On 16/04/2010 19:05, Anna Powell-Smith wrote:
Is this how the parties are saving money now they've got fewer donations?It's nothing usual, it's a simple matter of conserving resources. Each party has a finite amount of money to be spent, and they can achieve better results (they think) by focussing it on seats where they are likely to win, or likely to lose if they don't put resources in. What's the point in spending money in a safe seat when you could use it to win or hold on to a marginal? It seems to be less true of election billboards, just based on the ones reported so far: http://www.electionchampion.com/billboards/party/conservative/ There are Conservative billboards in central Stoke, Liverpool, Leeds and Hackney - all Labour strongholds. And Edinburgh West, a safe Lib Dem seat. Duncan's theory is that they're aimed at people commuting from surrounding marginals.
I think that's probably true, at least in part. Billboards are seen by people passing by, whereas leaflets only get seen by those in the homes they are delivered to. So leaflets are, by nature, far more targetted.
The other thing about billboards, of course, is that advertisers - including political parties - don't necessarily buy specific locations, they simply buy a selection of locations in a region. Some of those locations will be in marginal seats, others less so.
Mark _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
