The Candidate: Getting User Feedback on a New Platform for Civic Engagement By Scott Jacobsen and Erica Swallow The final project for Launching Technology Ventures (LTV) presented an opportunity for teammate Scott Jacobsen, a cross­registrant from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, to collaborate with MIT Sloan School of Management cross­registrant Erica Swallow to research customer interest in his startup idea: A platform for political candidates to promote and raise funds for their campaigns while engaging voters with fresh and educational content about their campaign priorities and goals. Scott’s background in politics ­­ as a campaign staffer for competitive U.S. Senate races and a veteran of a national advocacy group in Washington, D.C. ­­ set him up with a network and mindset to tackle the abyss of civic engagement, specifically at the Congressional level, which Americans seem to have particularly dismal opinions of: Congress currently stands at a 15% approval rating and the 2014 midterm election registered the lowest voter turnout in over 70 years.

With the lessons of LTV, Scott’s political savvy, and Erica’s experience in community management, startup marketing, and product design, the team set out on a mission to understand the platform’s potential user base and validate/invalidate current assumptions about that demographic’s top concerns and needs in regards to political engagement platforms. The Problem and Proposed Solution The key problem that The Candidate aims to solve is low civic engagement. The American people hold a low bar for the government and are disenchanted with its weak ability to affect change in the country. According to an internal document from the company the problem was framed as a systemic issue, particularly with young voters:

“We are at a critical moment in the history of our democracy. According to the Institute of Politics at Harvard, only 15% of youth believe the country is heading in the right

1

direction. They are not alone as evidenced by the lowest voter turnout in over 70 years in the last midterm elections. Citizens are losing faith in the electoral system: only 35% of Americans between 18 and 35 think running for office is an honorable thing. With only 52 bills passed, the last Congress was the least productive in the U.S. history.”

Coming into the final project, Scott’s team, a group of U.S. and French Kennedy School students imagined The Candidate as a means of re­engaging disillusioned Americans. That same internal document defined the solution as follows:

“The Candidate is an online and mobile multimedia platform and an accompanying TV show, designed to re­energize civic participation, increase voter turnout and help launch the next generation of political leaders from the grassroots. The Candidate’s fundamental goal is to harness the digital revolution to increase citizen engagement with political institutions and processes. “The Candidate aims to re­energize the American electorate and empower all citizens to believe that they can participate and be part of the solution. We will start by focusing on the U.S. Congress, while also exploring State, local and municipal levels. Eventually, we envision impacting flagging and aspiring democracies around the world. “The Candidate is about using mass media, new and old, to rejuvenate public trust in the political process, and to educate and train citizens with new skills to foster civic participation. It consists of a two­pronged approach with strategic synergies: a TV show, and an online platform.”

The project’s working title is The Candidate, based on the idea that an accompanying TV show with the same name would help propel the platform’s virality. For the purposes of our project, we focused on the online platform in our interviews.

Pictured to the right is a mockup from the candidate’s online platform which showcases political hopeful John Sterling, running for the 9th Congressional District of North Carolina. His candidate profile features his biography, top campaign priorities, and a video that outlines why

2

he’s running for office. The profile page also features a crowdfunding feature, where voters can back Sterling’s campaign. One key component of the platform as defined by the startup team was to make it a non­partisan platform, where citizens from all parties could promote and finance campaigns. Furthermore, candidates on the platform would vow to only take individual contributions ­­ that is, they would not accept money from Political Action Committees (PACs), unions, or corporations. All in all, the team behind The Candidate assumed that these two platform traits would enable an equal playing field for all candidates, including independents, whom they hoped to bolster in the process. Our Analysis Based on the team’s proposed solution for increasing civic engagement, the objective of our research was to validate that:

Voters want to be more connected to politicians and to engage with their content. Voters are willing to donate to candidate’s campaigns through a “kickstarter for

politics”. Voters are concerned with current campaign financing laws and methods. Voters are willing to consider independent candidates (those running without a party). Politicians want better digital tools for engaging with constituents. Politicians need easier outlets for raising campaign funds. Politicians are interested in financing campaigns solely on individual contributions. There is a sizeable market of political hopefuls that would use this platform. There is a sizeable market of citizens who would engage through this platform.

