vox--2020-10-01--The pandemic is forcing Democrats to ask: Does knocking on doors work?

Among the many impossible-to-predict consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for the 2020 presidential campaign , this may be one of the most surprising : The Trump campaign has taken door-knocking much more seriously than the Biden campaign .
Door-to-door canvassing — where campaign workers knock on doors to either persuade residents to vote for their candidate or remind the already persuaded to turn out — is traditionally a strong suit of Democratic campaigns .
“ Field , ” as it ’ s called , is where many leading party strategists , from 2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dillon , came up .
Political scientists have written whole books about Obama ’ s effort to mobilize millions of volunteers for field operations in 2008 and 2012 .
In 2016 , the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton was a heavy favorite to defeat Trump derived partly from a sense she had a better “ ground game.
” But in 2020 , the politics of Covid-19 mean that pattern is reversed .
Trump is knocking on doors , and Biden , until very recently , was not .
In late August , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has “ an army of over 43,000 volunteers and staff covering all 83 counties , ” whereas the state Democratic Party told reporter Jonathan Oosting it was “ not yet comfortable ” knocking on doors .
On August 28 , the Trump campaign bragged about knocking on its 1 millionth door in Florida .
Door-knocking numbers like this aren ’ t really useful ( they don ’ t tell you how many people were actually contacted ) , but the pattern is illustrative .
The Biden campaign responded to the risk that door-to-door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down its door-knocking efforts .
On October 1 , O ’ Malley Dillon finally announced the campaign would start limited door-knocking efforts , but only after months of not doing any door-knocking at all .
The Trump campaign , reflecting the president ’ s efforts to downplay the pandemic and speed up “ reopening , ” is doing the opposite , and still doing volunteer recruitment for canvassing .
Given the central role canvassing has played in recent Democratic presidential campaigns , you would think this discrepancy would prompt some concern among Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But some people in the world of Democratic campaigns are coming around to a different view : Maybe door-knocking really isn ’ t as important as we all thought .
Most political scientists I talked to affirmed this view .
Melissa Michelson , professor of political science and an expert on field experiments for voter turnout , told me , “ That the Biden campaign can ’ t engage in door-to-door canvassing is maybe not that big of a loss because we actually have tons of data about how to effectively and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different parts of the Democratic coalition — younger voters , low-income voters , Black voters , Latino voters — without going door to door.
” Indeed , there ’ s a growing body of research suggesting that methods like calling voters and “ relational ” voter turnout seem to be as effective — if not more effective — than traditional door-knocking .
To be clear , there ’ s a consensus that field work can juice turnout and even persuade voters in primary elections or local elections where the candidates are less well-known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But skeptics argue that you can ’ t just look at whether the effect of a field operation is positive or negative .
You have to ask how many votes it pulls in per dollar spent , and compare that to whatever the equivalent figure is on alternative uses of campaign money : TV ads , digital ads , direct mail , and non-knocking fieldwork like phone banking .
Given the expense of running a good field team , skeptics argue that the cost-per-vote is too high relative to alternatives and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from inefficient uses of resources and toward more efficient ones .
“ There ’ s not any other kind of information we try to communicate by going door to door , ” says David Shor , an independent Democratic data analyst who helped develop Obama ’ s data analytics operation in 2012 .
When big companies want to get the word out about their products , they use ads — and Shor and other field skeptics think campaigns should double down on those , too .
It ’ s important to distinguish between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One purpose is persuasion : convincing an undecided voter , or even one who ’ s decided for the other candidate , to support your candidate .
The other purpose is turnout : getting people who are already persuaded to support your candidate to actually vote .
Persuasion obviously happens by some mechanism in elections — swing voters are rare , but real , and a large number of voters switched from supporting Trump in 2016 to supporting Democrats in the 2018 midterms .
That ’ s persuasion of at least some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to evaluate the effect of specific campaign interventions at persuasion , the results tend to be quite dire .
Even though persuasion happens , it ’ s hard for campaigns to reliably pull it off .
UC Berkeley ’ s David Broockman and Yale ’ s Joshua Kalla conducted an evidence review in 2017 of studies evaluating how effective interventions aimed at persuading voters are , be they canvassing , phone calls , direct mail , TV , online ads , or anything else under the sun .
They found that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in primaries ; a canvass during the 2015 Philadelphia mayoral primary , an open race where voters didn ’ t know the candidates that well , was quite effective .
But in general elections ?
Nope .
“ The best estimate for the persuasive effects of campaign contact and advertising — such as mail , phone calls , and canvassing — on Americans ’ candidate choices in general elections is zero , ” they write .
“ Our best guess for online and television advertising is also zero , but there is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique circumstances where persuasion tactics become more effective for campaigns ( see the last section here ) .
But the 2020 presidential election doesn ’ t feel like one of them .
Voters know who Donald Trump is .
They know who Joe Biden is .
Given everything voters have learned about both of them over the past four years , or past several decades even , it ’ s unlikely that door-knocking or phone banking is going to be the decisive factor in changing people ’ s votes .
Turning out existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though campaign contact doesn ’ t seem to persuade people in general elections , it ’ s not necessarily a bad idea .
That ’ s because campaign contact can increase turnout , too .
The empirical literature here was kicked off by political scientists Alan Gerber and Donald Green two decades ago , and their book Get Out the Vote !
is still one of the best sources on the evidence base around the effectiveness of canvassing , phone banking , and direct mail at turning out voters .
In the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , Gerber and Green estimate that the average per-conversation effect size of canvassing turnout operations is 4.0 ; the average effect of commercial phone banks is 0.947 ; the average effect of volunteer phone banks is 2.8 .
This is across a variety of elections , though , not just presidential ones , where effect sizes might be lower .
That ’ s a lot of numbers , so let me spell it out : If canvassing has an effect size of 4.0 , that means that a door-knocking operation that knocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response at 1,000 of those doors ( a pretty standard or even high response rate ) will generate 40 new voters .
Similarly , a volunteer phone bank that reaches 1,000 people will produce about 28 new voters , since the effect size is 2.8 .
Contacting voters by phone might be just as good as door-knocking anyway When you put it like that , it makes door-knocking look considerably better than calling voters , which is likely to replace it in a Covid-19 environment .
But you can also talk to more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than through canvassing .
You don ’ t have to walk or drive between addresses .
Put it all together and Gerber and Green ’ s rough estimate is that canvassing can garner campaigns a vote for about $ 33 , while volunteer phone-banking can garner a vote for $ 36 — not too different , especially when you consider how imprecise these estimates necessarily are .
Michelson , the professor of political science at Menlo College , has evaluated dozens of experiments testing turnout and persuasion , reporting many in her 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ García Bedolla , Mobilizing Inclusion .
They found that calling voters produced more consistently positive results than door-to-door canvassing , in part because it was easier for callers to stick to a script than it was for canvassers .
“ What we found is that although door-to-door canvassing could generate the largest effects , it was not actually our recommended method , ” Michelson told me .
“ We thought that other things like two-round phone banks were more effective.
” In “ two-round ” phone banks , voters are first contacted several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a follow-up call to encourage them to vote a day or two before the election .
Door-knocking and phone banking are not the only possible ways to contact voters , of course .
Gerber and Green estimate that the average effect of conventional mailers from nonpartisan groups meant to get out the vote is 0.296 per mailer ( so a mailer that reaches 1,000 people might produce 3 new voters ) .
Robocalls and explicitly partisan direct mail ( fliers advertising a particular candidate , say ) don ’ t seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure ” mailers have a bigger effect on average .
In that tactic , campaigns or other turnout organizations use mail to remind voters that whether or not they voted in the past is public information , and share information on which of their neighbors voted .
In a study of the June 2012 Wisconsin recall election for Gov .
Scott Walker , Green , Harvard ’ s Todd Rogers , Yale ’ s John Ternovski , and Carolina Ferrerosa Young ( now working for Democratic Sen. Mark Warner ) found that social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an anti-Walker group boosted turnout of Democratic-leaning voters substantially , working out to a cost per vote of roughly $ 55 .
And in a 2006 primary election in Michigan ( a much less visible race ) , Gerber , Green , and Christopher Larimer found that social pressure mailers produced votes for $ 1.93 each , an astoundingly low price .
Social pressure techniques can generate backlash — as when Ted Cruz used them in the 2016 Iowa caucus but used made-up voter histories and told voters they ’ d committed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kind of implied they ’ d done something illegal — but they seem consistently effective .
The limits of our existing data There are a few factors , however , that complicate this public data .
For one thing , only a small share of all studies conducted on the effects of canvassing and phone banking on turnout are public .
The majority are conducted through firms like the Analyst Institute ( for Democrats ) or Evolving Strategies ( for Republicans ) , and the results are typically proprietary .
Democrats don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies they spent millions of dollars conducting and vice versa ( though everyone acknowledges that Democrats invest vastly more in these kinds of experiments than Republicans do ) .
Don Green , the Columbia political scientist and doyen of campaign field experiments , told me , “ When [ Gerber and I ] do the meta-analysis , we are super careful to get our hands around everything we can find , ” including unpublished working papers and even individual regressions .
He believes that their public summary of the evidence is representative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privately .
But there ’ s a limit on how much journalists like me or the general public can know about the evidence base , given how much of it is secret .
The other complication is that phone banking has diminished in effectiveness as people have moved to cellphones , which are harder to match to voter records , and which they ’ re less likely to use as phones and less likely to pick up calls from unfamiliar numbers .
