Future Tense

Which Version of Donald Trump Got Donors to Part With Their Money?

An RNC memo about Trump’s website offers some clues.

RNC Performance, Optimization & Experiments Team (POET)

A group of Republican National Committee web wizards that ludicrously goes by the name POET (the Performance, Optimization & Experiments Team) has published a memo summarizing the more than 300 A/B and multivariate tests it ran on Donald Trump’s website during his presidential campaign. The tests were designed to find out which visual and verbal elements on the site were most conducive to inveigling users into making donations. Together, the results paint a picture of the version of Trump that his supporters most wanted to see: sunny side up, apparently, and hold the Pence.

The memo is standard fare for a high-level political campaign, one Obama 2012 veteran tells me, but it’s surprising to see such a thing shared out in the open. Perhaps it’s a boast. Obama’s campaign was panegyrized for its digital sophistication. The frequency, variety, and subtlety of these experiments suggest that Republicans may be catching up (though Dems, reluctant to tip their hand, also haven’t released their own data, and it’s always possible that this cache of secrets is in fact a big, fake red-state herring). POET writes that it divided its efforts into three categories: “low-hanging fruit to increase user engagement,” or how to minimize friction for those visiting the site; “bringing the Trump brand to his web properties,” or framing Trump in the most palatable way; and “optimizing and iterating on ideas across audiences,” or parsing how different users interacted with the online forum. A few preliminary observations below.

Here’s one about the makeup of the task force:

This result isn’t especially political, but it does point to a possible synergy between our unconscious symbolism around money and the wish to donate: Visitors to DonaldJTrump.com were beguiled by the color green. Specifically, when the “contribute” button was accented with green rather than red or blue, POET reported more revenue and a “30 percent lift to conversion.” 

Green is a hopeful color, and visitors to the site also responded most enthusiastically to images that made them feel happy and optimistic. When the web designers compared a splash header of Trump giving two thumbs up in full color with one of Trump, dour and in black and white, readying himself to go onstage, the first image inspired more donations: $1.34 per visitor, rather than $0.89. A similar principle animated POET’s decision to use a grinning, thumbs-up Trump as a background photograph, rather than snaps of Trump gazing determinedly ahead, speechifying, or grimly buttoning his jacket. Merry Trump earned $1.55 per visitor, compared with $1.21, $1.12, and $0.77 for the more solemnly rousing tableaus. Americans seem to prefer their fascists jaunty.  

RNC Performance, Optimization & Experiments Team (POET)

Likewise, users wanted to feel personally involved in the #MAGA movement. An impressive but forbidding image of Trump striding down the tarmac, flanked by his entourage, underperformed by 15.97 percent (only $1.06 per visitor) next to what POET described as a more explicit, inclusive call to action, which earned $1.23 per visitor. This second option consisted of a “ticket” inviting the audience to “donate to see your name on our official debate page” and a further exhortation to “power the Trump train!”

RNC Performance, Optimization & Experiments Team (POET)

Also, these buoyant and sunbeamy visitors were far more eager to cheer on Trump than to shit on Hillary Clinton. A photograph of Trump, once again in full color, with his hand over his heart attracted almost twice as many contributions ($13.13 per visitor versus $7.19) as a witchy, shadowy portrait of his competitor.

RNC Performance, Optimization & Experiments Team (POET)

In terms of messaging, Trump supporters liked the word win. (By that metric alone, they were backing the right candidate.) They also thrilled to multiple invocations of the word people. The effusive sentences “The Final Debate was a win for the American people. Together, we will once again make a government by, for, and of the people!” charmed more potential donors than “Together, we will once again make a government by, for, and of the people!” Option one secured a 20.35 percent lift over option two.

Who are these folks who thirsted to see Trump smiling and successful, rather than Trump glowering or Hillary villainized? And who yearned most of all to participate in something bigger than themselves? It turns out they also enjoyed being bossed around. On the page soliciting contributions for Trump’s “DONOR WALL,” the assertive copy “I want to see your name” outstripped both the anemic, Avril Lavigne–reminiscent “I’m with you” and the tentative “Will your name be there?” (“I’m With You” was intended to conjure Clinton’s “I’m With Her,” a slogan similarly devoid of personality or memorableness.)

Similarly, the mix of bossy command and solidarity in “Join Team Trump!” liberated slightly more dollars ($0.32 per visitor) than the descriptive purity of “Team Trump-Pence” ($0.28 per visitor) and “Trump-Pence Ticket” ($0.31 per visitor).

On the other hand, users weren’t transported by lofty, metaphysical sentiments like “I Am Your Voice.” They preferred even the bland “I’m With You,” donating $1.08 per visitor compared with $0.73 when the first slogan was presented. And they seemed to wish to keep things fun and roll-up-your-sleeves casual: “I’m in” rather than “Sign up.”

Trump’s family—which implies a human side to the candidate—has always helped burnish his image. POET discovered in one test that a video featuring Ivanka increased contributions by 12.06 percent, but images of Pence sandbagged them by 16.08 percent. In the second case, the control photograph featured Don Jr., not his dad, but it’s also worth noting that none of the background or header images over multiple tests that happened to contain Pence “won” their standoffs with shots that left him out.

Yet the booklet also charted a slow souring of passions among Trump’s audience. POET explains that presented with the slogans “Drain the Swamp,” “Thank You,” “Win Back America,” and “I’m With You,” users initially didn’t respond to “Drain the Swamp” at all. “Traffic was filtered off,” they write. As the mood of the election darkened into October, however, and the time-sensitive “Thank You” was struck from the menu, “Drain the Swamp” took the lead, significantly outperforming “I’m With You” and “Win Back America.” In a booklet that mostly acquaints us with people drawn to positivity, participation, relatableness, and cheerful pragmatism, that tiny shred of vindictiveness convinces me that I haven’t completely hallucinated the past two years.