CAMPAIGN JOURNAL : Candidates Tuning In to Cable TV

Democrat Fred Smoller is a college professor who doesn’t plan to spend more than a couple of thousand dollars on his long-shot campaign against incumbent Assemblyman John Lewis of Anaheim. But with just $55, Smoller was able to bash his Republican opponent almost every day for two weeks on local cable television.

“It was a fantastic opportunity,” Smoller said. “I think the very fact that I was on television gave my campaign a level of credibility. It’s the way a poor man can get access to people.”

Throughout California and the nation, cable television has become a new medium for low-budget campaigns previously limited to lawn signs and bumper stickers.

Some of the commercials, made in back yards and living rooms, are far from the slick images on network television. Yorba Linda Councilman Henry Wedaa’s message, for instance, shows his granddaughter coloring a crayon picture of the city, then looking up at the camera for the tag line: “I love you grandpa.”

But even mid-size campaigns and the multimillion-dollar giants with plenty of money and the expertise to pick the most effective tools for reaching voters have turned to cable advertising this year, often for the first time.

Congressional candidates especially in Los Angeles and Orange counties, facing the huge cost of broadcasting television commercials in the nation’s largest media market, have sought cable companies as a way of serving a viewership more tailored to their districts.

And some statewide candidates are supplementing traditional television advertising with cable commercials in search of viewers who have fled network programs for more specialized subscription channels.

“I am truly one of the great cable proponents,” said David Bienstock, the media buyer for Republican Pete Wilson’s gubernatorial campaign. “We are probably the biggest cable advertiser in California.” Bienstock estimated the campaign has dedicated about 5% of its television budget to cable.

Nobody is predicting that a cable candidate will score a major upset victory. In fact, there is disagreement among campaign strategists about whether cable helps at all. Even those using cable extensively cannot point to conclusive evidence that it will produce results.

But clearly, cable is another weapon in the campaign arsenal, and one that has intrigued many strategists with its possibilities.

In Los Angeles, Republican congressional candidate Jim Salomon has bet most of his campaign against Democratic Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson on the power of cable television. Except for the candidate’s personal legwork, it is virtually the only medium Salomon is using to reach voters.

“His fund raising is going up; his name ID is going up and it’s generated a little bit of excitement,” said Steve Powell, media strategist for Salomon.

This is the first election in which more than half the state’s homes are connected to cable, industry officials say. And it’s the first campaign cycle in which some cable companies have the technology to insert local commercials in their national programs.

The use of cable television by campaigns is up at least 50% since the last general election in 1988, said Robert Alter of the Cable Advertising Bureau in New York. Alter advises political campaigns on the possibilities of cable.

Still, for most campaigns, the argument for cable advertising is economics.

“The reason I’m using it is because it’s so inexpensive,” said Alan Hoffenblum, a veteran campaign manager. “I don’t know how effective it is, but for $5,000 it’s worth trying to find out.”

For half the cost of one letter to voters in the average-size Assembly district, most candidates can appear on cable television several times a day for a month.

In Orange, where Smoller is seeking an Assembly seat, the price was $5.50 for a 30-second cable television commercial. Smoller was so happy with the first two weeks that he spent another $350 for the last three weeks of the campaign, forcing incumbent Lewis to do the same.

By comparison, a 30-second commercial during a morning news program like “Today” on NBC costs an estimated $1,200 and up to $40,000 for a similar spot during a major sporting event.

“What this has done is allow people who may be challenging a longtime incumbent to have a new medium to communicate with voters, and it’s very effective,” said Michael Galizio, chief of staff for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) who is on leave to work on state Democratic campaigns. “I’ve said this to a lot of people running against incumbents this year: Buy cable.”

Still, some consultants believe the money is wasted if the messages do not reach the people who will vote.

Republican political consultant Tony Marsh, working on several state and federal campaigns around the country, including two congressional races in Riverside County, considers cable advertising “unreliable.”

“I suppose in certain City Council races it might help because they are such low visibility that anything you do is a benefit,” he added. “But I think putting up 2,000 lawn signs might be more effective.”

Whatever thoughts political officials have about cable advertising this year, most agree it will become more popular and more sophisticated in the future--even as soon as 1992.

Cable television has the potential to combine some of the advantages of video advertising and targeted mail. For example, a candidate with a no-new-taxes pledge might seek advertising on Financial News Network. Or a commercial about family values might be aired on a religious program.

“This is an incredibly effective tool,” Galizio said. “People just don’t understand it yet.”