It would be better to set the money on fire than to give it to a politician to spend on TV ads.

Okay, you want to make this country a better place for yourself, your children, and many generations to come. So you donate to a political candidate who you believe will fight for a better country.

But in reality, you’re wasting your money. Here’s why.

Television has long been the golden goose of political advertising. It is generally believed that the candidate who can spend the most on it is most likely to win.

With the exception of Donald Trump, almost every person elected president since 1960 has raised and spent money more money than their opponent. That includes Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton and Obama – with much of that money being used to buy exorbitant TV ads.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton raised over $1.1 billion, while Trump raised less than $650 millionShe spent almost more than Trump three times more in a TV commercial.

How is it possible for a presidential candidate to win despite raising and spending less money?

Spending money where it counts

Some attribute it to the free media that Trump received from ratings-hungry networks. But on many counts, that argument misses the mark, so consider another answer: digital advertising.

Although less was spent on television, Trump spent four times as much as Hillary Clinton spent on digital ads, meaning any ads that appear on a computer, not the typical campaign ads that air on television, in the mail or on billboards.

Why should that be an answer?

Since 2016, a modern era of politics has emerged (probably initiated by Obama in 2008), dominated by digital advertising. And no one has done it better than Donald Trump.

Wasted TV Advertising Dollars

The typical U.S. House candidate spends 65–70% of his or her entire political budget on U.S. television and direct mail advertising.

When one of them advertises on TV, almost 80% of the money spent on ads is spent to air those ads to people who don’t vote or live in that candidate’s district. That’s because TV doesn’t allow you to target audiences to the same level of precision that digital does. That’s true in major urban TV markets as well as in rural states.

So if you donate money to a political campaign, you’re spending over 50% of your money on TV ads that don’t reach the people who might vote for your candidate.

Moreover, if we take into account spending on further advertising, it turns out that of every dollar donated, only 10 cents actually reaches voters.

As a result, TV advertising is the worst thing you can support in terms of environmental impact for your money.

However, if you donate money to campaigns, whether at the district or presidential level, that advertise digitally, the situation is very different.

Digital advertising is more effective

When politicians advertise digitally, their advertising can become smarter and more targeted. That’s because digital advertising learns more about individuals and better understands what policies and issues interest donors.

For example, most of Donald Trump’s current Facebook ads don’t even ask for money, but for some information about you, such as what issues you care about or whether you support building “The Wall.” Here’s a screenshot:

Here are some screenshots from the campaign page that the Facebook ad links to. It includes the “Official Secure The Border Survey.”

Trump’s digital ads not only ask for your opinion on various issues, but they also assign you a poll number and ask for all the necessary information (name, email address, zip code, phone number) so they can target you for voting and fundraising purposes.

This is even more valuable than advertising itself because it allows you to continually target ads to specific people and topics that interest them.

trump card I spent 44% of its massive 2016 election media budget on digital advertising. Commercial companies spend 54% of their ad budgets on digital advertising. But U.S. Senate campaigns spent only 4% to 7% on digital advertising in 2016.

Who do you think spends more money on researching people’s reactions to different forms of advertising?

Now that he’s campaigning, President Trump is running thousands of ads a day Facebook onlyThat’s consistently more than the 23 Democratic candidates challenging Trump combined.

If this trend continues in the general election, it’s pretty clear to me who will most likely win.

It looks like the winners will be those who employ digital technology wisely – the losers will be those who stick to television.

[ Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter. ]