As Gollum Would Say, Tricksy
August 29, 2011
David Mills
The letter, with “Senator Orrin Hatch” written in large capital letters centered across the top, told me that on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee the senator was sending me my “Republican Strategy Ballot” (the name was printed in boldface in the letter). “Your immediate response is critical,” he told me, or rather the “fellow American” to whom the letter was addressed.
The letter followed the standard form for conservative fundraising: four completely filled pages with narrow margins, mixing (with no apparent pattern) 
flush left with indented paragraphs at a roughly two-to-one ratio, and including (again with no apparent pattern) some phrases and some paragraphs in boldface as well as a few underlined phrases here and there, offering one direct appeal for money on every page, and ending with a p.s. giving one final appeal for money.
As is usual, it featured emotive words starkly dividing the forces of light from the forces of darkness, who are unrelievedly dark. The NRSC will defend us, for example, from “Barack Obama, the Senate Democrats and their liberal allies—from the Hollywood elites and Big Labor bosses to the radical environmentalists and ‘peace’ activists who loathe our military.”
Part of the standard form is a gimmick, often a poll and in this case that “Republican Strategy Ballot.” The fifth through the seventh paragraphs of the senator’s letter (the fifth and seventh were indented) read:
Please open your sealed Republican Strategy Ballot right away, then vote and return it in the Registered Return Envelope within the next 5 days. The postage is paid for you. You can also complete the survey and make a contribution online at [web address].
Because information generating by this balloting will help drive Republican communications and grassroots initiatives for the coming year, accuracy is essential. The NRSC must have your Strategy Ballot returned for precise results.
If for any reason you cannot participate, please complete the information on the outside of the sealed Strategy Ballot Carrier and return it unopened so we may select someone else in your community to help determine Republican communications strategies.
The bright yellow envelope itself says across the middle “REGISTERED MATERIALS. TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY.” (With whom the materials are registered, and why, is not said, but it does sound official and impressive.)
A box on the right side tells me what to do if I intend to vote and if I don’t. If I don’t, I’m supposed to “Sign below and return unopened so we may select one of your neighbors to vote in your place” (good luck finding a Republican in my neighborhood), below which is a line on which to sign. The letter also includes a barcode, but whether it’s a real one I don’t know.
The “Strategy Ballot” inside the envelope, two-thirds the size of a letter and completely crowded with words on both sides, includes a “Respondent Validation” you are supposed to sign and a “Ballot Number” that, like the barcode, may or may not be real. It asks six questions of “grassroots voters like you.”
The first two are actual questions: “Which issue(s) do you believe Republicans should highlight in the 2011 policy debates?” and “Which of the Democrats’ liberal policies do you oppose the most?” I’d be interested to know whether anyone at the NRSC actually compiles the answers to these questions, and if so, if the answers make their way to anyone involved in deciding Republican strategy.
The next two are leading questions with obvious answers for the kind of people who will get the letter. The fifth is a not very useful question about the best media to use. Why they ask it is not clear, since on the last page of the letter Senator Hatch tells me that the “NRSC know just what kind of television and radio ads to run in specific markets where our message will have the most impact among voters, as well as the best online strategy for quickly reaching taxpayers with the facts.” If they know so definitely, why listen to the grassroots amateurs?
The sixth questions is not a real question at all but a barely disguised request for money: “The NRSC is our first line of defense against Barack Obama and the Democrats’ liberal majority in the U.S. Senate. . . . Will you help the NRSC fight for our Republican agenda and the candidates who support it?”
The writers hope that Miss Elma Mae Wombat of East Cow Pie, Iowa, pro-life activist, and Luigi Tortellini of Queens, New York, Reagan Democrat, and Horace Smythe-Worthington of the Hamptons, investor, and me, guy on a mailing list for reasons he doesn’t know, and thousands like us are going to answer the questions, convinced the NRSC really cares about our answers, and then, caught up in the thrill of contributing to the destruction of those hated Democrats and their liberal allies, send them money.
This is too bogus for words. We know for certain, I think, that this is a fund-raising letter, not a genuine attempt to understand what the “grassroots voters” really think, need, and want.
If they cared what people like me think, the “Strategy Ballot” would have asked many more and much more finely worded questions. And it would not have asked questions like the fifth one, the answer to which the letter itself declared had already been settled by the experts at the NRSC. They would have asked questions that showed some comprehension of the lives Elma Mae, Luigi, Horace, and I live, of what worries us and for what we hope.
The letter tries to trick the trusting into believing that they have a greater role than they do, in order to spur them to give more money than they would. It is, as Gollum would say, “tricksy.”
