This article was originally published in 2016 and was last updated on June 10th, 2025.
- Tension: In a world of endless channels and fractured attention, how do you reach people with urgency—and trust?
- Noise: We assume newer platforms are better, chasing novelty while underestimating the reliability of “old tech.”
- Direct Message: Sometimes, the simplest channels are the most effective—not because they’re flashy, but because they’re trusted, direct, and human-scaled.
Read more about our approach → The Direct Message Methodology
Why Presidential Campaigns Still Rely on Text Messaging
When Barack Obama placed a short code beneath his podium in 2012, he wasn’t just sharing a phone number—he was cementing a shift in how political leaders communicate. That small numeric code signaled something bigger: a move toward intimacy, urgency, and attention in a saturated digital environment.
Years later, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton followed suit. Trump’s “88022” became a fixture on banners and rally screens. Clinton used “27246,” which cleverly spelled out HRCGO—though fewer recognized the mnemonic. At first glance, these short codes may seem like marketing footnotes, but they reveal a critical insight: not all digital communication is created equal.
And in a time when trust is scarce, attention is fleeting, and every second counts, these codes tell us something deeper about the psychology of communication—and the strategic simplicity that still works.
What Are Short Codes, and Why Do Campaigns Use Them?
Short codes are 5- or 6-digit numbers used to send and receive text messages, typically for high-volume communication. They’re vetted by mobile carriers and managed in the U.S. by the Common Short Code Registry through iconectiv, in partnership with CTIA.
Unlike typical SMS threads, these codes are designated, regulated, and carry a layer of legitimacy. That’s part of their power: they’re less likely to be mistaken for spam.
Donald Trump’s campaign used a clear and memorable code—88022—and a straightforward ask: “Text TRUMP to 88022.” Hillary Clinton’s approach differed. She requested both a phone number and email address before sending messages—an extra step, possibly affecting opt-in rates.
Despite these differences, once users were on the list, both campaigns followed a similar path: sending event updates, donation prompts, and calls to action.
Cliff Holsenbeck, Director of Product Management at iconectiv, noted the comparative volume: Trump’s campaign sent more frequent messages—sometimes daily leading up to major events—while Clinton’s communications were less frequent, with fewer than six total texts during a similar window.
But why go through all this? Because SMS has unmatched performance. According to a report, short-code campaigns enjoy 99% open rates, with 87% of texts opened within three minutes.
That level of immediacy is unparalleled.
What’s Really at Stake Here?
This isn’t just about campaign mechanics—it’s about something deeper: the erosion of attention and the hunger for trust.
Modern media has conditioned us to tune out. Email inboxes are flooded. Social feeds are algorithmically filtered. Push notifications are ignored. The average voter—like the average consumer—is overwhelmed.
Text messages, on the other hand, are still seen as personal. They’re direct. They feel like they come from a human, not a platform.
For political candidates, this is a rare channel where attention isn’t diluted. It’s not a billboard screaming into the void or a sponsored post sandwiched between memes. It’s a message that cuts through and says: This matters. Right now.
The emotional subtext of this channel is powerful. It says: “You opted in. You’re part of this.” That’s more than strategy—it’s belonging.
What Gets in the Way of Seeing This?
One of the biggest blind spots in modern communication strategy is the fetishization of novelty.
In an age obsessed with platforms—TikTok, Threads, generative AI bots—short codes feel retro. Some marketers dismiss them as “old school.” But that’s a mistake rooted in what behavioral economists call present bias: the tendency to overvalue new tools and undervalue proven ones.
Another layer of noise comes from an obsession with user data. Clinton’s decision to require both email and phone number likely aimed to build richer data profiles. But that friction can suppress engagement. And ironically, when the goal is connection, complexity can undermine impact.
Moreover, few realize that short-code campaigns go through a vetting process by carriers. That makes them secure—and in today’s world of scams and disinformation, that kind of trust is worth its weight in gold.
And it’s not just smartphone users who benefit. These texts don’t require an app, login, or even a mobile browser. That inclusivity matters, especially when seeking broad voter engagement across demographics.
How This Changes the Way We Communicate
If you’re in marketing, politics, or communications, the takeaway here isn’t “use text messages.” It’s deeper: simplify the path to connection.
Holsenbeck noted that while both campaigns used short codes effectively, “there’s always more ways to promote their use.” In other words, even proven strategies need better storytelling.
For campaigns, this could mean promoting the short code more visibly, using it in speeches, or embedding it in shareable digital content. For brands, it’s a reminder that engagement begins with clarity—not complexity.
Think of your own channels. Are you creating friction or facilitating connection? Are you prioritizing flashy interfaces or trusted interactions?
Short codes work not because they’re clever, but because they align with how people already behave. They reduce the gap between interest and action. And in an era where trust is hard-won and easily lost, that’s not a technical feature—it’s a psychological advantage.
So before chasing the next platform, it might be worth asking: what’s already working—and are we using it to its full potential?
