Aug
14
FREE Campaign Printing & Design Services
Filed Under Communication, Misc. | 1 Comment
It was a little more than 14 years ago. I was sitting in a nicely-appointed conference room across the table from a self-proclaimed “financial guru.” It was my first-ever meeting with a financial planner. Truth be told, I only remember one thing the “financial guru” said and, of course, it doesn’t have anything to do with financial management.
It does, however, have a lot to do with a BIG problem facing local political candidates.
About ten minutes into the meeting, I had a chance to ask the financial planner a question. I asked him to tell me the most frustrating thing about his job. He didn’t hesitate at all and the answer he gave is something I will never forget. He said:
“The biggest frustration is that the people who need my help the most can’t afford it.”
If you’re a candidate for local office, you have no doubt realized that this “frustration” is alive and well in the world of political campaigns as well.
Campaigns with big budgets don’t have any problems finding good people to help them. As a matter of fact, the consultants and vendors line up outside their doors. They also don’t have a problem buying the best tools to help run their campaigns.
Small-budget campaigns are a different story altogether. While they’re the ones who would benefit most from professional advice and campaign tools, they simply can’t afford them.
Overcoming this problem is a personal passion of mine and the driving force behind everything we do at Campaign Secrets. It’s why our tagline is “Finally, professional campaign solutions at local campaign prices.”
That’s why I’m happy to tell you about a new tool we’re about to release – but I need your help.
The high cost of low-quantity print jobs has always been a frustration for me. The high cost made it almost impossible for small campaigns to get their campaign materials professionally designed and printed – until now.
Over the past 14 months, I’ve been developing a brand new tool that will make it easier than ever for local political campaigns to get professional design and printing support at rock-bottom prices.
Here’s where I need your help.
We have put a bunch of systems and procedures in place to automate the process so we can save you time and money. I want to test these systems to be sure they are as efficient and automated as I anticipate.
I am looking for 10 campaigns to give this system a try before I release it to the public. So, if you have printing projects coming up (i.e. mail, brochures, yard signs, post cards, or whatever) please let me know. I assure you that the prices I can offer you will be less (probably significantly less) than what you’ll pay elsewhere.
In addition to the lower prices, I will also assign a designer and project management team to your project for FREE. Those services usually cost $100-$250, but I’ll give them to you for FREE because you’re helping me test this new system.
Now, just so you don’t worry, “giving this system a try” doesn’t apply to the quality of the printing. I’ll guarantee the quality and professionalism of the work. What I need to test is the process of getting the design finalized, the files to the printer, and final product shipped to you. The printing process itself has no issues at all.
Bottom line: This is an opportunity for 10 campaigns to save a bundle on their printing, whatever that may be, and get FREE design services.
Give me a call at 877-605-4251 or reply to this email ASAP if you are interested in this. I’ll give you all the details and pricing information. After I get 10 orders, though, this offer is done.
Aug
8
Got Website?
Filed Under Communication, Technology | Leave a Comment
Reuters just published an enlightening article about a study conducted by Veronis Suhler Stevenson. The headline tells the story:
More Time Spent on Web than Newspapers: Study
In a nutshell, the study revealed that 2007 is the first year consumers will spend more time surfing the Internet than reading the newspaper. It’s a trend people have seen coming for years and a trend that will, no doubt, continue until the Internet in one form or another is the #1 information outlet in the world.
So, what’s this mean for your campaign or organization? It’s pretty obvious.
If you don’t have a website, you better get one. If you have a website, you better invest a little more time in making sure it has up-to-date and quality content. More and more consumers and voters are using the Internet as their primary source of information. If they can’t find you online or if you don’t have a professional-looking website, you’re losing votes.
Please note that nowhere in the previous paragraph did I say you have to invest more MONEY in your website. There’s a reason for that.
A few years ago, the big question for local campaigns was whether or not they should have a website. Today, the big question is how much you should spend on your website – and this where most campaigns go wrong.