And it will work, because Elma Mae, Luigi, and Horace, or at least one out of three of them, trust such letters. It will bring in the money, but tricking people to get what you need, even for a good cause, is wrong. Wrong, period. Even if such tricks have become on the right the standard operating procedure, the way things are done, the game people play with a wink to the other players.
The “Strategy Ballot” is not, I realize, very deceptive, as political appeals go. It’s really a little tawdry, like the fairground games that keep people from hitting the ducks by bending the sights on the bb guns, or tricking an eight-year-old out of his Halloween candy. Some people, even among “family values” conservatives, will say it is just a harmless gimmick, and besides, it works, and it’s for a good cause. (I have had these conversations.)
But it is not the way an honest man asks for help. It is not the way men speak who remember to let their yea be yea and their nay be nay. You will find nothing of the sort in the New Testament, and it is impossible to imagine Our Lord or the Apostles using such a gimmick, or countenancing anyone else using such a gimmick.
Not very deceptive, no, but even little deceptions corrupt, and the corruption compounds itself over time. “He that is unjust in that which is little,” as Jesus says, “is unjust also in that which is greater.” That applies to everyone, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.29.2011 | 7:43am
David Poecking says:
Such letters are an embarrassingly shallow form of opacity. They make it difficult to put much trust in the politicians who have consented to have the fundraisers put their names on the letters. He who is not faithful in small matters....
8.29.2011 | 9:14am
Peter says:
Here, Here. I do survey research at a university for a living, so my professional standards are offended by this sort of thing. I get it from the Democrats and have the same reaction--"really, . . . really, . . . is this kind of thing I want to be a part of?"
8.29.2011 | 9:19am
Leroy Huizenga says:
There's also the similar genre of fundraising letters for Catholic organizations, pretty much the same as fundraising letters for evangelical organizations (sans poorly made sacramentals).
8.29.2011 | 11:07am
Rod Dreher says:
Thanks for writing this, David. I used to get this kind of letter all the time, and they made me really angry because they were so transparently and cynically written to push emotional buttons in conservatives. The last one I received was prior to the 2010 election, and it provided a list of issues of "concern" to conservatives, which the recipient was invited to rank in terms of importance. Of course the choices were very narrow, and were, in fact, a list of things the GOP preferred to focus on. I feel certain that the Democrats do the same kind of thing.
I can't say that I expect a national political party to conduct real research that way. These "surveys" are not surveys at all, but ways to make the suckers think that their opinion counts, and to get them all worked up over the issues the party wants them to be worked up over. Still, the cynicism of the exercise really makes me mad, and makes me less interested in supporting the party that so obviously takes me for a fool.
And by the way, I take absolutely nothing the Republican Party says about the protection of traditional marriage seriously. That issue is very important to me, but the way Bush II and the GOP dropped it in 2005, after the issue had served its purpose in the 2004 election, made me realize that they will never act on it. That was the last time it was possible to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, given the way public opinion is shifting, and the Republican majority wouldn't even push to send the Federal Marriage Amendment to the states. Had my side lost in the states, fine. But the GOP majority, riding a huge wave after Bush's re-election, didn't spend any of its political capital on this issue it had used to fire up the base.
I can't say that I expect a national political party to conduct real research that way. These "surveys" are not surveys at all, but ways to make the suckers think that their opinion counts, and to get them all worked up over the issues the party wants them to be worked up over. Still, the cynicism of the exercise really makes me mad, and makes me less interested in supporting the party that so obviously takes me for a fool.
And by the way, I take absolutely nothing the Republican Party says about the protection of traditional marriage seriously. That issue is very important to me, but the way Bush II and the GOP dropped it in 2005, after the issue had served its purpose in the 2004 election, made me realize that they will never act on it. That was the last time it was possible to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, given the way public opinion is shifting, and the Republican majority wouldn't even push to send the Federal Marriage Amendment to the states. Had my side lost in the states, fine. But the GOP majority, riding a huge wave after Bush's re-election, didn't spend any of its political capital on this issue it had used to fire up the base.
8.29.2011 | 11:18am
Christopher Bailey says:
This is the inevitable result of our discovery that political parties can be sold like a membership in the Cheese-of-the-Month Club. My own proposal for electoral reform would be that we should get rid of the useless and outdated "candidates" and vote directly for our favorite marketers.
8.29.2011 | 11:43am
William Murchison says:
OK, pretty awful stuff. David's cardinal mistake, even so -- I find this amazing in a man of perceipient judgement -- was opening the bloomin' letter in the first place. Letters like this are junque mail: marks of our hyper-politicized, lowest-common-denominator discourse. Throw 'em away unopened, along with the flyers for rug cleaning. That's the best advice I can give.
