Some thoughts on Democratic email fundraising...

And why I'm okay with doing it the hard way

Earlier this fall, I did a call with a leader of a big Democratic organization that is one of the worst perpetrators of the bad emails - the ones that feel like spam because they are basically spam, tricking people into giving.

The leader had reached out to get my advice on how to improve the organization’s reputation and how to better leverage social and press in particular in order to be able to raise money from major donors.

We talked around the topic for a bit — how I use social media personally, how we work with reporters, on the distinction between different platforms and who actually does what internally — and then finally I decided to just say the thing:

To be honest, I told the leader, your biggest brand problem is your email program. You treat your supporters like shit.

I went on to tell this executive: I am confident their organization is not a scam PAC that just fundraises without any program. (Scam PACs are bad and should be illegal.)

The leader I was speaking to runs a legit enterprise that does meaningful work — but they raise money in a way that not only hurts their org’s brand but also proactively undermines the impact of their work.

That has consequences beyond their scope. Their email list includes millions of the top grassroots supporters on the left — and nearly every day they’re emailing crazy surveys, ~sky is falling~ tirades, and promising 10x matches that they absolutely can’t deliver on.

It’s email slop that’s eroding our trust with the people we need the most.

The leader looked chagrined. (Although I’m sure this was not the first time they had heard this feedback.)

“I know,” they said. “But if we don’t do it this way, we don’t raise the money to do the work. We’re stuck.”

I reject that premise. Being shitty to your supporters is not just the cost of doing business, so to speak — it’s a choice. Make a different one.

I am not wholly blameless here. My first job in politics was as an email writer for the Obama 2012 campaign. One of my projects as one of the most junior members of the team was to execute an experiment literally called "the more email test” — I was responsible for learning whether sending more emails had any effects on fundraising results and unsubscribes.

We proved it with data: The more emails we sent, the more money we raised, even accounting for unsubscribes and the costs of replenishing the list through paid ads. Our task was to raise the funds needed to sustain the campaign — we’d learned that sending more email was a key way to do that.

Now granted, in 2012, the email fundraising landscape was very different — the tech was way slower (it took us hours to send a single email to millions of people) and the creative was way less shady (we were precious about storytelling, authenticity, and respect — watch my first boss and good pal, Toby Fallsgraff, talk about the program here.)

In 2014 I did similar work for the Florida governor’s race and I was Hillary Clinton’s email director in 2016. There was a lot that went wrong in that campaign (obviously) but I will say: I am deeply proud of the work my team did bringing in grassroots money and especially proud of the way we treated supporters.

Organizations that send shitty emails (or texts or direct mail) think of it as a one-way communication, or maybe a one-and-a-half-way communication: The campaign sends out a solicitation and hopefully, the recipient sends back money.

But the cumulative effect of the many compounding solicitations — combined with the egregious data swapping happening behind the scenes, and compounded by the broader sentiment that the Democratic Party writ large is failing to meet the moment — is irritation, disgust, and even fury.

In 2012, when hired as an intern, I was taught that someone’s inbox is prime real estate. Email is intimate. Fundraising emails (and newsletters like this) co-exist in the same digital space as emails from your grandma, marketing from JCrew, key paperwork from your kid’s school, and so much else.

Take the invitation into that space seriously — and ideally, be invited in the first place (meaning: don’t email or text people who didn’t sign up for those lists).

I fully get what that leader I spoke with was saying: They’re stuck, unable to break the cycle of shitty fundraising tactics without directly damaging the financial health of the organization.

If you run or work at an organization like this, consider that there’s an opportunity here. You could change your tune and make a big deal out of relaunching their grassroots fundraising program, explicitly saying to supporters something like we know you’ve gotten shitty emails from us in the past. We thought that’s what we had to do to raise money. We’re sorry. From here on out, we’re going to do things differently. This might lose us some funding in the short-term — we hope you’ll stay with us.

Doing this could and likely will lead to a fundraising shortfall in the immediate aftermath. (The spam emails and texts keep coming because they work, unfortunately.) If this were me, I would try and build up enough of a financial cushion to be able to afford a hit for a quarter or two, knowing that this is a risky endeavor.

But the possible reward is high. People love a redemption arc. If you do great work and have a compelling story to tell, you’ll (eventually) be fine, and the goodwill an organization could generate from actually changing their approach could open doors for major fundraising or alternative funding sources, along with more attention to the impactful work.

If you’re on Run for Something’s email list, you’ll notice: We don’t spam. We use marketing tactics, sure, but I have been strict about the way we treat the people who have been generous with their attention, and I’m especially mindful that we never lie to people. (When we say there’s a fundraising match right now, that’s real!)

Running our program this way is a deliberate strategy that, if I’m being honest, might be leaving money on the table. I don’t take that lightly.

Fundraising goals are not arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air — these goals are the amount of money we need to do the work I believe matters and pay the people we employ. It’s no small thing to pick the (possibly) less lucrative strategy.

I believe it’s the right call anyway.

I believe this about fundraising the same way I believe it about managing with compassion or reading to my kids every day: It’s hard and under-appreciated, but worth it if I want to be able to operate with integrity and in line with my values.

And even if that wasn’t true, fundamentally I believe all communication is (or should be) strategic communication. Emails and texts aren’t just Venmo requests someone can ignore.

They’re core tactics for building connection — and in the long-term, connection is more valuable than any single dollar a spammy email or text can raise.

---

Some other stuff I’ve written about Democrats:

3 questions to help you avoid the grifters

What is the Democratic Party anyway?

Why is it so hard for Democrats to "be authentic"?

---

“Doing it the hard way is worth it” is a theme of When We’re in Charge (but so is: “suffering has no intrinsic value” so, enjoy that tension, LOL.)

Pick up a copy in any format you’d like — hardcover, e-book, or audio book (narrated by yours truly) anywhere you get books, including Amazon or Bookshop.org or literally anywhere else. If you have Spotify Premium, you can listen to for free right this very minute.

Another option: Get your book along with an excellent I DO NOT DREAM OF LABOR tote bag at the Crooked Media shop.