Editing 1948: Campaign Fundraising Emails

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
Many politicians and organizations in the United States have taken to using email to conduct aggressive fundraising drives seeking campaign contributions. Signing a petition or expressing interest in a cause can lead to being added to a myriad of mailing lists for similar groups, all looking for support. This comic shows a caricature of the kind of inbox that can result from this. The emails get more and more absurd as the list goes on. For example, the last one combines a request for campaign contributions with the infamous 'Nigerian prince' {{w|advance-fee scam}} emails.
+
 
 +
Many politicians and organizations in the United States have taken to using email to conduct aggressive fundraising drives seeking campaign contributions. Signing a petition or expressing interest in a cause can lead to being added to a myriad of mailing lists for similar groups, all looking for support. This comic shows a caricature of the kind of inbox that can result from this. The emails get more and more absurd as the list goes on. For example, the last one combines a request for campaign contributions with the infamous 'Nigerian prince' {{w|advance-fee scam}} emails.
 +
 
 +
==The emails==
  
 
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
 
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
Line 17: Line 20:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the…
 
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the…
|A key factor in the success of a fundraising campaign is the amount of the donation that is asked for or suggested. Even if the donor is ultimately free to donate whatever amount they want, the initial 'ask' can have a significant effect on the amount donated, due to the psychological effect of {{w|Anchoring (cognitive bias)|anchoring}}. Increasing the suggested amount may increase the amount of the average donation, but it may also put some people off donating altogether. Finding the sweetspot allows the fundraiser to maximize the income generated.
+
|A key factor in the success of a fundraising campaign is the amount of the donation that is asked for or suggested. Even if the donor is ultimately free to donate whatever amount they want, the initial 'ask' can have a significant effect on the amount donated, due to the psychological effect of {{w|Anchoring (cognitive bias)|anchoring}}. Increasing the suggested amount may increase the amount of the average donation, but it may also put some people off donating altogether. Finding the sweetspot allows the fundraiser to maximise the income generated.
  
 
Most modern bulk mailing platforms allow users send different versions of their emails to recipients at random. Using analytics packages, they can then determine which version of their messages is most effective at eliciting the desired result (such as making a purchase, reading a story, etc.) from recipients, or even from particular segments, and to refine future emails accordingly. Use of these techniques has resulted in fundraisers moving away from traditional 'round' numbers ($10, $25, etc.) to ask for more unusual looking amounts which increase the average amount donated, either by exploiting {{w|Psychological pricing|such effects}} as the "99 cent" phenomenon or giving those that ask an appearance of 'knowing what they're talking about' to give the potential donor the impression that they're good with details and wouldn't be overwhelmed by the pressures of being in office.
 
Most modern bulk mailing platforms allow users send different versions of their emails to recipients at random. Using analytics packages, they can then determine which version of their messages is most effective at eliciting the desired result (such as making a purchase, reading a story, etc.) from recipients, or even from particular segments, and to refine future emails accordingly. Use of these techniques has resulted in fundraisers moving away from traditional 'round' numbers ($10, $25, etc.) to ask for more unusual looking amounts which increase the average amount donated, either by exploiting {{w|Psychological pricing|such effects}} as the "99 cent" phenomenon or giving those that ask an appearance of 'knowing what they're talking about' to give the potential donor the impression that they're good with details and wouldn't be overwhelmed by the pressures of being in office.
Line 27: Line 30:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Washington is broken.''' When I win, I'll look those other senators in the eye and tell them: "Jobs." Then I…
 
|'''Washington is broken.''' When I win, I'll look those other senators in the eye and tell them: "Jobs." Then I…
|This email, apparently from a candidate for the US Senate, takes a common populist approach of repeating particular phrases to imply that they will stand up for the interests of the common people against a system that is rigged against them, without giving any meaningful indication of what they intend to achieve. Not only is the mere statement of "jobs", without any kind of explanation of what problems they believe there are, or what they suggest doing about it, entirely unhelpful, they also seem to suggest that, despite them being elected, it would be everybody else's responsibility to solve it.
+
|This email, apparently from a candidate for the US Senate, takes a common right-wing populist approach of repeating various {{w|Dog-whistle_politics|dog-whistle}} phrases to imply that they will stand up for the interests of the common people against a system that is rigged against them, without giving any meaningful indication of what they intend to achieve. Not only is the mere statement of "jobs", without any kind of explanation of what problems they believe there are, or what they suggest doing about it, entirely unhelpful, they also seem to suggest that, despite them being elected, it would be everybody else's responsibility to solve it.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Hopeless.''' It's bad. Really bad. If you don't chip in now, the darkness spreading across the land will…
 
|'''Hopeless.''' It's bad. Really bad. If you don't chip in now, the darkness spreading across the land will…
Line 40: Line 43:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|When Amy decided to run for Congress, I was like "Huh?" but I checked Wikipedia, and apparently it's a branch of…
 
|When Amy decided to run for Congress, I was like "Huh?" but I checked Wikipedia, and apparently it's a branch of…
|The first few words here might suggest the writer is about to explain how, having initially been skeptical, Amy's inspirational message and/or character has won them over to her campaign. This kind of message is used to make a candidate seem relatable and credible. In fact, though, they just didn't know what she was talking about, as they didn't know what Congress was. Since they clearly don't know much about the subject, this would fail to lend the weight it is aiming to.
+
|The first few words here might suggest the writer is about to explain how, having initially been sceptical, Amy's inspirational message and/or character has won them over to her campaign. This kind of message is used to make a candidate seem relatable and credible. In fact, though, they just didn't know what she was talking about, as they didn't know what Congress was. Since they clearly don't know much about the subject, this would fail to lend the weight it is aiming to.
  