No one expects in correspondence of this sort a philosophical encounter or a serious discussion of policy. It's all about money: one big reason, I would say, to work toward the slimming down of mega-government, with all its exactions on our daily lives. The higher the political stakes, the shriller the appeals to do something. Worrying about fund-raising letters strikes me as the political equivalent of fretting over dead grass on the side of the dam holding back the flood waters.
No one expects in correspondence of this sort a philosophical encounter or a serious discussion of policy. It's all about money: one big reason, I would say, to work toward the slimming down of mega-government, with all its exactions on our daily lives. The higher the political stakes, the shriller the appeals to do something. Worrying about fund-raising letters strikes me as the political equivalent of fretting over dead grass on the side of the dam holding back the flood waters.
8.29.2011 | 11:52am
Mike Melendez says:
Being a registered Democrat, I fail to distinguish any difference between what David Mills received and what I receive from time to time from the Democratic party. The parties of light and dark are, of course, reversed. I get the same even from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who, believing that all Democrats think like them, urged me to oppose those who will end abortion as we know it in the United States. So I faced the mirror and had an argument with myself. I wonder if all these people hire the same marketing firm.
My wife and I have a simple way to distinguish significant from meaningless mail. If the envelope proclaims the great significance of the mail but the stamp is bulk delivery, the recycling bin is the best place for it.
My wife and I have a simple way to distinguish significant from meaningless mail. If the envelope proclaims the great significance of the mail but the stamp is bulk delivery, the recycling bin is the best place for it.
8.29.2011 | 11:55am
Gail Finke says:
As others have said, I've gotten similar things from Catholic and Christian organizations, as well as from BOTH parties. But what really gets me are the constant email solicitations I receive from the Democrats (your help is urgently needed to defeat the fiendish Republicans), the Republicans (your help is urgently needed to defeat the horrendous Democrats) and various causes, including pro-life causes and organizations I really do support. Don't these people understand that if you get an "urgent" request for money from them EVERY OTHER DAY, the message it sends is that there are no urgent needs? They just constantly wantr money? And your opinion, of course... especially when a donation accompanies it.
Catholic Relief Services takes a very refreshing and different course. They send out mailers for specific, real needs, they ask how often you would like to be contacted, and twice I have received phone calls from them just thanking me for supporting them and not asking for anything! I don't have a lot to give right now, but they are the only place I contribute to when any disaster happens.
Catholic Relief Services takes a very refreshing and different course. They send out mailers for specific, real needs, they ask how often you would like to be contacted, and twice I have received phone calls from them just thanking me for supporting them and not asking for anything! I don't have a lot to give right now, but they are the only place I contribute to when any disaster happens.
8.29.2011 | 12:00pm
TJH says:
This type of politics (And, there are lots of examples.) demonstrates a lack of seriousness by the party about the issues, the electorate, and the results of elections. Supporting a third party demonstrates even less seriousness about the politics of our Republic leaving the Republican party as the only game in town for defenders of our republican form of government. Until the party takes the electorate and the results of elections seriously, I'll support Republican candidates but I won't take the party apparatchiks seriously and trust them with my money.
8.29.2011 | 12:28pm
Richard says:
This kind of insipid hype has become the coin of the realm in much of American media advertising, particularly internet and snail mail solicitation for get rich quick financial services, none of which can keep their promises and the vast majority of which will lag the market or, more like, lose money for its customers. After enough peole get wise, the service reinvents itself under a different moniker and starts the same scam all over again.
I can think of only one reason why this quackery persists and proliferates.
It works.
Best,
Richard
I can think of only one reason why this quackery persists and proliferates.
It works.
Best,
Richard
8.29.2011 | 12:35pm
Franklin Freeman says:
Hi David,
Yes, yes, yes. I am a conservative Independent who once was Republican and who also gave money to the Dalai Lama for the Tibetan prayer flags that Richard Gere sent me, so now I get these letters from all sides, aaargh! The ones that really anger me, though, are the pro-life ones that ask me to sign a petition that will be given to my senators and/or representatives, and by the way make sure you send some money and DO NOT detach the petition from the money section, we must have both! Tricksy, yes, my precious. The means justifies the ends. But it really gets my goat when they do it with the abortion issue, maybe because it's so basic an issue. But both sides do it. Only the Democrats send me fliers (when there's an election) that say the Darth Vader Republicans are going to take away YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
Yes, yes, yes. I am a conservative Independent who once was Republican and who also gave money to the Dalai Lama for the Tibetan prayer flags that Richard Gere sent me, so now I get these letters from all sides, aaargh! The ones that really anger me, though, are the pro-life ones that ask me to sign a petition that will be given to my senators and/or representatives, and by the way make sure you send some money and DO NOT detach the petition from the money section, we must have both! Tricksy, yes, my precious. The means justifies the ends. But it really gets my goat when they do it with the abortion issue, maybe because it's so basic an issue. But both sides do it. Only the Democrats send me fliers (when there's an election) that say the Darth Vader Republicans are going to take away YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
8.29.2011 | 12:37pm
Judy K. Warner says:
I would have responded to this earlier, but I was busy writing a direct mail fundraising letter -- not for a political party but for a conservative organization.
