White Papers

The Changed Media Environment

Younger people have grown up immersed in the Internet and with the ability to quickly adapt to new technologies. They have a higher comfort level with blogs, podcasts, and video clips. They also regularly multitask while using a media (e.g. reading a newspaper while watching television, talking on telephone while checking email, instant messaging while listening to music, etc). Generations X and Y can communicate more easily with one another, but become harder for political campaigns to reach and engage their interest and attention.

Download The Changed Media Environment

Why the Telephone Matters

The changes in the media environment over the past several years necessitate an evaluation of long used practices to communicate with and persuade people to take some action. Consider, for example, the decline in total viewers of the broadcast networks. In 1978 the broadcast networks had 90% of the prime-time audience. Today, the broadcast network audience has slumped to roughly half that size according to Nielsen Media Research. At the same time, the number of channels the average U.S. household receives has quadrupled in the last 10 years from 27 channels to 100 TV channels (Nielsen Media Research). To illustrate the impact of this change in reaching people a study by Forrester Research showed in the 1960's an advertiser could reach 80% of US women with a spot aired on the three broadcast networks. Today an ad would have to run on 100 TV channels to reach the same penetration. For the company trying to reach an audience through television the problem is exacerbated further by the growing popularity of ad-skipping devices, such as TiVo.

Download Why the Telephone Matters

Increasing Opt-In Email Rates, a Test

Recently, partnering with a Democratic House member in a southern state, we set out to test the effectiveness of message and repetitive contact scenarios in getting constituents to opt-in to the Congressman's electronic newsletter.  We've always known that repetitive consistent messaging works, but in the changed media and Internet landscape what mix of contacts and mediums maximizes the number of individuals taking an action, especially with the pedestrian objective of signing onto a civic minded newsletter?

Our first test consisted of one message going to four separate randomized groups of 1,000 email addresses each; however, each group received a different contact pattern (e.g. Group #1 received an email only, Group #2 received a set-up automated call from the Congressman followed by the email, etc.). All groups received the same opt-in email, but they differed in the placement of the automated call in the contact pattern.  The results were negligible among all the groups - none showed any real statistical difference to the group only receiving the email.  In fact, only a handful of people chose to opt-in at all. Seeing that simply adding more contacts to a communication did little to increase opt-ins, we next tested targeted messages and varying contact patterns.  We used an environmental message in an opt-in email along with a recorded message from the Congressman specifically related to this issue area.  Two groups, each containing 508 email addresses, were randomized and targeted because they were likely to be interested in the topic.  The results were remarkable:

  • 6% of the group which received only the email contact chose to opt-in
  • Of those receiving the targeted email as well as the targeted automated message, an impressive 24% chose to opt-in

Targeting the message to the audience and lengthening the contact pattern drastically increased the percentage of people volunteering to opt-in.

 

 

Download Increasing Opt-In Email Rates, a Test

Micro-Targeting and Direct Contact – The Other Half of the Story

As micro-targeting moves further into the lexicon of the campaign canon, it is worth noting that with greater ability to target on the household level, the focus on direct contact communications has seen a major resurgence. Applications of large scale micro-targeting have been very impressive in recent years, but it is only half the picture.  What often goes overlooked is that it is telephone, mail, and email, working in concert, delivering the tailored message to the voter.  Direct contact communications, telephone and mail in particular, are now the tactics of choice to execute a micro-targeting strategy.  Repetitive direct contact, as old school as it sounds, is making a comeback.

Today competition for voters' attention is the biggest obstacle facing modern campaigns.  Not long ago a network TV buy coupled with a basic GOTV plan pretty much got the job done.  TV still occupies the largest link in the campaign food chain, but it is not enough to completely disseminate message to a household.  The proliferation of cable channels and the development of other mediums - most notably the Internet - have diminished the effectiveness of a paid media campaign.  The strategy for delivering information in the most effective manner is how campaigns must now be won.  Direct contact has turned back the clock on campaign strategy for 2008.  There are several reasons for this:

  • Accountability - although TV ratings give an indication of what voters watch, you can more accurately track a canvassing and telephone program to know who the campaign has spoken with and who it has not, and adjust messages and redeploy resources accordingly
  • Cost - targeting telephone and mail provides good bang for the buck on a per vote basis.  The better the targeting, the more efficient the program and the unit costs for each communication to a voter is less expensive
  • Quick Deployment - telephone programs can be up and running in a matter of hours

After the 2004 presidential election, the Bush campaign was lauded for its ability to identify and communicate with undecided voters in exurban communities in swing states.  Using a combination of commercial data, identification calls, and scaled voter models, the campaign had come up with a series of groups to whom very specific messages were given.  The campaign did not just assume that because a voter lived in a particular geographic area they liked certain things.  The Bush team obtained all the information it could about an individual, asked a bunch of questions to a sample of the persuadable universe, and tested which messages resonated best.  

 "In Florida, the [Bush] campaign used micro-targeting to

make contact with 84% of eventual Bush voters, up from

33% in 2000.  In Iowa, the campaign reached 92% of his

eventual voters, up from 50% in 2000." (Wall St. Journal -

Oct. 31, 2006) 

When reporters and political observers wrote about this effort, only one or two sentences were then devoted to the campaign sending targeted mail, telephone, and canvassers to those voters, even though micro-targeting was, in reality, only half the story.

When all is said and done, you still have to talk to the voters and give them a reason to choose you.   

Micro-targeting is the offspring of commercial marketing strategies that have been used in business for a long time.  Its application to politics is not new, but the most recent incarnations are very innovative and technologically savvy.  That is worth writing about.  And that is why we have heard so much made of not only the Bush effort, but the Democratic response and how micro-targeting affected the 2006 mid-term elections.  To further this point, Alexander Gage, Bush's micro-targeting guru, estimates that successful micro-targeting can bring congressional campaigns an additional 5-10,000 votes.

For campaign professionals, a good micro, or for that matter, any targeting effort will only be as good as the communications that carry the message to the voter.  Campaigns must think as much about how they choose to deliver their message as what that message will be.  How do you know a voter received your message?  What assurances do you have that you've penetrated the wall of media that each American constructs around oneself?

  • A mix of contacts is the best strategy - nothing new here, but when a campaign gets rolling, a maxim like this is often ignored
  • The more personal contact the better - studies by Yale University and other academics have gone a long way to proving this
  • The cheapest contact is usually not the most effective
  • Dialogue is a two way street - talk and listen
  • Get on the ground early - test, test, test, analyze, and adjust

What complicates matters is that as information has become more accessible, so have the means of obtaining and sharing information.  Voters can ignore TV, throw away mail, delete email, and get rid of their land line telephones.  As alluded to earlier, a brilliant TV spot probably won't carry the day anymore.  Campaigns must plan for the delivery of effective direct contact efforts comprised of targeted, repetitive, and salient messages if they expect to engage the TiVO and YouTube voter. This includes using the voters themselves as messengers.

Voters will often tell you when something is working and when it is not.  An early start and the ability to take in information from direct communications can hone message and make a campaign much more efficient as that first Tuesday in November draws near.  (Telephone is particularly suited for this type of feedback - both in live outbound and inbound campaigns.)  Take this into account and it will serve any campaign well.

We now have access to much better information about each voter before contacting them and have developed the delivery mechanisms for messages that are specific for almost every voter.  Accountability, cost, and rapid response should make these communications a priority in 2008 and beyond.   

 

Download Micro-Targeting and Direct Contact – The Other Half of the Story

Expertise