Vehicle ads, like car wraps or those shark-fin screens, have very little to work with when it comes to verified attribution data. A case study is often costly, if not impossible, to find.
I know, it’s so sad. Please pay $100 to pay respects.
Or, you can keep scrolling. We’re sharing our election case study that leveraged our analytics platform back in 2018.
This exploratory case study examines two election campaigns that utilized Adder’s car wrap advertising and out of home attribution and ROI analytics capabilities.
Both featured campaigns, Rob Wiederstein (D) and Dr. James Buckmaster (R) are the second instance of the individual candidate running for their respective office, which helps establish a differential between elections that did and did not utilize Adder services to build campaign presence in a community.
The goal of this analysis is to provide insight into how region-targeted out of home/vehicle based advertising can be correlated to significant changes in voter counts. It should be noted that we feel more data is needed to claim that “Adder is the sole reason for the gains seen in the 2018 elections.” We’ll get there!
State election data will be used as the “conversions” statistic, as it is so thoroughly verified, providing additional verification and validation of our findings.
Route and impressions data from Adder ads will be used and compared to voter turnout across two counties. Over 80% of our impressions came from Daviess county, where Buckmaster set his priority geofences on the Adder platform. Henderson county was the secondary geofence.
Buckmaster for KY House: Campaign Summary
The Buckmaster for Congress vehicle advertising campaign focused efforts toward building voter awareness for James Buckmaster, the Republican Candidate in the KY 11th Congressional District in 2018.
Two gig-economy vehicle advertisements were deployed three months prior to the election, with geo-targeting applied to only pay for traffic in the areas that needed the most exposure.
Of the two counties measured, Buckmaster’s campaign staff chose to allocate 80% of their budget to the area his campaign was polling poorly: Daviess County, Kentucky.
Adder leveraged the GPS data stack from the Adder Analytics engine to determine the number of verified impressions, and the total estimate based on the total population of the region. With this data, we were also able to determine location conversions around the polling locations, but felt that this was not an adequate representation of the outcome.
Instead, third party data was used to validate our results, which in this case came in the form of ballots cast in this election from the Kentucky Secretary of State’s office.
For Buckmaster’s campaign, the greatest voter gains were in Daviess County.
2014 ELECTION RESULTS:
Total Votes: 4,471
Buckmaster (R): 38.6%
Henderson: 1576 (38.5%)
Daviess: 149 (39.2%)
Watkins (D): 61.4%
Henderson: 2515 (61.5%)
Daviess: 231 (60.7%)
2018 ELECTION RESULTS:
Total Votes: 14,864
Buckmaster (R): 46.22% (+7.62%)
Henderson: 5,782 (44.4%) + 5.87%
Daviess: 1,088 (59.1%) + 19.89%
Wiederstein (D): 53.7%
Henderson: 7,241 (55.6%)
Daviess: 753 (40.9%)