Listen:
Check out all episodes on the My Favorite Mistake main page.
In this special bonus episode of My Favorite Mistake, Mark Graban sits down with Senator Stephanie Pitcher, a criminal defense attorney (at Parker & McConkie in Utah) and Utah state senator, to discuss a modern campaign tactic that’s frustrating voters nationwide: political text messages. Senator Pitcher provides an insider’s view on why candidates rely on these texts to build name recognition, the rules governing them, and how campaigns respond (or sometimes don’t) to requests to “STOP.”
Mark and Stephanie dive into questions many of us have wondered: Is anyone really reading our responses to campaign texts? Are these messages effective, or do they risk driving away potential voters? Senator Pitcher shares her personal experiences with both sending and receiving political texts, the realities of balancing voter outreach with respect for privacy, and the challenge of navigating the fine line between visibility and annoyance.
For those curious about how campaign data is shared and why unsubscribing doesn’t always work as intended, Stephanie explains the often complex web of candidate PACs, third-party vendors, and data-sharing that keeps these messages coming. She also discusses her plans to explore more sophisticated social media advertising, leaving listeners with a thought-provoking view on the future of campaign outreach.
Tune in to hear a behind-the-scenes look at campaign messaging from a seasoned state senator’s perspective!
Questions and Topics:
- How do you view campaign text messages as an elected official? Is there a point where the volume becomes counterproductive?
- Do you think frustration from these texts could actually lose votes for a candidate?
- When people respond to campaign texts with complaints, is there a human reading those replies, or are they just automated?
- What laws govern texting by candidates, parties, and PACs? Are there lines that shouldn't be crossed?
- Why does it feel like replying “STOP” doesn’t actually stop the messages? Are there loopholes?
- Does reporting messages as junk on an iPhone actually do anything to stop them?
- Do you think voter frustration over these messages will make people less likely to contribute or share accurate contact information?
- Looking ahead to your next campaign, are you planning any changes in how you contact voters or contributors?
- Is there a risk of voters thinking their devices are listening to their conversations when they see ads for a candidate they just discussed?
Scroll down to find:
- Video version of the episode
- How to subscribe
- Quotes
- Full transcript
Find Stephanie on social media:
Video of the Episode:
Subscribe, Follow, Support, Rate, and Review!
Please follow, rate, and review via Apple Podcasts, Podchaser, or your favorite app — that helps others find this content, and you'll be sure to get future episodes as they are released weekly. You can also financially support the show through Spotify.
You can now sign up to get new episodes via email, to make sure you don't miss an episode.
This podcast is part of the Lean Communicators network.
Other Ways to Subscribe or Follow — Apps & Email
Automated Transcript (May Contain Mistakes)
Mark Graban:
Hi. Welcome to a special bonus episode of My Favorite Mistake. I'm your host, Mark Graban. We're joined today by Stephanie Pitcher. She is a criminal defense attorney and a state senator based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Stephanie, thanks for joining us. How are you?
Stephanie Pitcher:
I'm great. Thanks for having me.
Mark Graban:
So, a lot of us are bombarded by text messages from candidates asking for contributions, whether they’re follow-ups or not. If I get any during our recording, I'll keep count. I’ve already received quite a few today. Stephanie, how do you view these messages as an elected official? Is there a point where even just the volume starts hurting more than it helps?
Stephanie Pitcher:
It’s interesting because, as candidates, we're told — and I work with a pretty sophisticated campaign team — that you really want a voter to see your name at least seven times. Text messages are huge because they’re an easy way to reach a wide audience. Emails are another tool, but you want to hit that visibility benchmark. As a recipient, it can feel like a lot. But as a candidate, you understand it’s part of getting your name out there. So, it’s a tool we use, and it’s an effective one.
Mark Graban:
Well, I’m in Texas, and I get messages for both Senate candidates, Ted Cruz and his challenger, Colin Allred. They both have strong name recognition, so it seems like people will vote how they’re going to vote regardless. Does frustration over these texts ever make voters say, “Fine, I’m not voting for you”?
Stephanie Pitcher:
It definitely can. When I was running for Senate two years ago, anytime a text went out, I’d get a handful of responses saying, “Leave me alone. I’m never voting for you.” As a candidate, that’s hard to see, but you have to keep a long-term perspective on getting your name out there. While some people are very politically engaged, a lot aren’t actively looking up candidates, so you have to find ways to reach them.
