Appendix E: Prop 8 Campaign Media

This analysis is our best attempt at summarizing television advertisements and spending for both Yes and No on 8. We used internal campaign planning documents and external tracking summaries to piece together information surrounding where, when, and how much money each side of the campaign spent. These source documents are not comprehensive and are sometimes in conflict with one another. We resolved these conflicts by calling and or visiting media stations for buy histories and by consulting with professionals in the media-buying field. All No on 8 advertisements are available for viewing below.

 

Nineteen ads in total aired on TV with six backed by Yes and thirteen by No. Ten of the ads were widely seen, five from each side. Ads are numbered in chronological order of when they first went on the air. When appropriate, spot counts and dollar amounts are broken down by language with (sp) signifying a buy or spot count for Spanish language television. Most of the ads are known by several names and aliases from various sources. All known aliases are included within the descriptions. Before the period of concentrated paid TV by both sides, an independent educational advertisement “Garden Wedding” was already on air. See Appendix F, “Non-campaign Media.”


Appendix E: Part 1 Advertisement Chronology with Message & Buy Summaries


The Concentrated Period of Paid TV, 9/22–11/4

During this period, N on 8 went on the air for forty-four days, starting 9/22, and spent at least $18.3 million (according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group [CMAG] reports) or $25.4 million (according to Ogilvy tracking reports) to air thirteen ads a total of 11,424 times.

Yes on 8 went up for thirty-seven days, starting 9/29, and spent at least $13.7 million to air six ads a total of 13,025 times.

1. No on 8: “Thorons” aka “Julia and Sam Thoron”

 

·         Cost: $2.8m

·         Air Dates: 9/22/08 – 10/15/08

 

Summary: Julia and Sam Thoron share the story of their family. They love and treat their three children the same. Prop 8, however, will remove the right of their gay daughter and thousands of other Californians to marry.


 

With “Thorons,” No on 8 was the first campaign on the air. Internal campaign tracking documents show that the large majority of these spots aired between 9/22 and 10/15 in six media markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Monterey). Spots also aired in Palm Springs and Eureka in very small buys until October 15. The campaign’s desire to be first on the air, in the hope of defining the terms of the debate, prompted a sub-500-point buy. During this first nine days, No on 8 spent $1.4 million to air “Thorons” 983 times, primarily in San Francisco and San Diego. It had hoped to put “Thorons” on the air in the first week in meaningful buys not only in San Francisco and San Diego but also in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Lack of money forced the campaign to substantially shave the buy. Ad created by Ogilvy.


 

2. Yes on 8: “Newsom” aka “Gavin Newsom” or “Whether You Like it or Not”

 

·         $2.7m

·         Air Dates: 9/29–10/20

 

Summary: The ad begins with quoting Mayor Gavin Newsom saying same-sex marriage is going to happen, “whether you like it or not.” Then a law professor states that churches could lose their tax exemption status and that gay marriage will be taught in schools.

 


 

Yes on 8 was the first campaign on the air with a substantial statewide buy. It backed “Newsom” with more than 500 and possibly close to 1,000 points per week per market in its priority markets; it appeared to be buying airtime in ten markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Eureka, Palm Springs, Fresno, and Chico-Redding); and it ran the ad for nineteen days. This became the second most frequently aired spot by either side in the campaign.

Spending Update:

As of 9/30, No on 8 had outspent Yes on 8 2 to 1 statewide, $1.4 million to $.6 million respectively. This was due in part to No’s seven day head start.

 

3. No on 8: “Conversation” aka “ Women Looking at Photos”

 

·         Cost: $675,606

·         Air Dates: 10/6–10/9

 

Summary: The ad follows two women looking at family photos and discussing same-sex marriage. One woman has doubts about gay marriage, but she agrees she doesn’t want to eliminate rights or have laws that treat people differently.

 



Starting 10/6, No put this ad into rotation with “Thorons
,” using 80% of its points for the week to back this spot. This spot aired for half a week. It was pulled off the air earlier than planned because internal polls showed No on 8 suffering drastic weakening in voter support; this ad was not competing effectively in the environment created by the first two Yes ads, “Newsom” and “Princes.” Ad created by Ogilvy.


 

4. Yes on 8: “Princes” aka “Richard Peterson,” “It’s Already Happened,” and “Kings & Kings” (sp)

 

·         Cost Eng: $3.1m

·         Cost Sp: $.93m

·         Total: $4.1m

·         Air Dates: 10/6–11/3

 

Summary: A daughter shares with her mother that she learned in school that kings can marry kings and she can marry a princess. A law professor states that teaching about gay marriage has already happened in Massachussetts, and it will happen in California.

 


 

Starting 10/6, according to the CMAG reports, began airing “Princes” in Spanish and starting 10/8 in English. In the first week backed “Princes” with $1.8 million dollars for 2,000 spots statewide. It aired for twenty-eight days in Spanish (through 11/3), and for twenty-three days in English (through 10/29). It was the most frequently aired spot by either side in the campaign.

Starting 10/6, according to the CMAG reports, began airing “Princes” in Spanish and starting 10/8 in English. In the first week backed “Princes” with $1.8 million dollars for 2,000 spots statewide. It aired for twenty-eight days in Spanish (through 11/3), and for twenty-three days in English (through 10/29). It was the most frequently aired spot by either side in the campaign.

5. No on 8: “Lies” aka “Same Scare Tactics”

 

·         Cost: $446,685

·         Air Dates: 10/10–10/17

 

Summary: The narrator describes the scare tactics used by Yes on 8, and states that churches losing tax exemption status and gay marriage being taught in schools are both lies. It ends with the message, “Keep Government out of all of our lives.”

 


 

“Princes” had a swift impact that registered in No’s internal campaign polling. Within forty-eight hours of the English-language “Princes” airing, No edited and aired a response ad, “Lies,” parts of which may have been in the can. But if “Lies” had been in the can, it was intended to rebut a different argument than the one No now encountered. This was a placeholder, keeping the No campaign from going off the air entirely, while the No campaign wrestled with the decision of whether and how to best respond to “Princes.” Ad created by Ogilvy.


 

6. No on 8: “Unfair” aka “Why”

 

·         Cost: $3.6 m

·         Air Dates: 10/14–10/26

 

Summary: This ad focuses on newspaper and organizational endorsements of No on 8. It ends with the message that Prop 8 is, “Unfair, Unnecessary, and Wrong.”

 


 

No replaced “Lies” with a second spot that did not directly reference the “Princes” ad or its allegations. Instead, No opted for the dark backgrounds and prominent on-screen use of the word “no” that often characterizes ads urging a no vote on any ballot measure in California. It was the single largest purchase of airtime by No on 8. Ad created by Mark Armour of Armour Griffin Media Group.

