Got Memo?
Doomscroll 4.21.2024
Happy Sunday and welcome to another edition of Doomscroll! And to everyone who refrained from having their candidate or boss tweet about the new Taylor Swift album: I am so, so very proud.
One Question
Thank you to everyone who answered last week’s One Question about how to define digital these days. I got lots of interesting comments, but before we get to those: 100% of everyone who answered said that yes, campaigns will continue to have digital teams in the future. Maybe we’re just all super biased, but I agree! Ok, here are some of those comments!
As to how we define digital:
I think far too often, folks assume digital = money. To me, digital = money + voter contact + grassroots engagement. A good digital program should touch every department of the campaign but be treated as its own entity.
Unfortunately, I think Digital is still guided by Trump and what he does on digital. Until we have a new (and hopefully young) presidential candidate, I think we will remain idle in terms of moving the industry forward.
As to why campaigns will always have digital teams:
The point you made in the newsletter explain why it's important to continue to have a digital team. Having the ability to understand the technical side of what's possible on digital and figure out how to achieve whatever goals the comms or political department have set out is unique. It takes having someone 100% dedicated to digital to help inform everyone else on the campaign.
I think Comms falls under digital. Digital is much more broad and as technology advances, I think the umbrella that is Digital will continue to grow i.e. AI, streaming, and new social media platforms.
And some other random thoughts:
I HATE it when digital gets shoved under comms. Digital programs speak to distinct audiences. I think Comms can tend to get stuck in the 30,000 level view of what the media is saying, instead of what our grassroots base is thinking. To be successful, Digital should have a window into the comms shop but not necessarily have to "follow the same rules".
Someone once told me: "Comms directors think they are saving the world one press release at a time".
And because we’re still obsessed with texting (who isn’t?!), someone also left this comment I thought was worth sharing:
Sorry, this is one more comment about P2P. I work for an A2P vendor. Those are 100% opt-in lists for text. We honor unsubscribes. The issue I see is that A2P is easy peasy. Buy a list, choose a vendor, starting sending that day. Does it work? Probably good enough to do it again and again. But, building an opt-in text list, just like building an email list that you didn't purchase, is hard. It takes time. To do it right, you need to put in the effort. But why would you do that. when A2P is easy? The political cycle, especially if you're not established and an incumbent, is too short so many opt for the easy route. And that contributes to the overall problem.
This week’s One Question is super brief, won’t require much explaining (up here, anyway), and is very open-ended: What are yall’s thoughts on the Trump memo that went out to vendors earlier this week about fundraising?
Who’s Doing What
—We Got the Memo
Ok: Everyone is talking about that Trump memo this week and guess what? DOOMSCROLL IS NO DIFFERENT. If you opened this email hoping the “memo” in the SL wasn’t in reference to the now infamous Trump missive, well, I am sorry to be so basic and disappoint.
By now, I’m sure we’ve all read it. And read the coverage. Anyone who uses Trump in a fundraising pitch should (must?) split at least 5% of revenue with the Trump campaign. Any split higher than 5% will be seen “more favorably” and is regularly reported to the highest levels of the campaign and the RNC (sure it is). Additionally, the Trump team is asking that anyone who DOES reference Trump stick to some interesting guidelines in order to treat donors with respect (lol does the Trump campaign do this???). For example: No match language, no questioning the donor’s support of Trump, no using “reply to donate” language (this is weird to me), no mention of anyone in the Trump family, no mimicking Trump's tone…the list goes on. What’s more, if a client/campaign violates these guidelines the vendor responsible for the sending (but not necessarily the messaging) will also be held responsible.
My first, most obvious question is, “Or what???” What happens if a campaign ignores the guidelines? Will its WinRed account be shut down? Will they not get a Trump endorsement? Will they get a sternly-worded letter? Will the RNC withhold resources? Genuinely curious about this aspect.
Aside from that, I still have some mixed feelings about this memo, but am leaning toward the idea that the benefits of this will outweigh the cons - mostly because it will force down-ballot campaigns to get more creative and (hopefully) stop relying so freaking much on Trump in their fundraising programs. I’ve talked about the state of online fundraising time and time again here in Doomscroll, and my belief that the ecosystem is only hurt by the relentless focus on Trump. So if campaigns want to avoid forking over 5% (I certainly would), then this memo will be a good thing in the long run. It’s time to finally branch out!
On the other hand…these down-ballot campaigns certainly didn’t create this Trump-centric fundraising atmosphere and so I can’t necessarily blame them for doing their best to operate as successfully as possible within it. When we’re all going after the same donor base (yes, that’s part of the problem; I get it) and we’re competing with Donald J. Trump for small dollars, that’s really freaking hard and problematic for state and local campaigns. Of course their teams will do everything they can to mimic and perfect what’s CLEARLY WORKING with the base. To now punish them for that is, well, kind of unfair. Kind of. Side note: If you’re a digital director or fundraiser on a campaign who feels this way HMU over email and let me know: itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com.
So while I accept the memo and its goals and think this will benefit Republicans in the long run, I can certainly sympathize with those who are discouraged by the short-term pain it will cause.
—Honest Abe?
You know who’s fundraising pitches I’ve been noticing a lot lately? Abe Hamadeh’s. I *somehow* started getting his stuff a couple weeks ago, and woof. Wonder if the “4500% Match” thing is working for him. He also, just this week and AFTER the Trump memo went out, sent a fundraising text promising an 8500% “impact boost” Now, his text uses the phrase “MAGA Impact Alert” and it IS a split between his campaign and the Trump National Committee JFC. However, it doesn’t look like it defaults to a 5% split. What’s more, it seems to me like the boost/match language violates the guidelines in the memo. Right? Not that I’m policing this sort of thing now…
Not for nothing, I was also alerted to his quarterly FEC report on Twitter. Naturally, I checked it out for myself. You can too and make your own judgments!