It was necessary that we validate these assumptions that made up the core value proposition that The Candidate offers: the ability to connect with and donate to politicians and their campaigns. To determine consumer interest in the above points, we conducted an analysis composed of four key primary market research and product design elements:

Customer discovery interviews with both sides of the market: politicians and voters An online customer survey to determine voter sentiment on independents and

campaign financing Product demo interviews based on wireframes Persona development based on initial market research

By the numbers, we conducted 14 interviews with voters and 9 interviews with politicians or political hopefuls, filling 100+ pages of interview notes; collected 115 customer survey responses via an online survey, and developed personas for our target politician and voter users.

3

Interview and Survey Content We produced content for three separate customer discovery tools: in­person customer interviews, product demo interviews, and a more widely distributed online survey. The 23 in­person interviews that we conducted served as a means to get out of the building and talk to real potential customers on both sides of the market: politicians and voters. Within our interviews with politicians, we asked questioned dealing with:

Political background: What is your party affiliation? Have you ever or would you ever consider running for office? If yes: How did you find the process to be? What were the key components of your campaign communications? What are the best tools and resources to have on your side when running? How valuable are the following attributes in succeeding in politics: The values that drive you, policy know­how, campaign management skills, leadership ability?

Fundraising: What was your primary source of fundraising? How much money did you raise? What was the typical cycle of fundraising? How did it differ after you were elected? How did you find that process to be? Is there anyway you would change the process if you could? Do you feel indebted politically to the people and organizations contributing to your campaign? How do you manage that relationship? Would the idea of only accepting individual contributions be appealing to you? What about your district electorate? Are you in favor of restricting PAC, union and corporate money in campaign finance? What kind of transparency is required in the age of digital media within the framework of campaigns and while in office? Where would you set the limit?

Social media: How much did you use social media for your campaign? How critical is social media in running a successful campaign? What are the new trends you're seeing emerge with social media and campaigning?

Name recognition: How important would you say name recognition is? If you could choose between half the money you raised versus 100% name recognition across your district what would you choose?

Non­partisan behavior: Do you think there is a non­partisan issue or approach that the electorate on both sides can rally around for support? What does it mean to you "to be ready to work across the aisle to address the big issues of the day" [from The Candidate’s Charter of Ethics]? Is it required?

We then described the product and asked how it might impact campaigning, if they found its features useful, and whether they could see it fitting into their campaigning toolkits.

4

Within our interviews with voters, we asked questioned along the lines of:

Media consumption: How do you stay up­to­date on political news? Does your news consumption change during election season? If so, how do you stay on top of campaign news? Do you receive any email newsletters from politicians? Paper mailings? Do you read political blogs?

Social media activity: Do you follow any politicians on social media? How would you describe the content they produce? What do you like and dislike about this means of being in contact with politicians? Have you ever sent a message (tweet, email, letter) to a politician?

Campaign funding: Have you ever contributed to a candidate's campaign? Why or why not? What platform or means did you use to make the donation? Did you see how the donation was used? Would you have liked to? What words come to mind when you think of how political campaigns are currently funded? What's your opinion on PACs and corporations donating to campaigns?

Political affiliation and philosophies: Do you associate with a party? How do you feel about independent candidates? Have you ever considered voting for an independent candidate? Why or why not? How often do you vote and at which levels of government? If there's anything you could do to improve politics in America, what would it be?

Within our voter product demos, which were staged at the end of our customer discovery interviews and entailed showing a wireframe mockup of a candidate’s profile and the website

5

homepage (see screenshots above), we asked for open­ended feedback about the platform, including: What do you think of this platform? What do you like? Dislike? How could it be better? What kinds of candidates could you imagine running on this platform? What types of content would you find most valuable on this platform? Lastly, after conducting in­person interviews and product demos, we felt we were on to some key observations about voter opinions on campaign financing and the perception of independent candidates. We weren’t confident that 14 interviews with voters were enough to validate some of our findings, so we created an online survey to attract more responses on these two particular subjects. Along with relevant demographic and voter registration inquiries, we asked the following questions, receiving 115 responses:

Have you ever considered voting for an independent candidate? (Yes, No, Not sure) On independent candidates, why DID or DIDN'T you consider voting for them in the

past? (Open response) Should individual citizens be capped on how much they can contribute to political

campaigns? (Yes, No, Not sure) Should corporations, unions, and political action committees (PACs) be capped on

how much they can contribute to political campaigns? (Yes, No, Not sure) If a candidate committed to only accepting individual contributions (no PAC, corporate,

or union contributions), would you be less or more likely to vote for them? (Much less likely, Less likely, No change, More likely, Much more likely)