Parties are getting better at reaching cellphones — the Democratic National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of cellphone numbers in January — but it does complicate matters .
Digital advertising is another arrow in a campaign ’ s quiver .
In recent months , it has become a highly public topic of controversy in light of Facebook and Twitter ’ s role in spreading false or misleading ads .
Most evidence to date , though , is dismissive or murky as to digital advertising ’ s effectiveness .
An early randomized experiment by Broockman and Green using Facebook found that ads weren ’ t effective at boosting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislative candidate or a Democratic congressional candidate .
The nonpartisan group Rock the Vote conducted experiments in 2012 and 2013 using Facebook ads , garnering millions of impressions , meant to boost turnout , and found no difference between the treatment group and the control group .
Kalla evaluated a similar experiment conducted by NextGen Climate , an advocacy group founded and funded by billionaire Tom Steyer .
The experiment assigned over 1 million voters in New Hampshire , Nevada , and Pennsylvania to receive online ads urging them to turn out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two-thirds of the ads were on Facebook .
Kalla found a very small effect on turnout , with an overall cost of $ 474 per vote , which is very high compared to phone banking or door-knocking .
Political scientists tend to be similarly dismissive of television ads .
“ The turnout effects of TV and digital ads are basically zero , ” Green told me , with some exceptions like Rock the Vote that he himself has tested .
Green and UCLA ’ s Lynn Vavreck found that an advertisement specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that — but most campaign ads aren ’ t as laser-focused on turnout .
“ I don ’ t know that there ’ s a study that shows that the turnout effects of a regular TV campaign , not the old ones that Lynn Vavreck and I crafted 16 years ago that were specifically about get-out-the-vote .
It ’ s basically a null set .
There are some non-experimental papers that purport to find effects , though there are plenty of non-experimental findings that show no effect , ” he said .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do persuasion , not turnout — and some non-experimental papers suggest they help with persuasion .
There ’ s a long history of observational studies ( looking at ads after the fact rather than deploying them in a randomized way as part of a formal experiment ) evaluating the effectiveness of TV ads , and analysts like Shor find them compelling .
Moreover , they think the weight of the non-experimental evidence is more in favor of TV than against it .
In 1999 , University of Texas at Austin ’ s Daron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising in statewide races from 1988 to 1996 ; a book by a trio of political scientists found that TV advertising was effective in the 2000 race .
Studies analyzing the 2004 and 2006 elections came to similar conclusions .
Most recently , a study under the unassuming title of “ Political Advertising and Election Results , ” from economists Jörg Spenkuch and David Toniatti ( un-paywalled copy here ) pooled results across three elections and used a particularly compelling design .
Spenkuch and Toniatti exploit the fact that TV ad-buying is done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that neighboring and similar counties are often in different “ media markets ” due to FCC regulations , to measure the effect of TV ads on US presidential elections from 2004 to 2012 .
They find substantial effects : “ Showing someone 100 ads in the month before the election in a presidential race increases their odds of voting for you by 1 percent , ” Shor summarizes .
If a TV ad costs only , say , $ 30 per 1,000 impressions , then that ’ s a much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shor also points to the 2020 primary for a particularly illustrative example : Shor ’ s conclusion : The Warren organizer-based model is a waste of money .
The Buttigieg strategy , based on TV and earned media , got much closer to succeeding .
“ A solid 95 percent of people who work in data for politics are coordinating field programs , which is wild , ” Shor says .
“ What we actually need are people with a different skillset , who are good at making ads , are good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video production .
I have a friend who ’ s a professional video producer who was asking me where she should go knock on doors .
That ’ s a massive misallocation of resources.
” Others , like Green and Kalla , consider the Spenkuch/Toniatti study a rather thin reed to build a pro-TV , anti-field case upon .
Kalla acknowledged that the study “ changed my prior a bit ” in favor of TV being effective .
But he noted that it identified “ a very weird mechanism ” for its effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more toward persuasion than turnout .
But TV , Spenkuch and Toniatti find , changes the turnout of the electorate .
When one party has an advantage on TV , its supporters turn out more in general elections than supporters for the candidate who fell behind on TV ads .
Green calls the study “ basically an anomaly .
What is the mechanism that would cause turnout to be the driving force behind a vote shift ?
That really struck me as strange.
” This debate might seem esoteric , but the stakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spenkuch/Toniatti and their precursors in the literature ) are right , then campaigns should be investing far less in the ground game and much more in TV ads with messages refined and perfected through iterative field experiments .
If Green is right , then phone banking and canvassing for turnout are still crucial activities for campaigns to be engaged in .
The future is canvassing your friends Beyond the disagreement over TV , there ’ s widespread agreement and optimism across the political scientist/data consultant spectrum about the possibilities of “ relational voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friendships and social attachments .
Case in point : In 2010 , Facebook conducted a 61 million-person experiment testing whether a banner urging US members to vote in the midterm elections could juice turnout .
Simply putting up an informational banner didn ’ t work at all .
But including faces of friends who ’ d clicked an “ I Voted ” button was effective at increasing turnout .
More recently , campaigns have turned to “ relational voter turnout , ” where instead of phone banking or canvassing strangers , volunteers try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like friends and family .
Persuading friends and family can be hard , as anyone who ’ s gotten into a Facebook argument with an uncle can attest , but encouraging turnout is somewhat easier .
“ Everybody , even a relatively high-probability voter … would nonetheless know people in the same family , in the same congregation , on the same street , in the same workplace , you name it , who are low-propensity voters , ” Green says .
“ That ’ s what you ’ re looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t voted in a while , are 19 , etc.
” Recently , Green and Columbia University ’ s Oliver McClellan conducted an experiment for the nonpartisan group Turnout Nation in which 43 organizing “ captains ” in four states each put together lists of 20 “ friends or relatives who would be eligible to vote ” in upcoming municipal elections .
Half of the names were assigned to be treated , meaning captains were encouraged to contact them and ask them to vote .
The other half the captains were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 13.2 percentage points , which the authors call “ extraordinary , exceeding estimates from any other randomized trial on voter turnout.
” In Ohio , where the program was more regimented , the effects were even greater .
Shor disagrees with Green on TV ads , but he ’ s absolutely on board regarding relational organizing .
One informal way for people to engage in it is to , well , post about who they ’ re voting for and remind people to vote on social media networks like Instagram and Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone can do is go out and shit-post and talk to their friends and tell people what they believe and what they care about , ” Shor says .
“ That ’ s what politics is about.
” 2020 in general has been a year in which people have struggled to find digital , or at least socially distant , replacements for in-person experiences : eating at restaurants , connecting with friends , celebrating big events .
While the particulars are controversial , one unanimous message from political scientists and election analysts is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-pandemic world .
Campaign volunteers don ’ t necessarily need to knock on strangers ’ doors as much as they need to be texting their friends to get them to vote .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Among the many impossible-to-predict consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for the 2020 presidential campaign, this may be one of the most surprising: The Trump campaign has taken door-knocking much more seriously than the Biden campaign.
Door-to-door canvassing — where campaign workers knock on doors to either persuade residents to vote for their candidate or remind the already persuaded to turn out — is traditionally a strong suit of Democratic campaigns. “Field,” as it’s called, is where many leading party strategists, from 2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to 2020 Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon, came up. Political scientists have written whole books about Obama’s effort to mobilize millions of volunteers for field operations in 2008 and 2012. In 2016, the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton was a heavy favorite to defeat Trump derived partly from a sense she had a better “ground game.”
But in 2020, the politics of Covid-19 mean that pattern is reversed. Trump is knocking on doors, and Biden, until very recently, was not.
In late August, the Trump campaign in Michigan boasted that it has “an army of over 43,000 volunteers and staff covering all 83 counties,” whereas the state Democratic Party told reporter Jonathan Oosting it was “not yet comfortable” knocking on doors. On August 28, the Trump campaign bragged about knocking on its 1 millionth door in Florida. Door-knocking numbers like this aren’t really useful (they don’t tell you how many people were actually contacted), but the pattern is illustrative.
The Biden campaign responded to the risk that door-to-door canvassing will spread Covid-19 infection by shutting down its door-knocking efforts. On October 1, O’Malley Dillon finally announced the campaign would start limited door-knocking efforts, but only after months of not doing any door-knocking at all. The Trump campaign, reflecting the president’s efforts to downplay the pandemic and speed up “reopening,” is doing the opposite, and still doing volunteer recruitment for canvassing.
Given the central role canvassing has played in recent Democratic presidential campaigns, you would think this discrepancy would prompt some concern among Democrats who believe in the ground game. But some people in the world of Democratic campaigns are coming around to a different view: Maybe door-knocking really isn’t as important as we all thought.
Most political scientists I talked to affirmed this view. Melissa Michelson, professor of political science and an expert on field experiments for voter turnout, told me, “That the Biden campaign can’t engage in door-to-door canvassing is maybe not that big of a loss because we actually have tons of data about how to effectively and in a cost-efficient way mobilize voters from all different parts of the Democratic coalition — younger voters, low-income voters, Black voters, Latino voters — without going door to door.”
Indeed, there’s a growing body of research suggesting that methods like calling voters and “relational” voter turnout seem to be as effective — if not more effective — than traditional door-knocking.
To be clear, there’s a consensus that field work can juice turnout and even persuade voters in primary elections or local elections where the candidates are less well-known and voters’ opinions are less formed.
