Make ‘em all fight it out if they want to get paid
A few years ago, my firm was included in what I refer to as the “Hunger Games of Political Advertising.”
This contest was among several Democratic direct mail firms to see whose work had the biggest impact on voters. It was run by a major organizational supporter of Democratic candidates, followed experimental design protocols typical in social science research, and included randomized groups of voters.
Each direct mail firm sent the same number of mail pieces to voters using the same raw materials of research, message, and photography in a blind test of whether one firm’s approach to persuading voters was better than another’s.
This experiment in meritocracy was unprecedented in Democratic politics.
For once, the firms responsible for mobilizing Democratic voters wouldn’t be chosen based on their connection to the relevant decision makers. Whether or not you took the staff out to a $5,000 dinner at Ruth’s Chris was a non-factor. And promises of future employment held no sway over who was hired.
Nothing mattered but results.
This test played a major role in selecting which firms this organization would use in that election cycle’s advertising program. My firm did very well and we were selected as one of the group’s direct mail firms.
But the purpose of this newsletter isn’t (just) to humble brag. It’s to ask the question: Why don’t more Democratic organizations do this when they’re deciding who will do their TV, their mail, etc.?
The evaluation we participated in was — and still is — an outlier in the way that Democratic campaigns select the companies responsible for spending the hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions they receive from donors large and small all over America. I’ve never heard about another similar evaluation — much less participated in one — in the intervening years.
Rather than a rigorous analysis of who creates more effective advertising, the usual approach to hiring consultants is to hire your friend with whom you worked on a previous campaign, OR, to put out a humungous RFP for advertising services and then hire your friend with whom you worked on a previous campaign.
It’s a Cool Kids’ Club, in which a very select group of well-connected insiders get the bulk of the easy money while the rest of us hang out at the Loser’s Table trying not to get our desserts swiped.
We’ve all heard, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” So maybe this is just the way the world works everywhere. What’s the big deal?
Well, living through Donald Trump Redux is about as convincing a proof as you could imagine that the current way these decisions are made isn’t working.
This makes no sense at a time when a lot of Democratic-aligned organizations profess to be focused on “analytics” and “metrics” and “results.” But the studies created to deliver the aforementioned findings rarely pit multiple consulting companies against one another. Instead, they tend to focus on which method of communication works best, not which consultant executes a particular method most effectively.
Why?
One possibility is that doing tests like this have a cost. At a minimum, an organization needs to pay to set up and conduct the research, cover production costs for multiple advertising companies, analyze the data, and find a fair way to compensate the firms involved for their time and expertise.
While this expense would be an add-on to all the other things that Democratic campaigns and the organizations that support them scramble to pay for, at a time when the money flowing into campaigns has exceeded “obscene” and is bordering on “inexplicable,” common sense would suggest that there has to be some money sloshing through the system somewhere that would be better spent ensuring a better TV ad, direct mail piece, whatever.
I think a more likely explanation for why decisions about how to spend oodles of money every two years aren’t subjected to more rigorous consideration is that it would force everybody in Democratic politics to admit that the emperor is very much marching around bare-ass naked in the public square.
As I’ve mentioned several times in this column, the way that decisions are made in Democratic politics often have very little to do with logic or rationality. Personal and professional connections, organizational inertia, and a few well-placed promises of future employment often drive the process, resulting in not the best firm being selected, but the best-connected firm.
Thus, Democrats can spend millions, hundreds of millions, over a billion dollars and wind up with the current National Shitshow.
Would a fairer and more open selection process make an impact? Without a doubt.
When you read news reports of the mountains of cash being spent on campaigns these days, the bulk of it is on advertising and the bulk of that is spent on the same firms year after year after year.
Maybe this old boys’ (and girls’) club didn’t used to be such a threat to the country. We elected Obama twice, after all, and then good ol’ Joe rode to the rescue in 2020.
But with the state of our democracy currently at Defcon 4, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate how Democrats can spend so much freakin’ money and wind up re-electing the worst person in the world.
So, what would a fairer and more open system look like?
A first cut. A Democratic-aligned organization could put out the usual RFP asking for consulting firms to outline their experience, expertise, and prior results. From the list of firms replying, the organization selects a few — maybe 3-5 — that have the capabilities necessary to help the group achieve its goals in 2026.
A defined task. Choose an electoral goal: winning a special election, helping a pro-labor candidate prevail in the primary, etc.
Consistent inputs. Each firm works with the same raw materials: A random sample of voters to communicate with, the same candidates to support, common messaging, the same photos, and so on.
Innovation. The competition’s sponsor chooses a new promising technique to test — something that is a departure from traditional campaign tactics — requiring all participants to include it in their program. This way, we can have several different takes on the technique’s application and effectiveness.
Measurement. Poll the random groups of voters before and after they receive the direct mail, digital ads, streaming videos, etc., and compare the results. Are there some trends among voters who weren’t inclined to support the Democrat before the advertising campaign but then moved towards support? If so, which firm(s) showed the strongest results?
Medal ceremony. Whichever firm(s) shows the most success moving voters into the pro-Democratic column gets hired. You might hire multiple firms if you have enough work.
And that’s all it would take.
A few simple steps and a minimal investment in the grand scheme of things to make sure that Democrats have the absolutely best team to make what might be Democracy’s Last Stand.
Or we can stick with the existing system and keep awarding cushy contracts based on familiarity, friendships, and cold, hard, cash. We could see if we can get through one more election cycle using processes that have proven beyond a doubt incapable of ensuring that Democrats and the donors that support them assemble the best possible team this year.
I hear Panem is nice this time of year.