2010 is shaping up to have a number of tight political races.  The Wisconsin Governor’s race will likely be one of them.  A very important component of any political campaign these days is how well the web is utilized.

In this post, I take a look at the websites of each of the three candidates, Scott Walker, Mark Neumann, and Tom Barrett, and evaluate them based on their homepage performance, promoting email signups, usage of video, and available supporter tools and resources.

First, a quick overview of the candidates’ domains:

• Scott Walker: ScottWalker.org – Has held and used this domain since 1999.  Announced run on April 28, 2009
• Mark Neumann: MarkForGov.com – Announced run on September 8, 2009 with traffic data for the site showing as starting in July of 2009.
• Tom Barrett:  BarrettForWisconsin.com – Launched February 18th, 2010 (very late) – Announced run on November 15, 2009.

Compete.com Data

Barrett clearly has some catching up to do, however the data indicates the race (at least in terms of site unique visitors) is narrowing.

Unique visitors in month of January

• Walker: 4,052
• Neumann: 3,651
• Barrett: 1,251

HOMEPAGE
In this section I take a look at the homepage of each site and outline positives and negatives.

Walker

Positives

• On entry, an overlay prompts the user to sign up for email updates.  A cookie is placed on your computer and the site remembers you so you aren’t bothered every time you visit the site with the signup form.
• High up on the page is a list of the ways a supporter can take action and a call to create your own “spot” (more on supporter tools and resources below).
• The “What’s Your Take?” section highlights recent comments from site visitors.  This is a good way to grab the attention of site visitors.  See the “Negatives” section below for more.

Negatives

• The prominence and size of the callout for “MyScottSpot.org” does not match its importance.  This is one of, if not the most important call to action of the site.
• Within the video/presentation area, there are only three frames and each includes a quote and a photo of a citizen with a concern.  Upon clicking these, a page merely reiterates the quote and presents you with another link to “See what Scott says about [topic].”  One would think that there is a video associated with these callouts featuring the citizens concerns.  The actual content is a bit underwhelming.
• There is a video player integrated within the homepage, however it is too small to expect someone to watch the video in this space.  It would make more sense to incorporate the videos in the main presentation area above.
• The “What’s Your Take” section only displays three handpicked comments.  It initially appears as if your comment may immediately be submitted to the site, however this is not the case.  It’s understandable why the campaign wouldn’t want comments posted directly, but the site shouldn’t give the impression that it accommodates this action.
• There’s a “Breaking News” section, however it’s very far down the page in small font.  Easy to miss.

Neumann

Positives

• The site elevates where you can find the candidate across the major social media properties very high on the page.  They take the most prominent position of all the candidates’ sites.
• The main presentation area on the homepage is well-designed and does a great job of calling out the key areas of the site and the tools available to supporters.  A much better job is done here than on the Walker site.
• Next to the presentation area, the site includes a photo of the candidate and a quick summary of why he’s running.  The Barrett site takes a similar approach.  More effective than the hand/card graphic on the Walker site.
• The “How Can I Help?” section in the right column clearly and succinctly summarizes available features coupled with recognizable icons.
• Instead of a pseudo comments section, Neumann showcases the latest from his blog.  This is a good approach, however see the Negatives section below.

Negatives

• The sign-in form for the user account area should be much higher on the page, perhaps as a permanent spot in the header.  Yes, there is a “Login” link up there, but it’s easily missed.
• Even though “Contribute Now” belongs in a prominent place, it should be preceded by at least a sentence or two enticing the user to take that step.  Clickthrough rates would likely increase.
• The blog section shows the entirety of each post.  This limits the ability of the user to scan the posts, read a quick summary and then decide which is worth clicking through to.  It’s easy for other posts pushed far lower on the page to be overlooked.
• Perhaps it was decided to show the full content of each blog post so some content was alongside the overly long series of callouts in the right column (8 in all).  If the blog posts were reduced to a title and summary, more room would be available to present these callouts in a more effective grid form.  Removal of redundancies would also help such as the “Endorse Mark Neumann,” which could be integrated within the “How Can I Help?” section.