I can’t tell you how many campaigns I talk with that spend a few grand on their websites and then have on-going “maintenance” expenses of $200+ every month. Unless you’re running for President, Governor, or U.S. Senate there is absolutely, positively no reason to spend that much on your website. If you’re spending more than a few hundred dollars a year on your website, you’re spending too much. Save the money for other parts of your campaign.
Yes, you read that right. You can get a professional, full-featured website for less than $200/year.
If you’re ready to launch your campaign website or if you’re spending more than $200/year on your current website, I’d encourage you to take a look at www.CampaignSiteBuilder.com. It’s one of the tools we’ve developed for local campaigns. It provides you with everything you need to build and manage a professional campaign website for just $24.95/month or $197/year.
Here are a few customer websites you can look at to see what the system can do. As you’ll see, these don’t look all that different from the $5K+ sites other campaigns have. The only big difference is the extra $4,800 these campaigns have in their bank accounts.
http://www.ros-lehtinenforcongress.com/
http://www.tomgeorge.net/
http://www.chrispeden.org/
Visit http://www.CampaignSiteBuilder.com to find out how you can get a website like these for under $200. You can read the entire Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0721570920070807.
Jul
26
Raising Money in Difficult Times
Filed Under Fundraising | Leave a Comment
I’ve had three different conversations this week with Republican state party leaders discussing how difficult it is to raise money right now. The truth is that almost every Republican organization and candidate out there is struggling to raise money. And you don’t have to be a genius to figure out why.
President Bush’s approval rating is about 10 points south of Michael Vick’s. The much-heralded immigration bill turned out to be much, much, much (how many times can I say much?) more popular inside the beltway than outside the beltway. And, to top it all off, the 8,231 Republican candidates for president are focusing almost all their attention right now on raising money.
So what’s a local candidate or organization to do in difficult times like these?
Simply put, PRIORITIZE and PERSONALIZE.
Let’s start with PRIORITIZE.
Prospecting (i.e. bringing in new donors) is not a good investment of time or money right now if you’re a Republican candidate. It’s just not working very well and you’ll most likely end up losing money. The tide will turn and prospecting will pick up again before long, but right now you just need to weather the storm. While you’re doing that, prioritize your fundraising activities on people with whom you have an existing relationship (i.e. friends, family, colleagues, customers, etc) and/or people who have given to your campaign before.
Don’t forget that “people with whom you have an existing relationship” means more than just people with whom the candidate has an existing relationship. It applies for friends, family, colleagues, and customers of the candidate as well. In other words, you want to focus your fundraising on those who will give because of a relationship rather than an ideology.
Once you prioritize, you need to PERSONALIZE.
In difficult times like these, prioritizing isn’t enough. You must also find ways to personalize your fundraising appeals. Traditional “mass marketing” to your prioritized list isn’t going to work. You must talk with them personally, or have someone with whom they have a relationship talk to them personally. The “talking” can be done by mail, phone, or in person – but it needs to be personal.
Bottom line: When times get tough, focus your fundraising almost exclusively on people who will contribute because of a relationship, not an ideology.
Jul
24
What Do People “See” In You?
Filed Under Communication | 2 Comments
There’s an old study done by UCLA that found 55% of what you communicate is done visually. In other words, more than half of what you communicate to people comes from what they see, NOT the words you use or how you use those words (i.e. volume, rate, pitch, tone). There are a number of additional studies that say we make 80-150 judgments about a person in the first 15 seconds we see them (so much for “don’t judge a book by its cover”).
What’s this mean to you? How you dress on the campaign trail and in your campaign photos is more important you think.
While doing some reading yesterday, I ran across an article that I believe illustrates this point. The Church Report just released its annual list of the “50 Most Influential Churches in America.”
The list includes a photo of the pastor from each church on the list. I think it’s safe to assume those photos are intentional. They were probably either 1) given to CR by the church or 2) taken by CR from an official church website.
Keeping in mind that 55% of what we communicate is visual, here are a few things that really jumped out at me:
1. 8 of the top 10 churches used casual (i.e. no tie) photos of their pastor.
