Political Software Wars
And Why Bi-Partisan Vendors Are Bad for You
It looks like there is a new political CRM software war afoot.The numb of the disagreement is, should a campaign use a partisan or bi-partisan vendor?I made my position pretty clear back in April when I wrote,
if you are a bi-partisan company, you are taking Republican revenues to make advances to your product in ways that could be used by Democratic campaigns and visa-versa. Literally, the fees your are paying this campaign season could be used to improve the product for your competitor in 2014.
This alone makes me very uncomfortable.
Does a bi-partisan company really care if you win or lose if they are providing services to your competitor? By choosing a partisan vendor, you are assuring yourself that their interests are very closely aligned to your own. Not only are they serving you in exchange for fees but it is important to the partisan vendor that you win your race.
The newest battle has broken out between Netroots Nation, NationBuilder and NGP VAN.Here is the issue in a nutshell. NationBuilder is a non-partison startup that builds an interesting community management tool. The founders of NationBuilder have Democratic backgrounds but they recently started serving a large conservitive organization. Netroots protested to their liberal commuity and advocated that Democrats don't use a bi-partisan product.Netroot's protests provoked a response from NationBuilder who felt that they were being harassed by the Democratic software vendors, primarily NPG VAN. The folks at NGP VAN have responded with a post in E.politics.Here is why the partisan vs non-partisan conversation is significant:For downticket races, finance directors make many of their decisions based on short-term self interest rather than political ethics. They are looking for the most cost effective product to get the job done now, rather than spending their campaign dollars in a way that will benifit themselves over the long run.This short-term self interest consumption tendency has been recently studied by Giana Eckhardt, associate professor at Suffolk University when she looked at Zipcar customers. Her premise was that Zipcar customers would be characterized as pro-social, environmentally-conscientious consumer.What she found was the exact opposite. In reality, Zipcar customers treated the cars as super cheap rental cars. They didn't value the cars but thought of them as only inexpensive transportation and a band-aid until the consumer could afford a car of their own. The environment and pro-social ethics never entered their thought process.How does this relate back to the political service purchaser? Local campaigns often do not recognize the political/ethical ramifications behind their vendor choices. They don't realize that their decisions are not taking place in a vacuum.Think of a bi-partisan vendor like an arms dealer. They don't care who buys their weapons or where the weapons are aimed. They are just happy there is a war on and they will do all they can to promote battle... "hey your opponent just bough 6 of our cannons, you might want to buy 10 cannons."The bi-partisan vendor is incented to escalate a conflict whereas a partisan vendor can be a trusted member of your team.By using a partisan vendor, you have a partner who you can trust and who you can work with to innovate tactics and solutions that will hope both you and your party. You will never see your innovations from this cycle used against you next cycle.As I stated in April,
By choosing a partisan vendor, you are assuring yourself that their interests are very closely aligned to your own. Not only are they serving you in exchange for fees but it is important to the partisan vendor that you win your race.
If you intend to be more than a one term candidate, be very cognoscente of where your vendors allegiances lie. Politics is all about relationships. Make sure you are looking at the long game.