Barrett

Positives

• The main navigation on this site is large, clear, and obvious.  Each button feels like a call to action in itself.  A strong point for a political candidate’s site.
• An email list is the lifeblood of any candidate, and the Barrett site calls out the signup form most prominently of the three sites.
• The initial frame of the presentation window includes a welcome video from the candidate.  Unlike the other two sites, you can watch this video right from the homepage in a window large enough for comfortable viewing.
• The presentation window’s frames are easily navigated and each includes a summary of call to action destination.
• The blog area lower on the page features each post’s title and summary, with a link to the detail.  This is better for presentation’s sake as well as for tracking of most popular posts.
• In general, the site is well-organized and easy to scan.  The homepage doesn’t attempt to cram in every conceivable callout.

Negatives

• Similar to Neumann’s site, the “Contribute” button would be more effective moved underneath the candidate’s photo and intro paragraph giving the user more of a reason to take action.
• The site does not summarize or callout the ways a supporter can get involved.  This may be because in general the options are limited compared to the other candidates (a rather big negative).  More on this in “Supporter Tools & Features” section below).

EMAIL MARKETING

Each candidate site is relatively similar in that they prominently call out the email signup form.  The Walker site is the most up front about this as mentioned previously, by greeting first-time users with an overlay.

After entering your email address, however, each takes a different approach in terms of gathering more information.

Walker

The Walker site requires confirmation of your email address in order to start receiving updates.  Obviously this was implemented to limit the amount of junk accounts created, but it creates an unnecessary level of friction for the user.  A better practice would allow the user to finalize their subscription and begin receiving messages right away.  The campaign could utilize behavioral targeting to force those who never open emails to validate their address later on.

Neumann

• Neumann smartly combines the email signup process with the ability to create an account at the same time.  The screen reiterates the email address.  The email address functions as the user name and a password can be selected and confirmed to create an account.
• It may not be clear to some however, what the, “publicly support and endorse” checkbox is actually for.  What will the campaign do with your information should you check this box?  A simple “What’s this?” which reveals an explanation would be helpful.
• After submitting the form, you’re directed straight to your account dashboard.  An email is sent to your address asking you to validate your email address; however this doesn’t prevent you from using the system.
• From the user account, you can specify in-depth the types of emails you want to receive. These range from general campaign updates to specific activity within the community such as friend requests, event and blog postings, and comments.

Barrett

The Barrett site unfortunately doesn’t prompt you to create an account, however it does introduce one feature the others don’t.  A check box at the bottom of the form reads, “Sign me up to receive text messages on my phone.”  Surprisingly, this is the only campaign utilizing mobile notifications.

VIDEO
Some observations regarding the candidates’ use of video:

Walker

• The tiny homepage video mentioned previously, is definitely a negative, and the main video page isn’t much better.  This page is simply a scrolling list of embedded YouTube players with a .wmv file at the bottom.  There is no way to share to easily share or bookmark individual videos other than the default embed/URL YouTube features.  The entire page can be shared via email but this is only moderately useful.
• Despite being able to boast the longest-lived website, there are only five videos.

Neumann

• Best practice dictates publishing videos on your site directly and integrating the content within the user account area.  When not possible, a fully-branded YouTube channel is a good second choice.
• The Neumann campaign’s YouTube channel integrates the website’s graphics as well as key calls to action such as to contribute or visit other social media profiles.  The channel’s profile information is filled out in detail and includes a “Why I’m Running for Governor” intro.  Well done overall.

Barrett

The Barrett site is sort of a hybrid between the other two in terms of video.   A single page on the site highlights only three videos with many of the same faults as the Walker site.  They do have a YouTube channel (pictured above), however little thought was given to integration of brand or overall look and feel.  The channel lacks an overview statement and calls to action.

