Are the Presidential sites making the grade?

In the last two weeks, with the many announcements by presidential hopefuls like Senators Clinton and Obama, former Senator John Edwards (not to mention Governor Richardson, Senator Biden, Senator Brownback, Senator McCain, Representative Kucinich,…), a couple of blogs have been engaging in discussions about the IT worthiness of the campaign sites (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Even the Bivings Report has begun evaluating the sites, with the first one being Hillary’s (definitely check out the Flash analysis of the site by clicking on the graphic).

In reading these articles (and some are from friends of mine), they seem to reply on the simple tick-box evaluation (e.g. do they have a blog, can you donate, and so on) of the site features and pay little attention to the major goal of each campaign: capturing the contact details of the supporters and/or get a donation as quickly as possible. My effort will focus on this issue with a simple tradeoff: do they meet the need of the user/visitor/supporter? Will they succeed in their goals? Are they making the grade?

Serve the supporter, not the Finance Team
In 2004, the lesson seemed to have been – the bigger the list, the more money you get. This is simple direct mail calculus and tick-box management: build a big list, send out an email and a percentage will give an average amount. After each email, a percentage will drop out (due to frustration or spam blocking) and you continue the growth (or loss). Then, with the concepts of social networking, most sites offer a chance to find others you have similarities with – but seldom little else. Features and entertainment do not accomplish the success of the fundraising prowess of the Dean Campaign – rather, it is how the campaign engages the supporter that matters the most. As every political campaign learns (if they take the time to track), you usually get one chance to capitalize on the visit of a new user. If you lose them the first time, it is often tough to get them again.

After two cycles of web-enabled campaigns, and with 60% of American households with high-speed Internet access, we are now entering the the first true broadband political campaign in history. My question, their big money being spent? IMHO, most of the sites have a serious lack of human factors and usability in their site design. Using a phrase from Todd Zeigler of the Bivings Report, most take on the “swap meet” approach.

“Give me what I want!”

The goal of a campaign site – especially from an advocacy point of view – should be to engage the visitor and to truly enter a dialog of exchange – tit-for-tat. Give the visitor what they want, and they will often give you what you want. In evaluating the Presidential sites, it seems as though the sites have a different equation in mind: give us your email and/or money and we (might) give you what you want.

So, what is it that these visitors want? IMHO, three things seem to be of primary (pun intended) importance from my experiences in campaigns:

• Who is this person?

  From evaluating the traffic stats of major sites (from Presidential to Senatorial to Gubernatorial to Congressional), the second-most visited page on any political site is the biography page. Think about it: why else would a person come to a campaign site? Simply, to learn about the candidate. Unless they have been driven there by a specific call to action, they are looking to learn about the candidate. As a friend of mine once told me when she saw my first web site back in 1995, a website reflects the person it represents – is it all about ego, all about engagement or somethign in between? Remember, visitors are looking to connect with the candidate however they can. Do campaign sites do this effectively? Do they follow the basic premise of web content – simple, direct and easy to absorb?

• What does the candidate stand for?

  The next most popular page is often the Issues page – answering the basic question: how does this candidate stand on the issues I care about? Do they truly represent me? Here lies the minefield of modern politics: you can not take a stand until someone tells you want the people *really* want. And, we go from warmed-over soundbites to policy wonk theses that work on the Hill but not with John Q. Public (or Lois Lane for that matter).

• How can I (the supporter) get involved?

  If I already know about the candidate and I want to get involved with the campaign – how can I contribute (pun intended) to make the candidate win? And, if I am going to get involved, then make it easy for me to do so.

  While this is third on the list of most visitor’s wants, this is often at the top of what the campaign wants. Actually, the priority goes: Give us your money, give us your email, give us your time, and give us your opinion – first, second and a distant third and fourth until the primaries start. Sounds pretty cynical, doesn’t it? But take a look at the sites, and tell me what you think.

It’s about using technology to build a relationship

In the Valley, as a friend of mine writes, it is time to turn around the equation and focus on the customer need and want, instead of the company needs/wants. Everyone is able to offer the technology; it is how you use it that matters. With the various all-in-one solutions that are now available (see PoliticalWarez for a list of them), it is how the campaign message and energies are dedicated. So, with an eye on both technology and practice, I have been taken a bit of time to go through the major candidate sites for an evaluation of their performance. Since I have been doing a lot of teaching the past few months, I am going to use the metaphor of an IQ score for these sites, focusing on two factors:

• Are they smart in their design/technology use?
• Are they smart in their engagement strategy?

Please note that this is early in the campaign and IQ points can be awarded for learning at any time.
And, as in IQ tests, 100 is an average score, 120 is an above average and 140+ is bearing on genius. We will assume that everyone has a starting IQ of 100 and move up or down from there.

To measure their smarts on design and technology, I am using the following questions to either increase or decrease their IQ:

1. First impression – does it brand the candidate or doesn’t it? Range: +5/-5
2. Call to action – is it obvious what the site wants you to do first? Second? Range: +5/-5
3. Signup – is it easy/painless? Range: +3/-3
4. Donation – is it easy/painless? Range: +3/-3
5. Activism – what is the breadth of tools? Are they easy to use? Range: +4/-4

To measure their smarts on voter/supporter engagement, I use the following questions to modify their IQ:

1. Equity – Is the site serving the candidate or me? Do I get what I want for giving my time to the site? Range: +10/-10
2. Engagement – Am I enticed to engage? Does the campaign work with me? Answer my questions? Is this truly a grassroots campaign? Range: +10/-10
3. Off-the-site Engagement – Does the campaign go where the voters are? Are they engaging/actively supporting content and/or community at myspace, YouTube, Meetup, Blogs, Forums, other social networks, etc. Range: +5/-5
4. Respect – Does the site treat me with respect as an active, engaged supporter or am I essentially a media sink/ATM to accept content/give money? Range: +5/-5

One thing I “enjoy” about political sites is that most political sites are about the candidate – as in the candidate running for a particular position or role. So far, every campaign I have evaluated seems to focus on the identity and/or ego of the candidate – hillaryclinton.com, richardsonforpresident.com, obama08.com, sambrownback.com – nary a one who understood the true concept of serving for the country (e.g. deanforamerica.com, peterforflorida.com). Granted, more polished operatives will suggest that this is a populist tactic that will not win the primary and/or the general election, but that is another wisdom I can not argue for or against. So instead, let me give you me evaluation on the sites as I have seen them over the next two weeks.

While there are a number of sites to evaluate, I will report on them as frequently as I can, limiting the number per post. As many of my readers know, I can write an incredible amount. I will try to chunk the information as best as possible to manage the information flow. And, rather than focusing only on the Democrats, I will discuss the Republicans as well – and maybe enjoying a few of the other party sites as well. Please give me your feedback and I will gladly discuss my humble opinion with you.

I must give thanks to a new site PresidentFeed and TechPresident for some new connections.

Tags: Campaign 2008 websites, Presidential websites