Mark Graban:
It’s interesting you mention seeing responses. Sometimes I’ll reply to these texts instead of just typing “STOP,” assuming it’s all automated and no one will see it. Am I wrong in assuming that? How often does a human see those responses?
Stephanie Pitcher:
You’d be surprised. If you’re getting texts from presidential candidates, it’s probably automated. But for local races like mine — I represent over 100,000 people in my Senate district — I use a program where texts go out, and I (or volunteers) can quickly see and respond to replies. So yes, a lot of people assume no one is reading, and they’ll send something snippy.
Mark Graban:
Or worse!
Stephanie Pitcher:
Or worse, sure. It’s partly generational, too; older folks may not realize the capabilities these programs have. But there is usually someone on the other end, at least in local races like mine. All texts with legitimate questions or thoughts do get responses.
Mark Graban:
What does the law say about candidates, parties, and PACs texting people, or in some cases, sharing or selling data? Is there a line where it crosses into unethical or illegal territory?
Stephanie Pitcher:
The law is pretty clear: if a candidate texts you, the message has to include an option to unsubscribe or stop receiving them. Often, it’s a simple “Text STOP to stop.” Campaigns must honor that. If they don’t, they can be reported to the FCC and face penalties. Regarding data sharing, I’m not as familiar with candidates donating data, but more often, data companies sell voter information to campaigns. For large campaigns, like presidential ones, data is shared among multiple organizations, which is why unsubscribing from one group doesn’t stop messages from others.
Mark Graban:
So in effect, saying “STOP” doesn’t really stop everything. Is there a loophole where, if I’ve stopped messages from the candidate directly, they can still come from associated PACs and fundraising groups?
Stephanie Pitcher:
Exactly. In bigger races, like Senate or presidential, there are multiple channels sending texts, so you’d need to stop each one individually. If you still receive messages after unsubscribing, they’re breaking federal rules and should be reported. But it can be frustrating. Now that I’m a recipient, I experience it from both sides.
Mark Graban:
Here’s another question that’s unclear to me: on my iPhone, I can delete and report junk. Does that do anything, or is replying “STOP” still the best way to get off the list?
Stephanie Pitcher:
I’m not entirely sure, but I believe replying “STOP” is the most effective way to be removed.
Mark Graban:
Do you think frustration over this will make people reconsider donating or sharing accurate information? Will they start using fake phone numbers or emails?
Stephanie Pitcher:
That’s a good question. I think the high volume mostly affects larger campaigns, but you’re right, it could discourage people. As a candidate, you’re required by state and federal law to collect donor information accurately, especially for larger donations. As a recipient, unsubscribing frequently helps, but I understand the frustration.
Mark Graban:
One last question, Stephanie. Assuming you’re running for re-election, will you do anything differently next time when it comes to reaching voters or contributors?
Stephanie Pitcher:
I likely won’t change much with my text outreach. I probably sent about four or five messages last campaign, but I connect with voters through texts, emails, and a growing Mailchimp list. If anything, I’d invest more in social media ads. It’s incredible the reach you can achieve with social media. I have a colleague who ran ads that showed up even on games like solitaire — impressive reach, even if a bit intrusive. I hope to improve in that space.
Mark Graban:
It’s funny — people often feel like their phones are listening to them, thinking, “I was just talking about this candidate, and now I see their ad.”
Stephanie Pitcher:
Yep, gotta turn off that microphone!
Mark Graban:
I don’t know if that’s really true, but Stephanie, thank you for sharing your perspective as a candidate, elected official, and attorney. We’ve been joined by Stephanie Pitcher from Utah. Thanks again.
Stephanie Pitcher:
Thanks for having me.
Mark Graban:
As always, thank you for listening. I hope this podcast inspires you to reflect on your own mistakes, learn from them, or even turn them into positives. Listeners have told me they’re more open about mistakes in their work, creating workplaces where it’s safe to discuss problems, leading to improvement and better results. If you have feedback or a story, you can email me at myfavoritemistake@podcastmail.com, and visit us at My Favorite Mistake Podcast.
Episode Summary and More
The Dynamics of Political Campaign Text Messaging
The Scale and Strategy Behind Political Text Messaging
Political candidates and campaigns are increasingly relying on text messaging as a crucial tool to reach voters. This method is part of a broader strategy to make sure a candidate's name is seen multiple times by potential voters. In fact, campaign teams often aim for their candidates' names to appear at least seven times in front of a voter. This repetitive exposure can come through various channels, such as text messages, emails, and social media ads.