 
Furthermore, while a familiar tone could also be part of a communication strategy to make the message seem relatable, this takes it to an extreme that would probably come across as unprofessional and lacking in seriousness.
 
Furthermore, while a familiar tone could also be part of a communication strategy to make the message seem relatable, this takes it to an extreme that would probably come across as unprofessional and lacking in seriousness.
Line 54: Line 57:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Wow.''' Have you seen this video of the squirrel obstacle course? Incredible! Anyway, I'm running because I…
 
|'''Wow.''' Have you seen this video of the squirrel obstacle course? Incredible! Anyway, I'm running because I…
|A typical form of {{w|clickbait}}. (Don't read another table entry until you've followed that link! Reference #10 will shock you). It is not a reference to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFZFjoX2cGg the Mark Rober squirrel obstacle course], a video that was released two years after this comic came out, but it may reference [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWU0bfo-bSY this now-private video].
+
|A typical form of {{w|clickbait}}. (Don't read another table entry until you've followed that link! Reference #10 will shock you). It also may be referencing the Mark Rober squirrel obstacle course, which was a widespread video at the time of this publishing.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Outrageous.''' Granted, this was a few years ago, but did you hear what President Ford said about…
 
|'''Outrageous.''' Granted, this was a few years ago, but did you hear what President Ford said about…
|When a politician makes an offensive comment, it's common for the politician's opponents to send out fundraising emails pointing out the politician's offensiveness as a way of generating donations to the fight against them. Political strategists will often keep dossiers of such remarks to be used when needed in campaigning season. More recently, there has been a trend for trawling opponents' social media accounts for controversial comments they may have made several years previously, or even as a youth. Here, the sender's reaction and e-mail fundraising effort appears to be unusually delayed, as it refers to an alleged comment by {{w|Gerald Ford}} (potentially a reference to his infamous gaffe that there was "no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe"), whose term as President of the United States ended in 1977 and who died in 2006.
+
|When a politician makes an offensive comment, it's common for the politician's opponents to send out fundraising emails pointing out the politician's offensiveness as a way of generating donations to the fight against them. Political strategists will often keep dossiers of such remarks to be used when needed in campaigning season. More recently, there has been a trend for trawling opponents' social media accounts for controversial comments they may have made several years previously, or even as a youth. Here, the sender's reaction and e-mail fundraising effort appears to be unusually delayed, as it refers to an alleged comment by {{w|Gerald Ford}}, whose term as President of the United States ended in 1977 and who died in 2006.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Whoops.''' Due to a typo, we spent months running attack ads against Tom Hanks. Now, we need to make up for…
 
|'''Whoops.''' Due to a typo, we spent months running attack ads against Tom Hanks. Now, we need to make up for…
|The email apologizes for running months of attack ads against American actor {{w|Tom Hanks}}. Hanks is generally a popular and uncontroversial figure with [http://archive.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/01/06/nice_guy_tom_hanks/ a reputation] for being [https://www.ranker.com/list/tom-hanks-was-the-best/lisa-waugh nice and likable in person], making him an unusual target for attack ads. This implies that the sender does not even know who their opponent is, and has mistakenly targeted the wrong person, demonstrating some significant ignorance and incompetence.
+
|The email apologises for running months of attack ads against American actor {{w|Tom Hanks}}. Hanks is generally a popular and uncontroversial figure with [http://archive.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/01/06/nice_guy_tom_hanks/ a reputation] for being [https://www.ranker.com/list/tom-hanks-was-the-best/lisa-waugh nice and likable in person], making him an unusual target for attack ads. This implies that the sender does not even know who their opponent is, and has mistakenly targeted the wrong person, demonstrating some significant ignorance and incompetence.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''They say we can't win—'''that we're "underdogs" with "no money" who "lost the election last week." But they don't…
 
|'''They say we can't win—'''that we're "underdogs" with "no money" who "lost the election last week." But they don't…
Line 86: Line 89:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|The establishment doesn't take us seriously. You know who else they didn't take seriously? Hitler. I'll be like him, but a GOOD guy instead of… (title text)
 
|The establishment doesn't take us seriously. You know who else they didn't take seriously? Hitler. I'll be like him, but a GOOD guy instead of… (title text)
|A candidate who {{tvtropes|HitlerAteSugar|compares}} himself to {{w|Hitler}}, even when promising to be GOOD instead, will probably not get many votes. The title text does however conform to {{w|Godwin's law}}.
+
|A candidate who compares himself to {{w|Hitler}}, even when promising to be GOOD instead, will probably not get many votes. The title text does however conform to {{w|Godwin's law}}.
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 111: Line 114:
  
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
 
[[Category:Politics]]
 
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Adolf Hitler]]
+
[[Category:Comics featuring Hitler]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)