The Way Americans Consume Media Requires a New Campaign Playbook

Would you rather see a political ad on TV or Facebook — or get a candidate flyer in the mail? Does an influencer’s political opinion change the way you vote?

Data reveals that the way voters consume media is reshaping the political campaign landscape. According to the Center for Campaign Innovation’s 2024 National Post-Election Survey, most voters discuss elections within their personal networks, and nearly one-third interact with digital influencers and share political content online. Alongside these changes, a recent Bentley-Gallup Business in Society Report found a sharp drop in Americans' trust of the federal government. 

We asked Jeff Gulati, professor of political science and senior associate dean of arts and sciences at Bentley, how candidates can adapt to the changing campaign landscape to share their message and build trust among voters.

How has the voter outreach playbook changed over the last few election cycles? What tactics are becoming less effective, and what’s replacing them? 

The biggest change is the ability to reach different voters with different messages. Campaigns combine voter records with commercial data and online targeting tools to estimate whom they can mobilize or persuade and with the issues that might resonate with them. Digital outreach makes that relatively inexpensive to do repeatedly. 

In a polarized electorate, much of this outreach reinforces existing loyalties: reminding people why they support their party and what they fear about the other side. Persuasion still matters, but converting an established connection into turnout is central. 

What’s losing ground is the idea that one broad message on one medium can reach everyone. Yet this is an expansion of the playbook, not a wholesale replacement. Pew found that television remained Americans’ most common source of election news in 2024, at 35%. That helps explain why campaigns still invest in TV alongside digital outreach and door-to-door conversations.  

Campaigns want our votes, but their calls and texts can feel like an invasion of our personal space. Where’s the line between effective outreach and alienating the very people they’re trying to win over — and how do campaigns know when they’ve crossed it? 

There’s a difference between encountering a political message in your social media feed and having your phone repeatedly buzz with unsolicited texts. The first can blend into content you already consume; the second can feel like someone claiming access to your personal space. 

Both frequency and content matter. Repetitive appeals, misleading urgency, and relentless negativity can wear people down. Pew found that 74% of voters thought the 2024 presidential campaign was too negative. That doesn’t prove the messages cost candidates votes, but it shows how widespread the fatigue is. 

Opt-outs, complaints and declining responses can signal that outreach is wearing thin. But campaigns can measure clicks and donations more easily than lost goodwill. My sense is that many risk irritating voters because they fear being drowned out by the opposition. Being annoyed by a campaign and abandoning its candidate are two different things.  

How are younger voters encountering political information and deciding whom to trust — and what do campaigns misunderstand about reaching them? 

For many younger voters, political information arrives mixed into entertainment, commentary and everyday conversation on social media and podcasts. Some deliberately follow particular voices, while other content finds them through recommendations. Pew reported in 2025 that 38% of adults under 30 regularly got news from news influencers. 

Familiarity, perceived authenticity and shared beliefs can all contribute to trust. But we shouldn’t assume young people accept everything they see or encounter only opinions they agree with. Pew’s 2024 research found that 61% of people who got opinions from news influencers encountered a roughly equal mix of views they agreed and disagreed with. Interestingly, this finding was consistent across all age groups, not just among young adults. 

The mistake is confusing access with credibility. Appearing on a young person’s screen doesn’t automatically mean earning their trust. The messenger’s established relationship with an audience can matter as much as the message itself.