Text messaging is particularly effective because it allows campaigns to reach a wide variety of people easily and swiftly. Unlike emails, which may go unread or end up in spam folders, text messages grab attention almost immediately. This form of direct communication helps ensure that a candidate's name remains top-of-mind for the voter.
The Impact of Voter Fatigue
While the frequency of text messaging is a strategic decision, it can have drawbacks. Many voters feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of political messages they receive. For candidates, it's crucial to find a balance, as too many texts can lead to voter fatigue and even frustration. Some voters might feel so irritated by the constant stream of messages that they respond negatively or even decide to not vote for the candidate.
Local races often rely on these messages as much as larger-scale campaigns. In local elections, candidates are sometimes able to review and respond to replies themselves or with the help of a small team. This direct interaction can either mitigate some of the negativity or exacerbate it, depending on the response.
Human Interaction vs. Automation
A common misconception among voters is that all political text messages are automated and no human is monitoring the responses. While this is generally true for large-scale campaigns, such as presidential races, it is often not the case for local elections. In smaller-scale races, candidates and their teams frequently use software to manage outgoing texts but manually review incoming replies.
This human element allows for more personalized interactions between the candidate and the voter. Candidates can quickly sift through responses and engage directly, which may surprise many voters who assume they are merely shouting into the void. This nuanced approach can sometimes turn a negative response into a positive interaction, helping to build a more engaged and informed voter base.
The Long-Term Vision
For politically engaged individuals, the bombardment of messages may seem excessive, but the truth is that a significant portion of the electorate does not actively seek out information about candidates. This is why campaigns find it necessary to use multiple touchpoints to capture voters’ attention. Candidates need to present a long-term perspective and remain committed to their strategy even when faced with negative feedback.
Campaigns understand that name recognition is paramount, especially for lesser-known candidates. Despite the short-term discomfort caused by frequent messages, the long-term goal is to inform and engage those voters who might otherwise remain oblivious to the election process.
Direct Engagement and Voter Perception
When voters directly engage with the texts, thinking they are responding to an automated system, it can be quite a revelation to learn that a human is on the other side. This direct engagement can be leveraged by campaigns to understand voter sentiments better and even to correct misconceptions or provide clarity on campaign issues.
The key takeaway for voters is that their engagement matters, and for candidates, it's an opportunity to tap into unfiltered voter feedback. Balancing the need for repetitive name recognition with meaningful engagement remains one of the trickiest aspects of modern political campaigning.
By understanding these dynamics, both voters and candidates can navigate the often overwhelming landscape of campaign text messaging more effectively.
The Dynamics of Political Campaign Text Messaging
The Scale and Strategy Behind Political Text Messaging
Political candidates and campaigns are increasingly relying on text messaging as a crucial tool to reach voters. This method is part of a broader strategy to make sure a candidate's name is seen multiple times by potential voters. In fact, campaign teams often aim for their candidates' names to appear at least seven times in front of a voter. This repetitive exposure can come through various channels, such as text messages, emails, and social media ads.
Text messaging is particularly effective because it allows campaigns to reach a wide variety of people easily and swiftly. Unlike emails, which may go unread or end up in spam folders, text messages grab attention almost immediately. This form of direct communication helps ensure that a candidate's name remains top-of-mind for the voter.
The Impact of Voter Fatigue
While the frequency of text messaging is a strategic decision, it can have drawbacks. Many voters feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of political messages they receive. For candidates, it's crucial to find a balance, as too many texts can lead to voter fatigue and even frustration. Some voters might feel so irritated by the constant stream of messages that they respond negatively or even decide to not vote for the candidate.
Local races often rely on these messages as much as larger-scale campaigns. In local elections, candidates are sometimes able to review and respond to replies themselves or with the help of a small team. This direct interaction can either mitigate some of the negativity or exacerbate it, depending on the response.
Human Interaction vs. Automation
A common misconception among voters is that all political text messages are automated and no human is monitoring the responses. While this is generally true for large-scale campaigns, such as presidential races, it is often not the case for local elections. In smaller-scale races, candidates and their teams frequently use software to manage outgoing texts but manually review incoming replies.
This human element allows for more personalized interactions between the candidate and the voter. Candidates can quickly sift through responses and engage directly, which may surprise many voters who assume they are merely shouting into the void. This nuanced approach can sometimes turn a negative response into a positive interaction, helping to build a more engaged and informed voter base.
