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.

Debt, spending and taxes don’t exactly translate into blockbusters. Over the course of the past couple weeks, however, web videos on each subject have illustrated just how significant those issues are for engaged citizens.

A project called Bankrupting America set out earlier this year to escalate the issue of government spending by using innovative communications techniques. A major component was online video — not the easiest goal to fulfill given the platform, subject matter and audience.

After about four months of experimenting, Bankrupting America hit one out the park with its latest video and accompanying “Spending Fail Map.” Clay Broga and Michelle McAdoo ask people on the street about various government projects and whether they’re real or fake. It’s astonishing — and at times humorous — the stupid things our government funds.

“We tried to take a serious and concerning topic — how both parties in government are overspending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars in this time of economic need — and turn it into something that was both entertaining and informative,” McAdoo said.

The video recently hit viral status and is nearly at 150,000 views on YouTube. The best part? All it required was a little creativity and interviews on the street.

The office of House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) took the opposite approach. Its highly produced 13-minute documentary, “Obama’s Endgame,” chronicles the challenges of the national debt. Featuring interviews with Republican members of Congress, it’s a serious look at the consequences of inaction.

Conventional wisdom for years kept political and policy videos to about two minutes in length. The success of Cantor’s video shatters that notion. It currently has more than 100,000 views.

“Put simply, the public now accepts long-form online videos as a viable viewing choice; providing the opportunity to tell compelling stories and convey increasingly complex information,” writes Matt Lira, Cantor’s director of new media. “Undoubtedly, long-form video will play an important role in political communications going forward.”

Cantor’s video is significant for another reason: It builds on the success of the YouCut campaign. YouCut, conceived earlier this year as an interactive way to expose and eliminate runaway spending in Congress, has focused so far on smaller projects (albeit still expensive). As all politicians know — but some refuse to admit — it’s the big issues that need to be solved. It’s refreshing that Cantor is explaining the scale of the problem.

The third video making waves was produced by my colleague Brandon Stewart at The Heritage Foundation. It uses the concept of a theatrical trailer to tell the story of the impending tax hikes. It’s a clever way to communicate the seriousness of the issue in a non-wonky way.

“Obama’s Tax Hike: The Movie” has more than 25,000 views. More importantly, it has generated a robust debate about taxes on YouTube — in which Heritage is engaging. After all, isn’t that the point? A video could be hilarious and popular, but if it doesn’t advance the agenda, it’s a lost opportunity.

These three videos are just a few examples of the good work being done. They’re not the first and won’t be the last, but their success is an indication that Americans are seeking serious policy information in new ways.

Originally published by the Washington Examiner.

I consider myself a friendly person, but that’s no longer the case when it comes to Facebook. After careful thought and deliberation, I’ve decided to stop accepting friend requests from people I don’t know.

With more than 350 million users, Facebook is home to an incredible network of people. Complete strangers ask to be my friend every day. Some are so self-absorbed they’ve even prodded me to become “fans” of their pages. Others bombard me with event invites I have no interest or possible way of attending. Don’t get me started on annoying applications like Pillow Fight and Blingee Book. Enough is enough.

Personal vs. Professional

When I first began using Facebook in 2005 (thanks to the prodding of Human Events interns Katie Farber and Mary Ellen Burke), there was good reason to become friends with many people given the limited number using the social network. But now, with Facebook open to everyone, I get about three new friend requests every day. I almost always accepted every one of them, which is the reason I have more than 3,000 friends and nearly 100 requests waiting for me to approve or ignore.

What’s the value of having a large number of friends? There’s the coolness factor, of course, which might actually mean something if I was celebrity or politician. But for me, there’s simply no meaningful interaction with these individuals. They don’t comment on my status updates, and I certainly don’t comment on theirs. On the few occasions that someone does say something — usually about the latest photo of my son — my wife asks why a total stranger is remarking about a personal item.

My logic for accepting so many friends, most of whom are conservatives, was to entice them to support my work-related initiatives. But that hasn’t panned out as planned. Very rarely have I asked them do anything. And when I did invite my friends to join The Heritage Foundation’s No Energy Tax application — spamming them in the same manner they do me — hardly any joined.

At the end of the day, I learned that personal always trumps professional. And with more than 100,000 fans, Heritage’s Facebook page doesn’t need my help anyway.

Connections Count

There’s another downside to having friends you don’t know. We live in a world where people think you are who you’re connected with. I found out the hard way last week when a Heritage colleague asked about my connection to a former Department of Defense employee who was the subject of a hard-hitting piece from Streetsblog. We were connected on LinkedIn. Even though I didn’t know him, the author of the piece wrote a whole paragraph about our “connection” and made incorrect assumptions. Suddenly, Heritage was implicated in the story and I was embarrassed. Fortunately, the author of the blog post removed the reference to me when I complained.

The same scenario could play out on Facebook in the same way. In fact, earlier this year when Ithaca College alumnae Brooke Hundley made headlines for her affair with ESPN analyst Steve Phillips, the first thing I did was check our mutual friends on Facebook. The former dean of the Roy H. Park School of Communications was listed as a friend. So, too, was a student I mentored last year. People are curious about these things — and that curiosity could create headaches.

Facebook Diet

Facebook is still evolving and I’m still figuring it out. It was only a few months ago that I separated my Twitter updates from Facebook. They’re not one in the same and shouldn’t be treated that way. Now when I see friends automatically post their Twitter updates to Facebook, I hide their status updates from my news feed. Sorry, not interested. I’m probably already seeing the same thing on TweetDeck.