But skeptics argue that you can’t just look at whether the effect of a field operation is positive or negative. You have to ask how many votes it pulls in per dollar spent, and compare that to whatever the equivalent figure is on alternative uses of campaign money: TV ads, digital ads, direct mail, and non-knocking fieldwork like phone banking. Given the expense of running a good field team, skeptics argue that the cost-per-vote is too high relative to alternatives and that Covid-19 might serendipitously be pushing campaigns away from inefficient uses of resources and toward more efficient ones.
“There’s not any other kind of information we try to communicate by going door to door,” says David Shor, an independent Democratic data analyst who helped develop Obama’s data analytics operation in 2012. When big companies want to get the word out about their products, they use ads — and Shor and other field skeptics think campaigns should double down on those, too.
Persuading voters in presidential general elections is difficult
It’s important to distinguish between two different purposes of political campaigns. One purpose is persuasion: convincing an undecided voter, or even one who’s decided for the other candidate, to support your candidate. The other purpose is turnout: getting people who are already persuaded to support your candidate to actually vote.
Persuasion obviously happens by some mechanism in elections — swing voters are rare, but real, and a large number of voters switched from supporting Trump in 2016 to supporting Democrats in the 2018 midterms. That’s persuasion of at least some kind taking place.
But when political scientists try to evaluate the effect of specific campaign interventions at persuasion, the results tend to be quite dire. Even though persuasion happens, it’s hard for campaigns to reliably pull it off. UC Berkeley’s David Broockman and Yale’s Joshua Kalla conducted an evidence review in 2017 of studies evaluating how effective interventions aimed at persuading voters are, be they canvassing, phone calls, direct mail, TV, online ads, or anything else under the sun.
They found that there’s lots of room for persuasion in primaries; a canvass during the 2015 Philadelphia mayoral primary, an open race where voters didn’t know the candidates that well, was quite effective. But in general elections? Nope.
“The best estimate for the persuasive effects of campaign contact and advertising — such as mail, phone calls, and canvassing — on Americans’ candidate choices in general elections is zero,” they write. “Our best guess for online and television advertising is also zero, but there is less evidence on these modes.”
There are unique circumstances where persuasion tactics become more effective for campaigns (see the last section here). But the 2020 presidential election doesn’t feel like one of them. Voters know who Donald Trump is. They know who Joe Biden is. Given everything voters have learned about both of them over the past four years, or past several decades even, it’s unlikely that door-knocking or phone banking is going to be the decisive factor in changing people’s votes.
Turning out existing voters, however, is possible
Even though campaign contact doesn’t seem to persuade people in general elections, it’s not necessarily a bad idea. That’s because campaign contact can increase turnout, too.
The empirical literature here was kicked off by political scientists Alan Gerber and Donald Green two decades ago, and their book Get Out the Vote! is still one of the best sources on the evidence base around the effectiveness of canvassing, phone banking, and direct mail at turning out voters.
In the book’s fourth edition, released in 2019, Gerber and Green estimate that the average per-conversation effect size of canvassing turnout operations is 4.0; the average effect of commercial phone banks is 0.947; the average effect of volunteer phone banks is 2.8. This is across a variety of elections, though, not just presidential ones, where effect sizes might be lower.
That’s a lot of numbers, so let me spell it out: If canvassing has an effect size of 4.0, that means that a door-knocking operation that knocks on 5,000 doors, and gets a response at 1,000 of those doors (a pretty standard or even high response rate) will generate 40 new voters. Similarly, a volunteer phone bank that reaches 1,000 people will produce about 28 new voters, since the effect size is 2.8.
Contacting voters by phone might be just as good as door-knocking anyway
When you put it like that, it makes door-knocking look considerably better than calling voters, which is likely to replace it in a Covid-19 environment.
But you can also talk to more people in an hour through phone banking than through canvassing. You don’t have to walk or drive between addresses. Put it all together and Gerber and Green’s rough estimate is that canvassing can garner campaigns a vote for about $33, while volunteer phone-banking can garner a vote for $36 — not too different, especially when you consider how imprecise these estimates necessarily are.
Michelson, the professor of political science at Menlo College, has evaluated dozens of experiments testing turnout and persuasion, reporting many in her 2012 book with UC Berkeley’s Lisa García Bedolla, Mobilizing Inclusion. They found that calling voters produced more consistently positive results than door-to-door canvassing, in part because it was easier for callers to stick to a script than it was for canvassers. “What we found is that although door-to-door canvassing could generate the largest effects, it was not actually our recommended method,” Michelson told me. “We thought that other things like two-round phone banks were more effective.”
In “two-round” phone banks, voters are first contacted several weeks before the election, and then get a follow-up call to encourage them to vote a day or two before the election.
Door-knocking and phone banking are not the only possible ways to contact voters, of course. Gerber and Green estimate that the average effect of conventional mailers from nonpartisan groups meant to get out the vote is 0.296 per mailer (so a mailer that reaches 1,000 people might produce 3 new voters). Robocalls and explicitly partisan direct mail (fliers advertising a particular candidate, say) don’t seem to have any effect.
But “social pressure” mailers have a bigger effect on average. In that tactic, campaigns or other turnout organizations use mail to remind voters that whether or not they voted in the past is public information, and share information on which of their neighbors voted.
In a study of the June 2012 Wisconsin recall election for Gov. Scott Walker, Green, Harvard’s Todd Rogers, Yale’s John Ternovski, and Carolina Ferrerosa Young (now working for Democratic Sen. Mark Warner) found that social pressure mailers like this sent out by an anti-Walker group boosted turnout of Democratic-leaning voters substantially, working out to a cost per vote of roughly $55. And in a 2006 primary election in Michigan (a much less visible race), Gerber, Green, and Christopher Larimer found that social pressure mailers produced votes for $1.93 each, an astoundingly low price.
Social pressure techniques can generate backlash — as when Ted Cruz used them in the 2016 Iowa caucus but used made-up voter histories and told voters they’d committed a “VOTER VIOLATION” in a font that kind of implied they’d done something illegal — but they seem consistently effective.
The limits of our existing data
There are a few factors, however, that complicate this public data. For one thing, only a small share of all studies conducted on the effects of canvassing and phone banking on turnout are public. The majority are conducted through firms like the Analyst Institute (for Democrats) or Evolving Strategies (for Republicans), and the results are typically proprietary. Democrats don’t want Republicans to benefit from studies they spent millions of dollars conducting and vice versa (though everyone acknowledges that Democrats invest vastly more in these kinds of experiments than Republicans do).
Don Green, the Columbia political scientist and doyen of campaign field experiments, told me, “When [Gerber and I] do the meta-analysis, we are super careful to get our hands around everything we can find,” including unpublished working papers and even individual regressions. He believes that their public summary of the evidence is representative of what groups like the Analyst Institute know privately. But there’s a limit on how much journalists like me or the general public can know about the evidence base, given how much of it is secret.
The other complication is that phone banking has diminished in effectiveness as people have moved to cellphones, which are harder to match to voter records, and which they’re less likely to use as phones and less likely to pick up calls from unfamiliar numbers. Parties are getting better at reaching cellphones — the Democratic National Committee announced a massive purchase of tens of millions of cellphone numbers in January — but it does complicate matters.
Advertising matters — potentially a lot
Digital advertising is another arrow in a campaign’s quiver. In recent months, it has become a highly public topic of controversy in light of Facebook and Twitter’s role in spreading false or misleading ads.
Most evidence to date, though, is dismissive or murky as to digital advertising’s effectiveness. An early randomized experiment by Broockman and Green using Facebook found that ads weren’t effective at boosting favorability or name recognition for a Republican state legislative candidate or a Democratic congressional candidate. The nonpartisan group Rock the Vote conducted experiments in 2012 and 2013 using Facebook ads, garnering millions of impressions, meant to boost turnout, and found no difference between the treatment group and the control group.
Kalla evaluated a similar experiment conducted by NextGen Climate, an advocacy group founded and funded by billionaire Tom Steyer. The experiment assigned over 1 million voters in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Pennsylvania to receive online ads urging them to turn out and vote in the 2016 general election. Two-thirds of the ads were on Facebook. Kalla found a very small effect on turnout, with an overall cost of $474 per vote, which is very high compared to phone banking or door-knocking.
Political scientists tend to be similarly dismissive of television ads. “The turnout effects of TV and digital ads are basically zero,” Green told me, with some exceptions like Rock the Vote that he himself has tested. Green and UCLA’s Lynn Vavreck found that an advertisement specifically designed to boost youth turnout did just that — but most campaign ads aren’t as laser-focused on turnout.
“I don’t know that there’s a study that shows that the turnout effects of a regular TV campaign, not the old ones that Lynn Vavreck and I crafted 16 years ago that were specifically about get-out-the-vote. It’s basically a null set. There are some non-experimental papers that purport to find effects, though there are plenty of non-experimental findings that show no effect,” he said.
But those TV ads are generally trying to do persuasion, not turnout — and some non-experimental papers suggest they help with persuasion. There’s a long history of observational studies (looking at ads after the fact rather than deploying them in a randomized way as part of a formal experiment) evaluating the effectiveness of TV ads, and analysts like Shor find them compelling. Moreover, they think the weight of the non-experimental evidence is more in favor of TV than against it.