David, I received this same letter from the Senatorial Committee, and it stood out from the other political and policy direct mail I receive by including just about every obnoxious characteristic of such letters in spades. I even ranted a bit and showed it to my family as something that shames my profession.
That said, the purpose of such letters is to market an organization to potential donors. Some formatting features that look odd are there to make the copy easier to read and therefore more likely to be read -- things such as short paragraphs, indents, highlighting, and underlines. Those features should call attention to the most important parts, since many recipients scan the letter rather than reading it. This letter far overdid this sort of thing. And anyway, its purpose was undermined by the narrow margins, which make the letter difficult to read and are no doubt the result of a self-important copywriter who didn't want to cut a word of his golden copy.
I don't see what's bad about emotive words in this situation. Nobody takes a fundraising letter for a solemn essay, and many people are already emotional about these issues. The language is similar to what is seen in on many conservative websites and blogs. And the recipients of this letter are for the most part on lists rented from organizations that are ideologically congruent, or from right-wing magazines and newsletters.
The point about the survey is a good one, and I've thought a lot about how surveys should be used. It is well known that including a survey in a direct-mail package increases the response, because people like to fill out surveys and doing so gets them involved. Probably more than half of the people who respond to this package by sending in their survey do not include a contribution.
I think that telling people that their survey will affect policy is wrong, if it is stated that boldly. Obviously it will not. But some surveys are tabulated, or a sample of the ones received are. There are sometimes real questions on them, and notice might be taken. For example, I often include the kind of list of issue priorities that the discussed survey has. The answers don't make policy, but they are useful for fundraising and marketing, and the Senatorial Committee would be making a mistake not to look at the answers to that question, though theirs is too narrow. I try to include a wide variety of issues and often put in an "other" option with a line to write something in. For example, I've found that people almost always put education at the bottom of any list. National defense issues move up and down depending on circumstances. In my case, my client has let other parts of the organization know about noteworthy responses.
Instead of implying that the purpose of the survey is to exercise vast influence over Congress or some other large entity, I usually say that the organization itself wants to know what conservatives think, or Americans think, or members think if the letter goes to the membership. That is believable because it is true.
Unfortunately, usually the more marketing gimmicks you include, the better the package does, other things being equal. I am far less gimmicky than most, though I'm sure y'all could find plenty of fault with my packages. The result is that I do not get as high a response to my packages as some others do. But the donors I bring in give higher amounts, stay with the organization longer, and move to higher levels of giving more often.
David, I received this same letter from the Senatorial Committee, and it stood out from the other political and policy direct mail I receive by including just about every obnoxious characteristic of such letters in spades. I even ranted a bit and showed it to my family as something that shames my profession.
That said, the purpose of such letters is to market an organization to potential donors. Some formatting features that look odd are there to make the copy easier to read and therefore more likely to be read -- things such as short paragraphs, indents, highlighting, and underlines. Those features should call attention to the most important parts, since many recipients scan the letter rather than reading it. This letter far overdid this sort of thing. And anyway, its purpose was undermined by the narrow margins, which make the letter difficult to read and are no doubt the result of a self-important copywriter who didn't want to cut a word of his golden copy.
I don't see what's bad about emotive words in this situation. Nobody takes a fundraising letter for a solemn essay, and many people are already emotional about these issues. The language is similar to what is seen in on many conservative websites and blogs. And the recipients of this letter are for the most part on lists rented from organizations that are ideologically congruent, or from right-wing magazines and newsletters.
The point about the survey is a good one, and I've thought a lot about how surveys should be used. It is well known that including a survey in a direct-mail package increases the response, because people like to fill out surveys and doing so gets them involved. Probably more than half of the people who respond to this package by sending in their survey do not include a contribution.
I think that telling people that their survey will affect policy is wrong, if it is stated that boldly. Obviously it will not. But some surveys are tabulated, or a sample of the ones received are. There are sometimes real questions on them, and notice might be taken. For example, I often include the kind of list of issue priorities that the discussed survey has. The answers don't make policy, but they are useful for fundraising and marketing, and the Senatorial Committee would be making a mistake not to look at the answers to that question, though theirs is too narrow. I try to include a wide variety of issues and often put in an "other" option with a line to write something in. For example, I've found that people almost always put education at the bottom of any list. National defense issues move up and down depending on circumstances. In my case, my client has let other parts of the organization know about noteworthy responses.
