Of course there was extensive testing behind Obama’s friendly campaign e-mails. This article from Bloomberg, which actually reveals stats on money received in one day from different e-mails with varying subject lines, explains the campaign’s strategy.
- The campaign would test multiple drafts and subject lines—often as many as 18 variations—before picking a winner to blast out to tens of millions of subscribers.
- We got to thinking, ‘How could we make things even less attractive?’ That’s how we arrived at the ugly yellow highlighting on the sections we wanted to draw people’s eye to.”
- “The data didn’t show any negative consequences to sending more.”
The last bulleted point makes me laugh because as annoying as the e-mails were – the more I got, the more my wall of resistance cracked and I finally gave into giving another sum of money (that’s just a personal side-note though).
So why doesn’t Obama use e-mail now, in his second term, to rile up the public to pressure legislators, as well as continue private negotiations with Congressional leaders (this is what BuzzFead asks)?
We discuss what the role of media should be – but think about the power of e-mail as medium in which the President could quickly and easily blast out a fact-check-type message.
If media outlets do continue to use horse-race and he-said-she-said journalism, or they wait for politicians to make a comment, then a President e-mailing facts would be like Christmas for networks.
An example: Susan Rice. The President has already said that if anyone is to blame, he should be blamed. But he could so quickly send out an e-mail, subject line: “hey,” which then goes on to say …Susan Rice is not to blame.
Further “The UK’s big inquiry in to the culture, practice and ethics of the “press” has recommended a new body to better self-regulate news media — but has overlooked blogs and social networks because they are neither popular nor newsy enough.” Is this dangerous — ignoring the potential power of the unregulated blogs and social networks?