In 1999, University of Texas at Austin’s Daron Shaw found substantial statewide effects of TV advertising in statewide races from 1988 to 1996; a book by a trio of political scientists found that TV advertising was effective in the 2000 race. Studies analyzing the 2004 and 2006 elections came to similar conclusions.
Most recently, a study under the unassuming title of “Political Advertising and Election Results,” from economists Jörg Spenkuch and David Toniatti (un-paywalled copy here) pooled results across three elections and used a particularly compelling design. Spenkuch and Toniatti exploit the fact that TV ad-buying is done on the “media market” level, and that neighboring and similar counties are often in different “media markets” due to FCC regulations, to measure the effect of TV ads on US presidential elections from 2004 to 2012.
They find substantial effects: “Showing someone 100 ads in the month before the election in a presidential race increases their odds of voting for you by 1 percent,” Shor summarizes. If a TV ad costs only, say, $30 per 1,000 impressions, then that’s a much more favorable cost-per-vote than phone banking or canvassing.
Shor also points to the 2020 primary for a particularly illustrative example:
[Elizabeth] Warren spent the entire cycle building up this massive army of organizers in Iowa who knocked on a bunch of doors. This is a low-salience race: only 7.6 percent of Iowans voted in the [Democratic] caucuses. But what [Pete] Buttigieg did is take roughly the same amount of money she spent on field, and spent it on TV in the summer [of 2019]. That made him go up in the polls to the point that the media started covering him. That helped him raise more money so he could buy more TV, and he almost won.
Shor’s conclusion: The Warren organizer-based model is a waste of money. The Buttigieg strategy, based on TV and earned media, got much closer to succeeding.
“A solid 95 percent of people who work in data for politics are coordinating field programs, which is wild,” Shor says. “What we actually need are people with a different skillset, who are good at making ads, are good at ad tech, or work in video production. I have a friend who’s a professional video producer who was asking me where she should go knock on doors. That’s a massive misallocation of resources.”
Others, like Green and Kalla, consider the Spenkuch/Toniatti study a rather thin reed to build a pro-TV, anti-field case upon. Kalla acknowledged that the study “changed my prior a bit” in favor of TV being effective.
But he noted that it identified “a very weird mechanism” for its effects. TV ads tend to be geared more toward persuasion than turnout. But TV, Spenkuch and Toniatti find, changes the turnout of the electorate. When one party has an advantage on TV, its supporters turn out more in general elections than supporters for the candidate who fell behind on TV ads. Green calls the study “basically an anomaly. What is the mechanism that would cause turnout to be the driving force behind a vote shift? That really struck me as strange.”
This debate might seem esoteric, but the stakes are high. If Shor (and Spenkuch/Toniatti and their precursors in the literature) are right, then campaigns should be investing far less in the ground game and much more in TV ads with messages refined and perfected through iterative field experiments. If Green is right, then phone banking and canvassing for turnout are still crucial activities for campaigns to be engaged in.
The future is canvassing your friends
Beyond the disagreement over TV, there’s widespread agreement and optimism across the political scientist/data consultant spectrum about the possibilities of “relational voter turnout” that exploits people’s friendships and social attachments.
Case in point: In 2010, Facebook conducted a 61 million-person experiment testing whether a banner urging US members to vote in the midterm elections could juice turnout. Simply putting up an informational banner didn’t work at all. But including faces of friends who’d clicked an “I Voted” button was effective at increasing turnout.
More recently, campaigns have turned to “relational voter turnout,” where instead of phone banking or canvassing strangers, volunteers try to turn out people close to them, like friends and family. Persuading friends and family can be hard, as anyone who’s gotten into a Facebook argument with an uncle can attest, but encouraging turnout is somewhat easier.
“Everybody, even a relatively high-probability voter … would nonetheless know people in the same family, in the same congregation, on the same street, in the same workplace, you name it, who are low-propensity voters,” Green says. “That’s what you’re looking for in 2020: Find 10 people who haven’t voted in a while, are 19, etc.”
Recently, Green and Columbia University’s Oliver McClellan conducted an experiment for the nonpartisan group Turnout Nation in which 43 organizing “captains” in four states each put together lists of 20 “friends or relatives who would be eligible to vote” in upcoming municipal elections. Half of the names were assigned to be treated, meaning captains were encouraged to contact them and ask them to vote. The other half the captains were told not to contact. The effect was 13.2 percentage points, which the authors call “extraordinary, exceeding estimates from any other randomized trial on voter turnout.” In Ohio, where the program was more regimented, the effects were even greater.
Shor disagrees with Green on TV ads, but he’s absolutely on board regarding relational organizing. One informal way for people to engage in it is to, well, post about who they’re voting for and remind people to vote on social media networks like Instagram and Facebook. “The most effective thing that anyone can do is go out and shit-post and talk to their friends and tell people what they believe and what they care about,” Shor says. “That’s what politics is about.”
2020 in general has been a year in which people have struggled to find digital, or at least socially distant, replacements for in-person experiences: eating at restaurants, connecting with friends, celebrating big events. While the particulars are controversial, one unanimous message from political scientists and election analysts is that electioneering translates quite well to a post-pandemic world. Campaign volunteers don’t necessarily need to knock on strangers’ doors as much as they need to be texting their friends to get them to vote.


vox--2020-10-01--Existential mysteries to read over the long winter to come

Welcome to the latest installment of Vox ’ s Ask a Book Critic , in which I , Vox book critic Constance Grady , provide book recommendations to suit your very specific mood : either how you ’ re feeling right now or how you ’ d like to be feeling instead .
I always like a good murder mystery when the weather starts to get chilly , so right now I ’ m reading Tana French ’ s forthcoming book The Searcher .
I had a bad moment with it earlier when the male protagonist began describing a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise — but then I remembered that by the Tana French formula , that moment just means that the protagonist is exposing his own blind spots with regard to women , and in the end she ’ ll turn out to be the key to everything in the way he least expects .
What makes French great , though , is I have absolutely no idea how this lady could possibly be connected to the mystery , so I am still on tenterhooks waiting .
But perhaps you are not in the mood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cred !
That is perfectly reasonable !
And that ’ s why this column exists : so I can help you find the books that you do want to read .
So let ’ s get to it .
Since Covid depression , the only books I ’ m enjoying are Martin Walker ’ s Bruno , Chief of Police series .
Any other series that are sort of gentle ( despite all the murders ) , and sort of smart ?
Probably the best author for smart-but-gentle mysteries is my girl Josephine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detective novelist .
She does a lot of British pastoral stuff ( The Franchise Affair opens with a detailed description of a tea tray ) , but she ’ s not writing a full-blown cozy mystery , which I get the sense is not what you want .
Her books aren ’ t thrillers , but they do always get a little bit violent .
Other options : Donna Leon ’ s Guido Brunetti series features a detective in Venice who deeply appreciates his wife ’ s cooking and might scratch some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Alexander McCall Smith ’ s No .
1 Ladies ’ Detective Agency series doesn ’ t have very many murders , but it ’ s very sweet and very funny .
I ’ m looking for fiction that reads like an Edward Hopper painting .
It appears that there is actually a full anthology of short stories inspired by Hopper paintings called In Sunlight or In Shadow , so you are not alone in this request !
Otherwise , I think Raymond Chandler will hit right on the mark for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense of melancholia that ’ s been overexposed to sunlight , you can ’ t beat Joan Didion .
Go with Play It As It Lays .
I was hoping you could recommend some modern fantasy or YA fantasy similar to Howl ’ s Moving Castle and Stardust .
Looking for something to escape into .
I think you should try Pamela Dean .
Her Secret Country trilogy is explicitly designed to follow in the tradition of a Narnia portal-world fantasy , but with a level of character depth and complex mythology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult reader , and there are tons of really interesting ideas in those books about why we read and what we get from stories .
They ’ re about a group of cousins who meet up every summer to play-act the story of a king ’ s betrayal and murder in a fantasy land of their own imagining .
And then one day they walk through a portal and end up living in that fantasy land themselves , where everything is just as they described it , only different .
Dean ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alley .
It ’ s a retelling of the Child ballad of Tam Lin , set in a Midwestern liberal arts college where the classics department is all made up of immortal fair folk in disguise .
It ’ s very good at making you want to be sitting in a university library in the middle of winter , drinking tea and making notes on Hamlet while you worry about whether your boyfriend is secretly an Elizabethan actor who sold his soul to the fairies in exchange for immortal youth .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satires that skewer the upper class .
Can you think of some that aren ’ t set in NYC , for a change — maybe somewhere like DC or Southern California , for example ?
Curtis Sittenfeld ’ s Eligible might be what you ’ re looking for .
It ’ s a contemporary retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in Cincinnati , and it looks very specifically at what it means to be rich in a Midwestern city .
I ’ d also recommend Such a Fun Age , which is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and race that takes place in Philadelphia .
I ’ m looking for long , hefty , cerebral puzzle box mystery-ish books that are not afraid to push me into deep and bleak existential and philosophical waters , in which I can drown myself while waiting out snowstorms , pandemics , and joblessness .
This sounds like a very difficult winter !
The obvious first call here is Ducks , Newburyport , which is made up of a single sentence that spans a thousand pages and deals with , essentially , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clarke ’ s excellent new novel Piranesi , which is fairly compact but absolutely ready to push you into deep philosophical waters ( sometimes literally ) .
Your full email mentioned David Mitchell ’ s Cloud Atlas , so on the off chance you haven ’ t read it , I think you should pick up Italo Calvino ’ s If on a winter ’ s night a traveler , which Mitchell has cited as one of his influences .