—Governor Trolling
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders got called out for spending $19,000 on a new lectern (seems like a lot, but what do I know?) And she responded by….trolling her detractors with what I’m calling a “podium hype video”. And I’m giving it an A+.
—Speaking of comms…
This may not totally be a “digital” thing, but I still feel like this is worth dissecting. Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick did an interesting thing this week: He used Twitter to go on offense and attack a New York Times reporter and a her questions to his campaign about his upbringing. See his thread here, and his statement here. Normally, I say 100% this is a good and effective use of Twitter for a campaign - especially for one as high-profile as the McCormick’s. Go on offense against the mainstream media - the base will love it!
But this case study feels off to me, and I can’t totally put my finger on why. I think it’s because McCormick is right: the NYT reporter does seem to be splitting hairs on minute details that really don’t seem to matter that much. (Read the piece and decide for yourself). But if that’s the case, why draw attention to it? Just ignore and move on. If McCormick hadn’t tweeted about the story, I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn’t have ever read it. So maybe my takeaway is this: Save your flame-throwing Twitter threads for hit jobs that actually matter! McCormick is running against an establishment Democrat. In other words, he’s going to face many, many more attacks before Election Day - most of them will probably be way worse than this one. So save your fire!
—Scared of ::checks notes:: Religion?
I just can’t with Tucker Carlson anymore. Yes, speaking to religious donors in the Republican Party is SUPER HARMFUL. Ten years ago, this was like 85% of all communications to the GOP base.
Merch Shout-Out
It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these! But this shirt from Missouri Sen. Erich Schmitt DEFINITELY deserves a high-five!
2024 Roundup
This is where I make note of a few other things that caught my eye this week.
Outgoing West Virginia Gov. and Senate candidate Jim Justice endorsed Moore Capito as his replacement. See his tweet here.
I don’t have time to wade through FEC reports, especially when other people do it for me! (cough cough Rob Pyers I owe you!). But, here are a few things that stuck out at me:
KRISTI PAC only spent $7500 on candidates and spent $566K on expenditures. And yeah - look at how much she spent on direct mail! Dang.
Nancy Mace was out raised by her primary challenger.
Speaking of Mace, Winning for Women Action Fund actually spent money boosting Mace’s opponent, Catherine Templeton. Interesting…
Kari Lake raised $4.1M in Q1, which is good. But Gallego raised $7.5M. Wonder what his burn rate is though.
Who’s Spending Where
From April 11-17, the top center-right spender on Facebook ads was American for Prosperity (surprise, surprise) at about $164,000. AFP Action came in second place at $101,000, while PragerU spent about $73,000. A page called I Love My Freedom spent around $56,000 on ads hawking more Trump merch, and Trump National Committee JFC spent about $54,000 on fundraising and ads that promote rallies.
On Google during that same time period, the top spender was Trump National Committee JFC at $208,000, followed by AFP Action at $83,000. Hoosiers for Opportunity Prosperity and Enterprise Inc spent another $74,000 on pro-Mike Braun ads. AFP spent $58,000, while Chambers for Indiana rounds out the top five at $40,000 in ad spend.
P2P
Industry Watch
Apparently, Meta is expanding a program that allows Instagram influencers to create chatbot versions of themselves. Uuumm…interesting? The New York Times first reported it, but you can read about it more here. The goal (supposedly) is for influencers with massive followings to be able to engage with their fans without having to spend hours upon hours reading each DM and comment. I get that…but will this actually take off? I have my doubts. What happened to all those times these platforms preached the importance of authenticity?
The Grapevine
Yikes: The Washington Free Beacon has a piece about how Republican job-seekers’ personal information was left exposed by the Conservative Partnership Institute.
Congrats to my friends at Direct Persuasion!
Also congrats to everyone who won awards at the Pollies this week - including Nikki Haley fundraiser John Hall for being named Republican Fundraiser of the year.
Special shout-out to Matthew at Twitter for helping me out with a problem this weekend! And yes, I know I should be calling it X, but old habits die hard!
Got a tip for The Grapevine? Job announcement? Job opening? Email ‘em to me at itsthedoomscroll@gmail.com
Last But Not Least
From the other side of the aisle:
First off, I’m mostly with everyone who thought this video from the Senate Majority PAC was super cringey. P.S. No one needs to show that much thigh. Just saying. On the other hand, we spent a lot of time talking about a video that only highlights a negative story about one of our party’s top Senate recruits, so………… 🤔🤔🤔
Also thought this NBC piece was worth highlighting:
Tech for Campaigns, a Democratic organization made up of tech industry workers seeking to influence state elections, is expanding its playing field to include six states where Republicans have commanding majorities in state legislatures.
Jessica Alter, the organization’s co-founder and chair, said in an interview that beginning this year, Tech for Campaigns would commit resources to state legislative candidates in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas, in addition to swing states such as Arizona and Michigan where the organization has previously focused.
The move is part of a new, long-term strategy that the organization is calling “Next Ten”: targeting Republican-dominated state capitals where Democrats might have a chance to flip control of the state legislature in the next 10 years.
From the other side of the tracks:
First off: Last week I talked about a LinkedIn post from a healthy cereal company that talked about how bad their stats were. It was funny. I don’t know if the Sheehy Team saw that and decided to give it a whirl in their creative this week, but I lol’ed when I saw this SL in a fundraising email:
LMAO.
Anyway, this week, I thought it worth highlighting this bad boy:
Let this be your quarterly reminder to BUY ALL THE DOMAINS SO YOUR ENEMIES DON’T.
That’s all for this week. Thanks for reading! Did you like it? Consider forwarding to your friends!