 

Spending Update:

For the two-week period of 10/1–10/14, Yes caught up to and greatly surpassed No in statewide spending with $4.2 million to $2.7 million respectively. This was the only time period during the campaign that Yes substantially outspent No.

7. Yes on 8: “Massachusetts” aka “Boys Can Marry Boys” or “Everything to do With Schools”

 

·         Cost: $2.4 m

·         Air Dates: 10/17–10/21

 

Summary: This ad focuses on a family from Massachusetts and their inability to opt their second grade son out of learning about same-sex marriage in school through the court case Parker vs Hurley.

 


 

In mid-October, Yes went public with this ad featuring a couple from Massachusetts. It was meant to reinforce the allegations of “Princes.”

 

 


 

8. No on 8: “O’Connell” aka “Superintendent” or “ You’ve Seen”

 

·         Cost: $3.4 m

·         Air Dates: 10/22–10/30

 

Summary: California Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell states that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools. The narrator reiterates No on 8’s organizational and newspaper support. The ad ends with the message that Prop 8 is “Unfair and Wrong.”

 

 


 

No’s internal poll numbers showed that neither its paid nor earned media strategies were solving the problems created by “Princes.” After two weeks of internal debate, No went on the air with State Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell. In this ad, O’Connell responded to and denied the charges made in “Princes.” This was the most frequently aired spot of the No campaign, with a buy almost as large as “Unfair.” Ad created by Mark Armour of Armour Griffin Media Group.

 

 

9. No on 8: “Ellen

 

·         Cost: $69,000

·         Air Dates: 10/23–10/24

 

Summary: Ellen DeGeneres shares that she was able to marry earlier that year. She states that Prop 8 will take that right away from Californians, and asks viewers to “Please, please, please vote No on Prop 8.”


 

Ellen DeGeneres made this spot and initially aired it in a small buy. The No campaign paid to air it briefly in the LA and San Francisco media markets the weekend before Election Day.

 


 

10. Yes on 8: “Field Trip” aka “Lesbian Wedding” aka “Truth”

 

·         Cost Eng: $2.2 m

·         Cost Sp: $.4m

·         Total: $2.6m

·         Air Dates: 10/24–11/4

 

Summary: The ad recounts a story of a first grade class attending their teacher’s lesbian wedding. It states that 96% of California schools are already required to teach about marriage, and that children will be taught about gay marriage unless viewers vote yes on Prop 8.


 

Within forty-eight hours of “O’Connell” first airing, Yes had this rebuttal on the air and ran it for the final twelve days in ten media markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Palm Springs, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Chico-Redding). Yes had a Spanish-language version of this ad on the air a few days later and aired it in both languages from 10/29–11/3. The Spanish-language version aired primarily in four media markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento) and only secondarily in Fresno (aired fewer than five times).

 

 

11. No on 8: ”No For Latinos

 

·         Cost Eng: $.25m

·         Cost Sp: $1.1m

·         Total: $1.34m

·         Air Dates: 10/27–11/4

 

Summary: Tony Plana, America Ferrera, and Ana Ortiz share why they are voting No on 8. Reasons include the Latino community’s focus on family, and the general unfairness of Prop 8.

 


 

This No ad featuring Latino celebrities ran in both English and Spanish for a bit more than the final week. In October, the ad ran primarily in English in three markets (LA, San Francisco, and Palm Springs) and also (fewer than five times) in San Diego, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara; it also began running in November in Fresno. No bought time on Spanish-language TV for the first time starting 10/27, and bought in the final nine days in the LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento markets. This was the largest buy on Spanish-language television for No on 8.

 


 

12. Yes on 8: “Eduardo Verástegui” aka “Hola”

 

·         Cost: $.52 m

·         Air Dates: 10/27–11/3

 

Summary: Eduardo Verástegui, a popular Latino actor/singer, appeals to the audience to support Prop 8 for the good of Latino families and to protect children.

 


 

This Yes ad, released the same day as “No for Latinos,” was backed by the second highest dollar amount spent by Yes for an ad in Spanish. It was the only advertisement during the campaign to air only on Spanish television.

 

13. No on 8: “Feinstein” aka “Dianne”

 

·         Cost: $1.5m

·         Air Dates: 10/28–11/4

 

Summary: Senator Dianne Feinstein says that Prop 8 would be a terrible mistake for California. It would change the constitution and remove fundamental rights. The message, “No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination” is introduced.

 


 

No initially replaced “O’Connell” with this spot, where U.S. Senator Feinstein speaks directly into the camera. After two days, this spot was placed in rotation with “Internment,” with “Internment” set to become 70% of the buy. Yet as late as October 30, according to the CMAG reports, this was the single-most-broadcasted ad of the day, with No spending $431,000 on that day alone to air the spot 380 times (compared to $341,000 to air “Internment” 128 times on the same day). The ad aired in seven markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Palm Springs). Ad created by Mark Armour of Armour Griffin Media Group.

 

 


 

14. Yes on 8: “Closer” aka “Thought about it

 

·         Cost: $1.4m

·         Air Dates: 10/28–11/4

 

Summary: The advertisement poses the question, “Same-sex marriage, have you really thought about it?” A clergyman, a doctor, and a mother ask how it will affect religious freedoms, how gay marriage differs from existing domestic partnerships, and how it will affect school curriculum.


 

For the final week, the Yes campaign put this summary spot in rotation in ten markets with “Princes” and “Field Trip.” From 10/30 on, Yes was spending about equally on this spot and “Field Trip” in English, spending significantly more on “Field Trip,” counting the buys on Spanish-language TV as well.

 

Spending Update:

 In the two weeks prior to Election Day week, No again pulled ahead in spending. From 10/15 to 10/28, No spent $7.4 million to Yes’s $5.5 million.

15. No on 8: “Internment” aka “Japanese” and “History Final”

 

·         Cost: $3.2

·         Air Dates: 10/30–11/4

 

Summary: Samuel L. Jackson narrates about recent legal discrimination in California. He describes Japanese internment camps and laws prohibiting interracial marriage and Armenians purchasing property. The ad ends with the message that Prop 8 is unfair and wrong.

 


 

No used most of the points of either side in the closing week backing “Internment.” It became the fifth most aired spot, even though it ran only for the final five days, possibly the most concentrated buy of any ad. It ran in all nine markets in which the No campaign bought any airtime. On 11/2 alone, No spent $1 million to air this spot (by comparison, the second most commonly aired spot on 11/2 was Obama, on which No spent $364,000 that day). Chief proponent for the ad was Gail Kauffman; it was contracted to ________ for actual creation.

 

 


 

16. No on 8: “Parents

 

·         Cost: ?

·         Air Dates: 10/30–11/3

 

Summary: Several parents share why they are voting No on 8. Their reasons include not wanting their children to grow up with discrimination, and wanting them to know to vote against intolerance.