How strongly of an effect would a candidate's decision to only accept individual campaign contributions have on your decision to vote for him or her? (Very weak effect, Weak effect, Neutral, Strong effect, Very strong effect)

Our three methods of customer discovery led to a bounty of findings, our key takeaways of which we’ll outline below. Key Findings from Voters The 14 interviews we conducted with potential users from the electorate were focused on likely early adopters: digitally savvy voters who are more highly engaged in politics and civic activities. Our interviewees were equally split between men and women interviewees and most were U.S. citizens. We did, however, interview five internationals to test for potential international fit and to get creative and diverse input from users in multi­party systems to contrast America’s two­party system. Within the U.S. subset, party affiliations were highly skewed: 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Independent. In the future, we would recommend that The Candidate make efforts to recruit more diverse party affiliates. It was difficult to ascertain which party electorate interviewees were from prior to interviews, but being that the networks where we recruited interviewees were institutions and states known for electing democrats, we should have

6

predicted the skew prior to setting up meetings and mitigated that bias. All in all, though, we were satisfied with the level of diversity in conversation and experiences. Our key takeaways from voter interviews included: 1.) Voters crave a platform that’s independent, educational, and fair. In our product demos, we gauged interest in voters for The Candidate’s digital platform for engaging with and donating to political hopefuls. During our first interviews, we pitched the platform as The Candidate had imagined it: as a non­partisan playground where Democrats, Republicans, third parties, and independents could come to raise awareness and funds. We found that interviewees were very negative on such a platform. They didn’t trust that the platform could actually be an unbiased place for all to unite. As one interviewee put it, “As a political professional, I don't trust anything that serves both parties. People have been burned in the past. As a candidate, when contracting with people of the same party, I know that when shit hits the fan, those people are not going to turn on me.” This interview happened to have worked in politics prior to his current occupation, so he spoke from experience, but his comments encapsulated a commonly held opinion among interviewees that The Candidate platform risks favoritism, particularly when it houses Democrats and Republicans. For our first interviews, we also pitched the television show, which the startup had an interest in producing alongside the platform ­­ we got mixed feedback on a reality television style documentary that follows candidates from the platform around. Interviewees liked the idea that the show would lend greater transparency to the campaign trail, but felt that such a show might lead to a manifestation of the current issue in politics it’s trying to defeat: that those with money get exposure, and thus get name recognition and the votes. Interviewees liked that the show would organically source stars from the platform ­­ those with the greatest online backing would make it on air, that is. But some felt the TV show itself might give certain candidates a better chance at capturing votes through old media tactics. Finding that researching both the TV show and platform simultaneously was overwhelming for interviewees, we focused the majority of our latter demos solely on the platform. Having received consistent feedback from many interviewees that a non­partisan platform entailed too much distrust and risk, we began pitching The Candidate as a platform solely for independent candidates and received glowing feedback. While the same issues around potential favoritism arose with the fully independent platform pitch, conversation was much more centered around helping underdogs gain a following, communicate a vision, and unite among each other. The consensus among our interviewees was that independent candidates are strapped for cash, lack networks that the parties have, and are a greatly underserved niche. Secondly, there was hunger in the interviewees to learn more about independent candidates and their platforms. Future interviews, however, should take into account that our interviewees were early adopter types, highly educated and very active in following political news. As one

7

interviewee put it, “Do enough voters care to be educated? Even though you’re making it easier for them to get educated, will they actually take that step?” 2.) Voters are interested in independent candidates, but feel they’re highly disadvantaged. The initial idea for The Candidate was to level the playing field for political hopeful, the most disadvantaged of which are often cited as independent candidates, those who run outside of the two dominant parties. In our interviews, we wanted to test whether voters actively consider independent candidates and what their general thoughts on independents are. Overwhelmingly, we heard that voters like the theory of independents ­­ that it bolsters America’s belief in democracy ­­ but they don’t find independents successful in practice. Some representative comments from the electorate included:

“I like them in theory. But in practice, you can’t really point to many success stories. If you’re using data and looking at past performance [the fact that most elected officials are either Democratic or Republican], it’s unrealistic to think about voting for or donating to an independent. It’s not a good place to put your money. I don’t have enough money to throw it into that kind of pipeline.” “I’m very pro independent candidates. They bring diversity and they don’t have a directive from the party leaders ­ and even if they don’t win, they bring ideas that can be stolen by the parties [that end up winning]. If they win, even better.”

