Generating Voter-to-Voter Contact
In his article comparing the Bush and Kerry newsletters, Jakob Nielsen makes a point that is relevant not only to newsletters and our Politics and New Media class in general, but to the issue of political persuasion as a whole:
Too often in our profession, it seems the emphasis in communicating political messages is placed entirely on getting the message to the voter, and the reception of said message is totally ignored.
That's an overstatement, of course; ever since The Responsive Chord television ads have been designed to grip the viewer's attention, direct mail is written in a way that at least gets the recipient to read the piece, and sound bites are crafted in a way that allows them to cut through the clutter. But too often the way the message is received by the recipient does not get the attention it deserves. The importance of voter-to-voter contact is often overlooked by detatched consultants--especially, it seems, on the Democratic side--which ignores a great opportunity to get your message to an undecided voter through a trusted messenger.
The Bush campaign did a far better job in using their Internet presence to enable supporters to spread the word for them. The numbers certainly bear that out, and the website (from what I remember of it) was set up in a way that placed a strong emphasis on enlisting "Team Leaders" who could get active in their local communities.
Using newsletters to promote this aspect of the web presence has obvious benefits. Perhaps a typical Kerry email inspired one out of a hundred recipients to donate $100; that would buy maybe 50 direct mail pieces or a couple of points in a medium sized market. Compare that to the result if the same percentage of recipients--1%--on the Bush list took the time after reading an email to phone 5 friends and tell them why she was voting for Bush. I'd certainly take the latter if I were the campaign manager.
Voter-to-voter contact can make a big difference, and, as Nielsen points out, the email newsletter is a great way to directly impact the type of influencers who initiate such contact. Kudos to the Bush campaign for using this medium to generate such contact, though I'm sure its use could even still be improved. Instead of simply using the newsletter as a cash machine with precipitously declining marginal returns, campaign managers would be wise to think two steps ahead to what the money will ultimately be used for--persuading voters--and take advantage of the newsletter's ability to do just that.
How many people change their vote on the basis of a TV commercial? Probably fewer than change their vote (or decide to vote to begin with) because of a trusted friend's convincing argument. Email newsletters offer a direct line to such every-day influencers around the country.
Too often in our profession, it seems the emphasis in communicating political messages is placed entirely on getting the message to the voter, and the reception of said message is totally ignored.
That's an overstatement, of course; ever since The Responsive Chord television ads have been designed to grip the viewer's attention, direct mail is written in a way that at least gets the recipient to read the piece, and sound bites are crafted in a way that allows them to cut through the clutter. But too often the way the message is received by the recipient does not get the attention it deserves. The importance of voter-to-voter contact is often overlooked by detatched consultants--especially, it seems, on the Democratic side--which ignores a great opportunity to get your message to an undecided voter through a trusted messenger.
The Bush campaign did a far better job in using their Internet presence to enable supporters to spread the word for them. The numbers certainly bear that out, and the website (from what I remember of it) was set up in a way that placed a strong emphasis on enlisting "Team Leaders" who could get active in their local communities.
Using newsletters to promote this aspect of the web presence has obvious benefits. Perhaps a typical Kerry email inspired one out of a hundred recipients to donate $100; that would buy maybe 50 direct mail pieces or a couple of points in a medium sized market. Compare that to the result if the same percentage of recipients--1%--on the Bush list took the time after reading an email to phone 5 friends and tell them why she was voting for Bush. I'd certainly take the latter if I were the campaign manager.
Voter-to-voter contact can make a big difference, and, as Nielsen points out, the email newsletter is a great way to directly impact the type of influencers who initiate such contact. Kudos to the Bush campaign for using this medium to generate such contact, though I'm sure its use could even still be improved. Instead of simply using the newsletter as a cash machine with precipitously declining marginal returns, campaign managers would be wise to think two steps ahead to what the money will ultimately be used for--persuading voters--and take advantage of the newsletter's ability to do just that.
posted by Mike D at
6/21/2005 09:51:00 AM
3 Comments:
This links in with an earlier topic - focusing the message. Bush's campaign was successful in part because it targeted its message to people who were interested in a topic.
I think it is important to send information in emails that resonates with the person reading it. If it does, they are much more likely to go out and tell others about something they have read if they believe in it and are passionate about.
By
Peter C, at 6/21/2005 11:55:00 AM
Peter C is right. Once you send an email out that resonates with the person reading it they will in turn try to circulate that information out to those around them.
By giving people what they want to hear about, it inspires passion and that passion will encourage them to share the information with others. Yes they might share it with people who are already well versed in the issues and are already supporters, but they might also share the information with someone on the edge. In turn, this information might serve to be the critical component that individual was missing to make a decision in the election. They may hear it and decide to throw support to the candidate that sent the email out.
That way a candidate uses its supporters as tool to garner additional support. What is great about that is the fact that it does not take much of the voters' time. While they may not be passing out stickers for the candidate they are still volunteering in a different way for the campaign. Candidates just need to find a way to light the spark that will encourage the people to get all over an issue and tell their friends about it.
By
dcae, at 6/21/2005 12:59:00 PM
I couldn't agree more with both of you. Campaigns need to look at their email recipients as individuals they are having a conversation with, not a crowd that they are lecturing to. Understanding your audience, targeted to their interests, and giving them that spark will definitely pay dividends in the end.
By
Mike D, at 6/21/2005 01:42:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home