2. About half of the formal “suit and tie” photos are taken in a way that made it obvious the photographer/church was trying to make it look less formal.
3. In my opinion, only 4-5 of the 50 photos shout “Pastor” when you look at them.
Forget about denominations for second. And don’t get caught up in the seeker-friendly, seeker-unfriendly debate. Those debates are for another day.
I would encourage you to focus your attention on the fact that ALL the churches on this list are: 1) large; 2) growing; 3) active; and 4) understand marketing. Those would all be pretty good assets for your campaign. Also keep in mind that people who attend church regularly – the people these pastors are preaching to every week – are much, much more likely to vote than people who don’t attend church regularly. In other words, these pastors are reaching a group of people you should be targeting on your campaign and they are doing it, in large part, by moving away from the formal “preacher” image.
In the words of Lon Solomon, whose church is #49 on the list, “So What?” Here are a few tips you can use for your campaign:
1. Take a look at the pictures in ALL you campaign materials. Do they communicate “uptight politician” or “in touch man/woman.” I no longer use the traditional “candidate portrait” photos in our client’s materials. Those pictures scream “POLITICIAN” or “REALTOR”.
2. Think about how you dress on the campaign trail. Yes, there are times you’ll need to wear a suit and tie, but not nearly as often as you might believe. Casual is not a bad thing. Casual dress will make you more approachable and more “real” in the minds of the voters.
Bottom line: Ditch the uppity suit and tie every chance you get.
PS – I know this doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with media – but it really does. The picture in paper or the image on the television is much more important that what the article or the reporter says. Any time you are working with the media focus first on what the picture will be because that’s more important than what the story will be.
————————————————————
Want to learn more about how to dress on the campaign
trail? Check out our award-winning audio seminar on
developing and delivering powerful campaign speeches.
Click here for more info.
Jul
19
Why Do You Want Coverage?
Filed Under Communication | 1 Comment
It’s a simple question. But most people struggle to come up with a single, succinct answer.
Truth is that most campaigns (organizations and businesses, too), if they were honest, would have to answer that question with something like “to gain exposure” or “to get coverage”. Therein lies one of the first issues I have with the so-called “media bias” excuse you hear so often from conservatives.
If your objective is to simply get coverage, then I don’t think it’s fair to complain about the coverage you get. To me, it’s kind of like a starving man who begs for food complaining about the food he gets.
Coverage is overrated anyway – especially for local campaigns. Most people quickly forget what they read in the papers, hear on the radio, or see on television. And even if they remember the coverage, the most certainly forget the names of the people who were part of the coverage. Think about it. Can you remember the names of the guests who appeared on the last prime time talk show you watched? Probably not. You might remember what they said (generally), but you don’t remember their names.
So, what’s the lesson here?
Campaigns, organizations, and businesses can avoid most of the so-called “media bias” if they would take time to decide why they want media coverage in the first place. In other words, you need to have a clear strategic objective for your media relations BEFORE you start getting coverage.
Your campaign, organization, caucus, or business should have a clear strategic plan that directs all your decisions – media included.
How can media help you implement that plan? This one, simple, question will do more to change your perspective on “media bias” than just about anything else. Here are a few examples:
Let’s say you’re a conservative candidate who decides that you’re going to use media coverage for fundraising. Does a “biased” article attacking you in the local liberal newspaper really hurt you? I would argue that it doesn’t. After all, the people who are most likely to donate to your campaign would probably question your conservative credentials if the liberal newspaper was saying good things about you. Turn the coverage into a fundraising letter. Use it as an example of how you stand up for your principles and how the establishment is working to stop you. Then, tell the donors how they can join your fight for your principles by helping you fight the establishment. On that same note, if you “recycle” that “biased” piece to get more coverage from friendly-media outlets that reach your donors, it could actually help your campaign even more. Let’s say you find yourself in a campaign where the issues being discussed aren’t the ones you want discussed. You could use the media to begin to change the focus of the campaign. Even if the coverage you get is bad, it’s still good for you because it’s changing the focus of the campaign.