After that : Maybe some Neil Stephenson ?
Cryptonomicon might be what you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d like me to recommend a book for you , email me at constance.grady @ vox.com with the subject line “ Ask a Book Critic.
” The more specific your mood , the better !
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Welcome to the latest installment of Vox’s Ask a Book Critic, in which I, Vox book critic Constance Grady, provide book recommendations to suit your very specific mood: either how you’re feeling right now or how you’d like to be feeling instead.
I always like a good murder mystery when the weather starts to get chilly, so right now I’m reading Tana French’s forthcoming book The Searcher. I had a bad moment with it earlier when the male protagonist began describing a woman in a way that made my hackles rise — but then I remembered that by the Tana French formula, that moment just means that the protagonist is exposing his own blind spots with regard to women, and in the end she’ll turn out to be the key to everything in the way he least expects. What makes French great, though, is I have absolutely no idea how this lady could possibly be connected to the mystery, so I am still on tenterhooks waiting.
But perhaps you are not in the mood for slightly bleak Irish mysteries with feminist cred! That is perfectly reasonable! And that’s why this column exists: so I can help you find the books that you do want to read. So let’s get to it.
Since Covid depression, the only books I’m enjoying are Martin Walker’s Bruno, Chief of Police series. Any other series that are sort of gentle (despite all the murders), and sort of smart?
Probably the best author for smart-but-gentle mysteries is my girl Josephine Tey, who was a Golden Age detective novelist. She does a lot of British pastoral stuff (The Franchise Affair opens with a detailed description of a tea tray), but she’s not writing a full-blown cozy mystery, which I get the sense is not what you want. Her books aren’t thrillers, but they do always get a little bit violent.
Other options: Donna Leon’s Guido Brunetti series features a detective in Venice who deeply appreciates his wife’s cooking and might scratch some of the same food-plus-travel itch that Bruno does. And Alexander McCall Smith’s No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency series doesn’t have very many murders, but it’s very sweet and very funny.
I’m looking for fiction that reads like an Edward Hopper painting.
It appears that there is actually a full anthology of short stories inspired by Hopper paintings called In Sunlight or In Shadow, so you are not alone in this request! Otherwise, I think Raymond Chandler will hit right on the mark for that sense of claustrophobic glamour-gone-to-seed. And for a sense of melancholia that’s been overexposed to sunlight, you can’t beat Joan Didion. Go with Play It As It Lays.
I was hoping you could recommend some modern fantasy or YA fantasy similar to Howl’s Moving Castle and Stardust. Looking for something to escape into.
I think you should try Pamela Dean. Her Secret Country trilogy is explicitly designed to follow in the tradition of a Narnia portal-world fantasy, but with a level of character depth and complex mythology that would still hold up to an adult reader, and there are tons of really interesting ideas in those books about why we read and what we get from stories. They’re about a group of cousins who meet up every summer to play-act the story of a king’s betrayal and murder in a fantasy land of their own imagining. And then one day they walk through a portal and end up living in that fantasy land themselves, where everything is just as they described it, only different.
Dean’s Tam Lin might also be up your alley. It’s a retelling of the Child ballad of Tam Lin, set in a Midwestern liberal arts college where the classics department is all made up of immortal fair folk in disguise. It’s very good at making you want to be sitting in a university library in the middle of winter, drinking tea and making notes on Hamlet while you worry about whether your boyfriend is secretly an Elizabethan actor who sold his soul to the fairies in exchange for immortal youth.
I’d like to find some witty social satires that skewer the upper class. Can you think of some that aren’t set in NYC, for a change — maybe somewhere like DC or Southern California, for example?
Curtis Sittenfeld’s Eligible might be what you’re looking for. It’s a contemporary retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in Cincinnati, and it looks very specifically at what it means to be rich in a Midwestern city. I’d also recommend Such a Fun Age, which is an enormously breezy and fast-paced satire of class and race that takes place in Philadelphia.
I’m looking for long, hefty, cerebral puzzle box mystery-ish books that are not afraid to push me into deep and bleak existential and philosophical waters, in which I can drown myself while waiting out snowstorms, pandemics, and joblessness.
This sounds like a very difficult winter! The obvious first call here is Ducks, Newburyport, which is made up of a single sentence that spans a thousand pages and deals with, essentially, all of life. I would also suggest Susanna Clarke’s excellent new novel Piranesi, which is fairly compact but absolutely ready to push you into deep philosophical waters (sometimes literally).
Your full email mentioned David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, so on the off chance you haven’t read it, I think you should pick up Italo Calvino’s If on a winter’s night a traveler, which Mitchell has cited as one of his influences. After that: Maybe some Neil Stephenson? Cryptonomicon might be what you’re looking for.
If you’d like me to recommend a book for you, email me at constance.grady@vox.com with the subject line “Ask a Book Critic.” The more specific your mood, the better!


vox--2020-10-01--Most US clinical skin care is designed for white women. This CEO is making products for everyone.

In an already crowded market like skin care , which has grown explosively in recent years , how can you launch a new product line that stands apart ?
That ’ s a question for Topicals co-founder and CEO Olamide Olowe .
The science-backed skin care line for chronic skin conditions launched in Nordstrom in early August , and its products sold out in less than 24 hours .
In a candid interview with Jason Del Rey for the Code Commerce @ Home series , Olowe detailed the strategy that made Topicals a nearly overnight hit : Years before launching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products , Topicals built a community specifically focused on BIPOC women with chronic skin conditions .
“ Community isn ’ t just Instagram followers or people on your email list , ” she said .
“ Community is a shared sense of experiences.
” Two years ago , Olowe and Topicals co-founder Claudia Teng decided to build a skin care company rather than attend med school .
Their first step was to research how people talk about their chronic skin conditions , and how they accessed care .
“ People with chronic skin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
They just adapt their lifestyle to managing the condition .
“ For us to go out to our community and say , ‘ Use our product and aspire to have perfect skin ’ — it ’ s not realistic and it ’ s damaging to people ’ s mental health.
” From their community , they heard about experiences that matched their own growing up : Clinical skin care products frequently neglect the needs of women of color .
According to Olowe , 75 percent of dermatology clinical trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products on the market are not proven to be safe for darker skin tones .
Some commonly used ingredients can even cause skin cell pigment death for certain types of skin through prolonged use .
“ We have to question systems and understand why there hasn ’ t been inclusivity in dermatology , ” Olowe said , noting the profession is “ literally skin-based.
” By building community first , Topicals is aiming to make its product development inclusive .
Another thing Olowe learned from Topicals ’ community : People with chronic skin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they also want it to be fun — to look and feel good .
“ When you walk into a CVS or a Walgreens , the beauty aisle is separate from the chronic skin care aisle , ” Olowe said .
“ There wasn ’ t a brand in that chronic skin care space that you were excited to pull out of a bag in front of your friends , or live on your vanity.
” Somewhat surprisingly , Twitter — not YouTube or Instagram — is the social media network that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and marketing .
The company developed a following by posting detailed , educational threads on the platform about the science around skin conditions .
They ’ ve also used their account to take on difficult topics , posting a thread about the science of tear gas irritation during the height of the George Floyd protests , when law enforcement around the US was using tear gas on protesters .
Olowe also discussed how she dealt with challenges in securing funding .
She pitched 100 investors , forming connections by cold emailing , LinkedIn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What she learned : “ They ’ re looking to invest in ideas that will transform a category.
” All that pitching paid off .
Topicals investors include Netflix CMO Bozoma Saint John and Insecure actresses Issa Rae and Yvonne Orji .
At 23 , Olowe is the youngest Black woman to secure more than $ 1 million in venture funding , and she ’ s just getting started .
Watch the full interview here as part of the Code Commerce @ Home series , and register to tune in for upcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In an already crowded market like skin care, which has grown explosively in recent years, how can you launch a new product line that stands apart?
That’s a question for Topicals co-founder and CEO Olamide Olowe. The science-backed skin care line for chronic skin conditions launched in Nordstrom in early August, and its products sold out in less than 24 hours.
In a candid interview with Jason Del Rey for the Code Commerce@Home series, Olowe detailed the strategy that made Topicals a nearly overnight hit: Years before launching or even finalizing the formulas of their products, Topicals built a community specifically focused on BIPOC women with chronic skin conditions.
“Community isn’t just Instagram followers or people on your email list,” she said. “Community is a shared sense of experiences.” Two years ago, Olowe and Topicals co-founder Claudia Teng decided to build a skin care company rather than attend med school. Their first step was to research how people talk about their chronic skin conditions, and how they accessed care.
“People with chronic skin conditions will never find a cure,” she said. They just adapt their lifestyle to managing the condition. “For us to go out to our community and say, ‘Use our product and aspire to have perfect skin’ — it’s not realistic and it’s damaging to people’s mental health.”
From their community, they heard about experiences that matched their own growing up: Clinical skin care products frequently neglect the needs of women of color. According to Olowe, 75 percent of dermatology clinical trial participants are white, which means many products on the market are not proven to be safe for darker skin tones. Some commonly used ingredients can even cause skin cell pigment death for certain types of skin through prolonged use.
“We have to question systems and understand why there hasn’t been inclusivity in dermatology,” Olowe said, noting the profession is “literally skin-based.” By building community first, Topicals is aiming to make its product development inclusive.
