Image courtesy of Creative Commons

I agree that campaign strategies ought to be like snowflakes. Each should have at least one unique aspect.

But the strategy is only as good as the goal it’s trying to achieve. Most organizations have the wrong goal. They want to see databases growing larger; legislator emails being sent; likes and re-tweets being racked-up. They invest in volume and speed when (in most cases) neither is of paramount importance.

Though strategies should be different, my goal is the same: I want our clients to count relationships.

At the end of a campaign, you need to be able to call an advocate in a targeted district and have that advocate take your call. If you can’t, we’ve done something wrong.

Achieving this goal requires a drastically different investment of resources.

More time needs to be spent translating database rows into actual people.

There need to be more personal emails from staff. More personal phone calls.

More time spent listening to stories that have nothing to do with your organization’s goals.

More time spent connecting advocates with others who share their interests and/or geography.

This goal changes the campaign’s ethos. It shifts the focus to what you can do for your advocates–not what your advocates can do for you.

We’re not optimizing response rates, we’re optimizing the quality of the response.

Measuring relationships is difficult. It’s subjective.

But if advocates are faceless rows in a database to you, what will be the impact of their communications on a legislator?

Being able to objectively measure bad results shouldn’t be a comfort.

What’s your take? Let me know at