I give them experiments and they respond with speeches. — Louis Pasteur
Better Data, not just Bigger Data
Surpassing the Left’s understanding of voter psychology, persuasion and turnout.
What’s wrong with Center-Right data In Iowa’s 2008 caucus, the Romney campaign turned out just under 30,000 votes and lost badly to a late Huckabee surge. Romney’s microtargeters maintained their database, however, and in 2011 commenced a massive, data-driven effort to win the state. All the experience, information and algorithms hard-won over the last four years were plowed into the most sophisticated persuasion and turnout effort to hit Iowa since Barack Obama’s stunning win over Clinton. Their work completed and the counting done, this historic Republican micro-targeting effort turned out just under 30,000 votes in Iowa’s 2012 caucus. Four years and millions of dollars had earned Romney about 140 fewer voters and a loss to yet another late-surging social conservative. Center-Right data and modeling is cold, static and observational when it should be social, dynamic, and experimental. It identifies correlations, not causation.
Why Progressives are winning Progressives dominated in 2012 for a number of reasons, but two stand out; superior technology and a deeper understanding of voter psychology. Catching up on the technological front is the much easier task, but understanding voter psychology is the more difficult and important task. Progressives know better which mode and message works with whom and when and for what because they have run hundreds of social science experiments to perfect the arts of persuasion and turnout. The experimental method can be applied live, in the field, on active voters and customers. Field experiments are spectacular tools for discovering what works in the mess of the real world at a given point in time. Because of that mess of reality, however, they can be blunt and inefficient tools for investigating message effectiveness and political psychology in general. In addition, they generally deliver actionable information late in the game.
Better data & continual improvement The online “lab” approach to public opinion research and message testing can deliver huge value and efficiency gains in advance of elections that the Left has yet to fully reap. But they cannot validate the effect of a message delivered in the field by a specific mode, such as TV, radio ads, or mailers. Combining “lab” and “field” balances their respective strengths and weaknesses. An integrated testing protocol that begins online, with less expensive, more controlled and fine-grained “lab” experiments makes field experiments more focused and efficient. Evolving Strategies’ key service is the PocketTrial®, which quantifies the true impact of a message using a customized, double-blind, and fully controlled experimental design. It’s like your own small-scale clinical drug trial, but it’s your message we’re testing. We also have extensive experience designing, executing, and analyzing field experiments that test the effectiveness of ads, mailers, and calls for persuasion and GOTV, as well as candidate, volunteer, and fundraising activities.
Suggested research flow The first and most important step is making a commitment to a culture of experimental testing and accountability. However, the more that experiments are integrated into an organization’s plans and programming, the greater the value of the testing. Here is our suggested sequence for research: 1. Online PocketTrial® experiments to identify successful messages and voter/message interactions. 2. Field experiments to validate findings and translate “lab” effects into “field” effects for different modes of delivery (radio, online, TV, mail, phone, etc.). 3. Adjust voter models based on experimental data.
1