The document discusses the development of 'The Candidate', a civic engagement platform aimed at increasing voter participation and supporting independent candidates in U.S. politics. It highlights the challenges of low civic engagement, particularly among younger voters, and presents a two-pronged approach that includes an online platform and a television show to promote political candidates while encouraging individual contributions only. Through market research, the creators seek to validate assumptions about voter interest in engaging with politicians and concerns over campaign financing, aiming to create an unbiased and educational environment for political discourse.

1.
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

2.
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

3.
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

4.
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

5.
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

6.
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

7.
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

8.
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

9.
“[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

10.
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

11.
“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

12.
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

13.
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

14.
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

15.
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