These are just three quick examples. There are many, many others. The point is that you really need to put some thought into how the media can help your campaign rather than focusing your time on how to simply get coverage.
Getting coverage is the easy part. Making sure that coverage is helpful strategically is the tough part.
Ask yourself two key questions:
1. How can media help my campaign?
2. What type of media/coverage is best suited to accomplish #1?
Bottom line: If the only reason you’re in the media is to get coverage, you shouldn’t complain about the coverage you get.
Jul
19
Back in the Saddle
Filed Under Uncategorized, Misc. | 1 Comment
My apologies for the LONG delay since my last post. I’m back in the saddle starting today and will get back to the discussion of media bias momentarily.
On a side note, thanks to everyone who emailed concern about the delay. First, I’m glad to hear you find the posts valuable enough to miss them. Second, I appreciate the concern for me personally. Everything is okay — just got really busy on a few projects.
We’re back in 5….4….3…..2…..1
May
2
If you don’t have the stomach to handle a slaughterhouse, then you might not want to read this Hot Tip because I’m about to slaughter one of the conservative movement’s most sacred cows.
I’m sure I’ll get a lot of less-than-cordial feedback, but that’s okay. That’s what blogs are all about. And, as a conservative, I think it’s about time for us to overcome a generally-accepted 1970’s conspiracy mindset that puts us at a disadvantage in almost every political battle we fight.
Warm up the meat grinder cause I’m about to turn a conservative sacred cow into hamburger.
Here goes nothing…
Despite all the whining and complaining you hear from conservatives across America, I don’t believe the media is biased. That’s right. Let me give you a second to get up off the floor. I’ll say it again. I do NOT believe the media is biased.
To be completely transparent, I have to tell you that I did, at one time, believe the media was biased. But that belief was based on my political upbringing and not reality.
You see, when I was being “taught the ropes” of conservative politics I was told over and over and over again how the media was our enemy, how they hated conservatives, and how they would never give us a fair shake. I accepted those claims at face value and dealt with the media accordingly (i.e. I avoided the media at all costs). The more and more I heard and saw supposed examples of media bias, however, the less and less of a believer I became.
It seemed to me that most of the bad stories attributed to media bias were actually the result of other things.
I could give you a long list of examples, but I’ll limit myself to two quick ones that illustrate what I mean.
First, I had a friend who was a reporter for the supposed mother ship of media bias (shhhhh, she is a raving right-winger). She called one day asking me to recommend people she could contact for a story on same-sex marriage. I gave her four names. She called back a few hours later to tell me none of them returned her phone calls. I personally left messages asking a few of them to return her call (and let them in on the little secret about her worldview). They never did. As a result, she filed her story that afternoon without quotes from a conservative.
To my surprise, one of the guys I’d personally called used that story as an example of media bias during a speech he gave a few months later. While that played well to the crowd, the reality was that a conservative would have been quoted in the story if one had called the reporter back.
Media bias? I don’t believe it was.
Second, I once received a call from a client who was fuming because of a quote from him in a newspaper story. Apparently, the candidate had spent 98% of the interview talking about one thing and the reporter used a quote from the other 2%. The candidate was about to call the editor of the paper and wanted my advice on what to tell him.
My first question was, “Did you say it?” The candidate said “yes.” That’s all I needed to know. Bottom line is that by saying it the candidate had opened the door for the reporter to use it. Had the candidate not said it, the reporter couldn’t have used it – at least not as a quote.
Media bias? Again, I don’t believe it was.
I have more than just a few stories like these that I believe illustrate the fact that “media bias” has become a convenient and widely-accepted excuse for conservatives to justify poor media relations.
Now, let me be very clear.
While I don’t think the media is biased, I do believe they are liberal – overwhelmingly liberal. There are a number of studies to prove that. And there are, without question, a few blatantly-biased members of the media. I don’t believe it’s fair, though, to use the actions of a few agenda-driven members of the media to label the entire media industry.