Instead of implying that the purpose of the survey is to exercise vast influence over Congress or some other large entity, I usually say that the organization itself wants to know what conservatives think, or Americans think, or members think if the letter goes to the membership. That is believable because it is true.
Unfortunately, usually the more marketing gimmicks you include, the better the package does, other things being equal. I am far less gimmicky than most, though I'm sure y'all could find plenty of fault with my packages. The result is that I do not get as high a response to my packages as some others do. But the donors I bring in give higher amounts, stay with the organization longer, and move to higher levels of giving more often.
8.29.2011 | 12:46pm
S. M. Hutchens says:
I expect to get importunities like this from organizations run by the Sackville Bagginses (part of the family, but one very often wish they weren't), but not from coreligionists who claim to have lived among the elves. When I express misgivings about this kind of thing to those I think should know better, they pretty uniformly respond that (1) all fund raising experts tell you that breaking the Golden Rule is a necessary part of doing the job, (2) their experiences validate the advice of the professionals, and usually (3) that the survival of their indispensable institution is at stake.
The principal thing they're relinquishing by operating in this way is any reason to believe that their project, as operated, is approved by the God who not only provides, but draws the boundaries of their existence--if that really interests them at all. If one must cheat to win, he can have no assurance that either victory or loss is appended to anything but the curse that follows those who deal unrighteously, whereas clean, honest appeals for help can be used, among other considerations, as inquiries of the divine will--which sometimes says what one does not wish to hear about the proximity of the Grey Havens.
The principal thing they're relinquishing by operating in this way is any reason to believe that their project, as operated, is approved by the God who not only provides, but draws the boundaries of their existence--if that really interests them at all. If one must cheat to win, he can have no assurance that either victory or loss is appended to anything but the curse that follows those who deal unrighteously, whereas clean, honest appeals for help can be used, among other considerations, as inquiries of the divine will--which sometimes says what one does not wish to hear about the proximity of the Grey Havens.
8.29.2011 | 12:58pm
William Tighe says:
The only kind of "begging solicitation" I dislike more than this is the sort that I get from time to time from Catholic "relief" or "medical" charities which enclose with it a nickel or sometimes (rarely) a dime, and claim that "this nickel will go so far to accomplish such and so, and so won't you return 'our gift to you' with a gift of your own?" (Sometimes they send instead return address labels as their unsolicited "gift" to me.) Under no circumstances will I give anything to organizations that send out such solicitations.
As for those which send me pretended "surveys" I just throw them away (and, alas, they come to me too from anti-abortion organizations, especially, and disagreeably frequently, from the "American Life League").
As for those which send me pretended "surveys" I just throw them away (and, alas, they come to me too from anti-abortion organizations, especially, and disagreeably frequently, from the "American Life League").
8.29.2011 | 1:23pm
DGL says:
I agree with the overall sentiments of this piece. I used to work at a pro-life organization that sent out a lot of appeals that sound a lot like the one described in this essay. I even wrote them myself.
I worked there for two years before my ability to overlook what I was doing finally ran out. We would ask our "members" for their "direction" about the issues that would be most important over the year, except the reply form was written in such a way that the top priorities never changed. Some former colleagues of mine would even go as far as to not remove people who asked to be removed from the list, all for the good of the "cause." Towards the end of my time there I felt sick to my stomach writing the same things over and over, just worded a little different so we wouldn't sound like a broken record.
I very much despise abortion, and want to see this country's abortion policy overturned as much as the next pro-lifer, but the way in which some "grass-roots" groups fund raise from people, especially when everyone's finances are tight, is more than just distasteful. It is wrong. I am glad I no longer write appeals like that, all in the name of the "cause." I no longer feel like I'm deceiving succeptible people.
I worked there for two years before my ability to overlook what I was doing finally ran out. We would ask our "members" for their "direction" about the issues that would be most important over the year, except the reply form was written in such a way that the top priorities never changed. Some former colleagues of mine would even go as far as to not remove people who asked to be removed from the list, all for the good of the "cause." Towards the end of my time there I felt sick to my stomach writing the same things over and over, just worded a little different so we wouldn't sound like a broken record.
I very much despise abortion, and want to see this country's abortion policy overturned as much as the next pro-lifer, but the way in which some "grass-roots" groups fund raise from people, especially when everyone's finances are tight, is more than just distasteful. It is wrong. I am glad I no longer write appeals like that, all in the name of the "cause." I no longer feel like I'm deceiving succeptible people.