The positive connection with independents was further emphasized within our online survey, in which 42% of respondents said that they identify as independent or with a third party (e.g. Libertarian, Green), and 74% confirmed that they had considered voting for or had voted for an independent candidate in a previous election. Some key open responses for why individuals had or hadn’t voted for or considered independents included:

“I vote for the candidate who most aligns with my own views and who I think will represent me in that particular elected office.” “I don't think most independent candidates stand a chance of getting elected in the current two­party system.” “I consider all candidates. If I think the independent candidate has a chance at winning, or that voting for the independent candidate won't change the outcome between the two major party candidates, or that the platform of the strongly favored candidate is similar to that of the independent candidate, I would act on my consideration and vote for the independent candidate.”

8

“[In the case where I have voted for an independent, I] did because they were the best candidate or because I really did not support the Democratic candidate. [In the cases where I ] didn't, [I did so] because they were siphoning votes from the Democratic candidate, not the Republican candidate, and there was too much at stake.” “I'm usually told by family and friends it's a 'throw away' vote­­they would never win.” “I feel that my views are well represented by the mainstream of the Democratic party. I have considered independents but did not feel that they would be well­positioned to effectuate change due to their lack of support from other elected officials.”

3.) Interviewees feel that current social platforms for connecting with candidates are too self­promotional. We were surprised to hear that our interviewees ­­ all of whom were presumably more politically active than the average citizen ­­ do not tend to follow politicians via social media. When we began to dig into their reasoning, we learned that interviewees tend to find out about political news on Facebook and Twitter, via articles that their friends share. They do not, however, want to hear the antics of self­promoting politicians. Some words from the interviewees:

“No. I would never [follow a politician via social media]. There’s no one I trust or look up to. I don’t want to hear it. Nothing they tell me will be unbiased. Plus, [when you’re on Facebook or Twitter] it’s not a good time to listen to their talking points. I’d rather have more neutral sources process it and give more nuanced point of view.” “I’m not looking for someone to tell me why what they’re doing is so great, which is my perception of how most politicians use social media ­­ to scream what their message already is, louder. I don’t find it to be thoughtful, interesting. I find it to be rhetoric.” “Not really, except Barack Obama. It probably just came up as an option on Facebook at some point, and I clicked “Like.” I didn’t seek it out. The content is very ‘PR’ [public relations]. ‘Here’s my family. Here’s a quote about the anniversary of Selma. Here’s a charity event my wife organized.’” “I don’t think much about their tweets or posts, because they’re biased and posted by someone from their team, not by the candidate. It’s self­promotional and what they’re trying to tell me. I prefer to read more objective news written by non­biased experts.” “I follow a few, but they tend to put up stuff that benefits them and their party… Or exposes things they’d like to exploit on the opposite party.”

9

For some interviewees, following a politician on social media was more likely if the politician was a local candidate or elect, and some interviewees said they’re just not ready for that:

“I’m not sure that I’m at a stage of my life where my local politicians are critical to me. We’ve been in Boston for three years, but I’m not sure we’re going to stay here. If we were having kids and buying property here, I would want to hear regular dialogue from my local politicians, but I’m not there yet.”

Overall, we came out of interviews with the perception that voters aren’t intrigued with the type of content politicians and political hopefuls are producing via social media. They find it self­promotional and biased. We also heard that there is a limited pool of politicians on social media ­­ over and over, we heard Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and then nothing more than a long tail of others. Interviewees saw value in a platform that enabled independents to rise above incumbents, especially if the content they created was actually compelling and more non­partisan. 4.) The appetite for online campaign donations is high. For both interviewees who had contributed to campaigns and those who would consider doing so in the future, online contributions were a preferred method. Many simply pointed to the fact that everything they do is online, so they should be able to donate to campaigns online as well. This was one of the easier to identify findings. We collected extensive details on which platforms, such as ActBlue, NGP Van, and Nation Builder, users had cited as donating through online, and we also collected information on how they heard about campaign donation options and whether they had donated via offline methods ­­ much of that information was anecdotal and less conclusive, but helpful nonetheless. 5.) Voters feel PAC and corporate donations should be regulated, but aren’t sure other financing options are viable. We asked voters what words came to mind when they thought of how campaigns are funded. A smattering included: PACs. The wealthy few. Solicitation. Blast emails. Dirty money. Lobbying. Corporations. Arduous. Cumbersome. Phone lists. Special interests. Too many rich people. Too little crowdfunding. Our takeaway on the funding front is that interviewees believe our current campaign financing system is sub­optimal. Not one interviewee waxed on about the pros of the system, and the opinion was so pervasive that we could wrap it up in one interviewee response:

10

“It’s terrible. Corporations are not people. They do not have a right to express corporate interests. If people in corporations want to individually contribute, that’s fine. Political donations are counted as free speech, though ­­ any individual can spend his or her money as he or she sees fit. But I join a huge plurality of America in disgust at the manifestation of corporation in politics.”

