Why Are You Whining To Me?

I just received an e-mail message from a not-to-be-named campaign for the United States House of Representatives.

Then within a few minutes I got another message from another not-to-be-named campaign for the United States Senate in a different state using the same technique.

I get a lot of e-mail messages from campaigns all over the country. I don't read them all, but these struck me as examples of an all-too-typical strategy that I see on a regular basis.

To further put these messages in context remember that the audience is those who have signed up to receive campaign updates. So generally, they are either supporters or at least interested in learning more about the campaign.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

I'm sure you've seen this before. Hopefully, you're not the one doing it.

---

Don't you just love it when you get a message from a campaign describing how the "other guy" (or "other gal") is distorting the "facts" or misleading voters? Oh, and by the way, the campaign needs money to counter-attack.

There are two things that this scenario brings to light.

The biggest red flag this raises is that the campaign is on the defense, the worst possible position to take in any campaign.

The other, more subtle, red flag is that the campaign believes that the "facts", usually about some particular issue, are something that the voters care enough about to be important, but don't care enough about or are too ignorant to know that the facts have been distorted.

The visual I get when read a message like this is that of a kid running home to his mommy and telling her that the bully down the street is being mean. At some point, the kid has to grow up and learn to deal with his problems on his own.

---

Let's look at the first red flag.

Why has the campaign decided to let an opponent determine the battlefield?

Typically, this situation arises when the opponent is an incumbent or has some other position that gives the opponent the upper hand in the race.

First, the campaign should have done its homework. It should have known, in a general way, what issues the opponent would emphasize. If the opponent truly launched a "surprise attack," the campaign has serious internal issues.

So, if the campaign knew what the opponent was likely to do, and it was determined that the issue was one worth engaging in battle about, then the campaign should have struck first.

Undermining an opponent's attack by striking first gives the campaign an air of being in command of the campaign. It could be so devastating that the opponent, rather than project a poor image, may decide against using that particular plan of attack. At best, the opponent will look like it's been put in a defensive position, instead of the other way around.

But perhaps, the campaign doesn't have the money to launch a preemptive attack, a distinct possibility.

In the planning of the campaign, you would have reviewed the likely attack, decided you can't afford to preempt it, and focused on the areas and issues that are your strength.

So, even when you can't preempt an attack, don't, after the fact, now put your valuable money and resources into a defense of something that you've already decided you couldn't preempt.

The gut reaction of some campaigns is to defend every attack. This is generally a losing strategy, kind of like whack-a-mole. You'll be putting all your energies into defending.

It takes courage and resolve to ignore attacks that, for whatever reason, you've determined you can't fight.

A well-funded opponent can take all the air out of your campaign if you constantly react to everything the opponent does.

On the other hand, by ignoring it, especially when it's likely that voters can determine that the opponent is distorting the facts, takes the punch out of the opponent's attack. It's like punching air. Without making contact, it quickly wears the opponent down without any result.

Assuming you have a strategy that you've set for your campaign, it's much better to follow that strategy than to let an opponent distract you from it.

In summary when dealing with this kind of attack,

1. Preempt it or ignore it.

2. Pick your fights. Only the ones you can win.

3. Don't play whack-a-mole. Stick to your strategy.

---

The second red flag involves how the campaign perceives the voter. In general, I think campaigns underestimate the intelligence of Americans.

Americans pretty much invented advertising. Each adult American probably sees hundreds and maybe thousands of advertising impressions every day. This constant barrage of advertising messages makes the American voter one of the most immune people on earth from the effects of advertising. Americans don't buy everything that's advertised. Sometimes they don't need it, but many times they use their brains and conclude that the claims made for a product don't ring true.

If the campaign truly believes that voters are stupid, what makes you also believe that people will vote for you if you can just educate them about your positions?

---

Effective Fundraiser?

So is this kind of communication an effective fundraising technique? For the dyed-in-the-wool supporters, it may be. But the odds are that most supporters and undecided voters will look at this as a sign of a campaign that is not well-run and may be getting desperate.

Would the reader of one these messages trust the campaign to spend the money wisely? Think about it. If the campaign would actually follow through on the premise and use the money to "set the record straight", doesn't that give the impression of a campaign that has no strategy of its own?

So, my question to the communications directors out there is why are you whining to me about how terrible it is that the "other guy" is distorting the facts.

Why haven't you done an effective job of setting the agenda according your own strategy? Why have you waited for the "other guy" to launch the first salvo on the issue?

Of course, if you're just trying to raise money, and recognize that the tired old messages and gimmicks that you usually use are getting long in the tooth, then fine, get creative, but try to avoid putting your campaign in a negative light.

What Percentage of People Do You Need To Win?

It's not a trick question.

Think about it.

Do you really need 50% plus 1 to win?

First, we're only talking about people eligible to vote.

Some register but rarely or never vote.

Some vote for one party or another, no matter who the candidates are.

Some vote only when motivated by fear or an issue they care about.

When it comes down to it, the actual percent of the total population that you need to win is typically very small.

While the percentage will vary from district to district, strategists generally agree that you need to influence a very small percentage, sometimes as low as three percent, of the population to win most elections.

So, the trick is to reach those people that can do you the most good.

How do you figure out who you need to reach in an efficient and effective manner?

That's where phone banks can help.

You see an on-line, virtual phone bank, is much more than just a list of voters and phone numbers. It's an information source, that when used effectively, can help you to answer the big question.

So why do candidates spend so much money on general media advertising? Because everyone else is doing it, right?

But are those candidates getting any value for their media spends? They won't know until election day.

So if the other candidates are running like lemmings over the cliff, does that mean that you need to follow them?

With information-directed marketing, like an on-line phone bank, you can reach more of that small percentage of voters, more efficiently, than with any other campaign expenditure.

--

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/GrassrootsPhone