The Bang-for-the-Buck Index

The middle column lists each media market that’s in the state in question. The number next to each media market is the number of thousands of TV households in that media market, according to most recent Nielsen numbers. (I deemed some markets ‘negligible,’ if they were out-of-state markets that barely spilled over the border and represented 2% or less of the state’s total population, thus unlikely to be part of a media buy.) The number on the right is simply the sum of all the TV households in the relevant markets, in other words, the number of households that need to be paid for in order to more or less blanket the state.

As you can see, there’s a pretty clear correlation between the expensiveness of a state and how populous it is. (As Nate points out, the cost per household may vary a bit from market to market, depending on the desirability of that market to advertisers. For the most part, though, the basic rule is that the more eyeballs you need to reach, the more dollars you’re going to pay. So the larger the number on the right is, the more expensive your race is going to be.) However, there can be some variations, depending on the ‘wasted eyeballs’ factor. States with nice clean media markets that correspond roughly to state borders are cheaper than some states that have smaller populations but more porous boundaries (for instance, Oregon is cheaper to blanket than Kansas, while Colorado is cheaper to blanket than Kentucky).

There are a few races that I asterisked; generally, it’s because of the presence of an out-of-state market that covers more than 2% of the state’s population but that’s also cripplingly expensive to compete in and that probably wouldn’t be part of an intelligent media buying strategy. Nebraska is a prime example: about 4% of the state’s population (most of the big empty western part) is served by the Denver market. But c’mon: you aren’t going to see Scott Kleeb TV ads running in Denver. Smart media buying would probably focus on AM radio or direct mail in that part of the state instead. (Adding Denver at 1,415 to the calculus boosts the net cost in Nebraska to 2,261.)

Likewise, a few counties in Mississippi (3% of the state’s population) are in the New Orleans market. (Adding New Orleans at 672 boosts the cost in Mississippi to 2,234, making it a much less attractive prospect. Mississippi also takes in the somewhat expensive Memphis market, but that covers 12% of the state’s voters and can’t safely be ignored.) Also, the Nashville market covers 5% of Kentucky’s population. Bruce Lunsford can pay for that if he wants to, but adding Nashville at 928 boosts the already high costs in Kentucky up to 4,155.

Finally, there’s the question of New Hampshire. The bottom half of the state is considered part of the Boston market, but there is one affiliate based in Manchester that is considered to operate within the larger Boston market. (As Nate points out, it may owe its entire existence to New Hampshire’s weird role in the presidential race and the targeted ad blitz that results.) Not really knowing how that shakes out in terms of ad rates, I’m leaving New Hampshire as is, but figure that the actual costs in New Hampshire are probably lower. [Update: According to DavidNYC, in 2006, the House candidates in NH mostly focused on the Manchester affiliate and steered clear of Boston in general, although the DCCC did a whole-Boston-market moneybomb right before the election.]

And of course, there are the usual caveats that TV and radio advertising are only a portion of a sane advertising strategy, which includes everything from internet and direct mail down to the totally unglamorous world of yard signs and stickers. This is only a rough guide to give you an idea of how expensive a particular race may be, and how far your dollar might go toward making a difference.

I’ll take a look at the House races using the same method tomorrow.