The Long-Term Vision
For politically engaged individuals, the bombardment of messages may seem excessive, but the truth is that a significant portion of the electorate does not actively seek out information about candidates. This is why campaigns find it necessary to use multiple touchpoints to capture voters’ attention. Candidates need to present a long-term perspective and remain committed to their strategy even when faced with negative feedback.
Campaigns understand that name recognition is paramount, especially for lesser-known candidates. Despite the short-term discomfort caused by frequent messages, the long-term goal is to inform and engage those voters who might otherwise remain oblivious to the election process.
Direct Engagement and Voter Perception
When voters directly engage with the texts, thinking they are responding to an automated system, it can be quite a revelation to learn that a human is on the other side. This direct engagement can be leveraged by campaigns to understand voter sentiments better and even to correct misconceptions or provide clarity on campaign issues.
The key takeaway for voters is that their engagement matters, and for candidates, it's an opportunity to tap into unfiltered voter feedback. Balancing the need for repetitive name recognition with meaningful engagement remains one of the trickiest aspects of modern political campaigning.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
It’s essential for campaigns to adhere to legal guidelines to maintain trust and avoid penalties. According to the law, any text message from a candidate must include an option for recipients to unsubscribe. Typically, this is as simple as texting “STOP” to cease further communications. Ignoring a recipient's request to unsubscribe can lead to complaints and possible penalties from regulatory bodies like the FCC.
Larger campaigns often collect and manage voter data extensively, sometimes sharing or selling this data within a network of allied political entities. Consequently, unsubscribing from one channel may not halt all communication, as various interconnected platforms might still have permission to contact you. This complexity can frustrate voters, underscoring the necessity for transparency and ethical data management by campaign teams.
The Role of Data Companies
In today's digital age, data companies play a significant role in political campaigns. These companies collect vast amounts of voter data, which candidates purchase to expand their reach. This practice is common in larger campaigns, where data is shared across different campaign entities and affiliated organizations.
For example:
- Presidential Campaigns: Often operate multiple data channels, including the primary campaign, various PACs, and state party affiliations. These entities share voter data to maximize outreach, complicating the process of unsubscribing for voters.
- Local Campaigns: May not have the same extensive data sharing networks but still rely heavily on purchased voter data to target potential supporters effectively.
Adhering to ethical norms and legal requirements is vital for maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of these text messaging campaigns. Understanding the implications of data sharing and ensuring compliance with opt-out requests can mitigate voter frustration and foster a more positive campaign environment.
Transparency and Accountability
Transparency is key in managing political text messaging campaigns. Voters appreciate knowing that there's a human element involved and not just an automated barrage of messages. Campaigns can improve their image and effectiveness by:
- Actively responding to voter queries and concerns.
- Providing clear instructions on how to unsubscribe.
- Being transparent about data usage and sharing practices.
Unsubscribing Complexities
One frustration for voters is the often complex process of effectively unsubscribing from campaign messages. Due to the interconnected nature of political data sharing, unsubscribing from one campaign entity does not necessarily stop messages from affiliated organizations. This complexity can give the impression that unsubscribing is ineffective, which can lead to voter discontent.
To navigate this, voters should:
- Confirm if multiple political entities are involved and unsubscribe from each.
- Understand that reputable campaigns will honor unsubscribe requests; if not, they can report non-compliance to regulatory bodies.
For campaigns, simplifying the unsubscribe process and ensuring compliance not only helps in maintaining legal standards but also fosters goodwill among the electorate.
By continuing to refine these strategies and adhering to legal and ethical standards, political campaigns can navigate the complexities of modern voter engagement effectively.
The Dynamics of Political Campaign Text Messaging
Evolving Voter Response Mechanisms
Many modern smartphones include options for users to report and delete spam messages. Yet, the effectiveness of these features varies, and voters often find replying with “STOP” to be the most reliable method for unsubscribing. Campaigns, therefore, must respect these mechanisms to maintain campaign integrity and voter trust.
The Rise of Fake Information
An increasing concern is voters providing fake phone numbers or email addresses to avoid incessant messages. This trend could potentially disrupt the quality of voter data collected by campaigns. Federal and state regulations require accurate recording of donor information, which complicates efforts to manage data while respecting voter privacy.
