The Hill
Monday, July 06, 2009
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
New Member Guide
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
Twitter Room Blog
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign
Obama Cabinet
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Cheri Jacobus
John Del Cecato
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful 2008
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Announcements
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Aerospace
Energy Special Report
Telecom Special Report
Transport Special Report
Earth Day Special Report
Consumer Safety Report
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Campaign arrow The Air War
Campaign PDF Print E-mail
The Air War
Posted: 10/11/06 12:00 AM [ET]

Ads trading barbs and accusations between Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) and Republican Van Taylor have had little resonance with viewers, according to a recent survey.

Respondents to Wilson Research Strategies’ questionnaire about the effectiveness of advertisements being aired in Texas’s 17th Congressional District largely gave average marks. When asked whether the ad was on “an ad I would talk about,” respondents gave the Taylor ad 4.3 out of a possible 10 and the Edwards ad a rating of 4.6.

The ads follow a simple formula; Taylor’s accuses Edwards of voting in support of allowing illegal immigrants access to food stamps. The ad then accuses Edwards of trying to cover up his actions by participating in “double talk” about the issue.

Edwards’s ad responds by showing an image of the Congressional Record and explaining that he voted against the food stamp issue. It then implies that Taylor lied; the words “Apparently Van Taylor will say anything to get elected” are projected on the screen.

The advertisements also shared average marks in the 5-6 range when respondents were asked whether the ad was effective.

Taylor’s ad received the lowest marks from political activists, who gave him an average of 2.3 for effectiveness and an even lower score of 1.7 when asked whether the ad was “appealing.” He received higher marks from Republicans and government relations executives, who gave the ad 6.4 and 5.7, respectively, when asked whether it was effective.

Edwards scored low marks for effectiveness from state and local government officials: an average of 3.6. Private consultants and retired respondents rated the ad as effective, giving it 6.5 and 6.4, respectively.

Despite the mediocre marks throughout the survey, only 17 percent of respondents said that neither ad was effective. Overall, participants believed the Edwards ad was more effective.

While Edwards has held the 17th District seat for eight terms, he had tight contests in the last several election cycles. This year appears to be no exception. When asked who would win the election, 38 percent said they believed Edwards would be reelected, while 14 percent believed Taylor would win. But 49 percent indicated they were undecided as to who would be elected Nov. 7.

Working with The Hill for its Air War feature, Wilson Research Strategies e-mails campaign or issue ads to survey participants who view the ads and rate their effectiveness on several criteria.

 
 
 
BLOGS
TheHill.com Blogs Briefing Room Pundits Room Congress Blog Twitter Room
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.