Copy Test

David Vitter Copy Test Report Fighting for Whats Right Ad 2016 Louisiana Senate Campaign
Claire Jones MC 3510 Political Communication Research Professor York December 13, 2013

Copy Test
David Vitter Copy Test Report Fighting for Whats Right Ad 2016 Louisiana Senate Campaign
Campaign Context David Vitter has become nationally recognized for his strongly pursued legislative agenda, introducing the No Washington Exemption platform. He is currently fighting against the exemption for political elites in ObamaCare. He has addressed Congress several times already and has advocated against the unfair exemption for Congressmen and other officials in Washington from ObamaCare. Vitter, having battled through a past sex scandal, managed a 2012 senatorial campaign win against Charlie Melancon and has maintained a safe approval rating throughout Louisiana. In November 2013, Democrats offered Vitter a role in the Obamacare amendment proposal. Vitters endless crusade for No Washington Exemption and an attempted arrangement with Senate Democrats aided Vitter in sustaining approval ratings in Louisiana. Heading into the 2016 Louisiana Senatorial race against Democrat Kip Holden, it is important that campaign messages emphasize Vitters involvement in federal legislation. Recently Vitter, who is a ranking member of the Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced the NRC Reorganization ACT, which would guide the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions policy and rule-making actions and ensure a system of checks and balances. More notable, however is his No Washington Exemption campaign for equal application of Obamacare for all Washington officials. Vitters fight for this platform contains a broader theme of fairness in government programs. Vitters national recognition on Obamacare exemption should be portrayed as a cause to protect Louisiana against unfair federal practices. Since Vitter is the incumbent and more well-known across the state, it is imperative that campaign messages remain positive, focusing on Vitters accomplishments as senator

(Ridout & Franz, 2011). Attack ads may cause backlash for Vitter, so it is important that the campaign message remain affirmative (Brader, 2006). Since Vitter is introducing his No Washington Exemption campaign, he should be portrayed as a competent candidate, with an emphasis on equality in all campaign messages. Messages should highlight the need for someone to fight against Obamacare and its unfair exemptions. Messages should introduce Vitter as the capable candidate to continue his senatorial position to campaign for Louisiana against Obamacare. Kip Holden has gained recognition serving as Baton Rouge mayor for two terms, but has much less experience than Vitter as a federal politician. Ad Development Considering the campaign context and Braders (2006) experimental analyses, I developed a candidate profile and ad storyboard highlighting well-balanced aspects of Vitters No Washington Exemption campaign. Brader (2006) suggests that positive ads have stronger effects when they integrate implicit enthusiasm cues such as sincere, patriotic images and inspirational music. These cues increase campaign interest and the probability of voting in a general election campaign among individuals who already support Vitter. Enthusiasm cues motivate campaign participation and activate existing partisan loyalties. Because Vitters approval rating in Louisiana is relatively high, I decided to produce a positive ad with enthusiasm cues based on a fair and balanced narrative. This ad, titled Fighting for Whats Right, begins with a dark image of the Capitol with text describing Obamas exemption plan. The dark imagery is used as a fear cue to create disdain toward Obamacares exemptions. Fading in upbeat music followed by clips of Vitter speaking against Obamacare exemptions, creates the enthusiasm cues meant to persuade in a positive ad. Joyful images of Vitter conversing with constituents, comforting the elderly at a town hall meeting continue throughout the course of the ad. The imagery and voiceover clips create a portrayal of Vitter as the leader fighting for whats right for Louisiana against the corrupt exemptions in Obamacare. In addition, I used an upbeat instrumental soundtrack as the ads musical score, which also cues enthusiasm. I decided to avoid a negative advertising message since negative ads can have backlash (Ridout & Franz, 2011) and lead to an actual decrease in voter turnout. (Griffin, 2012). Vitter needs to maintain his Republican support in the polls and rally voters. Since Vitters approval ratings are relatively high, it is important to avoid negative messaging that may create damaging feelings toward Vitter or actually cause lower voter turnout (Griffin, 2012). In other words, Vitter doesnt need to persuade voters, merely maintain current levels

