There are two ways to run a texting program. One treats the list as people you're in a relationship with. The other treats it as a target to fire generic blasts at. They look similar from the send button and produce opposite results. Here's the difference, and how to make sure you're doing the first one.
Texting AT them
Texting at your voters means one message, to everyone, on your schedule, about what you want to say. No segmentation, no acknowledgment of who the person is or where they stand, no reason the message matters to them specifically, just broadcast after broadcast until people tune out or opt out. It feels efficient, and it slowly kills the list, because a stream of generic, sender-centered messages trains people to ignore you.
Texting WITH them
Texting your voters means the message fits the person. A segmented send that speaks to a supporter differently than a persuadable. Timing that respects their day. Content that gives them something, information, a genuine update, a reason to care, not just another ask. Two-way where it counts, so a reply is heard and answered rather than shouted past. It's more work, and it's the difference between a list that responds and a list that decays.
How to tell which you're doing
Look at your last ten sends. Did every subscriber get the identical message regardless of who they are? Was every message an ask or a demand, with nothing given? Did anyone who replied get a real response? If your program is all broadcast, all ask, all one-direction, you're texting at people, and your open and response rates will show it over time as the list fatigues.
The takeaway
The channel is intimate, a text lands in the same place as messages from friends and family, and people extend or withdraw that intimacy based on how you use it. Text at them and you squander it. Text with them, fit the message to the person, give before you ask, listen when they answer, and the list stays alive and turns out when you need it. Same tool, opposite outcomes.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between texting your voters and texting at them?
Texting at them is one generic message to everyone, all broadcast and all ask, on your schedule. Texting your voters fits the message to the person, gives value, respects timing, and answers replies. The first decays the list; the second keeps it responsive.
How do I know if I'm texting at people?
Review your last ten sends. If everyone got the identical message, every message was an ask, and replies went unanswered, you're texting at them, and fatigue will show in falling engagement.
Why does it matter so much in texting specifically?
Because a text lands where messages from friends and family do, an intimate space people grant or withdraw based on how you treat it. Misuse it and you lose the access that makes the channel powerful.
The channel is intimate; treat it that way. See how to segment your texting list.
Keep reading: Reciprocity in fundraising texts and the anatomy of a great political text.