While it will take days to sort out reality from conspiracy theory...the mid-term election process is complete.
No more incessant TV ads or online pleas for campaign contributions. The hundreds of dollars spent on direct mail to our home alone that influenced absolutely no one (except for one we received last weekend from an independent candidate that featured her extended family posing with rifles that confirmed...yeah, no), I can pretty much ignore. The 3 e-mails a day asking for more money for the same candidate? I gotta shake my head.
As I'm not privy to the research that may back up the approach I experienced this cycle (please tell me this crap works on everyone else and it's just me), let me share my thoughts on how campaigns are getting this all wrong.
First up, TV. Attack ads work. I hate 'em and I wish we could have a real conversation about the issues that demand our attention. But, they work...and I can ignore them if I choose.
But, here's my deal...the e-mail onslaught to which I was subjected this cycle was beyond laughable. And, I hafta wonder where they found the brainiac that ran their digital campaign.
After making the mistake of donating to a campaign, I averaged three e-mail a day asking for more...every day for the past two months. And, as late as 4:20pm on election day. Many missives thanked me for my contribution...so they clearly knew I was in. But, if you know someone is in, why would you be so needy as to ask them for more...three times a day for months at a stretch?
And maybe because I gave more than the candidate's initial request of $5, they thought I must be aware of the nuances of campaign finance reporting requirements. Because, why else were so many of their pleas related to meeting some random fundraising deadline that (let's be honest) means nothing to anyone who is not in the inner circle.
And then, they provide my contact data to out-of-state campaigns and I start getting pleas from random candidates across the nation? What...did the level of my contribution signal to your algorithm that I was a "true believer" and that I would give a shit about races around the country? And, assuming their database could assess my fairly independent past voting record, why would I get e-mails from fringe members of your party, expecting me to give more to your campaign because I received a request from them? The candidate in question ultimately lost...and there's at least a percentage point they forfeited because they had polarizing national candidates asking independents to give, as CCR once said, "more, more, more."
In this era of data, it is inexcusable to not be able to target supporters and contributors in a more sophisticated manor. But those that pose as political experts are often anything but. In years past, we've offered our services in perception analysis to campaigns to help hone their approaches and have been rejected by rank amateurs posing as campaign "experts" who thought they were all that and a bag of chips. The reason? They certainly didn't want consumer data to challenge their campaign strategy.
My guy lost. He didn't have to. His attack ads were actually very good. But his campaign crew was woefully unsophisticated in their digital approach.
You could have engaged me at a much higher and more meaningful level...but all you cared about was my money.
Sad, really.
For all of us.
Comments