of support. However, showing Vitters campaign for the fair and balanced Obamacare for all Louisiana citizens, partisanship aside, may cross bipartisan lines. Based on extant research and theory, I would hypothesize the following effects of exposure to a positive ad containing enthusiasm cues: H1: Individuals will feel more positive toward David Vitter after viewing the ad than before viewing the ad. (Attitudes) H2: Among ad viewers, Republicans will be more likely to feel more positive toward David Vitter after viewing the ad than will Democrats before viewing the ad, who will be less likely to feel positive toward Vitter. (Attitudes) H3: Individuals will be more likely to rate David Vitter as fair after viewing the ad than before viewing the ad. (Traits) H4: Individuals will be more likely to vote for David Vitter after viewing the ad than before viewing the ad. (Voting) H5: Among ad viewers, Republicans will be more likely to vote for David Vitter after viewing the ad than will Democrats after viewing the ad, who will be less likely to vote for Vitter. (Voting) Method Sample. To copy test ad effects, I implanted my campaign ad called Fighting for Whats Right in a Qualtrics online survey. The copy test used a non-random, convenience sampling technique that consisted of Louisiana friends, family and acquaintances all potential voters (n = 26). Data collection ran from (November 1, 2013 to November 18, 2013.) Measures. I included a variety of survey measures designed to capture variation in respondents attitudes toward Vitter, perceptions of Vitters traits, characterizing him as moral, patriotic, warm, fair, or competent, and voting intentions. I also included a standard block of sociodemographic variables (sex, age, etc.). The variable called attitudes toward Vitter was assessed using an adapted version of the American National Election Studys (ANESs) 100-point feeling thermometer item. On this

scale, scores of 0 indicate negative attitudes toward a candidate. Scores of 100 mean that respondents were attitudinally positive toward Vitter. Perception of candidate traits was measured with only one element. This discussion asked respondents if they felt Vitter possessed the trait of fairness. Respondents could answer on a seven-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Other traits items were used but were excluded from the analysis because they did not directly pertain to the abovementioned hypotheses. Vote intentions were measured using a 100-point scale item that asked respondents to report the likelihood of voting for Vitter in the next election. Respondents could answer from 0 to 100, with high scores indicating a greater likelihood of voting for Vitter. Procedure & Analysis. Survey respondents were asked the above questions before and after viewing the Vitter Fighting for Whats Right ad. In this sense, the study employs a quasi-survey-experimental design without random assignment or a control group. First, respondents were asked questions about attitudes toward Vitter, trait perceptions and voting intentions. Respondents viewed the Vitter ad, and then re-answered an identical set of questions. Respondents then answered sociodemographic questions about themselves, were thanked for their participation and dismissed. To analyze these data, I used two analytical procedures: means comparison analysis (MCA) and controlled means comparison analysis. These procedures allowed me to compare attitudes, trait perceptions and vote intentions before and after viewing the Vitter advertisement. Assuming no irrelevant variables hampered with effects, the study design allowed me to trial causal effects of the advertisement on Louisiana voters. Results Attitudes. I used a means comparison analysis to define the effects of viewing the ad on attitudes toward Vitter. Outcomes from this analysis are shown in Table 1.1. As shown in Table 1.1, attitudes toward Vitter were lower before viewing the ad (M = 58.12, sd = 30.97) than after viewing the ad (M = 76.69, sd = 27.56). These results offer support for H1. It appears the ad created more positive feelings toward Vitter.

Table 1.1 Effect of Viewing Positive Vitter Ad on Attitudes Toward Vitter, By Party ID

Democrat
Ad Viewing

Republican 65.63 (19) 83.47 (19)

Independent 40.00 (5) 60.40 (5)

Total 58.12 (26) 76.69 (26)

Pre-Test

32.00 (2) 53.00 (2)

Post-Test

Note: Cell entries represent mean Vitter attitude scores on a 100-point feeling thermometer, with 0 coded as negative attitudes and 100 coded as positive attitudes.

However, viewing the results from testing attitude toward Vitter also showed the mean difference (Md) for Republicans as 18 and for Democrats as 21. This reveals that while Republicans attitudes became more positive after watching the ad, so did Democrats at an even higher rate. These results agree that H2 is not supported, which stated that Democrats attitudes would become less positive after watching the ad. Trait Perceptions. Trait perceptions were measured using an ordinal outcome a seven-point Likert scale. Typically this is measured as a categorical amount. However, since sample size was only 26, and distribution across the variable was likely small, I decided to treat this variable as pseudo-interval level. This simply means I treated that variable as a quasi-continuous variable, using a means comparison analysis to test ad effects on the fairness candidate trait dependent variable. Table 1.2 shows the effect of viewing the ad on the fairness candidate trait outcome variable. Before viewing the ad, respondents had a low mean Vitter fairness score (M = 4.15, sd = 1.08). However, viewing the ad had an obvious effect on Vitters fairness ratings (M = 4.65, sd = 1.41). This suggests that the ad thrived in making Vitter seem fair with regard to his No Washington Exemption platform. H3 is supported.

Table 1.2 Effect of Viewing Positive Vitter Ad on Trait Perception Fair Toward Vitter, By Party ID

Democrat
Ad Viewing

Republican 4.53 (19) 4.95 (19)

Independent 2.80 (5) 4.20 (5)

Total 4.15 (26) 4.65 (26)

Pre-Test

4.00 (2) 3.00 (2)

Post-Test

Note: Cell entries represent mean scores on a six-point Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Disagree, coded 0, to Strongly Agree, coded 7.