In most cases the examples of “bias” we hear so much about can be traced back to a reporter who hadn’t done his or her homework, a faulty media relations strategy, a bad interview, or some combination of those things.
It’s important to keep in mind that bad coverage and biased coverage are two different things. Same thing for bad reporting and biased reporting.
So, why am I making this argument? Two reasons:
First, there are way too many good conservative candidates out there who put themselves at a severe disadvantage by avoiding the media altogether based on a misguided belief that the media is biased.
Second, there are a number of easy-to-implement tips and tactics YOU can use to improve your media relations and avoid mistakes that would have been previously chalked up to media bias.
Over the next few days – perhaps longer – I’m going to provide some practical tips and tools you can use to improve your media coverage and, hopefully, change your perspective on media bias. With that, I’ll leave you with one final thought on media bias.
If the media is so darn biased, why was Ronald Reagan so darn popular? After all, liberals hated him. If there was anyone in recent history they would have wanted to sabotage it would have been Ronald Reagan. The answer? Reagan and his media team understood the media and used that understanding to develop and implement an effective media relations strategy.
Until next time, remember, the convenient explanation usually isn’t the real explanation.
Apr
20
In just the last six years, I’ve worked with campaigns that have been affected by a school shooting, the death of our opponent, the death of our opponent’s husband, the death of our opponent’s mother, and our opponent’s underage son getting arrested for DUI and drug possession.
Each situation had its own set of unique circumstances and sensitivities. Each required a unique strategy. Despite the unique situation and strategies, though, there were three common principles we applied to each situation that served the campaigns well.
I pray that you never find yourself in the middle of a tragedy on the campaign trail. But, if you do, I thought these three principles that have served me and my clients well might be helpful to you.
Principle #1: Suspend campaigning.
When a true tragedy strikes during a political campaign, you must immediately stop your public campaign activities in respect to those impacted by the tragedy. Pull down all your television and radio ads. Stop any direct mail campaigns. Cancel all telemarketing campaigns. And seriously consider cancelling all of your public appearances as well.
I say “public” campaign activities, because you can and should continue all of the non-public, behind-the-scenes work campaigns require. The key is that you don’t do anything that could, even momentarily or accidentally, interfere with people’s focus on dealing with and recovering from the tragedy.
If you are questioning whether or not something should be cancelled, cancel it. The very fact that you think it could be distracting is reason enough to not do it.
Principle #2: Set the criteria for a resumption of campaigning.
In most cases, you’ll announce your decision to suspend your campaign activities through some type of media release. In that release, it’s absolutely critical that you set the criteria you will use to decide the appropriate time and why it’s important to resume campaigning.
For example, if there is a school shooting in your area (note that it may not be in your district), you could say that you are “suspending campaign activities because everyone needs to focus all of their attention on supporting the families, friends and community affected by the tragedy. The decision to resume campaign activities will be made based on the best interest of the families affected and at a time when it’s appropriate to begin a discussion about how our communities will move forward beyond this tragedy.”
You’re going to be criticized when you resume campaigning regardless of how long you wait. By laying out the criteria to resume campaigning when you announce the suspension of campaigning, you’ll limit the criticism and make it easier to defend yourself again your critics – who are most likely political opponents and not legitimate critics.
Principle #3: Don’t adjust your strategy when you resume campaigning.
Whenever you decide to resume campaigning after a tragedy, do it 100% and don’t allow the tragedy to change your strategy. If you’re pre-tragedy strategy called for attacking your opponent, attack your opponent.
Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule. If the tragedy is the death of your opponent’s spouse, you won’t want to attack your opponent. That’s just common sense.
The key, though, is not to change your strategy any more than you absolutely have to. Campaign hard. Fundraise harder. Your instinct will be to soften your campaign; perhaps even be less aggressive on the campaign trail. Don’t do it. Be sensitive to the new political environment the tragedy created, but don’t let the environment change your strategic and tactical plan any more than is absolutely necessary.