 


 

No ran this ad on a small scale in the final week in LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento; however, the ad was not picked up in tracking documents, so the exact size of the buy remains unknown.

 

 

17. No on 8: “I’m a Mom” aka “Moms”

 

·         Cost: $112,221

·         Air Dates: 10/30–11/3

 

Summary: Five moms share that they are voting No on Prop 8 because they want their children to know about the American dream, dignity, compassion, and kindness. They say that gay marriage has nothing to do with schools.


 

No ran this ad on a small scale in the final week.

 

“Obama” aka “Divisive”

 

·         Cost: $1.06m

·         Air Dates: 11/1–11/4

 

Summary: This ad features the endorsements of Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dianne Feinstein, the California Teachers Association, and several prominent newspapers.

 


 

No used still photos and the endorsements of Obama and Schwarzenegger in this ad to preface a shortened version of the “Feinstein” ad. The ad aired in eight media markets (LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Palm Springs, and Bakersfield). Ad created by Mark Armour of Armour Griffin Media Group

19. No on 8: “Mac vs PC” aka “I’m No” and “Amend Her”

 

·         Cost: $97,308

·         Air Dates: 11/1–11/3

 

Summary: This ad, a parody of the computer ads, shows Yes on 8 trying to amend the constitution to “put a little discrimination in her.” It characterizes Yes on 8 as government interference and asks viewers to support marriage equality for everybody.

 


 

No ran this ad on a small scale in the final weekend on late night TV in LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento. This thirty-second version of the spot followed the online creation and dissemination of three sixty-second spots taking the same general approach. Created by Dayna Frank and written by Ray Lancon.

 

Spending Update:

During Election Day week, No doubled Yes’s spending totaling $6.8 million dollars to Yes’s $3.3 million.


 

Appendix E: Part 2

Transcriptions of Advertisements

No on 8

Thorons

Sam Thoron: “Julia and I have been married for 46 years.”

Julia Thoron: “Together, we’ve raised three children who are now adults.”

Sam Thoron: “My wife and I never treated our children differently. We never loved them any differently, and the law shouldn’t treat them any differently either.”

Julia Thoron: “If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don’t eliminate that right for anyone's family.”

Sam Thoron: “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote no on Prop 8.”

Conversation

Woman 1: “Here’s Bob at the BBQ,”

Woman 2 : “Oh look at his sunburn.”

Woman 1: “And here is our niece Maria and her partner, Juliet, at their wedding.”

Woman 2 : “Listen, honestly, I just don’t know how I feel about this same-sex marriage thing.”

Woman 1: “No, it’s okay, I really think it’s fine if you don’t know how you feel, but are you willing to eliminate rights and have our laws treat people differently?”

Woman 2 : “No.”

Announcer: “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone, vote No on Prop 8.”

 

Lies

Announcer: “Their attacks have come before, and they always use the same scare tactics. This time they want to eliminate rights and they’re using lies to persuade you. Prop 8 will not affect church tax status, that’s a lie. And it will not affect teaching in schools, another lie. It’s time to shut down the scare tactics. Keep government out of all of our lives. Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.”


 

Unfair

Announcer: “Why are Californians saying no on Prop 8? It’s a drastic step to strip people of rights, pushed by out-of-state special interests and a major threat to our basic constitutional protections. It’s unnecessary. No person should suffer discrimination. And California laws should treat everyone equally because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law. No on 8. Unfair. Unnecessary. And wrong.”

O’Connell

Announcer: “Seen the TV ads for Prop 8? They’re “absolutely not true,” says California Superintendent of Public Schools.”

Jack O’Connell: “Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage. And using kids to lie about that is shameful.”

Announcer: “That’s why California teachers and every major newspaper say no on Prop 8. Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to eliminate fundamental rights. No on 8, unfair and wrong.”

Ellen

Text : A message from Ellen DeGeneres about Proposition 8.

Ellen DeGeneres : “Hi, I’m Ellen DeGeneres. I got to do something this year

I thought I’d never be able to do—I got married. It was the happiest day of my life. There are people out there raising millions of dollars trying to take that right away from me. You’ve seen their ads on TV. They’re twisting the truth and they’re trying to scare you. I believe in fairness. I believe in compassion. I believe in equality for all people. Proposition 8 does not. Please, please vote no on Prop 8.”


 

No for Latinos

Tony Plana: “For Latinos, family is very important.”

America Ferrera: “That’s why we’re against Proposition 8.”

Tony Plana: “8 discriminate against our families and friends by eliminating their rights to a civil marriage.”

Ana Ortiz: “Laws should not be used to discriminate against anyone.”

Tony Plana: “Please don’t believe the lies. Proposition 8 has nothing to do with religion or schools.”

America Ferrera: “It’s about eliminating a human right.”

Ana Ortiz: “Join us.”

Tony Plana: “And vote no.”

America Ferrera: “Vote no.”

Ana Ortiz: “Vote no on 8.”

Tony Plana: “It’s a bad law, and it’s unfair.”

Feinstein

Diane Feinstein: “I’ve seen discrimination, and I see it again in Proposition 8. 8 would be a terrible mistake for California. It changes our constitution, eliminates fundamental rights, and treats people differently under the law. Proposition 8 is not about schools or kids, it’s about discrimination. And we must always say no to that. No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination, and vote No on 8.”

Internment

Samuel L. Jackson: “It wasn’t that long ago that discrimination was legal in California. Japanese-Americans were confined in internment camps, Armenians couldn’t buy a house in the Central Valley, Latinos and African-Americans were told who they could and could not marry. It was a sorry time in our history. Today, the sponsors of Prop 8 want to eliminate fundamental rights. We have an obligation to pass along to our children a more tolerant, more decent society. Vote no on Prop 8. It’s unfair, and it’s wrong.”


I’m a Mom

Various Women: “Hi.” “Hi.” “Hi.” “Hi, I’m a mom living right here in California. “And so am I.” “And so am I.”  “And so am I.” “On November 4th I’m voting no on Prop 8 because I want my kids to know about the American dream. About dignity, compassion, and kindness. We refuse to be scared by all the lies about what will be taught in school. So, on behalf of so many moms across California say no, say no, vote no, no to Prop 8. It’s unfair and wrong. Vote no on Proposition 8. Thank you.”

Obama

Announcer: “Barack Obama says no on 8. It’s divisive and discriminatory. Arnold Schwarzenegger says it should never happen. Prop 8 eliminates rights says Dianne Feinstein. It’s a terrible mistake. It will not affect teaching in our schools say California’s teachers. It’s intolerant, offensive, and the law should not discriminate.”

Dianne Feinstein: “No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination and vote no on 8.”

 

Mac vs PC

Man 1: “Hello, I’m no on Prop 8.”

Man 2: “And, I’m yes.”

Woman: “And, I’m the California Constitution.”