Another thing Olowe learned from Topicals’ community: People with chronic skin conditions want that treatment to work, but they also want it to be fun — to look and feel good.
“When you walk into a CVS or a Walgreens, the beauty aisle is separate from the chronic skin care aisle,” Olowe said. “There wasn’t a brand in that chronic skin care space that you were excited to pull out of a bag in front of your friends, or live on your vanity.”
Somewhat surprisingly, Twitter — not YouTube or Instagram — is the social media network that Topicals has relied on for community building and marketing. The company developed a following by posting detailed, educational threads on the platform about the science around skin conditions. They’ve also used their account to take on difficult topics, posting a thread about the science of tear gas irritation during the height of the George Floyd protests, when law enforcement around the US was using tear gas on protesters.
Olowe also discussed how she dealt with challenges in securing funding. She pitched 100 investors, forming connections by cold emailing, LinkedIn messaging, and dabbling in VC Twitter. What she learned: “They’re looking to invest in ideas that will transform a category.”
All that pitching paid off. Topicals investors include Netflix CMO Bozoma Saint John and Insecure actresses Issa Rae and Yvonne Orji. At 23, Olowe is the youngest Black woman to secure more than $1 million in venture funding, and she’s just getting started.
Watch the full interview here as part of the Code Commerce@Home series, and register to tune in for upcoming live events.


vox--2020-10-01--Demonizing Somalis is at the heart of Trump’s Minnesota strategy. His Duluth rally showed it.

Speaking Wednesday evening in Minnesota , a state with the largest Somali population in the country , President Donald Trump goaded his fans into , in effect , jeering their neighbors .
During a rally in Duluth , Trump accused Democratic nominee Joe Biden of having a plan “ to inundate your state with a historic flood of refugees , ” prompting his fans to boo .
He then turned his ire on one of his frequent targets of abuse : Rep. Ilhan Omar , a Somali refugee who now represents Minneapolis in Congress .
“ And what about Omar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] harvesting .
What the hell is going on ?
I hope your US attorney is involved , ” Trump continued , referring to a newly released Project Veritas video that alleges ( without any evidence ) that Omar is involved in election fraud ; the video has been dismissed as a “ coordinated disinformation campaign ” by researchers .
As “ lock her up !
” chants rang out , Trump added , “ I mean , frankly , harvesting ’ s terrible , but it ’ s the least of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hell — then she tells us how to run our country .
Can you believe it ?
What the hell is wrong with you people ?
What the hell happened ?
” Before his rant was through , Trump suggested that another Congress member of color — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) — should also be imprisoned for no reason in particular .
“ [ Omar ’ s ] been crooked for a long time .
This is the least of it .
It ’ s time , and you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time .
It ’ s time .
If you take a look at what they — the corruption .
The disgusting corruption , ” he said .
“ Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp.
” Wednesday ’ s rally marked the second time in less than a month that Trump viciously attacked Omar in particular and the Somali community in general during a speech in Minnesota .
On September 26 in Bemidji , Trump alluded to Somalis and asked his fans , sarcastically , “ Are you having a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of that speech , Trump turned the white supremacy up to 11 , telling his almost entirely white audience , “ You have good genes , you know that , right ?
You have good genes .
A lot of it is about the genes , isn ’ t it , don ’ t you believe ?
The racehorse theory .
You think we ’ re so different ?
You have good genes in Minnesota.
” Over a 24-hour period before Trump ’ s speech in Duluth , his campaign spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonizing refugees .
Those ads were ultimately taken down by Facebook for violating the company ’ s advertising policies .
Trump ’ s regular attacks on Somalis in Minnesota put his racism on stark display Trump ’ s speech in Duluth came one night after a debate that will perhaps be best remembered for Trump ’ s refusal to denounce white supremacist groups .
Pressed to “ condemn white supremacists and militia groups and say they need to stand down ” by moderator Chris Wallace , Trump instead mentioned the neo-fascist Proud Boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stand back and stand by .
But I ’ ll tell you what , somebody has to do something about antifa and the Left.
” Instead of condemning white supremacist groups , Trump ’ s comment was widely interrupted as encouraging them — including by a leader of the Proud Boys .
At this point , it ’ s not a surprise that Trump is unwilling to denounce racists who make up a substantial part of his base .
But his trips to Minnesota — where he regularly uses Omar to demonize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whites against minority groups is a key part of his divide-and-conquer strategy .
Speaking in Minneapolis almost exactly a year ago , for instance , Trump attacked Omar as “ a disgrace to our country ” and goaded the crowd into booing the city ’ s large Somali community .
And during an interview with a Minneapolis TV station in April 2019 , Trump said he had no regrets about the fact that his attacks on Omar led to threats on her life , saying , “ She ’ s got a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very bad , I think , for our country .
I think she ’ s extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country.
” Beyond racism , Trump ’ s sales pitch to Minnesota consists of lies about how much he ’ s done for the economy there — the state ’ s unemployment rate has in fact increased by about 50 percent since Trump took office — and lies about how his decision to deploy the National Guard to Minneapolis during George Floyd protests in May “ saved ” the city ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed by the state ’ s Democratic governor , Tim Walz ) .
As condemnable as this pitch might be , it has had some resonance in Minnesota , where Trump came within 1.5 percentage points of becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Richard Nixon .
But while Trump ’ s repeated trips to Minnesota indicate that he thinks he can actually win the state this time around , a new MPR News/Star Tribune/KARE-11 Minnesota Poll released last week showed Biden leading the president by six points .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden leading Trump in the state by nine points . )
“ If I lose Minnesota , I ’ m never coming back , ” Trump told his fans in Duluth on Wednesday .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) responded on Twitter by saying , “ Goodbye.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Speaking Wednesday evening in Minnesota, a state with the largest Somali population in the country, President Donald Trump goaded his fans into, in effect, jeering their neighbors.
During a rally in Duluth, Trump accused Democratic nominee Joe Biden of having a plan “to inundate your state with a historic flood of refugees,” prompting his fans to boo. He then turned his ire on one of his frequent targets of abuse: Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee who now represents Minneapolis in Congress.
“And what about Omar? Where she gets caught [ballot] harvesting. What the hell is going on? I hope your US attorney is involved,” Trump continued, referring to a newly released Project Veritas video that alleges (without any evidence) that Omar is involved in election fraud; the video has been dismissed as a “coordinated disinformation campaign” by researchers.
As “lock her up!” chants rang out, Trump added, “I mean, frankly, harvesting’s terrible, but it’s the least of the things that she has done. How the hell — then she tells us how to run our country. Can you believe it? What the hell is wrong with you people? What the hell happened?”
Before his rant was through, Trump suggested that another Congress member of color — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — should also be imprisoned for no reason in particular.
“[Omar’s] been crooked for a long time. This is the least of it. It’s time, and you know what, AOC also. It’s time. It’s time. If you take a look at what they — the corruption. The disgusting corruption,” he said. “Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp.”
Watch:
"Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp" -- Speaking in a state with one of the largest Somali populations in the country, Trump goads his fans into booing refugees, prompting "lock her up!" chants directed at Ilhan Omar pic.twitter.com/dT2yuHxFDZ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 1, 2020
Wednesday’s rally marked the second time in less than a month that Trump viciously attacked Omar in particular and the Somali community in general during a speech in Minnesota. On September 26 in Bemidji, Trump alluded to Somalis and asked his fans, sarcastically, “Are you having a good time with your refugees?”
Toward the end of that speech, Trump turned the white supremacy up to 11, telling his almost entirely white audience, “You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." -- Trump pic.twitter.com/OiF63qZaKx — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2020
Over a 24-hour period before Trump’s speech in Duluth, his campaign spent more than $10,000 on Facebook ads demonizing refugees. Those ads were ultimately taken down by Facebook for violating the company’s advertising policies.
Trump’s regular attacks on Somalis in Minnesota put his racism on stark display
Trump’s speech in Duluth came one night after a debate that will perhaps be best remembered for Trump’s refusal to denounce white supremacist groups.
Pressed to “condemn white supremacists and militia groups and say they need to stand down” by moderator Chris Wallace, Trump instead mentioned the neo-fascist Proud Boys group and said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody has to do something about antifa and the Left.”
Holy shit. Trump refuses to condemn white supremacist groups. pic.twitter.com/FFSrvA1tcQ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2020
Instead of condemning white supremacist groups, Trump’s comment was widely interrupted as encouraging them — including by a leader of the Proud Boys.
At this point, it’s not a surprise that Trump is unwilling to denounce racists who make up a substantial part of his base. But his trips to Minnesota — where he regularly uses Omar to demonize Somalis — have always illustrated how turning whites against minority groups is a key part of his divide-and-conquer strategy.
Speaking in Minneapolis almost exactly a year ago, for instance, Trump attacked Omar as “a disgrace to our country” and goaded the crowd into booing the city’s large Somali community. And during an interview with a Minneapolis TV station in April 2019, Trump said he had no regrets about the fact that his attacks on Omar led to threats on her life, saying, “She’s got a way about her that’s very, very bad, I think, for our country. I think she’s extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country.”
REPORTER: Congresswoman Omar says your video led to direct threats on her life. Any second thoughts?
TRUMP: "No, not at all." pic.twitter.com/wiSNptg0F3 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 16, 2019
Beyond racism, Trump’s sales pitch to Minnesota consists of lies about how much he’s done for the economy there — the state’s unemployment rate has in fact increased by about 50 percent since Trump took office — and lies about how his decision to deploy the National Guard to Minneapolis during George Floyd protests in May “saved” the city (in fact, the National Guard was deployed by the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz).
