RickSantorum.com: Strong Communicator, But Use and Design Could be Better

Michael Turk | March 15, 2006 - 5:38pm | Email This!

We’re going from the highest profile candidate on the left to the highest profile candidate on the right. I kicked off the Campaign Website Review looking at Hillary Clinton’s online campaign vehicle. I’ve received some really positive feedback and heard some folks within Hillary’s camp took it to heart. I started this as a way to offer constructive criticism without a partisan tilt, so I’m glad they enjoyed it (assuming the rumors are true).
The last review also pointed out a hole in my own armor. Some determined readers tracked me down to point out the link to my contact form on my personal blog was broken. It’s all fixed now, though, so fire away. To give you some fodder, I’m tackling my first GOP candidate this time around. Again, the scoring is based on six criteria. Each component will get a separate score and the average will yield the sites overall score. The six criteria are:

• Appearance
• Communication
• Depth of Content
• Mobilization
• Technology
• Usability

Since Rick Santorum is the prime target for the left in 2006, it makes since to start there. This is made somewhat harder by the fact that Rick’s online guru, Mindy Finn, is my former deputy at the RNC and managed all of our e-mail for the Bush campaign. She’s incredibly talented and Rick is lucky to have her. I have to be honest about the site, however, so hopefully she’ll still talk to me afterward.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/
Appearance: 

This is probably the hardest place to start. It really is the site’s weakest component. Assessing a web site’s appearance is a lot like judging art – different things appeal to different people. I like the works of Lichtenstein, but my wife hates him. She’s more of a Monet person. This site appeals to some, but I’m not a huge fan. It’s for that reason I have usability broken out separately. There is a difference between visually appealing and useful. I may not be a fan of Rick’s site, but I did find it fairly easy to navigate (with the exceptions noted below).
There are a lot of components on the site that I really like – the widgets for instance. I’m glad the widgets don’t extend to the back pages, though. I especially like the running mates widget. I think it’s great that they have included a running tally of their internal goals on the home page. I also like the countdown clock – it adds a sense of urgency.
I’m not excited about the GPS looking thing in the lower right, and the placement of the navigation. I’m not a guy that likes to scroll, so I prefer my navigation horizontal and right at the top. Drop downs are fine, but please don’t make me look for the navigation (more on that later).

Appearance rating: 

3

Depth of content: 

I’m really impressed by the content. Rick’s agenda features a nice issue by issue breakdown of what he stands for. I also like the record of accomplishment that can be viewed by issue or by locality. Having the ability to see what Rick means to your county really brings home the message that a candidate is working for everyone. While the libertarian in me isn’t too excited about seeing all the tax dollars he brought back home, that sort of thing does play well with folks at home. They like to know they’re Senator is taking care of their neighborhood.
To that end, the site allows you to drill down into county level information in a number of places. It’s a nice touch.
Unlike Hillary, Santorum employs a blog. Though he follows the RNC model and makes you sign up before you can comment, the blog does allow interaction, and I’m pleased to see more GOPers following that model. I’m a big fan of open discussion when it serves a campaign’s strategic goal. One of the knocks on Rick has been his ties to lobbyists. Allowing discussion opens the site to the guy on the street. That decision, while not likely to make or break the campaign, sends a subtle message that can help in small part to blunt the lobbyist attack.

Depth of content rating: 

5

Usability: 

This score would be higher if the navigation on the home page was located higher up. It would eliminate the scrolling that’s required to get to the nav options. Once you’re off the home page, the navigation returns to a standard left side list with expanded dropouts for subsections - which saved a point. Unfortunately, the vast majority of a site’s traffic may never move beyond the home page, so their impression of the site’s utility may be based largely on their ability to find the hidden navigation – if they don’t scroll, they’re not likely to dig deeper.
On a positive note, just about every page allows for a printer friendly version as well as a “Send to Friends” function. I’m a big believer in viral marketing and the more options you have to spread the message the better. In addition, there are a lot of “friendly” touches that stand out. For instance, the search functions on the news room allow you to filter results to specific document types; many of the sites functions allow you to narrow by county, and several of the key pages allow you to download a pdf for easy distribution.

Usability rating: 

3

Technology: 

Do enough business with GOP vendors and you can pick their work out of a line up. The site has the unmistakable marks of New Media Communications. What that means is a .Net framework capable of doing quite a lot. The guys at New Media are also big believers in the power of geography, so it’s not a surprise that so much of the site is coded by county. I don’t have a PA address, but I suspect their e-mail is targeted by county and capable of delivering some very carefully targeted messages.
The Santorum camp does some interesting things that take the standard fare for NMC clients and kick them up a notch (to quote Emeril). As an example, most NMC sites now feature the action center, and many allow you to see the number of actions you’ve taken. Santorum goes one better with their running mate widget. Running Mates have the ability to toggle between the overall progress and their personal contribution. It really highlights your involvement in the campaign’s goals.

Technology rating: 

4

Communication: 

Communication is usually the hallmark of well run (read: heavily managed) GOP campaigns. Santorum is no exception. His site is vigorously on message. He and Hillary both get points for their ability to stay on message and keep their site fresh, but Rick gets the extra point for having a blog and updating it frequently. They may miss a day occasionally, but generally update 4 or 5 times per day. It’s a campaign blog, so the content is “all campaign, all the time”, but that’s to be expected.
Some may view the rigid control of message as a bad thing and urge more openness. I disagree. Campaigns are about winning; and winning candidates stay on message.

Communication rating: 

5

Mobilization: 

Santorum’s action center is really good. The opportunities for volunteer action are featured prominently, and as I mentioned above, the ability to track your progress within the overall progress is great. A lot of campaigns are afraid to let volunteers see their internal benchmarks, so it’s good to see Santorum being bold. He’ll need that kind of thinking in this tough race.
I did deduct a half-point (next thing you know I’ll be like an Olympic judge screwing around with tenths of a point for artistic merit). Elections are ultimately decided by votes, not the number of volunteers recruited or the dollars raised (though dollars certainly help with the other two). The Action Center lists voter registration, and it’s in the left nav, but it’s below the fold on both and loses its place in the “gauges” to the election clock. I’d really like to see it given more prominence. Having it below the fold and tucked away with “Shopping the Santorum Store” trivializes the registration of new voters at a time in the cycle when that is most important.

Mobilization rating: 

4.5

Conclusion: 

Santorum does a good job online. There are a couple of weak spots in an otherwise really solid presentation. I’m not crazy about the unusual structure, what I’ll call “misplaced” navigation, and some of the action center priorities. However, the site communicates really well, allows for a lot of targeting to the individual, and runs on a very robust platform.
Competing at this level, a website needs to do a lot more than it would if you were running for local office. Santorum and Clinton, as the two candidates most watched during this cycle, have both done a good job with their sites. They’ve invested significant resources in their online efforts because the world is watching.
Next time out, we’ll look at some less visible sites to see how the other half live.