Cost per vote, the money spent to produce one additional vote, is the metric that cuts through channel debates. It lets a campaign compare texting to mail, calls, and ads on a common basis: not what a channel costs, but what it costs to actually move a vote. Texting usually looks strong on this measure, but only when it's done right, and several traps can quietly inflate it. Here's how to think about it.
What is cost per vote?
It's total spend on a tactic divided by the additional votes it produced, the real bottom line of a voter-contact investment. A channel can be cheap per message and expensive per vote if it doesn't move many, or pricey per contact but efficient per vote if it converts well. Cost per vote is hard to measure precisely, because attributing votes to a tactic is difficult, but it's the right frame even when it's an estimate, because it measures the outcome you're buying, not the activity. See measuring ROI.
Why is texting's cost per vote usually favorable?
Because texting is cheap to send and effective at the turnout job where cost per vote is measured. It reaches a large opted-in universe at low per-message cost, and it excels at mobilizing already-supportive voters, exactly where a small lift across many people produces votes efficiently. Compared to a mailer that costs far more per contact or a canvass that costs more per door, a well-run texting program often produces additional votes at a lower cost. That efficiency is much of why campaigns invest in it.
What inflates texting's cost per vote?
The same failures that waste money generally:
- Filtered sends. You pay for messages that never arrive, so they cost money and produce zero votes, inflating cost per vote sharply.
- Bought lists. Non-consented lists convert poorly and draw complaints, spending money for few votes.
- Poor targeting. Blasting people who'd vote anyway, or who never would, spends without producing marginal votes.
- Over-texting. Burning the list spends money shrinking the asset that produces votes.
Each of these raises the denominator's cost without adding votes.
How do you keep it low?
Optimize for votes that wouldn't otherwise happen. Target the persuadable and the low-propensity, where a text can actually change whether someone votes, rather than the certain voters where you'd get the vote regardless. Keep the program compliant and deliverable so you're not paying for filtered sends, and measure so you can tell what's working. The campaigns with the best cost per vote aren't the cheapest senders, they're the ones whose sends actually move votes, which is the whole point.
Frequently asked questions
What is cost per vote?
Total spend on a tactic divided by the additional votes it produced, the real bottom line of a voter-contact investment. It measures the outcome you're buying, not the activity, and lets you compare channels honestly.
Is texting cost-effective per vote?
Usually, when done right. Texting is cheap to send and effective at mobilizing supporters, where cost per vote is measured, so a small lift across a large opted-in universe produces votes efficiently compared to mail or canvassing.
What inflates texting's cost per vote?
Filtered sends you pay for but that produce no votes, bought lists that convert poorly, poor targeting that reaches people who'd vote anyway or never would, and over-texting that burns the list. Each spends money without adding votes.
Keep reading: how campaigns waste money on texting and measuring texting ROI. For carrier registration, see The Campaign Registry.