David All, a modern grassroots communications consultant, wrote yesterday he was “going on a Facebook Friend diet for 2010. My goal is to be under 1,500 by July 4th.” I don’t have any such goal and I’m not sure I’ll make a mass purge (except for those who post flair on my wall). David has a good point, though, and I’m glad I’m not alone in my quest to reclaim my Facebook page for a more meaningful use with real friends, colleagues and associates.

The way I see it, Facebook isn’t going away, so I might as well figure out how to make it more valuable. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I’m looking forward to a more well-connected group of people whose relationships I value more than the number of mutual friends we have.

UPDATE — Feb. 23, 10 a.m.: The former Department of Defense employee who was the subject of the Streetsblog piece notified me that the blog post has been removed due to inaccuracies. As a result, I’ve removed his name from this blog post as well.

Originally posted on RobertBluey.com

Although this was hardly a fundraising haul for DeVore, it was the first time a candidate used the microblogging platform to raise money. It generated positive press and got him noticed in a tough race against incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer. The website Hart built tracks donations (promoting transparency) and referrals (inspiring competition).

After observing the success, my Heritage Foundation colleague Nathaniel Ward and I asked Hart to create a similar effort for Heritage. Year-end fundraising is a priority for every nonprofit, and we saw very few downsides to asking for donations on Twitter. Last week we launched Tweet for Heritage.

Despite having more followers than DeVore, we haven’t enjoyed the same kind of success. That could be because DeVore was the first to do it or the holidays are keeping people occupied. Regardless, I hope the experiment prompts other nonprofits to use Twitter in new and creative ways.

Will fundraising work on this platform? The jury is still out for our experiment. But it would be great to have feedback or suggestions for others considering similar campaigns.

Heritage is a nonprofit organization with strict limitations on political activity. As a nonpartisan research institution, we produce analysis on public policy issues, including the candidates’ tax proposals, but do not — and legally cannot — support or oppose a candidate for political office.

I thought it would be useful to share our approach this week responding to both McCain and Obama, particularly because we used the Internet and social media to tell our story. Our goal in each case was to set the record straight and clear up any confusion about the use of our name in their campaign materials.

Obama’s Ad

We first learned of the Obama campaign’s use of our name when people began asking why Heritage was supporting his tax proposal. We quickly discovered that Obama was airing a national TV ad that incorrectly cited Heritage. The quote used in Obama’s ad was attributed to a Heritage analyst, but was actually from a New York Sun reporter who had erroneously paraphrased the analyst’s views. Even though we corrected the record back in September (and even in a Wall Street Journal letter), it didn’t deter the Obama campaign.

Heritage’s attorney sent a letter to Obama asking him to pull the ad. We circulated it first to bloggers, getting excellent pickup and prompting posts on high-traffic blogs such as Instapundit, The Corner and RedState. Our next move was to record a short video with analyst Rea Hederman explaining the situation. When we still didn’t hear back from the campaign, Heritage’s attorney asked TV stations to discontinue the ad. We used this opportunity to ask our fans on Facebook and followers on Twitter to tell us if they’ve seen the ad in their area.

Although the campaign didn’t pull the ad, there was little doubt about where Heritage stood. And as an added bonus, all of the attention gave our analysts the perfect opportunity to talk about their research on the candidates’ plans.

McCain’s Statement

The McCain campaign released a statement Thursday citing figures from Heritage to attack Obama’s tax plan.

According to the independent Center for Data Analysis, Barack Obama’s new policies will destroy nearly 6 million jobs over the next decade.

There are two problems with this sentence. First, the Center for Data Analysis is not “independent.” It is part of The Heritage Foundation, just like the Center for Media and Public Policy, of which I’m director, and the Center for Health Policy Studies. Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies.

The second problem is the figure cited by the McCain campaign. Alerted to the campaign’s statement by CNN.com, Heritage’s Bill Beach explained how Heritage reached its conclusion, and why McCain was mistaken to use that number. Beach described it as a “rookie mistake” by the campaign.

Later that day CNN.com ran a “fact check” article with the explanation, concluding the McCain campaign had put out a “false” statement citing Heritage’s numbers.

Conclusion

Everyone makes mistakes, including presidential campaigns, but as both of these examples show, it’s incumbent upon institutions to protect their name and correct errors. The approach you take might be different, but in a world where information travels remarkably fast, there’s no time to waste. Using the Internet and social media can be an effective way to correct the record.

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.

My first few posts at K Street Café this week will examine the various ways think tanks can spread their message more effectively online.

I’d like to start at the top — literally. Writing a good headline or title can make a huge difference in the number of eyeballs on your research.

The night of Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention traffic to The Heritage Foundation’s website began to soar. There was nothing new about Palin on Heritage.org or anything in her speech that directed people to visit our website.

There was, however, a two sentence reference to something called the Bridge to Nowhere:

I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves.

Most beltway insiders remembered this infamous earmark from the post-Hurricane Katrina days in 2005 when a group of Porkbusters shined the spotlight on Washington’s wasteful ways. But it’s probably safe to say that quite a few of the 37 million people who watched Palin’s speech didn’t know what she was talking about.

When they turned to Google to find out, the top link that night (and currently No. 2) was a 2005 research paper by Heritage’s Ron Utt, “The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment.” In the week that followed, nearly 70% of our traffic came from search engines. More than 95% of the people entering Heritage.org were new visitors. (I wrote more about this for The Next Right.)

Why? Because we wrote a simple headline, which, combined with Heritage’s good PageRank, propelled the paper to the top of Google’s results.

Two years ago the New York Times wrote a piece about how newspapers were ditching clever headlines for ones that were “boring” and attracted more eyeballs from search results. The same concept applies to think tanks and other public policy organizations that want to capitalize on a particular subject or issue — whether it’s something isolated like the Bridge to Nowhere or a larger concept like poverty in America.

Keep it simple and on topic.