While all interviewees agreed on this point, only some thought a ban on corporate dollars made sense, while most were on the same page that some caps or regulations should be implemented maintain fairness and democracy. In the end, though, a candidate’s promise to only accept individual contributions was a low priority in how interviewees choose candidates. In our online survey, 87% of respondents said that PACS, corporations, and unions should be capped on how much they can contribute to political campaigns, while 69% responded that individuals should have such caps. In today's law, individuals are capped, while other entities are not. When asked if a candidate committing to only accept individual contributions would influence the respondent’s likelihood of voting for that candidate, only 59% said they'd be "more likely" or "much more likely," while most others said it would elicit no change in sentiment (only 2% said it would cause them to be “less likely” or “much less likely” to vote for them). When nearly half of a population is ambivalent on a point of distinguishment, it’s not a great value proposition to bank on. Furthermore, we found that individuals don’t care where their donation money goes in a campaign, as long as the candidate wins. Voters are interested in learning more about the candidate’s policy, not how they’re spending donations. This finding helped invalidate a product feature on donation spending analytics that The Candidate was considering. Key Findings from Politicians We conducted 9 interviews with potential politician users of the platform: current officeholders, former candidates, future candidates and political insiders. These interviewees represented diverse party affiliation (i.e. 3 republicans, 4 democrats and 2 independents) and have held or run for office at all levels (i.e. local, state, national). Across the board all candidates named raising money the most important aspect of a competitive campaign and said that they start with their friends and family and natural allies. Those who run for national office believe transparency in donations makes it difficult for challengers as donors do not want to upset incumbents. Although all interviewees believe the current fundraising system is broken, there is not agreement as to how it should be fixed, as some support corporate, union and PAC influence, while others think these outside influences are detrimental to the health of the republic. A few insights:

“Running for governor was horrific… I will never run again, unless I was a multi­millionaire and had access to millions of dollars. It pains me to say it, because I

11

always believed in democracy and [that you] didn’t have to be rich… Unless you have millions of dollars, you will be slandered by big money and you will not be able to fight back.” (current mayor of U.S. City and former major party Gubernatorial candidate) “[Fundraising] is paramount and the most important thing to do. It signals support. It helps get your name out. It also lets people in the political arena know that you are viable and gaining support.” (political insider and future Congressional candidate)

Although many believed a commitment to only accept individual contributions was worthy, few thought it would translate to votes and even fewer would be willing to do it themselves.

“Yes, it would be appealing to me, but I know very little about campaign finance, so I’m not sure if PAC and corporate money is necessary. I would defer to a campaign manager.” (future city council candidate)

Nearly all interviewees were excited about the idea of a “kickstarter for politics,” citing an ability to broaden the base of supporters and generate social media buzz. Most believed it was equally important for people to browse candidates by where they stood on the issues and that simply relying on videos would not be enough to inform supporters enough to raise funds. Some expressed reservations about the kinds of people the platform would attract and its ability to gather critical mass.

“I think it is a great idea. That is the grassroots way… It is well­needed. It opens up a wider base of people. I can’t raise a lot of money in [major city] democratic circles, because everyone is afraid of the King [incumbent]. But If I had a platform, where I could say what I stand for and what’s at stake, I could have a millennial from California throw me 200 bucks. Can open up a new available universe of fundraising, beyond the chicken dinners and pit­stop parties.” (future state house candidate) “The kickstarter dollar is interesting but also dangerous. People liking candidates like people like cat videos. I would want to make sure you know what you’re doing before you crowdfund some guy who has a slick social media site. That may not be the best way to choose a candidate. I worry that those people don’t know what is going on. People under 30 shouldn’t be able to propel the next candidates. The hipster in the coffee­shop doesn’t have the same understanding as the 55 year old guy putting his kids through college.” (former major party Congressional candidate)

Interviewees were split on whether or not the platform should just be for independents. Those with loose party affiliations would consider using it themselves if it were limited to independents, whereas party insiders would not. Some thought that limiting it only to independents would not provide a wide enough net to attract high­quality candidates.