Man 2: “Whoa, I’m totally going to amend her.”

Man 1: “What?”

Man 2: “Yeah.”

Man 1: “She’s perfect the way she is.”

Man 2: Yeah, but she’d be even better with a little discrimination in her... you know what I mean? What’s up? What are you into?”

Woman: “Well, equality. What are you into?”

Man 2: “Deciding what’s appropriate for everyone else. Government interference and judgment.”

Man 1: “Leave our constitution alone. Support marriage equality for everyone. Vote no on Prop 8.”


Yes on 8

Newsom

Newsom: “This door’s wide open now! It’s gonna happen. Whether you like it or not.”

Announcer: “Four judges ignored four million voters and imposed same sex marriage on California. It’s no longer about tolerance, acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.”

 Peterson: “That changes a lot of things. People sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools.”

Announcer: “We don’t have to accept this.”

Newsom: Whether you like it or not.”

Announcer: “Yes on 8.”

Princes

Girl: “Look what I learned in school today.”

Woman: “What, sweetie?”

Girl: “I learned how a prince married a prince, and I can marry a princess!”

Richard Peterson: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, schools began teaching second graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled parents had no right to object.”

Announcer: “Under California law, public schools instruct kids about marriage, teaching children unless we pass Proposition 8. Yes on 8.”


Massachusetts

Announcer: “Some say that gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with school.”

Woman: “But it has everything to do with school.”

Robin Wirthlin: “After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade.”

Robb Wirthlin: “We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage, but the court said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.”

Woman: “It’s already happened in Massachusetts. Gay marriage will be taught in our schools unless we vote yes on Proposition 8.”

Field Trip

Announcer: Opponents of Proposition 8 said gay marriage had nothing to do with schools. Then a public school took first graders to a lesbian wedding, calling it a teachable moment. Now a liberal education politician says schools aren’t required to teach about marriage. Yet his official Web site confirms teaching marriage is required in 96 percent of schools and a leading Prop 8 opponent has warned parents cannot remove children from this instruction. Children will be taught about gay marriage unless we vote yes on Proposition 8.

Eduardo Veràstegui—Translated from Spanish

Veràstegui:”Hello, I’m Eduardo Veràstegui. I want to take this time to urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8. As a Latino man who is proud of my community, I think it’s important for us to fight to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I think this is very important for our children, who depend on us to receive the love of a father and a mother. Vote yes on Proposition 8.”

Announcer: Protect our children and marriage. Vote yes on Proposition 8.


Closer

Announcer: Same-sex marriage, have you really thought about it?

Clergyman: “What it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms.

Doctor/ Businessman: Why it was forced on us by San Francisco judges, when gay domestic partners already have the same rights. What it means when our children are taught about it in school.”

Announcer: Have you thought about what same-sex marriage means?

Little Girl: “To me.”

Announcer: Think about it. Voting Yes restores traditional marriage. Yes on Proposition 8.

 


Appendix E: Part 3

Advertisement Spending by Market and Time

No on 8

“Thorons”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 9/22–9/23

 9/24–9/30

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$77,711

31

13

$520,581

208

110

Monterey

$10,646

133

38

$20,999

262

90

Palm Springs

$0

0

0

$4,170

36

12

Sacramento

$18,371

58

11

$62,432

197

64

San Diego

$31,875

92

42

$81,656

235

105

San Francisco

$168,969

136

91

$363,009

293

206

Santa Barbara

$8,795

116

61

$21,840

289

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$316,367

566

256

$1,074,687

1,519

727


 

“Thorons”-Cont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/1–10/7

 10/8–10/14

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$588,104

235

165

$179,455

72

59

Monterey

$10,800

135

42

$7,976

99

35

Palm Springs

$12,634

108

42

$11,043

95

51

Sacramento

$96,678

305

105

$45,850

145

58

San Diego

$36,747

106

41

$39,726

114

50

San Francisco

$219,252

177

101

$120,810

97

77

Santa Barbara

$8,529

113

62

$7,034

93

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$972,744

1,178

558

$411,894

715

400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$2,775,692

3,979

1,941

 

 

 


 

“Conversation”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/1–10/7

 10/8–10/14

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$112,065

45

14

$257,686

103

48

Monterey

$0

0

0

$10,971

137

33

Palm Springs

$2,120

18

11

$6,479

55

32

Sacramento

$9,539

30

12

$30,482

96

33

San Diego

$13,725

40

11

$36,150

104

41

San Francisco

$67,929

55

30

$119,411

96

50

Santa Barbara

$0

0

0

$9,049

120

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$205,378

187

78

$470,228

711

271

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$675,606

899

349

 

 

 


 

“Lies”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/8–10/14

 10/15–10/21

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$234,204

93

41

$0

0

0

Monterey

$7,148

89

28

$0

0

0

Palm Springs

$7,129

61

22

$0

0

0

Sacramento

$52,730

166

36

$0

0

0

San Diego

$31,345

90

25

$0

0

0

San Francisco

$107,578

87

40

$1,500

1

2

Santa Barbara

$5,061

67

33

$0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$445,195

654

225

$1,500

1

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$446,695

655

227

 

 

 


 

“Unfair”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/8–10/14

 10/15–10/21

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$172,379

69

27

$1,665,138

664

367

Monterey

$0

0

0

$34,234

427

109

Palm Springs

$2,602

22

10

$24,220

207

110

Sacramento

$3,151

10

6

$190,337

601

207

San Diego

$13,597

39

14

$145,293

418

124

San Francisco

$32,771

26

18

$831,604

671

376

Santa Barbara

$2,157

29

6

$26,060

345

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$226,657

195

81

$2,916,886

3,334

1,417


 

“Unfair” Cont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 

 

 

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$315,298

126

99

 

 

 

Monterey

$13,568

169

47

 

 

 

Palm Springs

$4,201

36

24

 

 

 

Sacramento

$29,642

94

53

 

 

 

San Diego

$19,779

57

50

 

 

 

San Francisco

$91,338

74

78

 

 

 

Santa Barbara

$1,605

21

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$475,431

576

378

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$3,618,974

4,105

1,876

 

 

 










 

“O’Connell”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 10/29–EDay

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$1,831,832

731

463

$67,613

27

27

Monterey

$38,003

474

135

$0

0

0

Palm Springs

$46,084

394

198

$0

0

0

Sacramento

$269,650

851

319

$0

0

0

San Diego

$236,196

680

264

$0

0

0

San Francisco

$850,072

686

456

$0

0

0

Santa Barbara

$36,754

486

210

$0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$3,308,591

4,303

2,045

$67,613

27

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$3,376,204

4,330

2,072

 

 

 


 

“Ellen” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 10/29–EDay

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$29,818

12

21

$12,034.0

5

8

San Francisco

$22,493

18

24

$4,290.0

3

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$52,311

30

45

$16,324.0

8

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$68,635

38

58

 

