In a bid to fight online misinformation, the advertising industry is offering advertisers a sweetheart deal: If they spend more on ads in the months leading up to election day, they’ll be credited with more clicks.
That’s the theory.
But the reality is that most of the ad dollars spent by advertisers will be wasted.
That is why it is so important to understand what the truth is about the role that money plays in shaping the outcome of the election.
In fact, most research shows that most ads don’t matter much in the first two weeks of the campaign.
For one thing, they don’t get counted in the official totals.
And because many of them have no direct impact on the outcome, they are often counted in a way that doesn’t even make sense.
A look at the numbers: There is good reason to think that most advertising dollars spent during the first few days of the voting season are simply wasted.
By the end of March, a new study by researchers at Columbia University found that more than half of all ads bought by American voters were not counted.
That means that only a quarter of all those ads were actually worth spending.
The remainder were likely simply left unspent, the researchers found.
That was because the average amount of money spent on ads during that period was about $1.70, which is just shy of half of the amount spent by American consumers in the entire election.
So why is that?
What’s the truth?
The researchers also found that the average spend on ads by the candidates was only about $0.50, meaning that more ads were being spent on TV, radio, social media and online ads than on the actual election itself.
The research is still preliminary, but it does seem that most Americans are spending less than they are counting on.
And it appears that many of those ads have little to no impact on election outcomes.
The ad market in particular appears to be losing out.
In 2016, nearly 80% of ad spend went to TV, according to Ad Age.
But since the election, TV has lost more than 50% of its audience, while online has dropped more than 20%.
That suggests that spending on online ads is actually doing more to boost the Republican Party than it has to help Democrats.
The result: The GOP is leading in the election by more than 4 percentage points, according a new CNN/ORC poll.
The GOP has spent about as much as the Democratic Party, according the same poll, but that number includes money that was spent by both parties.
But according to the new research, the Democrats are also spending more than the Republicans, because they have spent more.
This is especially true of online advertising.
The average amount spent on online advertising in 2016 was $0, according an analysis by political scientist Peter Weber.
But this year, the average online spend was $11.57, according in Pew Research.
That seems like a bargain for the GOP, who spent almost $1 billion in online advertising, while the Democrats spent about $6.6 billion.
That suggests a clear winner in the race for online ad dollars.
But how much does it really matter?
For the past decade, online ad spending has grown significantly, and many analysts expect it to grow even faster in the future.
But many analysts also warn that this is just the beginning.
“The idea that ads have a major impact on an election is a big overstatement,” said Michael Turchin, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy group that is fighting for digital rights.
“But if you take a look at how the digital economy has changed over the past five years, the impact of online ads has been negligible.
There has been absolutely no real impact on turnout, there has been no real effect on the number of votes cast, and there is no real benefit to candidates from online advertising.”
There are a number of reasons for the big spending on ads.
First, online ads have been around for years.
Most companies, including Facebook and Google, have embraced them.
And they have helped boost candidates’ online presence and their ability to reach voters in a variety of ways.
For example, Facebook and other social media platforms like Instagram and Twitter helped the Democratic National Committee reach out to potential voters in the run-up to the election; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even spent millions on ads on Facebook.
Second, many candidates are spending more on digital ads.
Some of these candidates, like former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush, have started to get big spending from social media.
Third, ads are more effective at driving people to websites, where they are more likely to share their views.
And many of these sites are run by Facebook and Facebook’s competitors, such as Amazon, eBay, Google and others.
The bottom line is that there are no signs that digital advertising is hurting the Democratic campaign.
That said, there are signs that some candidates are using ads to reach their audiences directly.
For instance, some candidates have tried to make their platforms more responsive