12

Personas Based on our interviews, we created two sets of early adopter personas to help The Candidate team better target beta customers for future market research and product testing as they move into building a minimum viable product (MVP). Our personas are as follows: Voters

The Policy Junkie is The Candidate’s core early adopter and the primary driver for her votes is policy. She doesn’t affiliate with a party, but instead consumes a steady stream of news about politics throughout her week. When election season comes around, her news consumption sky rockets, but she also starts to seek out specific policy points from individuals candidates. She compares the candidate’s views to her own and allocates votes based on how well each individual would represent her interests at that level of government. She uses a wide selection of news sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Economist, and The Atlantic, to make up her mind and also turns to politically focused news sources from time to time, including Politico and various political blogs, to supplement her evolving opinions and knowledge. She also happens across political news on her Facebook newsfeed and occasionally sees a politically­focused tweet pop up on Twitter from time to time. The Policy Junkie is annoyed by highly biased media and her biggest goal is to separate the noise from the signal in her data collection process. As a result, she has curated her absorption process to be as clean and simple as possible. To make it into her consideration set, a new platform would need to have a reputation for unbiased, educational content. She would be particularly intrigued if the platform offered a new way of consuming disparate content, as she sometimes feels overwhelmed with the amount of places she gets her news.

The Would­be Independent is a dedicated voter, but tends to vote along party lines when he doesn’t feel up to researching all of the candidates. He’s highly educated on the Republican and Democratic candidates in national elections but is less knowledgeable on state and local candidates, and he’s even considered and voted for independent candidates in the past, but he finds the amount of time it takes to get educated on candidates is more time­consuming than he’s able to commit. The Would­be Independent is very open to independent candidates and would seriously consider an independent vote if he felt he was up­to­date on what the candidate stands for. He tends to discover political news passively through his friends on Facebook or via network news, but doesn’t actively seek out much political news outside of elections. When elections come around, he’s eager to vote and spends considerable time getting caught up on candidates in the running. The process can seem overwhelming and sometimes he doesn’t make it to the polls fully informed. He wishes there were a tool that could help him better choose candidates based on his own beliefs and priorities, but instead, his current process includes lots of Googling, conversations with friends, and staring at televisions and news articles. The Would­be

13

Independent would like to believe that the best candidate should win, but sometimes ends up voting along his traditional party lines, simply because in some elections, he feels that an independent vote is a less valuable vote.

Politicians

The Nothing­to­Lose Challenger has imagined herself on the campaign trail but doesn’t know where to start. She is adventurous enough to try something new and has demonstrated digital charisma with her friends and followers on social media. She is politically­aware but has never engaged in the political arena so she may or may not be in over her head. Instead, she spends her free time as a community advocate and volunteer for local causes she cares deeply about. She doesn’t risk burning political ties by announcing her candidacy through the platform since she has never associated with either party and welcomes the thrill and calling of being a part of something “bigger than herself”. She has strongly held beliefs and is able to tap her network to get the word out in creative ways. The Nothing­to­Lose Challenger will throw her hat into the ring “just because” and the platform is attractive to her because it provides a means for reaching a national audience, tools to help her manage her race, and fundraising tools to reach certain goals. Even after reaching certain milestones through the platform, however, she will have to face a gut­check moment if her candidacy is to advance further and will have to decide when the white lights of media and public scrutiny persist, whether or not the idea to run was worth the trouble to begin with.

The Streaker is a member of one of the two major parties but has an independent streak and wears it with pride. He is political savvy and understands the dance political insiders play but has never advanced an opportunity to run himself for various reasons. He sees the platform as an opportunity to take a leap and is excited by the independent movement but will only run after careful consideration and seeing that the platform has proven itself with others. He has a full­time job and is an upstanding member of his community, attends community meetings and has even attended a political fundraiser or two organized by colleagues at work. The process of hosting his own such event or attracting big donors seems overwhelming to him so he is especially attracted by the crowdfunding element in which he can raise funds from supporters from across the country, thus bypassing traditional fundraising channels dominated by the two parties and incumbents. He is not afraid to abandon his party and can tap into friends, family, and community networks to get things started but may lack the social media savvy that other less­inhibited challengers on the platform exhibit.

Conclusion Our team immensely enjoyed this opportunity to work together in exploring how to best conduct primary market research and product design research to gather input that moves the

14

needle for a startup. The Candidate team gained a lot from our interview notes and analysis and will be using this data to build its first full MVP. We look forward to seeing how our interviewee voices influence the product roadmap.

15