 

 


 

“No for Latinos”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 10/29–EDay

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Fresno

$0

0

0

$28,589

190

51

Los Angeles

$0

0

0

$84,875

34

5

Palm Springs

$1,084

9

7

$5,899

50

24

Sacramento

$0

0

0

$11,012

35

2

San Diego

$0

0

0

$6,370

18

2

San Francisco

$0

0

0

$111,146

90

6

Santa Barbara

$0

0

0

$3,286

43

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$1,084

9

7

$251,177

460

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$252,261

470

101

 

 

 


 

“No for Latinos” SP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 10/29–EDay

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$143,288

57

62

$586,283

234

223

Sacramento

$9,952

31

14

$51,841

164

79

San Diego

$25,159

72

42

$96,835

279

184

San Francisco

$17,992

15

29

$140,091

113

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$196,391

176

147

$875,050

790

671

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,071,441

965

818

 

 

 


 

“Feinstein”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/22–10/28

 10/29–EDay

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Los Angeles

$275,340

110

46

$563,331

225

213

Monterey

$0

0

0

$16,204

202

68

Palm Springs

$5,106

44

22

$15,154

130

83

Sacramento

$30,258

96

33

$98,045

310

154

San Diego

$30,515

88

39

$77,652

224

177

San Francisco

$62,929

51

47

$332,745

268

248

Santa Barbara

$950

13

10

$6,117

81

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$405,098

400

197

$1,109,248

1,439

1,017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,514,346

1,839

1,214

 

 

 


 

“Internment”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 

 

 

Bakersfield

$5,251

75

56

 

 

 

Fresno

$55,945

371

107

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$1,867,494

745

414

 

 

 

Monterey

$19,795

247

65

 

 

 

Palm Springs

$14,103

121

71

 

 

 

Sacramento

$198,664

627

296

 

 

 

San Diego

$297,412

856

352

 

 

 

San Francisco

$730,184

589

458

 

 

 

Santa Barbara

$21,356

283

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$3,210,204

3,914

1,907

 

 

 


 

“I’m a Mom”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$60,325

24

49

 

 

 

Sacramento

$10,066

32

24

 

 

 

San Diego

$16,356

47

49

 

 

 

San Francisco

$25,474

21

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$112,221

124

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

“Obama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 

 

 

Bakersfield

$3,088

44

24

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$572,005

228

135

 

 

 

Monterey

$3,449

43

10

 

 

 

Palm Springs

$2,493

21

20

 

 

 

Sacramento

$49,483

156

93

 

 

 

San Diego

$83,068

239

98

 

 

 

San Francisco

$340,333

275

220

 

 

 

Santa Barbara

$3,219

43

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,057,138

1,049

613

 

 

 


 

“Mac vs PC”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$30,378

12

17

 

 

 

Sacramento

$18,179

57

34

 

 

 

San Diego

$8,266

24

15

 

 

 

San Francisco

$40,485

33

18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$97,308

126

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Yes on 8

“Newsom” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 9/24–9/30

10/1–10/7

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Bakersfield

 $10,896

155

85

 $23,889

340

194

Chico-Redding

 $5,325

197

62

 $12,091

448

134

Fresno

 $20,104

133

69

 $78,255

519

220

Los Angeles

 $315,239

126

111

 $880,730

351

261

Monterey

 $17,527

218

59

 $45,260

564

180

Palm Springs

 $13,516

116

92

 $38,624

331

228

Sacramento

 $53,371

169

72

 $177,939

562

201

San Diego

 $54,045

156

92

 $166,482

479

212

San Francisco

 $115,919

94

99

 $410,265

331

282

Santa Barbara

 $10,867

144

86

 $31,924

422

221

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

 $616,809

1,507

827

 $1,865,459.00

4,348

2,133


 

“Newsom” Cont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/8–10/14

 10/15–10/21

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Bakersfield

 $3,817

54

35

 $-  

0

0

Chico-Redding

 $3,168

117

37

 $-  

0

0

Fresno

 $6,091

40

22

 $-  

0

0

Los Angeles

 $108,478

43

37

 $-  

0

0

Monterey

 $9,931.00

124

40

 $-  

0

0

Palm Springs

 $1,903

16

22

 $-  

0

0

Sacramento

 $35,599

112

46

 $488

2

2

San Diego

 $10,421

30

26

 $438

1

2

San Francisco

 $30,832

25

24

 $-  

0

0

Santa Barbara

 $13,053

173

90

 $5,562

74

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

 $223,293

735

379

 $6,488

76

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

 $2,712,049

6,667

3,376

 

 

 


 


“Princes” SP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/1–10/7

10/8–10/14

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

Fresno

$6,463

43

10

$12,647

84

21

Los Angeles

$1,406

1

2

$233,435

93

53

Sacramento

$2,057

6

3

$17,573

55

25

San Diego

$12,767

37

26

$28,972

83

44

San Francisco

$0

0

0

$0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$22,693

87

41

$292,627

316

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

“Princes” SP continued

 10/15–10/21

 10/22–10/28

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Fresno

$13,754

91

24

$33,079

219

56

Los Angeles

$122,520

49

34

$279,511

112

69

Sacramento

$15,259

48

21

$27,374

86

48

San Diego

$27,416

79

48

$41,673

120

76

San Francisco

$0

0

0

$1,225

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$178,949

267

127

$382,862

538

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

“Princes” SP continued

10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

 

 

 

Fresno

$49,414

328

93

 

 

 

Los Angeles

$0

0

0

 

 

 

Sacramento

$0

0

0

 

 

 

San Diego

$0

0

0

 

 

 

San Francisco

$1,961

2

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$51,375

329

96

 

 

 

Totals

$928,506

1,538

657

 

 

 


 

“Princes”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/8-10/14

 10/15-10/21

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

Bakersfield

$25,045

356

181

$17,791

253

129

Chico-Redding

$16,882

625

149

$7,515

278

94

Fresno

$71,027

471

201

$43,861

291

127

Los Angeles

$962,227

384

253

$669,905

267

221

Monterey

$41,568

518

160

$31,470

392

121

Palm Springs

$32,498

278

213

$20,809

178

129

Sacramento

$151,436

478

157

$95,566

302

117

San Diego

$163,229

470

197

$100,925

291

130

San Francisco

$322,264

260

238

$259,313

209

180

Santa Barbara

$28,373

376

185

$14,244

189

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$1,814,549

4217

1934

$1,261,399

2,650

1,354

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$3,075,948

6867

3288

 

 

 


 

“Massachusetts”

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/15–10/21

10/22–10/28

 