Balancing Donor Communication
For significant donors, genuine contact details are crucial. Campaigns need to be able to reach out if issues arise with contributions. Balancing the need for frequent updates while avoiding donor fatigue requires thoughtful communication strategies. This includes using varied communication methods like personalized emails and targeted text messages to ensure donors stay informed without feeling overwhelmed.
Reinventing Contact Strategies
Given the mixed feedback from voters on text marketing, some candidates are reconsidering their outreach plans. While text messaging remains an effective tool, campaigns are diversifying their communication channels. Incorporating social media, emails, and even traditional mail ensures multiple touchpoints with potential voters.
Sophisticated Social Media Advertising
Beyond text messaging, candidates are increasingly investing in social media advertising. Platforms like Facebook and Instagram offer extensive reach, providing sophisticated tools that enable targeting specific demographics. Innovative practices show candidates' ads appearing in unexpected places, such as mobile apps, which broadens their audience reach.
Examples include:
- Facebook and Instagram Ads: Highly targeted campaigns, allowing for demographic and interest-based targeting.
- Mobile App Ads: Appearing in popular gaming apps, catching voter attention during leisure time.
- Email Campaigns: Leveraging tools like Mailchimp for consistent voter and donor communications.
The Future of Campaign Advertising
Candidates must continually evolve their digital outreach techniques. Developing a sophisticated advertising strategy not only enhances visibility but also ensures that campaign messages reach voters in varied, yet effective ways. Skills in selecting and managing these technologies determine a candidate's success in today's digital landscape.
Perception of Digital Surveillance
There's a growing concern among voters about digital surveillance, leading to misconceptions like phones “listening” to conversations. While there's little evidence to support this, the perception can damage voter trust. Campaigns need to address these fears by being transparent about their data usage and respecting privacy.
By adopting innovative social media strategies and respecting voter privacy, campaigns can effectively navigate the complex landscape of political communication. The end goal remains creating a more informed and engaged electorate, capable of making thoughtful decisions at the ballot box.
Final Thoughts on Campaign Strategy Enhancement
Continuous improvement in communication technologies and strategies is paramount. By refining text messaging practices, embracing advanced social media advertising, and staying attentive to voter feedback, campaigns can strike a balance between effective outreach and voter satisfaction. As digital marketing evolves, so must the techniques employed by political campaigns to ensure their messages resonate while maintaining voter trust.
Cultivating a Culture of Transparency
Transparency is becoming a cornerstone in modern political campaigns. Embracing a culture where mistakes and feedback are openly discussed can enhance both internal processes and external voter perceptions. Prominent political advisors often stress the importance of this approach, suggesting that campaigns that encourage team members to openly discuss challenges and errors tend to perform better overall.
Importance of Honest Internal Feedback
Internally, creating an environment where staff feel safe to address mistakes without fear of retribution can lead to significant improvements. Just as businesses have found success with this strategy, political campaigns also benefit. By fostering an honest feedback loop, campaigns can quickly rectify issues and innovate more effectively. This approach not only improves operations but also boosts morale and team cohesion.
- Open Communication Channels: Implementing tools like anonymous feedback forms or regular all-hands meetings can encourage transparency.
- Leadership Training: Equipping campaign leaders with skills to handle mistakes constructively fosters a more supportive environment.
Engaging with Voters Through Authenticity
Externally, campaigns that are transparent and admit their mistakes can build stronger connections with voters. Authenticity resonates with constituents who value honesty in their political representatives. Addressing errors publicly and outlining steps being taken to correct them can fortify a campaign's integrity and voter trust.
Leveraging Mistakes for Positive Outcomes
Mistakes, when managed well, can turn into valuable lessons and even opportunities for positive PR. Sharing stories of overcoming challenges humanizes the campaign and demonstrates resilience. Inviting voters to participate in discussions around these issues, whether through social media forums or town halls, can enhance engagement and loyalty.
Creating a Supportive Campaign Culture
To implement this philosophy, campaigns must prioritize creating a culture that values continuous improvement over perfection. This involves not only acknowledging mistakes but also celebrating team efforts to address and learn from them. Campaigns can draw inspiration from the podcast mentioned, where listeners have been motivated to foster more open and constructive workplace cultures.
Conclusion
By embracing transparency, leveraging mistakes constructively, and fostering a culture of honest feedback, political campaigns can significantly enhance their internal and external strategies. The end goal is a campaign that not only advances politically but also ethically, ensuring a more informed, engaged, and trusting electorate.