"Killing Two Birds With One Stone" - Not Always Good
After reviewing the email subscription web pages for each of the 2004 presidential candidates, I must admit that I felt overwhelmed. All of the candidates sought specific detailed information in order to become a subscriber and even Dean's site asked for a written description as to why I would support him. To me, asking for a written description about my possible support is asking for too much when all I want to do is subscribe to his emails.
I also felt that many of the candidates tied their volunteer page and subscription page together. Meaning, if I was just wanting to subscribe for the email newsletter, then I would also have to answer questions about how I wanted to help volunteer. While this is a strategic move by the campaigns to "kill two birds with one stone," meaning that they wanted to seek the interest of those subscribers to volunteer, I would have rather have not had those options on the subscription page.
Instead, I would have aimed for a clean and crisp subscription page, with only questions that were necessary about the emails. More questions about how often I wanted emails, or what format I wanted emails are more effective on this certain page. Bush did a good job at keeping his subscription page clean and Kerry was not bad either. But the others need some work.
Keep email subscriptions simple - that way people won't look at the subscription page and think "Naw, this is too much work - all I want are some emails!"
3 Comments:
I agree that it is critical to keep email subscription pages as free as possible and campaigns should make it as easy as possible for an individual to sign up for email alerts.
Also key, is that once a person requests email updates, the campaign should follow through with the request. My blog entry for the day complains that even though I signed up for Bill Bolling updates on his Web site on May 31 and June 6, I still have not heard from the campaign. That is simply unacceptable and a terrible move in my opinion.
I posted this on Emi's blog, but it's worth reposting here. I disagree with both of you. I think Dean's campaign had the best idea and Bush and Kerry's the worst. I liked that the Dean campaign seemed as interested in what they could do for me as they were in what I could do for them. The Dean site not only asked for information (in the brusque pull-down menu way that the Kerry site did), they asked WHY I was supporting Dean and asked some smart questions about what my favorite websites were. Not only does this make me feel like they're interested in me generally, it provides them with a bigger picture of their supporters are. Yes, such a detailed reg screen may lose some people who don't have the patience or interest, but that's also an effective filter
I think I am going to have to agree with BWS on this one. Campaigns need to make it as easy as possible to get people involved and asking for detailed descriptions of why you like a candidate does not make it an easy process. Yes, it will give you the die hards people who are willing to do the extra legwork to subscribe. It will, however, turn off casual supporters who won't want to go through all the effort and may in the end cost the campaign donations. People in politics need to learn about keeping things simple.
Post a Comment
<< Home