 $ Spent

Est. GRPs

 Spot Count

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

Bakersfield

 $11,553

164

83

 $18,945

270

131

Chico-Redding

 $7,360

273

76

 $11,186

414

103

Fresno

 $19,933

132

70

 $31,285

208

108

Los Angeles

 $344,637

138

88

 $1,049,336

419

209

Monterey

 $16,172

202

69

 $38,469

479

151

Palm Springs

 $18,326

157

93

 $21,298

182

132

Sacramento

 $57,335

181

78

 $136,281

430

132

San Diego

 $52,450

151

81

 $140,041

403

144

San Francisco

 $156,778

126

105

 $261,612

211

178

Santa Barbara

 $9,057

120

78

 $19,121

253

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

 $693,601

1,644

821

 $1,727,574

3,270

1,417


 


“Massachusetts” continued

10/29–EDay

 

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

 

 

 

Bakersfield

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Chico-Redding

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Fresno

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Los Angeles

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Monterey

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Palm Springs

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Sacramento

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

San Diego

 $215

1

1

 

 

 

San Francisco

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

Santa Barbara

 $-  

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

 $215

1

1

 

 

 

Totals

 $2,421,390

4,914

2,239

 

 

 


 

“Field Trip”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/22–10/28

10/29–EDay

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

Bakersfield

$7,306

104

53

$13,636

194

102

Chico-Redding

$4,257

158

48

$7,563

280

66

Fresno

$16,891

112

54

$29,609

196

83

Los Angeles

$636,946

254

123

$703,264

281

177

Monterey

$9,155

114

44

$18,381

229

79

Palm Springs

$9,395

80

56

$14,965

128

77

Sacramento

$78,275

247

74

$135,298

427

125

San Diego

$111,810

322

94

$112,342

324

99

San Francisco

$125,798

102

91

$146,542

118

119

Santa Barbara

$8,489

112

66

$14,413

191

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$1,008,322

1,605

703

$1,196,013

2,368

1,024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$2,204,335

3,973

1,727

 

 

 


 


Field Trip” SP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/29–EDay

 

 

 

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

 

 

 

Fresno

 $1,055

7

5

 

 

 

Los Angeles

 $243,577

97

63

 

 

 

Sacramento

 $29,070

92

46

 

 

 

San Diego

 $40,908

118

80

 

 

 

San Francisco

 $88,100

71

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

 $402,710

385

287

 

 

 


 

“Eduardo Veràstegui” SP

 

 

 

 

 

10/22–10/28

10/29–EDay

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

Fresno

 $779

5

3

 $1,508

10

8

Los Angeles

 $82,939

33

20

 $221,728

88

69

Sacramento

 $2,919

9

5

 $29,633

94

47

San Diego

 $37,407

108

70

 $43,111

124

90

San Francisco

 $-  

0

0

 $101,887

82

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

 $124,044

155

98

 $397,867

398

322

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

 $521,911

554

420

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 



Closer”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/22–10/28

10/29–EDay

 

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

$ Spent

Est. GRPs

Spot Count

Bakersfield

$0

0

0

$7,804

111

52

Chico-Redding

$0

0

0

$5,486

203

63

Fresno

$4,357

29

10

$32,325

214

80

Los Angeles

$103,054

41

16

$747,204

298

168

Monterey

$0

0

0

$17,051

213

77

Palm Springs

$2,414

21

11

$12,721

109

81

Sacramento

$20,624

65

10

$121,418

383

117

San Diego

$13,073

38

15

$110,699

319

97

San Francisco

$21,379

17

16

$183,420

148

108

Santa Barbara

$2,165

29

18

$11,801

156

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Totals

$167,066

239.36

96.00

$1,249,929

2,155

935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,416,995

2,394

1,031

 

 

 

 


Appendix E: Part 4

Broadcast Purchases for No and Yes on 8 by Media Market and Time

No on 8 bought ads in eight of the fourteen media markets that cover California. Yes on 8 bought in eleven of the fourteen media markets.

Where No on 8 did not buy TV, or bought very little TV

The eight media markets that the No on 8 campaign bought included forty of California’s fifty-eight counties and reached 92% of all voters who cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election.

No on 8 did not make significant purchases in the remaining six markets. No on 8 omitted the six markets for two reasons: (a) three of the markets are based out of state and any ads purchased would have primarily reached non-Californians; and (b) three of the markets are not historically competitive for progressive campaigns.

The three out-of-state media markets that also reach parts of California cover five of the eighteen counties where No on 8 did not purchase media. In northern California, Modoc and Siskiyou counties fall within the Medford, Oregon, market. In eastern and southern California, Alpine and Mono counties are part of the Reno, Nevada, market. Imperial County gets its TV from Yuma, Arizona. It is not efficient to reach voters in these counties by purchasing out-of-state air time; the vast majority of the viewers an advertiser would be paying to reach would be non-Californians.

The three historically noncompetitive markets are Chico-Redding, Fresno, and Bakersfield. Together, they cover the remaining thirteen counties: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Tulare, Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Trinity, and Kern counties.
The three tables below demonstrate the difficulty that progressive candidates and causes have had in these areas of the state in six recent campaigns. In each campaign examined, the progressive side ran far behind in these areas compared to how it did statewide. In Bakersfield, progress performance was 17–23 points behind the statewide average; in Fresno, it was 12–19 points behind; and in Chico-Redding, 4–16 points behind.

Here’s how to read the tables. The first column shows the six different campaigns we examined. The campaigns include both votes on same-sex marriage (Prop 22 in 2000, and Prop 8 in 2008), three votes on anti-choice parental notification requirements (Prop 73 in 2005, Prop 85 in 2006, and Prop 4 in 2008), and the 2008 presidential contest between Obama and McCain. The second column shows the percentage of the vote received by the nonprogressive, or conservative, side of the state (Chico-Redding in the first table, Bakersfield in the second, and Fresno in the third). The third column shows by comparison the percentage of the vote received by the nonprogressive side statewide; the fourth column calculates the difference between the two, showing how much further behind the progressive side ran in conservative areas as opposed to how it fared statewide; and the final column provides, for an additional point of comparison, how the nonprogressive side fared in the LA media market in the same contests.

