\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/GettyImages-1229228819_9edca8-e1719512411327.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Muted mics. No audience. Three months earlier than any other presidential debate in history.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Few things are usual about the face-off set to occur between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump Thursday evening. That\u2019s because this debate will be the first to be organized by a media organization \u2013 CNN \u2013 rather than the Commission for Presidential Debates (CPD), which has hosted every presidential debate since 1988.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Both candidates shrugged off the CPD after an unpleasant series of debates in 2020, which were characterized by Trump\u2019s constant interruptions and Biden\u2019s ramblings. However, now that CNN has taken charge of the debates, there will be another unusual and potentially unpleasant feature \u2013 advertisements.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While presidential debates have had advertisements before and after the event, Thursday\u2019s debate will be the first in history to be interrupted by commercials. Two ad breaks will splice up the 90-minute-long event, Business Insider<\/em> reported<\/a>. The costs for these advertisements are telling: based on their price, CNN is set to make at least tens of millions in revenue, with outstanding viewership and ratings, from the debate.<\/p>\n CNN is offering two packages to potential advertisers, according to Semafor<\/em><\/a>; the first costs a minimum of $1.5 million and features several digital elements, plus three 30-second ads: one before the debate, one during, and another after. The second will set advertisers back a minimum of $1 million, and offer the three ads and fewer digital elements.\u00a0<\/p>\n Representatives from CNN did not respond to Fortune<\/em>\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n Based on these numbers, each 30-second advertisement will cost between $334,000 and $500,000. For comparison, that\u2019s equivalent to the price of advertising during Thursday Night Football, or Grey\u2019s Anatomy<\/em> in 2009, when it was the most expensive show on TV, according to Ad Age.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n It is also more than double the cost CBS charged potential advertisers for an advertisement aired before or after 2016\u2019s debates between Trump and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Semafor reported.<\/a><\/p>\n This year\u2019s premium could be due to the ads\u2019 timing: ads that run during a program are much more valuable than before or after, Ross Benes, a senior analyst at market research company eMarketer, said.\u00a0<\/p>\n After most programs, \u201cpeople walk away from the TV,\u201d Benes added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Doug Gould, an advertising professor at Boston University\u2019s College of Communication, agreed, adding that competing news outlets are likely to cover any provocative or unusual ads that run during the debate.<\/p>\n However, the ads\u2019 stratospheric prices could reflect not only the commercial breaks\u2019 novelty, but also the impact that inflation has had on the advertising industry, marketing experts told Fortune. <\/em>Since 2016, the average price for a TV slot sold upfront \u2013 meaning sold months ahead of its airing \u2013\u00a0 has nearly doubled, Benes said.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 2024, it\u2019s a lot harder to reach that many people at once than it was in 2016, and 2016 was a lot harder than 2008,\u201d Benes said. \u201cIt\u2019s just wild how much more expensive it has become to do TV advertising.\u201d<\/p>\n Much of the reason boils down to shifting viewership habits: With fewer people watching TV, networks need to charge more per ad to compensate, Benes added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Paul Verna, eMarketer\u2019s vice president of content, explained that CNN may also be erring towards the more expensive side due to its financial troubles. CNN is facing two uncomfortable transitions: from cable to streaming\u2014which is notoriously difficult to monetize\u2014and from being the go-to mainstream news network to the \u201cliberal\u201d network.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI think those have been two very difficult transitions for CNN,\u201d Verna said.\u00a0<\/p>\n By securing this debate, CNN has an opportunity to extract as much revenue as possible, Verna added. However, while CNN holds the rights to the debate, it is allowing other networks to simulcast it and run their own ads, as long as they show the CNN brand.\u00a0 Some have suggested<\/a> that could lead to rivals making more revenue than CNN, since networks like Fox<\/a> News and MSNBC have higher viewership during primetime.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gould thought that the move was \u201cbrilliant,\u201d because it allows CNN to advertise its own shows and branding, while benefitting other networks. For example, even Fox News viewers, who may dislike CNN due to its perceived liberal bent, could be impressed by moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash\u2019s performance, and begin watching their show.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re exposed to it, and it\u2019s just another water drop on the head to remind them that there\u2019s something else to look at,\u201d Gould said.\u00a0<\/p>\n And then, there\u2019s the novelty of the debate itself to draw people in, Verna and Benes said. With it being the first debate in the season, in a neck-to-neck, highly polarized election, they expect high ratings from the show-off.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of pent-up interest,\u201d Verna said. He expects politicians to run their own ads throughout the evening to capitalize on the unique opportunity to influence voter<\/p>\n Few seemed happy about the addition of advertisements. Verna said it was a \u201cslippery slope\u201d to allowing more advertisements, and other forms of monetization, to infiltrate the debates. Benes said viewers could find the addition of advertising \u201cterrible.\u201d<\/p>\n Clea Conner, chief executive of Open to Debate, a research group that has tracked presidential debates over recent decades, told<\/a> Politico that the commercial breaks will \u201cfundamentally change\u201d the debates, since they allow time for candidates to stop and regroup.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gould didn\u2019t see a problem with the candidates having a break. Sure, presidents have to think on their feet, but they will also have multiple opportunities during their tenure to stop and think, he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, Conner told Politico that the arguments itself could change due to the commercial breaks.<\/p>\n \u201c[Candidates\u2019] arguments will have to be shorter, truncated for the commercial clock, and will result in more outrageous interactions to bump ratings.\u201d She argued that without an independent broker such as the CPD, it would lead to \u201cpure political theatre.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\nIt\u2019s inflation, stupid<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u201cSlippery slope\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n