Nov 3, 2009 5:45 pm US/Eastern
Are Robocalls Really Effective?
BOSTON (WBZ) ―
"Hi is this Vicki? This is Sam Yoon."
As he works an election day phone bank for mayoral hopeful Michael Flaherty, what Sam Yoon says next is telling.
"And it really is me, it's not one of those automated phone calls."
As Yoon told this reporter, "It always gets a chuckle. Because I think people get a lot of these phone calls."
They're called robocalls - recorded messages that go out to tens of thousands of households.
The Flaherty campaign used one recorded by veteran Boston newsman Jack Hynes, himself a mayor's son.
Mayor Menino's campaign used one featuring former President Bill Clinton.
Walking in the South End, Diana Clotter said, "It's been messages after messages after messages for me to vote."
Added Ibrahim Ali Salaam, "It gets old quickly."
Suzanne from West Roxbury is annoyed and
curious.
In an email, she asked WBZ:
"Do candidates really think this is an effective way to reach the people? I'm not voting for you (or any of your friends) if you call me with an automated message!"
"Well, look they're a fairly inexpensive way to do some mass, if you will, wholesale politicking," said political analyst Paul Watanabe of the UMass McCormack Institute.
He doubts the calls change any votes, but says their reinforcing effect might outweigh the nuisance factor.
In fact, a Flaherty campaign official says a 40,000-to-60,000 household robocall typically generates just 20 to 40 calls from voters who want to be taken off their list.
On election day, both mayoral camps abandoned "robo" for "real" callers, hoping the human touch might swing a few final votes.
What do you think?
Join the convesation in our Declare Your Curiosity blog.
(© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Click to enlarge
Stumble It!
Reporting
Comments