Voter Intentions. Next I studied ad effects on whether or not respondents would vote for Vitter before and after viewing Fighting For Whats Right using a controlled means comparison analysis. Results from the controlled MCA are shown in Table 1.3. This table illustrates the direct effect of viewing the ad on intentions to vote for Vitter in 2016. Viewing the Vitter ad had an overall positive effect on Vitter vote intentions. Before ad exposure, all respondents were less likely to say they would vote for Vitter (M = 63.5, sd = 31.92) than after viewing the ad (M = 76.46, sd = 28.58). H4 is supported.

Table 1.3 Effect of Fighting for Whats Right Ad on Probability of Voting for Vitter, By Party ID

Democrat

Republican 71.37 (19) 83.37 (19)

Independent 39.2 (5) 60.60 (5)

Total 63.5 (26) 76.46 (26)

Ad Viewing

Pre-Test

49.50 (2) 50.50 (2)

Post-Test

Note: Cell entries represent mean scores on a 100-point sliding scale, ranging from Very Unlikely to Vote for Vitter, coded as 0, to Very Likely to Vote for Vitter, coded as 100.

` Significantly, Republican viewers, as well as Democratic viewers were more likely to vote for Vitter after watching the ad. Republican respondents had a mean difference of 12, while Democratic respondents had mean difference of 1. H5 states that Republicans would be more likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad and Democrats would be less likely. However the study shows that while Republicans vote intentions increased more than Democrats, vote intentions of Democrats increased as well. Results shown in Figure 1.1 show the relationship between party identification and vote intentions after viewing the ad. Specifically that both Republican and Democratic respondents were more likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. H5 is not supported. This collaborative effect is demonstrated in Figure 1.1.

Conclusion A preliminary copy test of the Fighting for Whats Right Vitter ad demonstrates that the ad is exceptionally effective. As anticipated in H1, the ad improved viewer attitudes toward Vitter. There was an obvious, causal effect of ad exposure on Vitter attitudes of respondents. H2, however, predicted that Democrats would be less likely to view Vitter positively after the ad, but results show that even Democrats were susceptible to the ad effectiveness. H2 was not supported because Democrats were more likely to feel more positive toward Vitter after the ad, as well. Similarly, H3 predicted that ad exposure would increase perceptions of Vitters fairness trait and proved to be successful. This suggests that the ad makes viewers feel Vitter is fair in promoting his movement against Obamacare. H4 and H5 made predictions about vote intentions. The ad had a positive direct effect on vote intentions. H4 was supported in that total individuals were more likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad, but H5 predicted that Democrats would be less likely. However, H5 was disapproved because Democrats vote intentions increased after viewing the ad as well, even though at a lesser rate than Republicans. This suggests the ad actually crosses party line barriers and increased vote intentions on both Republicans and Democrats. Recommendations: Considering research from The Problem with Persuasion, Ridout and Franz argue that ads are more effective when run early in a campaign, but late ads potentially have more impact because the campaign intensity rises (e.g., Ridout & Franz, 2011). It is my recommendation that Fighting for Our Values ad be most effective if it is run very frequently early in the race, seldom during the middle of the season, and pick back up regularly toward the end of the campaign. There is no need to promote negative ads against Holden because that may ruin Vitters attitude ratings, due to backlash. The positive ad message combined with enthusiasm cues performs highly effective in upholding support among likeminded partisans and even opposing party voters, the groups whose support we depend on with the addition of new voters. Moreover, the ad effectively portrays Vitter as an experienced and fair candidate, highlighting his dedication to representing Louisiana citizens against Obamacare exemptions. The most significant finding from this copy test suggests that the ad increases vote intentions among Republicans and Democrats. My strategic interpretation of this finding is that we should view the ad with confidence if it is to maintain Republican support and sway Democratic support. However, the Democratic mean difference after viewing the

ad on vote intention was indeed slim, so the campaign should not rely on Fighting for Whats Right to increase Democratic support significantly. Timetable: The next step in the copy test process is to generate a series of positive Vitter ads with enthusiasm cues, testing the effects of each ad on the desired outcomes. Conducting this replication research will allow me to determine if the Fighting for Whats Right ad is the most effective ad our campaign could air. To improve the existing ad, I would recommend the addition of images that make Vitter represent a wider variety of trait perception. Additional images portraying Vitter as competent and warmer could further promote support. Since Vitter is defending Louisiana against corruption in federal legislation, patriotic images of Vitter could be implemented to make his No Washington Exemption program appear beyond party lines for a greater Louisiana interest. Finally, the most effective version of the ad should be field tested for politically socialized respondents in a medium-sized, urban Louisiana parish using a mixed-method, experimental and survey design. If it is effective in a real-world setting, the ad should air statewide starting Jan. 1, 2016.

10

References Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press. Griffin, Hannah. (2012)."Keep it Clean? How Negative Campaigns Affect Voter Turnout." Res Publica - Journal of Undergraduate Research. Ridout, T. N., & Franz, M. M. (2011). The persuasive power of campaign advertising. Temple University Press.

11