% Votes Against

Chico-Redding

Statewide

Margin vs Statewide

LA

2008: Prop 8

58.77%

52.30%

-6.47

50.10%

2008: Obama

55.32%

39.00%

-16.32

28.90%

2008: Prop 4

52.25%

48.00%

-4.25

46.20%

2006: Prop 85

50.90%

45.80%

-5.10

44.10%

2005: Prop 73

55.64%

47.20%

-8.44

42.90%

2000: Prop 22

74.21%

61.40%

-12.81

58.60%

 

% Votes Against

Bakersfield

Statewide

Margin vs Statewide

LA

2008: Prop 8

75.00%

52.30%

-22.70

50.10%

2008: Obama

58.00%

39.00%

-19.00

28.90%

2008: Prop 4

65.50%

48.00%

-17.50

46.20%

2006: Prop 85

62.70%

45.80%

-16.90

44.10%

2005: Prop 73

64.90%

47.20%

-17.70

42.90%

2000: Prop 22

80.00%

61.40%

-18.60

58.60%

 

% Votes Against

Fresno

Statewide

Margin vs Statewide

LA

2008: Prop 8

70.82%

52.30%

-18.52

50.10%

2008: Obama

50.75%

39.00%

-11.75

28.90%

2008: Prop 4

62.10%

48.00%

-14.10

46.20%

2006: Prop 85

59.47%

45.80%

-13.67

44.10%

2005: Prop 73

64.38%

47.20%

-17.18

42.90%

2000: Prop 22

77.63%

61.40%

-16.23

58.60%

 

In light of these trends, it is understandable that with limited resources, the No on 8 campaign made very small investments in mass communications in these areas. When fundraising surged, No on 8 added small TV air time purchases in Fresno and Bakersfield in the final week of the campaign, but none of the three were included in original plans or saw significant purchases in September.

Going forward

What remains unknown, and worthy of further exploration well in advance of any future campaign on same-sex marriage, is whether there are strong opportunities to engage in voter persuasion in Fresno, Bakersfield, Chico-Redding, and other more rural areas.

Timing is crucial, however. Gauging the opportunities well in advance would almost certainly be a necessary prerequisite for any future campaign to reconsider the choices made by No on 8 and most other progressive campaigns. That’s because all campaigns, particularly in a state as large as California, are faced with difficult decisions about how to spend their limited resources. While we do not know for certain all the types of voters moveable on same-sex marriage, this report documents that No on 8 lost the most ground among voters within our base and that there was essentially no movement among the opposition’s base, eg, among Republicans, during the campaign (see Finding 1). To win at the ballot box, any future campaign will need to hold onto more of those who start out on our side and move more voters to be with us; it’s very hard to imagine how we could win if we again hemorrhaged significant support from our base. Thus, any future campaign is very likely to invest resources in areas where base voters have proven susceptible to the anti-gay arguments used by Yes on 8. Until we have data that show significant and powerful persuasion opportunities in conservative and Republican strongholds, traditionally anti-progressive parts of the state will continue to be candidates for more limited and targeted voter communications, not large-scale investment or untargeted educational effort.

The following tables are a breakdown of broadcast spending in each media market for each week for both sides of the campaign.

 

Bakersfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—4% of $

 

Yes on 8—96% of $

 

BC Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

9/22–9/23

$0

0

0

 

$0

0

0

9/24–9/30

$0

0

0

 

$10,896

155

85

10/1–10/7

$0

0

0

 

$23,889

340

194

10/8–10/14

$0

0

0

 

$28,862

411

216

10/15–10/21

$0

0

0

 

$29,344

417

212

10/22–10/28

$0

0

0

 

$26,251

373

184

10/29–EDay

$8,339

119

80

 

$21,440

305

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$8,339

119

80

 

$238,484

3,393

1,782

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chico-Redding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—0% of $

 

Yes on 8—100% of $

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

9/22–9/23

$0

0

0

 

$0

0

0

9/24–9/30

$0

0

0

 

$10,896

155

85

10/1–10/7

$0

0

0

 

$23,889

340

194

10/8–10/14

$0

0

0

 

$28,862

411

216

10/15–10/21

$0

0

0

 

$29,344

417

212

10/22–10/28

$0

0

0

 

$26,251

373

184

10/29–EDay

$0

0

0

 

$21,440

305

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$0

0

0

 

$140,682

2,001

1,045












 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fresno

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—15% of $

 

Yes on 8—85% of $

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

9/22–9/23

$0

0

0

 

$0

0

0

9/24–9/30

$0

0

0

 

$20,104

133

69

10/1–10/7

$0

0

0

 

$84,718

562

230

10/8–10/14

$0

0

0

 

$89,765

596

244

10/15–10/21

$0

0

0

 

$77,548

515

221

10/22–10/28

$0

0

0

 

$86,391

573

231

10/29–EDay

$84,534

561

158

 

$113,911

756

269

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$84,534

561

158

 

$472,437

3,135

1,264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











 

Los Angeles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—57% of $

 

Yes on 8—43% of $

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

9/22–9/23

$77,711

31

13

 

$0

0

0

9/24–9/30

$520,581

208

110

 

$315,239

126

111

10/1–10/7

$700,169

279

179

 

$882,136

352

263

10/8–10/14

$843,724

337

175

 

$1,304,140

520

343

10/15–10/21

$1,665,138

664

367

 

$1,137,062

454

343

10/22–10/28

$2,595,576

1036

691

 

$2,151,786

859

437

10/29–EDay

$3,844,338

1534.053472

1091

 

$1,915,773

764

477

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$10,247,237

4,089

2,626

 

$7,706,136

3,075

1,974











 

Monterey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—44% of $

 

Yes on 8—56% of $

 

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

9/22–9/23

$10,646

133

38

 

$0

0

0

 

9/24–9/30

$20,999

262

90

 

$17,527

218

59

 

10/1–10/7

$10,800

135

42

 

$45,260

564

180

 

10/8–10/14

$26,095

325

96

 

$51,499

642

200

 

10/15–10/21

$34,234

427

109

 

$47,642

594

190

 

10/22–10/28

$51,571

643

182

 

$47,624

594

195

 

10/29–EDay

$39,448

492

143

 

$35,432

442

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$193,793

2,415

700

 

$244,984

3,053

980

 













 

Palm Springs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—47% of $

 

Yes on 8—53% of $

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

9/22–9/23

$0

0

0

 

$0

0

0

9/24–9/30

$4,170

36

12

 

$13,516

116

92

10/1–10/7

$14,754

126

53

 

$38,624

331

228

10/8–10/14

$27,253

233

115

 

$34,401

294

235

10/15–10/21

$24,220

207

110

 

$39,135

335

222

10/22–10/28

$56,475

483

251

 

$33,107

283

199

10/29–EDay

$37,649

322

198

 

$27,686

237

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$164,521

1,408

739

 

$186,469

1,596

1,134


 

San Diego

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—51% of $

 

Yes on 8—49% of $

 

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

9/22–9/23

$31,875

92

42

 

$0

0

0

 

9/24–9/30

$81,656

235

105

 

$54,045

156

92

 

10/1–10/7

$50,472

145

52

 

$179,249

516

238

 

10/8–10/14

$120,818

348

130

 

$202,622

583

267

 

10/15–10/21

$145,293

418

124

 

$181,229

522

261

 

10/22–10/28

$311,649

897

395

 

$344,004

991

399

 

10/29–EDay

$585,959

1,687

877

 

$307,275

885

367

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,327,722

3,823

1,725

 

$1,268,424

3,653

1,624

 














 

Sacramento

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—52% of $

 