SUPPORTER TOOLS & FEATURES
Each site featured tools and resources for supporters; however these differed significantly from site to site.

Walker

The Walker site offers tools both outside and inside the login.  Outside the login there are a series of universally accessible pages on the site under “Get Involved.”

• Volunteer: A simple signup form with check boxes for ways to help
• Social Networks: Basic directory of the social media profiles the campaign maintains
• Attend Events: This is a great feature which offers a detail page for each event and often a link to registration or more details.  Each event can be mailed to yourself or a friend
• Scott Walker Store:  Not a bad idea to make it easy to buy T-shirts, stickers, signs, and other merchandise to show your support.  This ecommerce store even handles paid event registration

The ability to create a “MyScottSpot.org” also exists and offers a very full-featured experience with innovative tools.

• Similar to LinkedIn’s “profile completeness” MyScottSpot measures “impact points” and plots where you are on the scale from being a new “Recruit” to becoming an “Operative.”  A page summarizes how their “Personal Impact Engine” is calculated.
• Your to-do items are summarized on the dashboard with each one displaying its potential score getting you closer to “Operative” status.
• Recent blog posts are summarized neatly in the right column.  The main site would benefit from this approach as well.
• Lower on the dashboard are recent comments separated by official comments and user comments.  You can post a comment any time, however there is a 500 character limit.
• You can form or join a team (by county) or recruit friends or create groups (no groups at time of review).
• You can RSVP for events or invite others (import contacts from your email system or select friends on Facebook).
• Repository of all media including documents, images, videos and audio
• Built-in feedback submission form available on any page

Neumann

The Neumann “Personal Dashboard” area is also very advanced and similar to the offerings of the Walker campaign.  From here a supporter can manage their profile, interact with other supporters, and learn of ways to get involved.  Features include:

• Invite friends: Includes pre-populated verbiage to make it easy to send.  Contacts can be selected via your own online email account, uploaded file, or manually added.
• Full profile management and summary including your recent blogs and events, groups you belong to, a summary statement of why you support the candidate and important issues.
• The ability to create a blog, share your posts, read others’, and search.
• Events are integrated within the account area along with RSVP capability, social media sharing tools, and even Google Maps integration!
• Groups:  None exist yet, however the system allows you to create one based on a variety of issues and start inviting your friends. (UPDATE: Some groups do exist however I missed this in the interface.  See comment thread below to read my recommendations for improvement.)
• Send and receive messages to/from the campaign and other supporters
• Fundraising: Create your own fundraising page, set financial goals and manage its content.  From there you can choose friends to invite and ask for their support.  Very impressive.
• Ability to search blog posts, team members and groups separately

Barrett

The Barrett campaign doesn’t offer an actual account, however there are dedicated pages under, “Take Action.”

• Contribute: A succinct and well-designed form allowing a supporter to quickly donate in pre-set amounts or “other.”
• A basic volunteer form which actually lacks suggestions for ways to participate.  Not good for those who want to help but need some specific ideas in order to convert.
• A separate “Join Our Campaign” form which doesn’t explain itself and is too similar to the “Volunteer” form.
• “Intern With the Campaign”:  A lot of details are provide here in terms of responsibilities.  This much thought should have been given to the “Volunteer” and “Join the Campaign” forms as well.

MY PICKS

Each of the three sites has strengths and weaknesses; some subtle, some glaring.  Of course, there are a number of other criteria one could review the sites by but are beyond the scope of a single blog post.  Here’s my take at scoring the sites based on the criteria discussed above (1-5 with 5 being highest):

YOUR THOUGHTS

As always, comments are encouraged.  In what ways do you think these sites excel or fail?  Please play nice, and keep the discussion focused on digital features and tactics, not politics.

Expert Review, Interactive Industry News & Events, Internet Marketing, Social Media Competitive Analysis, Internet Marketing, Mark Neumann, Political Website, Scott Walker, Social Media, Tom Barrett, User Interface Design, Wisconsin Governor's Race