Do Political Ads Work, or Are We Just Suffering in Vain?

It is that wonderful, inescapable time of the election season again. Turn on the TV, log on to a streaming platform, or scroll through social media, and you are immediately greeted by ominous background music and a heavy-voiced narrator. One commercial portrays Candidate Smith as an absolute saint who spends his weekends rescuing golden retriever puppies, planting community gardens, and smiling warmly at golden-hour sunsets. Thirty seconds later, a dark, stormy commercial tells you that Candidate Smith actually eats cereal with water and is plotting the financial downfall of your quiet suburb.

Welcome to the political circus, where every commercial break feels like an emotional obstacle course designed to test your sanity.

As political campaigns pour billions of dollars into advertising, it is easy to wonder whether we are suffering in vain. Do these constant attacks and glossy portraits actually work, or are politicians simply lighting crazy amounts of cash on fire just to annoy us?

The short answer is yes, but probably not in the way campaign managers hope, and certainly not as dramatically as their ad budgets would imply.

To start with, political ads do remarkably little to change people’s minds. A study led by Yale University, UC San Diego, and UCLA examined thousands of voters during a presidential campaign. Their verdict was surprisingly clear: political television ads have virtually no lasting persuasive power. Whether an ad offered glowing praise or a scorched-earth attack, voters rarely switched sides. The researchers found that while ads can slightly boost a candidate's name recognition early on, they have little power to flip a voter from one party to another.

Even when an ad lands a punch, its impact is notoriously fleeting. Research from the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab analyzed campaign advertising in Texas gubernatorial races to measure how long an ad’s influence lasts. The study found that while TV ads create a brief spike in voter preference, that effect decays rapidly, usually within a couple of weeks. This decay explains why campaigns hoard their money for a final, roaring blitz right before Election Day: if they run their strongest ads too early, voters forget them by the time they actually vote.

Ads have become more potent in the digital world. While traditional TV reaches a broad audience, online platforms take a far more surgical approach. Research published in the journal Political Communication by Taylor and Francis Online highlights how digital ads rely on high frequency and precise micro-targeting to nudge voter behavior. Rather than trying to convert a die-hard political rival, algorithms deliver tailored, emotionally charged content to undecided or low-information voters. Instead of changing core beliefs, these targeted digital blasts aim to trigger emotions like fear or outrage just enough to ensure people actually show up to vote. Fear and outrage? Go figure!

So how do you cut through all this slime when your screen is drowning in political rhetoric? Since ads are designed to bypass logic and trigger gut reactions, navigating them requires a bit of mental distance. First, pay attention to the "Paid for by..." fine print at the bottom of the screen, because ads funded by Super PACs often make far more exaggerated claims than official candidate ads. Second, whenever you hear dramatic, slow-motion voiceovers accompanied by ominous thunder, recognize that you are being sold a theatrical narrative rather than a fact sheet. Finally, before taking an ad’s wild claims at face value, cross-check them with nonpartisan fact-checkers.

Let's keep the fact-checkers busy!

You see, truth in advertising doesn’t apply to political ads. Unlike commercial products, political advertising is largely exempt from those laws because political speeches and campaign claims are protected as core political speech under the First Amendment. So, broadcasters and social platforms are legally prohibited from censoring or altering political candidates' ads, leaving fact-checking to voters rather than to regulatory bodies like the FTC.

The next time a commercial warns that a candidate will single-handedly trigger the apocalypse, take a deep breath and smile. Science shows you are far less susceptible to their spell than the campaigns are desperate to believe.

(Tim Herrera is the author of “Public Speaking: Simple Steps to Improve Your Skills” and “Mastering Media: Strategies for Effective Communication in the Digital Age.”  You will find both on Amazon. You will also find him on Substack at When Life Has Other Plans.)