8.29.2011 | 1:39pm
James in Dallas says:
As others have noted above, very similar kinds of mailings are used by both political parties and many other kinds of fundraising organizations. I assume the mailings are developed by direct marketing professionals, who simply adapt the formats to the specifics of a particular client, with little or no oversight or involvement from the persons on whose behalf the solicitation is made. (Another frequent tactic is to position a mailing as some sort of "official government communication" -- all part of the attempt to get the recipient to open the letter rather than discard it unopened as junk mail.)
I share your view that such mailings are tacky at least and possibly immoral, but presumably they are effective given the frequency with which one receives them. Given that reality, the best answer is the one suggested by Mr. Murchison above, at least as far as political mailings are concerned: reduce the size and scope of government in our lives, so that politicial fundraising itself becomes less criticial.
I share your view that such mailings are tacky at least and possibly immoral, but presumably they are effective given the frequency with which one receives them. Given that reality, the best answer is the one suggested by Mr. Murchison above, at least as far as political mailings are concerned: reduce the size and scope of government in our lives, so that politicial fundraising itself becomes less criticial.
8.29.2011 | 1:49pm
Torontonian says:
I contribute to a Canadian national pro-life organization through a monthly bank-withdrawal plan, yet I also receive letters making urgent financial appeal. In this case, the need is genuine and the organization is up-front about what the money is used for: giving aid to unwed mothers, supporting pro-life education, and, mainly, political lobbying. I often respond to their appeals because I recognize the good work that they do.
8.29.2011 | 2:09pm
Judy K. Warner says:
James in Dallas,
There are some direct-mail agencies whose mode of operating is to take control of every aspect of fundraising and give some portion of the money raised to the client organization. These agencies are able to control not only the copy and the look of the packages, but also the printers, mail shops, and other suppliers. Surprise -- they often own their own print shops, mail shops, etc.
I consider this kind of contract very unethical on the agency's part, and stupid on the client's. Clients should be able to exert total veto power on everything the agency does.
A further note on the tone of direct mail letters:
Think of the classic bell curve for intelligence, with the large mediocre middle and the small numbers of very dumb and very smart people at the ends. Direct mail aims at reaching as far down to the left as possible because it is a mass medium. Therefore it cannot be written so as to appeal to the people at the very top. The catch is that this curve correlates pretty well with income. So it's not wise to exclude all the people at the top because that's where the money is. A smart direct-mail program will have different kinds of letters. The more intelligent ones will ask for more money. If you receive letter that are really dumb, just realize that they were not meant for you.
I learned this concept years ago when I realized that my letters did not work to magazine subscription lists. Why not? I surmised that they were too dumb for people who read at an above-average level. I wrote a letter with longer sentences, longer paragraphs, slightly more complicated thoughts, and more pages, and it did fabulously well. Then I tried sending it to other lists. It worked on those, too, presumably cherry-picking the more intelligent (and wealthy) people.
There are some direct-mail agencies whose mode of operating is to take control of every aspect of fundraising and give some portion of the money raised to the client organization. These agencies are able to control not only the copy and the look of the packages, but also the printers, mail shops, and other suppliers. Surprise -- they often own their own print shops, mail shops, etc.
I consider this kind of contract very unethical on the agency's part, and stupid on the client's. Clients should be able to exert total veto power on everything the agency does.
A further note on the tone of direct mail letters:
Think of the classic bell curve for intelligence, with the large mediocre middle and the small numbers of very dumb and very smart people at the ends. Direct mail aims at reaching as far down to the left as possible because it is a mass medium. Therefore it cannot be written so as to appeal to the people at the very top. The catch is that this curve correlates pretty well with income. So it's not wise to exclude all the people at the top because that's where the money is. A smart direct-mail program will have different kinds of letters. The more intelligent ones will ask for more money. If you receive letter that are really dumb, just realize that they were not meant for you.
I learned this concept years ago when I realized that my letters did not work to magazine subscription lists. Why not? I surmised that they were too dumb for people who read at an above-average level. I wrote a letter with longer sentences, longer paragraphs, slightly more complicated thoughts, and more pages, and it did fabulously well. Then I tried sending it to other lists. It worked on those, too, presumably cherry-picking the more intelligent (and wealthy) people.
8.29.2011 | 3:20pm
Free Range Anglican says:
This is why I left the Republican Party officially about a year ago. I've long been a registered Republican who played the field, since my leanings are socially conservative libertarian. The Republcians and Democrats become all the same to a libertarian, but the third parties tend to be flakes. But after the last presidential election, it seemed that the only thing the Republican Party could think to do was to send me one of those propaganda polls every month or so. The first one I saw through, edited their questions and answered in truth and sent back. The second I sent back with a letter asking them why they were so impotent that all they could manage was lame polls. After that I ripped them up or threw them away unopened. Changing my party to "independent" cut down on robo-calls at election time and junk mail tremendously. The modern nonsense really makes me question whether Christians, whose citizenship is first and foremost to a Kingdom, not a democracy, not a country, has any business in politics at all. I haven't yet given up my right to vote, but I do consider it from time to time.