As condemnable as this pitch might be, it has had some resonance in Minnesota, where Trump came within 1.5 percentage points of becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Richard Nixon. But while Trump’s repeated trips to Minnesota indicate that he thinks he can actually win the state this time around, a new MPR News/Star Tribune/KARE-11 Minnesota Poll released last week showed Biden leading the president by six points. (FiveThirtyEight’s polling average has Biden leading Trump in the state by nine points.)
“If I lose Minnesota, I’m never coming back,” Trump told his fans in Duluth on Wednesday. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) responded on Twitter by saying, “Goodbye.”


vox--2020-10-02--Two of the year’s best movies are coming to Netflix

Definitive proof that we ’ re not living in the absolute darkest timeline : Two of the best movies I ’ ve seen all year are out this weekend .
Dick Johnson Is Dead and The Forty-Year-Old Version , both of which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival way back in January , share a few things in common .
They ’ re both directed by women .
They ’ re both visually striking .
And though one is technically a documentary and one is technically fiction , they ’ re both so personal to their directors ’ lives — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their stories — that you could be forgiven for mixing up which is which .
Both movies also got lucky in being picked up for distribution by Netflix .
In a year when traditional movie studios — the kind that prioritize theatrical release — are flailing wildly , Netflix is poised for takeover .
This is the streaming service ’ s moment to shine .
It ’ s been training for this moment its whole life .
And the movies Netflix already had planned to release this fall , before anyone even thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” will benefit from a wholly unconventional autumn at the movies , with blockbusters postponed and many theaters still closed .
Netflix started its fall season a few weeks ago with Charlie Kaufman ’ s I ’ m Thinking of Ending Things — stellar , but not exactly rousing — and the Southern gothic drama The Devil All the Time , which was kind of a dud .
Yet its upcoming slate is promising , and I wouldn ’ t be surprised if Netflix ends 2020 having released a number of movies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know whether Oscar glory is in the cards for Dick Johnson Is Dead and The Forty-Year-Old Version ; neither is conventional awards fare .
But both will end up on my best-of-2020 lists , and in my mind , that ’ s the true reward .
Watch Dick Johnson Is Dead if you want to cry , but in a good way I first rhapsodized about Dick Johnson Is Dead in January , when contemplations of mortality weren ’ t quite as much of an everyday occurrence .
Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a credit to Kirsten Johnson ’ s unconventional documentary ( if I must categorize it ) that it feels even more poignant now than it did then .
Johnson , who blew apart the nonfiction film world in 2016 with her stunning film Cameraperson , started filming with her father — the Dick Johnson of the title — after his dementia diagnosis .
Having already lost her mother to the same disease , she was now facing watching her father live through the same thing , and the only way she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collaborate with him in imagining what his death and afterlife would be like .
They decided to “ reenact ” the different ways he could die , and in the midst of it , they contemplate the meaning of life .
Johnson ’ s father is religious and she is not , which could have make their considerations of death and the afterlife especially fraught .
But in Dick Johnson Is Dead , conflict isn ’ t a central issue .
Instead , the film is strangely joyful ; at times it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection and abiding love are evident in every frame , and imagining the possibilities together gives them a way to picture the unspeakable , live through the inevitable , and tentatively step into the future without surrendering to it quite yet .
It ’ s been hard for me to think about this film without both choking up and smiling in the past year , and its debut is an event worth celebrating , at least in my world .
Americans are really bad at dealing with mortality and death .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year 2020 — in which we often have , as a country , refused to process death or do what ’ s needed to avoid it — has left no room for doubt .
But Dick Johnson Is Dead is an act of grace .
It ’ s a model for facing the inevitable head-on and maybe , just maybe , finding a way to smile and cry and get a grip on what we truly are : tied to our bodies and minds , which eventually fall apart , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch it : Dick Johnson Is Dead is streaming on Netflix .
Watch The Forty-Year-Old Version if you want to laugh , but with an edge Radha Blank knows what she ’ s talking about .
The playwright ’ s intimate knowledge of the elite theater world — very white , very male , very , uh , clueless — comes naturally .
She ’ s talked freely of the trials that come with being a Black playwright , whose work doesn ’ t fit producers ’ preferred mold and who doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make “ poverty porn.
” She funneled her frustrations ( and a huge amount of humor and heart ) into The Forty-Year-Old Version , which several times made me laugh harder than I have during a movie in a long while .
( My favorite joke comes early on , when two older white women earnestly enthuse about investing in a “ multiethnic revival of Fences.
” ) Blank wrote and directed the film , in which she also stars as a frustrated playwright and Harlem high-school teacher named Radha , who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was the toast of the theater town for a while , earning a spot on a “ 30 under 30 ” list , but that was a minute ago , and now she feels stuck .
She likes the play she ’ s written about a couple living in Harlem , but to get it produced she ’ ll have to change it to align with a prominent white producer ’ s ideas about what a play should be — and her exasperations drive her to a ( hilarious ) breaking point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ever getting a play on stage again .
Bereft , but exhilarated , she has an epiphany : She ’ s going to try becoming a hip-hop performer instead .
Blank shot The Forty-Year-Old Version in black and white , which calls to mind classic films about New York from directors like Spike Lee ( and , of course , Woody Allen ) .
But she also uses a few techniques — like inserting small scenes with man-on-the-street-style interviews with her character ’ s neighbors into the main flow of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmmakers , such as Cheryl Dunye .
( In Dunye ’ s 1996 indie The Watermelon Woman , Dunye herself plays the protagonist , a young Philadelphia filmmaker named Cheryl who ’ s struggling to make work and understand her future ; the parallels are certainly there . )
In any case , Blank killed it .
The Forty-Year-Old Version is pointed , satirical , and sharp as a rapier , and it hits every beat perfectly .
No wonder Blank took home the directing award at Sundance ; this film is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and I can ’ t wait to see what Blank does next .
How to watch it : The Forty-Year-Old Version is in select theaters this weekend .
It hits Netflix on October 9 .
If you ’ re looking for something else ... Netflix has you covered , both now and in the weeks to come .
• The Boys in the Band — Joe Mantello ’ s film adaptation of the revolutionary Broadway show , produced by Ryan Murphy — hit Netflix on September 30 ; my colleague Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The flourishes that made the original work so risky and raw feel more like polished , glimmering performance in the adaptation.
” • Aaron Sorkin ’ s The Trial of the Chicago 7 is currently playing in a few theaters ahead of its October 16 debut on Netflix ; stay tuned for more on that soon .
• An adaptation of Daphne du Maurier ’ s gothic novel Rebecca ( October 21 ) , Sundance thriller His House ( October 30 ) , and plenty more are all en route from the streaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make its mark in these strange , strange days .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Definitive proof that we’re not living in the absolute darkest timeline: Two of the best movies I’ve seen all year are newly streaming on Netflix.
Dick Johnson Is Dead and The Forty-Year-Old Version, both of which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival way back in January, share a few things in common. They’re both directed by women. They’re both visually striking. And though one is technically a documentary and one is technically fiction, they’re both so personal to their directors’ lives — yet so imaginative in how they tell their stories — that you could be forgiven for mixing up which is which.
Both movies also got lucky in being picked up for distribution by Netflix. In a year when traditional movie studios — the kind that prioritize theatrical release — are flailing wildly, Netflix is poised for a takeover. This is the streaming service’s moment to shine. It’s been training for this moment its whole life. And the movies Netflix had already planned to release this fall, before anyone even thought to utter the miserable diminutive “quar,” will benefit from a wholly unconventional autumn at the movies, with blockbusters postponed and many theaters still closed.
Netflix started its fall season a few weeks ago with Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things — stellar, but not exactly rousing — and the Southern gothic drama The Devil All the Time, which was kind of a dud. Yet its upcoming slate is promising, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends 2020 having released a number of movies that make waves at the Oscars.
I don’t know whether Oscar glory is in the cards for Dick Johnson Is Dead and The Forty-Year-Old Version; neither is conventional awards fare. But both will end up on my best-of-2020 lists, and in my mind, that’s the true reward.
Watch The Forty-Year-Old Version if you want to laugh, but with an edge
Radha Blank knows what she’s talking about. The playwright’s intimate knowledge of the elite theater world — very white, very male, very, uh, clueless — comes naturally. She’s talked freely of the trials that come with being a Black playwright, whose work doesn’t fit producers’ preferred mold and who doesn’t want to write about slavery or make “poverty porn.”
She funneled her frustrations (and a huge amount of humor and heart) into The Forty-Year-Old Version, which several times made me laugh harder than I have during a movie in a long while. (My favorite joke comes early on, when two older white women earnestly enthuse about investing in a “multiethnic revival of Fences.”)
Blank wrote and directed the film, in which she also stars as a frustrated playwright and Harlem high-school teacher named Radha, who’s rounding the corner on 40. She was the toast of the theater town for a while, earning a spot on a “30 under 30” list, but that was a minute ago, and now she feels stuck. She likes the play she’s written about a couple living in Harlem, but to get it produced she’ll have to change it to align with a prominent white producer’s ideas about what a play should be — and her exasperations drive her to a (hilarious) breaking point that seems to scuttle her future chances of ever getting a play on stage again. Bereft, but exhilarated, she has an epiphany: She’s going to try becoming a hip-hop performer instead.
