She outspent her opponents entirely regarding media expenditure.

“…her failure to lure in voters can be attributed to the fact that most of her ad campaigns were not based on policies.”

In spite of spending so much, her failure to lure in voters can be attributed to the fact that most of her ad campaigns were not based on policies. Instead, they were busy slandering Trump or contained something else. Common studies show that ads or campaigns with negative contents did not go down well with the people. She made the fatal mistake of portraying her hatred of her opponents on social media and TV ad campaigns. Her media team created a comic named ‘Trump’s America’, which made a satire of Trump’s policies. Even her campaign managers have commented that the spending that was done was not exactly right and some investments were wrongfully made. If she had not underestimated the power of the traditional medium and if she had focused a bit more on introducing her policies to the voters, then there was a possibility that she would have been able to turn the tables and make her expenditure worth it. By the end of the election, she had only $839,000 left with her.

Clinton had an advantage over Trump with regards to the money that was available to her.

Clinton had an advantage over Trump with regards to the money that was available to her. Her fund raisings were efficient, and she had strong backings. It enabled her to spend more than double of what Trump spent on her presidential campaigns.

WHAT WE STAND FOR

We investigate, compile and bring to you all financial dealings that were done in an election. We will tell you about how the candidates are spending their money and what are they using it for.

POLL PICS
QUOTABLES