8.29.2011 | 4:13pm
James in Dallas says:
@ Judy K. Warner, very interesting insights. I wonder too how wise the tackier forms of marketing are even from a purely economic perspective. While a deceptive mailer may generate positive short term financial returns, what of the offsetting cost of lost support from those who are turned off by the tactics? Not to mention, there must be a very real long term cost in terms of the tarnished image of the "brand".
8.29.2011 | 4:23pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
"If you receive letter that are really dumb, just realize that they were not meant for you."
Well, that's certainly the way I'd like to take it, but that doesn't mean that was the sender's intent. ;-)
Well, that's certainly the way I'd like to take it, but that doesn't mean that was the sender's intent. ;-)
8.29.2011 | 4:34pm
Judy K. Warner says:
James in Dallas,
There's a lot of truth in what you say about the "brand." Further, direct mailers know that if a donor gives in response to a certain kind of package, you have to keep sending that kind of package to get another response. If you've sent doodads like address labels you have to keep sending doodads, those who respond to sweepstakes want more sweepstakes, and so on. People who respond to a survey will always respond better to surveys than to other things. Those who don't respond to any of these won't respond to variations on them. So people who respond to tacky things do so again and again. Otherwise you wouldn't see all those ads on TV selling some doodad for $19.95 and if you order now we'll send two of them and include this extra gift!
In fact, I discovered I am one of those people. One of my favorite direct mailers is a commercial company that sells cosmetics and toiletry products. Their envelopes are full of little flyers showing free premiums, little scrolls you have to unroll for an offer, scratch-off areas to find your prize, stamps you stick on the reply form to get your discount, and the like. If anyone had asked me ahead of time if I would respond to these things I'd have rolled my eyes. But I do respond; somehow it's fun to go through all that stuff. (Of course, the products and the premiums are very good, so you need fulfillment as well as a good offer.)
There's a lot of truth in what you say about the "brand." Further, direct mailers know that if a donor gives in response to a certain kind of package, you have to keep sending that kind of package to get another response. If you've sent doodads like address labels you have to keep sending doodads, those who respond to sweepstakes want more sweepstakes, and so on. People who respond to a survey will always respond better to surveys than to other things. Those who don't respond to any of these won't respond to variations on them. So people who respond to tacky things do so again and again. Otherwise you wouldn't see all those ads on TV selling some doodad for $19.95 and if you order now we'll send two of them and include this extra gift!
In fact, I discovered I am one of those people. One of my favorite direct mailers is a commercial company that sells cosmetics and toiletry products. Their envelopes are full of little flyers showing free premiums, little scrolls you have to unroll for an offer, scratch-off areas to find your prize, stamps you stick on the reply form to get your discount, and the like. If anyone had asked me ahead of time if I would respond to these things I'd have rolled my eyes. But I do respond; somehow it's fun to go through all that stuff. (Of course, the products and the premiums are very good, so you need fulfillment as well as a good offer.)
8.29.2011 | 7:29pm
Don Roberto says:
Agree with Gail Finke about Catholic Relief Services—they're great. Love comments of S. M. Hutchens—very true.
Aquinas argues eloguently for strict adherence to the truth. And I have to agree with Gollum that The Hobbit's last "riddle" was unfair. On the other hand, Gollum was an idolatrous murderer, hell bent on devouring Bilbo. And the notion that I must tell the Gestapo about the Jews in my attic seems patently ludicrous. So taking all in the balance, the aggressive salesmanship on display is in a good cause—nothing to lose sleep over.
†
Aquinas argues eloguently for strict adherence to the truth. And I have to agree with Gollum that The Hobbit's last "riddle" was unfair. On the other hand, Gollum was an idolatrous murderer, hell bent on devouring Bilbo. And the notion that I must tell the Gestapo about the Jews in my attic seems patently ludicrous. So taking all in the balance, the aggressive salesmanship on display is in a good cause—nothing to lose sleep over.
†
8.29.2011 | 7:54pm
Mark Brown says:
Got one of those the other day. My first question was what I had done or bought that made them think I was so easily had. My second was what kind of a country do we live in now where this type of thing is used, that playing on fears and insecurities is what your "compatriots" do to you.
