3 ms·
I've been the sole "tech guy" on a few campaigns over the years; it was mind blowing to see call time, my first time around. I spent several days asking other c
by craftinator 7y ago
I've been the sole "tech guy" on a few campaigns over the years; it was mind blowing to see call time, my first time around. I spent several days asking other campaign officers why I couldn't just automate it; dialing, doing the money ask, collecting donation information, all totally automatable. I was told a number of reasons, with the overarching theme being that the more human effort went into it, the better the outcome would be. The people doing the calls had been at it for years, had a system, and didn't want the disruption caused by automation. They would work better if it was their job start to finish.
It is a bit Ludite in nature, but when I beta tested an autodialing system, the person making the calls seemed more surprised, less ready for the call, and had less immediate knowledge about who they were calling. The act of scrolling through the list, identifying the next viable name (and reading all of the information we had about that person), dialing the number, etc, gave the caller time to mentally prepare and digest what they knew about the person they soon would be speaking to. They were more engaging during the ask, and overall were more successful.
- dccoolgai 7y agoKind of missing the point. Call time is about "access" to the candidate. Most large campaigns already have call center operations for low-dollar donors. Donors that max out do so because they have the candidate's attention for a period of time. Not possible to automate (and automating it would defeat the purpose).
- craftinator 7y agoAh thanks for the correction! I misunderstood the article's description of "call time" as a synonym for "call bank", as it consists of volunteers calling and asking for donations. I can see how automation is not feasible with this definition.