Until next time, remember, Psalm 23:4 says, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for you are with me.”
Apr
19
Regardless of how you feel about the whole Don Imus controversy, there are a few important lessons every candidate could learn from what happened. Not surprisingly, both lessons deal with how you communicate to voters.
Imus Lesson #1: Candidates shouldn’t moonlight as comedians.
For some reason, just about every candidate feels an obligation to start their speeches with a joke – or, perhaps more accurately, an attempted joke. It’s a dangerous, dangerous habit for two reasons.
First, in today’s ultra-sensitive world every joke is going to offend someone, especially when that someone is looking for reasons to be offended.
Think about the Imus situation. It wasn’t the Rutgers basketball team that stirred everything up. It was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – two political operatives with their own personal political agendas. I’m sure the Rutgers team was, rightfully, offended and this story probably would have gotten some coverage without Jackson and Sharpton. I don’t believe, however, it would have garnered as much attention had Jackson and Sharpton not been stirring the pot.
You know who your opponent is going to be on the ballot. You never know who you opponents are going to be during the campaign, though. This is especially important for incumbents because they have a lot more enemies than challengers. Either way, you shouldn’t even think about opening this door for your opponents to put you on the defensive over an “offensive” joke.
The second reason it’s dangerous to tell jokes in your campaign speeches is that you’re not as funny as you think you are. Telling a joke that falls flat to start your speech is only marginally better than telling a joke that offends people.
I like a good joke as much as the next guy. And I hate telling candidates that they have to curtail their sense of humor during a campaign. But the reality is, I wouldn’t be doing my job if didn’t warn the candidates I work for about the dangers of telling jokes on the campaign trail. It’s just too dangerous politically in today’s world.
Still convinced you have to tell a joke? I understand. Some candidates I work for don’t care about the risks and say they are going to tell jokes anyway. If you’re one of those *#%&*@#$ candidates, I’d encourage you to limit yourself to two kinds of jokes:
-
- jokes about you and
- jokes about politicians.
Imus Lesson #2: Sound bites shape reality.
The amazing thing to me about the Imus story was that it all came about because of a five second clip from his show. Let’s do the math. I believe he was on the air three hours a day. Let’s just estimate his show is live 200 days a year. That’s 600 hours of air time each year. Multiply that by the 25 years the Imus show had been on the air and you realize that Imus ultimately lost his job because of FIVE SECONDS of a 15,000 HOUR career.
Just to further illustrate the point, 15,000 hours is 54,000,000 seconds. Five seconds is .00000925% of 54,000,000. Amazing, isn’t it, that someone could lose their job over .00000925% of their performance over a 25 year career?
People who have actually listened to Imus’ show know that his comment about the Rutgers basketball team wasn’t out of character at all. Simply put, that’s Don Imus. For him, it wasn’t racist or sexist, it was comedy. That’s what he does. Listen to 15 minutes of any of his shows and you’ll hear the same kind of stuff being said about his broadcast team, candidates for president, corporate executives, his bosses, and even himself.
I actually liked Imus’ show. He’s a great interviewer and extremely funny 98% of the time. From time to time he says stuff that I think is off-color or wrong but I understand that it’s just Imus being Imus and, as he acknowledged in the Rutgers situation, he perhaps took something a little too far (COMMENTARY: something Jesse Jackson has never done, right?).
So how can the man say similar things day after day, year after year with no outcry and then one day lose his job over it?
That’s the power of a sound bite.
You see, I’d bet 95% of the people calling for Imus to be fired had never heard his show. The only thing they’d ever heard from him was the infamous five second clip about the Rutgers basketball team. As a result, they formed their entire opinion about Imus based on a five second clip – it’s really no different than the five second sound bite we hear about (mostly criticism) today.
Like it or not, the five-second sound bite is a powerful part of communications today. Ignore it at your peril.
