Early results for Heritage indicate the answer is yes. After only a week on iTunes, the Heritage app had 2,500 downloads as of Monday. Not bad considering we spent less than $1,500 to build the app, a modest investment considering the potential upside of the product.

Scola’s review is mostly upbeat and positive about each of the three apps, but she’s also skeptical about their broader appeal. She concludes by asking this question: “Is anyone seeking out these apps as they seek out research, news and points of view?”

It’s a hard question to answer after only one week on the market. It would be nice to have detailed demographic data on each of the 2,500 individuals who have downloaded our app to know if they’re existing Heritage supporters, Capitol Hill staff or Tea Party activists who might be unfamiliar with our organization. Chances are that most have some connection to Heritage already and heard about the app from our e-mail or Twitter promotion.

Congressional staff, as Scola suspected, are a target audience we’d like to reach. Staff-issued BlackBerrys still dominate on Capitol Hill, and according to National Journal, 93% have one. The iPhone comes in second at 14%, based on the 2009 survey. Even more stunning is that Capitol Hill staff average about two mobile devices, meaning some are carrying a BlackBerry and an iPhone. No one in Washington is more addicted to mobile.

According to the same National Journal survey, congressional staff say their mobile devices are essential for things other than e-mail. Approximately 60% use their smartphones each day to get the latest news and information.

Heritage set out to design an app that would address this trend of news consumption. We wanted to simplify the way users consume our latest content — in much the same way people read the latest news on the Huffington Post app or scan headlines on the New York Times app.

But we also wanted to make it different from Heritage.org, which already performs very well on the iPhone. While the website organizes information by topic and features a robust search, the app displays the content chronologically. Scola criticized the decision, but it was intentional.

National Journal’s research indicates the focus of mobile usage is on recent and breaking stories. It made sense that Heritage app users would be looking for our perspective on the latest issues brewing on Capitol Hill. With so many congressional staffers addicted to their mobile devices, it should be a welcome addition.

My colleague, Tim McGovern, Heritage’s online communications director, spent mostly nights and weekends working on the iPhone app. He’s now keeping close tabs on the usage to help direct future development, including what additional features merit consideration and whether Heritage should build an app for other mobile devices such as BlackBerry or Android.

We’re an idea factory at Heritage. And with those ideas gaining popularity amongst a growing number of Americans, we want to make sure they’re able to consume our information with ease in the palm of their hand.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Last Tuesday as I was sharing my thoughts on Twitter during the second presidential debate, I noticed frequent updates from the Cato Institute. Like Heritage, Cato reguarly tweets about its policy work. But what made Cato’s debate coverage special was the instant reaction from its analysts.

Rather than wait until after the debate to comment on the candidates’ policy proposals, Cato’s manager of new media, Christopher Moody, put the libertarian think tank’s policy experts to work right away. The result was instantaneous and informative analysis. The experiment was such a success that Cato plans to replicate it tonight.

By my count, Cato provided 44 updates on Twitter during the 90-minute debate. Its Twitter team included Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow for energy policy and environmental protection; Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies; and Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow for economics and expert on entitlement reform.

Here’s a sampling of what they wrote:

• Did Sen. McCain answer the question about Social Security? I’d say no. –Jagadeesh Gokhale 09:44 PM
• McCain calls for Medicare commission. Finally, something worthwhile. -Michael Cannon 09:43 PM
• If Reagan fixed Social Security, why are we still having the conversation? -Michael Cannon 09:42 PM
• Obama’s health plan would outlaw the most affordable 50 percent of health insurance plans currently on the market. -Michael Cannon 09:42 PM
• Need to understand the rest of the tax code to fix Social Security? Dissemblobama at its best! –Jagadeesh Gokhale 09:41 PM
• The $700 billion financial-sector bailout is less than one percent of the amount required to bail out Medicare. -Michael Cannon 09:39 PM
• A question about unfunded federal liabilities! Who would have thought? -Jerry Taylor 09:39 PM

Is this groundbreaking policy research? No, but it’s not meant to be. Cato is instead investing in real time reaction to the candidates’ answers. This certainly raises the level of discourse on Twitter and introduces Cato’s ideas to an audience that might otherwise not pay any attention.

Staffers searching for policy solutions still turn to Washington’s think tanks for answers. But unlike 30 years ago, there are more voices and countless new ways (such as video) to educate lawmakers. The 24-hour news cycle can also quickly shift a congressional debate over legislation. Failure to respond in a timely fashion can leave you in the dust.

This is where your policy experts play a vital role. These analysts have so much to offer it’s foolish not to take advantage. At most organizations, they’re probably already doing radio and TV interviews to promote their research. At others they might write op-eds to get the word out. But there’s something else they should be doing: blogging.

This past week is a perfect example. With news reports changing by the hour on Capitol Hill about the financial bailout bill, it was difficult to produce a comprehensive policy paper. Analysts at the libertarian Cato Institute were faced with this predicament. But rather than sit on the sidelines, Cato’s analysts turned to their blog. Here’s a quote from David Boaz, executive vice president, in yesterday’s Washington Post:

The talk in the halls and via the virtual water-cooler of e-mail is, “What can you write? Do you have an op-ed?” Boaz says. “Do you have a study? Is there even time for a study? . . . Op-eds and blog items are the best you’re getting.”

Some think tanks approach this differently than others. The Cato-at-Liberty blog features some of the institute’s top policy analysts. The Center for American Progress, on the other hand, relies mostly on a staff of researchers. We’ve embraced something of a hybrid at Heritage’s Foundry: Conn Carroll is a full-time blogger with frequent contributions from policy analysts on their areas of expertise.

There’s no right or wrong way to do it. In fact, this is a great forum to debate the pros and cons of all these approaches.

One thing that’s important to remember is the difference between a detailed policy paper a quick blog post. The former is still very much essential to having a significant impact on Capitol Hill. The latter, however, is rapidly becoming a way to shape a narrative and remain relevant. An strategy that includes both is likely going to the most effective.