Blank shot The Forty-Year-Old Version in black and white, which calls to mind classic films about New York from directors like Spike Lee (and, of course, Woody Allen). But she also uses a few techniques — like inserting small scenes with man-on-the-street-style interviews with her character’s neighbors into the main flow of the story — that seem drawn from other pioneering filmmakers, such as Cheryl Dunye. (In Dunye’s 1996 indie The Watermelon Woman, Dunye herself plays the protagonist, a young Philadelphia filmmaker named Cheryl who’s struggling to make work and understand her future; the parallels are certainly there.)
In any case, Blank killed it. The Forty-Year-Old Version is pointed, satirical, and sharp as a rapier, and it hits every beat perfectly. No wonder Blank took home the directing award at Sundance; this film is a stunner of a debut. I loved it, and I can’t wait to see what Blank does next.
How to watch it: The Forty-Year-Old Version opened in select theaters on October 2 and is now streaming on Netflix.
Watch Dick Johnson Is Dead if you want to cry, but in a good way
I first rhapsodized about Dick Johnson Is Dead in January, when contemplations of mortality weren’t quite as much of an everyday occurrence. Times have changed a little, but it’s a credit to Kirsten Johnson’s unconventional documentary (if I must categorize it) that it feels even more poignant now than it did then.
Johnson, who blew apart the nonfiction film world in 2016 with her stunning film Cameraperson, started filming with her father — the Dick Johnson of the title — after his dementia diagnosis. Having already lost her mother to the same disease, she was now facing watching her father live through the same thing, and the only way she could imagine making it bearable would be to collaborate with him in imagining what his death and afterlife would be like. They decided to “reenact” the different ways he could die, and in the midst of it, they contemplate the meaning of life.
Johnson’s father is religious and she is not, which could have make their considerations of death and the afterlife especially fraught. But in Dick Johnson Is Dead, conflict isn’t a central issue. Instead, the film is strangely joyful; at times it plays like a comedy. Their deep connection and abiding love are evident in every frame, and imagining the possibilities together gives them a way to picture the unspeakable, live through the inevitable, and tentatively step into the future without surrendering to it quite yet.
It’s been hard for me to think about this film without both choking up and smiling in the past year, and its debut is an event worth celebrating, at least in my world. Americans are really bad at dealing with mortality and death. If you’ve ever questioned that fact, the year 2020 — in which we often have, as a country, refused to process death or do what’s needed to avoid it — has left no room for doubt.
But Dick Johnson Is Dead is an act of grace. It’s a model for facing the inevitable head-on and maybe, just maybe, finding a way to smile and cry and get a grip on what we truly are: tied to our bodies and minds, which eventually fall apart, but also tied to one another.
How to watch it: Dick Johnson Is Dead is streaming on Netflix.
If you’re looking for something else ...
Netflix has you covered, both now and in the weeks to come.
The Boys in the Band — Joe Mantello’s film adaptation of the revolutionary Broadway show, produced by Ryan Murphy — hit Netflix on September 30; my colleague Alex Abad-Santos recommends it but writes, “The flourishes that made the original work so risky and raw feel more like polished, glimmering performance in the adaptation.”
Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 is currently playing in a few theaters ahead of its October 16 debut on Netflix; stay tuned for more on that soon.
An adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s gothic novel Rebecca (October 21), Sundance thriller His House (October 30), and plenty more are all en route from the streaming giant, which is doing its darndest to make its mark in these strange, strange days.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-02--In Netflix’s Dick Johnson Is Dead, a father and daughter imagine his death with humor and love

Watching Kirsten Johnson ’ s 2016 directorial debut , Cameraperson , I found myself thinking both of St. Augustine and of Jacques Derrida , who wrote that photographs were tightly knit with death .
Looking at an image , Derrida said , you are seeing not exactly a person but the body of a person , frozen in time , disconnected from their full being , which reminds you of both their death and of your own .
And in Camera Lucida , Roland Barthes ’ s book on photography written in the wake of his mother ’ s death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linking reminders of mortality and the images that photographs produce .
Cameraperson was one of the best films of the 2010s , a memoir of Johnson ’ s decades working as a documentary cameraperson .
Stitched together mostly from footage from prior projects that had landed on the cutting room floor , the film explores — in a way that evokes Derrida and Barthes — how an image can turn a person into an object to be looked at .
A corpse , rather than a being .
The move from Cameraperson to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , feels natural ; it ’ s called Dick Johnson Is Dead , and in it , Johnson zooms in on her aging father and her relationship with him as they both begin to come to terms with his inevitable eventual passing .
Dick Johnson Is Dead is a little hard to describe in detail , because some of the joy of the movie comes from experiencing Kirsten ’ s and Dick ’ s exploration process as creative collaborators , right alongside them .
( I guess what I ’ m saying is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoil it for you . )
It ’ s a very playful film .
In some sequences , Johnson stages her father ’ s arrival in heaven .
In others , we ’ re not sure if we ’ re looking at something that really happened or something that ’ s imagined .
Some scenes are shot in a vérité style as Dick plays with his grandchildren , or packs up his office after retiring , or talks about his late wife , Kirsten ’ s mother , who had Alzheimer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone who ’ s lost a parent — and , I suspect , a lot of people who haven ’ t — Dick Johnson Is Dead feels more like a gift than a harrowing viewing experience .
We are invited into the intimate experience of helplessly watching someone , or even ourselves , lose the capacities they once had and face what that means .
But the presentation of this uncomfortable truth is accomplished with generosity and love .
And most of all , Dick Johnson Is Dead is an exercise in imagination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death of a loved one and their hopes for the hereafter might magnify or blunt the blow of death when it finally comes .
( Johnson ’ s parents are devout Seventh-Day Adventists , the faith she was raised in , and the ways belief and doubt shape how we confront death are an important part of the movie . )
Which means that in some ways Dick Johnson Is Dead is a gentle rebuke to Derrida ’ s and Barthes ’ s ideas about the link between images of people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a counterpoint to the idea that this is something to fear .
American culture fears death , hides it , tries to forget it ’ s going to happen , and goes to great lengths to stave it off .
But Dick Johnson Is Dead suggests that learning to confront reminders of death , to even conjure them for yourself and examine them closely , takes some of the sting out of death and replaces it with love .
To love someone is to accept that one day , death will part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of knowing that is built into the act of loving .
But we go on loving anyway .
Dick Johnson Is Dead premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January .
It is now streaming on Netflix .

Watching Kirsten Johnson’s 2016 directorial debut, Cameraperson, I found myself thinking both of St. Augustine and of Jacques Derrida, who wrote that photographs were tightly knit with death. Looking at an image, Derrida said, you are seeing not exactly a person but the body of a person, frozen in time, disconnected from their full being, which reminds you of both their death and of your own. And in Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes’s book on photography written in the wake of his mother’s death, Barthes comes to similar conclusions, linking reminders of mortality and the images that photographs produce.
Cameraperson was one of the best films of the 2010s, a memoir of Johnson’s decades working as a documentary cameraperson. Stitched together mostly from footage from prior projects that had landed on the cutting room floor, the film explores — in a way that evokes Derrida and Barthes — how an image can turn a person into an object to be looked at. A corpse, rather than a being.
Rating: 5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
The move from Cameraperson to Johnson’s second feature, then, feels natural; it’s called Dick Johnson Is Dead, and in it, Johnson zooms in on her aging father and her relationship with him as they both begin to come to terms with his inevitable eventual passing.
Dick Johnson Is Dead is a little hard to describe in detail, because some of the joy of the movie comes from experiencing Kirsten’s and Dick’s exploration process as creative collaborators, right alongside them. (I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t want to spoil it for you.) It’s a very playful film. In some sequences, Johnson stages her father’s arrival in heaven. In others, we’re not sure if we’re looking at something that really happened or something that’s imagined. Some scenes are shot in a vérité style as Dick plays with his grandchildren, or packs up his office after retiring, or talks about his late wife, Kirsten’s mother, who had Alzheimer’s and died several years ago.
For anyone who’s lost a parent — and, I suspect, a lot of people who haven’t — Dick Johnson Is Dead feels more like a gift than a harrowing viewing experience. We are invited into the intimate experience of helplessly watching someone, or even ourselves, lose the capacities they once had and face what that means. But the presentation of this uncomfortable truth is accomplished with generosity and love.
And most of all, Dick Johnson Is Dead is an exercise in imagination, and an inquiry into whether imagining the death of a loved one and their hopes for the hereafter might magnify or blunt the blow of death when it finally comes. (Johnson’s parents are devout Seventh-Day Adventists, the faith she was raised in, and the ways belief and doubt shape how we confront death are an important part of the movie.)
Which means that in some ways Dick Johnson Is Dead is a gentle rebuke to Derrida’s and Barthes’s ideas about the link between images of people and mortality — or maybe, more accurately, a counterpoint to the idea that this is something to fear.
American culture fears death, hides it, tries to forget it’s going to happen, and goes to great lengths to stave it off. But Dick Johnson Is Dead suggests that learning to confront reminders of death, to even conjure them for yourself and examine them closely, takes some of the sting out of death and replaces it with love. To love someone is to accept that one day, death will part the two of you. The pain of knowing that is built into the act of loving. But we go on loving anyway.
Dick Johnson Is Dead premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January. It is now streaming on Netflix.