Most people who hear about you during your campaign will have no idea who you are. They’ll have no idea if you’re a good person or a bad person. They’ll have no idea if you’re honest or dishonest. They aren’t going to know all that much about the issues you’re discussing on the campaign trail, either.
So, the impression they have of you personally and the issues you advocate is going to be framed by the five second sound bites they hear and read in the media.
What’s the lesson? You better have memorable 5-8 second answers for questions like who you are, why you’re qualified, why people should vote for you, and where you stand on key issues. Why? As the situation with Don Imus illustrated, those answers are going to define the reality of your campaign. Whether that reality is helpful or hurtful depends on how prepared you are.
Until next time, remember, the problem with communication is the illusion that it occurs.
Apr
7
It’s the Message, Stupid
Filed Under Communication | Leave a Comment
When it comes to delivering your campaign message to the voters, most candidates - both novice AND experienced - make the same two mistakes…
1.) Confusing the difference between delivering a “pretty” message with a “persuasive” message, and…
2.) Using their local vendor or a “friend,” instead of an experienced POLITICAL professional.
What is the definition of a proper campaign “message”? For the answer we quote from longtime political guru Ron Faucheux of Campaigns & Elections magazine (www.campaignline.com):
“The essence of political strategy is to concentrate your greatest strength against the point of your opponent’s greatest weakness. This is done through positioning, which is the development and delivery of messages that present voters with a choice based on candidate differences that are clear, believable and connected to reality.
“Campaign messages may be based on (a) the candidates personal strengths and weaknesses (i.e., experience, competence, independence, integrity, compassion, stability, preparation, etc.); (b) ideological and partisan differences (liberal vs. conservative, moderate vs. extreme, inconsistent vs. consistent, pragmatic vs. purist, etc.); (c) the situational context (change vs. status quo, right track vs. wrong track, reform vs. the old way, etc.); or (d) a combination of any of the above.”
Now, it’s one thing to come up with the right message theme for your campaign; it’s another thing altogether to craft and deliver that message in a way which persuades voters or motivates them to show up at the polls. And THAT’S the part all too many campaigns botch…big time!
Consider this admonition from marketing guru Gary Halbert (www.thegaryhalbertletter.com):
“What I want you to know…what I want to POUND and POUND and POUND into you is…You Cannot Multiply Zeros! And the ‘zero’ I’m talking about in this case is a vapid, limp, non-compelling sales message. I don’t care it it’s a direct mail letter, a website, a newspaper ad, magazine ad, radio or TV commercial or whatever. If it’s a ‘nothing’ message, I don’t care how good your ad layout is, how well the ad is typeset. If it’s a radio commercial, I care NOT how good the sound effects are or how vibrant, pleasant and commanding the announcer’s voice is. If it’s a website, I don’t care how many website/internet secret tricks and techniques you know. Take any non-compelling message and show it to someone. That person will not respond. Show it to 10,000 people and none (or pathetically few) of them will respond.”
Halbert continues: “I don’t give a damn what form of marketing you’re in. I don’t care how many tricks you know. I don’t care how cheap you can buy your media. I don’t care if the emails or newspaper ads or stamps and printing are FREE! Even if all this is FREE…if you can’t write a ‘killer’ sales message, it is all for naught.”
Get it? It’s the message, not the medium. You can dress up a pig in a three-piece suit…but it’s still a pig. It doesn’t matter how “pretty” you make your message look…if the message stinks it still stinks. And people won’t buy what you’re selling…even if it IS on four-color glossy stock. Same goes for websites.
What your campaign should be shooting for is both a compelling campaign message AND a professional image. Many vendors can do one…or the other. Few can do both well, especially in politics. Your local printer can give you four-color imaging but likely has NO IDEA how to come up with a proper and persuasive campaign message. Ditto your buddy who designs websites on the side. He’ll give you all kinds of bells and whistles…but that doesn’t mean he can deliver a persuasive political message.
Remember: You cannot multiply zeroes.
Prof. Chuck Muth
Doctor of Psephology (home-schooled)