Yes on 8—48% of $

 

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

9/22–9/23

$18,371

58

11

 

$0

0

0

 

9/24–9/30

$62,432

197

64

 

$53,371

169

72

 

10/1–10/7

$106,217

335

117

 

$179,996

568

204

 

10/8–10/14

$132,213

417

133

 

$204,608

646

228

 

10/15–10/21

$190,337

601

207

 

$168,648

532

218

 

10/22–10/28

$339,502

1,072

419

 

$265,473

838

269

 

10/29–EDay

$437,290

1,381

682

 

$315,419

996

335

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$1,286,362

4,062

1,633.00

 

$1,187,515

3,750

1,326.00


 

San Francisco

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—68% of $

 

Yes on 8—32% of $

 

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

9/22–9/23

$168,969

136

91

 

$0

0

0

 

9/24–9/30

$363,009

293

206

 

$115,919

94

99

 

10/1–10/7

$287,181

232

131

 

$410,265

331

282

 

10/8–10/14

$380,570

307

185

 

$353,096

285

262

 

10/15–10/21

$833,104

672

378

 

$416,091

336

285

 

10/22–10/28

$1,044,824

843

634

 

$410,014

331

286

 

10/29–EDay

$1,724,748

1,392

1,182

 

$521,910

421

431

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$4,802,405

3,875

2,807

 

$2,227,295

1,797

1,645













 

Santa Barbara

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No on 8—49% of $

 

Yes on 8—51% of $

 

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

Spending

Est GRPs

Spot Count

 

9/22–9/23

$8,795

116

61

 

$0

0

0

 

9/24–9/30

$21,840

289

140

 

$10,867

144

86

 

10/1–10/7

$8,529

113

62

 

$31,924

422

221

 

10/8–10/14

$23,301

308

143

 

$41,426

548

275

 

10/15–10/21

$26,060

345

124

 

$28,863

382

217

 

10/22–10/28

$39,309

520

247

 

$29,775

394

213

 

10/29–EDay

$33,978

450

179

 

$26,214

347

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

$161,812

2,142

956

 

$169,069

2,238

1,201

 











 


Appendix E: Part 5

Cable Purchases for No on 8 by Market and Time

 

 

Bakersfield

Fresno

Los Angeles

 

Est GRPs

Spending

Est GRPs

Spending

Est GRPs

Spending

9/22–9/23

 

 

0

 

9

$20,492

9/24–9/30

0

 

0

 

58

$137,272

10/1–10/7

0

 

0

 

78

$184,628

10/8–10/14

0

 

0

 

95

$222,482

10/15–10/21

0

 

0

 

187

$439,081

10/22–10/28

0

 

0

 

291

$684,429

10/29–EDay

40

$4,320

164

$46,130

431

$1,013,716

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

40

$4,320

164

$46,130

1139

$2,681,608


 

 

San Diego

Santa Barbara

 

 

Est GRPs

Spending

Est GRPs

Spending

 

 

9/22–9/23

18

$8,794

30

$4,472

 

 

9/24–9/30

45

$22,528

76

$11,105

 

 

10/1–10/7

28

$13,925

30

$4,337

 

 

10/8–10/14

67

$33,333

81

$11,848

 

 

10/15–10/21

80

$40,085

90

$13,251

 

 

10/22–10/28

172

$85,982

136

$19,988

 

 

10/29–EDay

323

$161,662

118

$17,278

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

733

$366,310

561

$82,280

 

 

 
Appendix E: Part 6

Notes on Methodology

Broadcast Purchases

Tracking and source documents offer broadcast purchases in dollars spent in each media market each day. We converted this into gross rating points (GRPs), which are the units used to measure media purchases. The tracking documents have lower totals of money spent than the planning documents, and it is possible that these charts underestimate the money spent and resulting GRPs.

Weekly Totals

First, we separated the raw data of dollars spent on each advertisement by day and by media market. Then, we aggregated these into weekly totals with the week ending on Tuesday to account for Election Day.

It is important to note that buys are sometimes split between weeks and thus can appear less significant in our charts depending on how the buy was situated. For instance, if an ad was backed by 500 GRPs for one week from Friday to Thursday (a minimally significant buy), this would be represented in our charts as some combination of the buy split between two weeks. The charts are meant to give an overview of the spending that occurred, and do not necessarily reflect the precision of the buy strategy.

Converting to GRPs

To convert the weekly spending totals into GRPs we used average prices per GRP within each market. For big markets (such as LA and San Francisco) we assumed a 15% discount on the average price per point; for all other markets we assumed a 10% discount on the low average price per point. We based this formula off of the recommendations of a media professional to estimate the prices during the 2008 campaign.

GRPs cost different amounts depending on the media market and the timeslot. For context, the average price per point we used to calculate LA GRPs is $2,506, while the average price per point in Santa Barbara is $76.

Example

Tracking documents show that No on 8 spent a total of $520,582 to air “Thorons” in LA from 9/24 to 9/30. We divide the average price per point into the total money spent for estimated GRPs.

$ spent / Avg price = Estimated GRPs.
$520,582 / $ 2,506 = 208 GRPs
Thus, we estimate that No on 8 purchased 208 GRPs to air “Thorons
” for that week in the LA media market.


Cable Purchases

The information we were able to obtain surrounding Cable purchases only contained total money spent in each market by No on 8. We were not able to break down these purchases by advertisement. We instead converted them to GRPs and approximated how these points could have been spread across the campaign.

Converting to GRPs

First, we weighted the cost of each time slot in each market to come up with an approximate cost per spot per market. Prime time (6pm–12m) costs significantly more than early morning, however buys usually include more prime time than early morning spots. We came up with the following approximations for the cost of a spot in each market.

Los Angeles

$1,106

Bakersfield

$54

Fresno

$140

Santa Barb

$73

San Diego

$250

Eureka

$9

Then, we divided the total amount of money spent in each market by the estimated spot cost to estimate a total number of spots within each market. Finally, we multiplied the average cable rating by the spot count to get our estimate of GRPs in each market.

Time Line

We operated under the assumption that the cable purchases were used to augment the larger broadcast purchases. First, we created a time line of the broadcast spending ratios across time within each market. We then applied these ratios to the cable purchase to approximate when the money was spent.

Example

No on 8 spent $10.2 million to purchase broadcast television in Los Angeles. Between 9/24 and 9/30, No on 8 spent $520,581 to purchase broadcast television, 5% of the total LA purchase.

We know that No on 8 spent $2.7 million on cable purchases in LA. Since we are assuming the cable purchase followed a similar pattern to the broadcast purchase, we estimate that No on 8 spent $137,272 on cable in LA that week, 5% of the total LA cable budget.

Then, we divide $137,272 by the average price per spot in LA ($1,106), and can estimate that No on 8 purchased 58 GRPs on cable that week in the LA market