8.30.2011 | 12:54am
TeaPot562 says:
A major turn-off for me in mass solicitation mailings are the ones with indefinite "pretend" dates of composition; e.g., "Tuesday afternoon" (but no date like March 7 or August 29, 2011.) The use of the pretend date allows the mass mailing to be sent out over a period of months, or delayed whatever 4th class is delayed, w/o being obviously stale. We sometimes get mailers urging lobbying on issues that Congress has already disposed of. (Sorry about ending that sentence with a preposition!)
Really aggravating to me are mailings purporting to be from the Tea Party in some town in Virginia. The Tea Party is grass roots, has no formal organization and did not elect someone in Virginia to solicit funds in its name.
One needs to select carefully charities to be supported (We agree with an earlier poster on Catholic Relief Services). and focus on the local & regional ones where one has at least the possibility of verifying that they are doing what they claim to be doing.
Political orgs are possible; but again, how can you verify that they are doing what they claim? And that any donations won't be wasted? Anyway, political contributions are NOT deductible on income tax returns.
If you send a check to a national organization, it WILL SHARE your name & address with other orgs with similar purposes/sympathies. This is guaranteed!
Finally, shredding of all pages with your name & address - rather than tossing in the garbage - is highly recommended.
TeaPot562
Really aggravating to me are mailings purporting to be from the Tea Party in some town in Virginia. The Tea Party is grass roots, has no formal organization and did not elect someone in Virginia to solicit funds in its name.
One needs to select carefully charities to be supported (We agree with an earlier poster on Catholic Relief Services). and focus on the local & regional ones where one has at least the possibility of verifying that they are doing what they claim to be doing.
Political orgs are possible; but again, how can you verify that they are doing what they claim? And that any donations won't be wasted? Anyway, political contributions are NOT deductible on income tax returns.
If you send a check to a national organization, it WILL SHARE your name & address with other orgs with similar purposes/sympathies. This is guaranteed!
Finally, shredding of all pages with your name & address - rather than tossing in the garbage - is highly recommended.
TeaPot562
8.30.2011 | 7:37am
David says:
The cynicism on these messages could be cut with a knife. I thought the pope condemned cynicism?
8.30.2011 | 8:56am
Bill says:
There are two fools interacting in politics. The fool that says he will defend your liberties and rights and the fool that agrees to vote for the first fool.
Politics is about compromise. Politicians have to lend their support to other ideas in order to get support for their ideas. So what you end up with in political process is a whole series of compromises that does not make any one happy or angry.
Politics is about telling bald faced lies. In a movie I heard a wonderful line, 'You can't handle the truth.' That is the idea behind politicians not telling us the truth. We are not capable of dealing with the truth.
So you can see there really are two fools working together in political theatre. One fool that doesn't tell the truth and the other fool that accepts almost getting what they want from their politicians.
Given all of this it seems clear to me that Satan was the first politician and he has trained many disciples in his craft. The fallen angels are the fools that believed Satan and decided to vote for him. The question is, 'Why should we want a government that is modeled after Satan?' Be careful how you answer that question. Your future depends on it.
Politics is about compromise. Politicians have to lend their support to other ideas in order to get support for their ideas. So what you end up with in political process is a whole series of compromises that does not make any one happy or angry.
Politics is about telling bald faced lies. In a movie I heard a wonderful line, 'You can't handle the truth.' That is the idea behind politicians not telling us the truth. We are not capable of dealing with the truth.
So you can see there really are two fools working together in political theatre. One fool that doesn't tell the truth and the other fool that accepts almost getting what they want from their politicians.
Given all of this it seems clear to me that Satan was the first politician and he has trained many disciples in his craft. The fallen angels are the fools that believed Satan and decided to vote for him. The question is, 'Why should we want a government that is modeled after Satan?' Be careful how you answer that question. Your future depends on it.
8.30.2011 | 8:56pm
Alfred says:
I am pretty sure there is no East Cow Pie in Iowa. Maybe it is in Nebraska?
9.16.2011 | 2:41pm
Ferrini Juliane says:
Catholic Relief Services takes a very refreshing and different course. They send out mailers for specific, real needs, they ask how often you would like to be contacted, and twice I have received phone calls from them just thanking me for supporting them and not asking for anything! I don't have a lot to give right now, but they are the only place I contribute to when any disaster happens. There are two fools interacting in politics. The fool that says he will defend your liberties and rights and the fool that agrees to vote for the first fool.
9.20.2011 | 12:38pm
Gori Loura says:
Such letters are an embarrassingly shallow form of opacity. They make it difficult to put much trust in the politicians who have consented to have the fundraisers put their names on the letters. He who is not faithful in small matters.... As for those which send me pretended "surveys" I just throw them away (and, alas, they come to me too from anti-abortion organizations, especially, and disagreeably frequently, from the "American Life League").
