Mellman: Efficiency vs. sufficiency in political campaigning

Ever since economic thinking captured the public mind in the 18th century, efficiency has been a prime preoccupation of nearly every organization. 

As Americans were declaring their independence in 1776, Scottish economist Adam Smith was explaining how pin makers would be vastly more productive by dividing the manufacturing process into separate steps performed by different workers, than by having each worker construct a whole and finished product. 

Smith popularized the idea of efficiency which was quickly enshrined as a preeminent goal for business, government and eventually for the nonprofit sector.  

Much of what we do in campaigns is driven by the demand for increased efficiency.  

To take one simple example, targeting is all about efficiency. If we don’t waste money communicating with people who are not going to vote for us no matter what, we’re being more efficient.  

We can and do calculate the relative efficiency of TV, radio, digital, mail and other forms of communication. 

But in the winner-take-all world of political campaigns, efficiency doesn’t always deserve pride-of-place. 

Sufficiency is often more important. 

As noted above, a campaign’s targets are often defined, in effect, as the group it’s most efficient to persuade. 

However, if your target group plus your base add up to 45 percent in a two-person race, you’re going to need to find some less efficient targets if you plan to win.  

Politics is not about maximizing profits — where efficiency is vital. Rather, it’s about getting more votes than the other side.  

To illustrate the point more fully I’ll do what consultants are regularly accused of not doing — referencing a race we lost. 

Christy Smith, a former state assemblywoman, was a wonderful candidate who lost to incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Garcia by 6 points. 

Our campaign was enormously efficient. Steve Barkan produced extraordinary mail. Fifteen pieces each went to about 100,000 voters, specifically selected to be likely swing voters.  

By contrast the Garcia campaign and its GOP allies were profligate spenders, putting $4.6 million on broadcast television in the Los Angeles media market. 

Just how inefficient is that? The L.A. market is home to some 17 million people, of whom fewer than 750,000 live in the Smith-Garcia district. So, nearly 96 percent of the $4.6 million the GOP spent was wasted on people who don’t even live in the district. 

Dave Jacobson and Mac Zilber produced outstanding ads for Christy, some of which aired on cable but, together with its allies, the Smith forces spent less than $200,000 on broadcast television. 

Smith was much more efficient but woefully insufficient. Garcia was horribly inefficient, but sufficient. 

This was not a choice for the Smith campaign, it was a reality imposed on it. Smith, who had to spend to win a primary, simply didn’t have allies willing and able to spend $5 million to support her candidacy.  

If the campaign had spent its entire mail budget on broadcast television, it would not have only been inefficient, it would also have been insufficient to make a dent, given the cost of the Los Angeles television. 

Closely related to notions of efficiency is the so-called “point of diminishing returns” about which I’m asked regularly. “Have we reached the point of diminishing returns with our TV? Our mail?” Etc. 

In our context, diminishing returns is the point at which each additional dollar of spending results in fewer additional votes. 

Truth be told, given the role of partisanship in our politics, in general elections, the point of diminishing returns arrives with the first dollar spent after getting on the ballot with a “D” or “R” next to a candidate’s name. 

Candidates get, by far, the largest number of votes for just getting on the ballot. Each dollar spent after that has diminishing returns. 

But we shouldn’t really care so much about diminishing returns. 

If every vote until the last two we needed to win cost $5 million, while those last two victory-producing votes would cost another $10 million, that’s a vast decrease in returns. But would we say, “No. It’s just not worth it?” 

Of course not. If we had the money, we’d spend it to win, no matter how rapidly the returns are diminishing.  

Efficiency is important but usually pales in comparison to sufficiency. 

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.