Drop It at the Door, LLC
DOES DOOR-DELIVERED LITERATURE MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A Research Justification for Targeted Household Literature Distribution

Evidence-based conclusion: 1

Door-delivered literature can increase awareness and, in some contexts, turnout or candidate support.

Effects are not automatic; targeting, message, timing, election type, repetition, and data quality matter.

Prepared for candidates, businesses, and organizations. August 2026

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
Drop It at the Door, LLC • RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION • 2

Executive Summary
A substantial body of research shows that direct household outreach can affect political knowledge, participation, and—under some conditions—candidate support. The strongest causal evidence comes from randomized field experiments, not anecdotes or ordinary opinion polls.
Studies of leaflets, direct mail, postcards, and door-to-door canvassing generally find that written household contact produces small-to-moderate average effects, with larger effects appearing in certain local, primary, low-information, or carefully targeted elections (Fortier-Chouinard et al.,
2023; Green & Zelizer, 2017; Miller et al., 2017; Townsley, 2025).

The evidence does not support promising a particular number of votes, sales, inquiries, or event attendees. A major meta-analysis of 49 field experiments found little average persuasion in U.S. general elections, even though campaign contact can still mobilize turnout, transmit information, and work better in primaries, ballot-measure contests, or among carefully selected audiences (Kalla & Broockman, 2018).

The research supports presenting door delivery as a credible, research-supported communication channel—not as a guaranteed-results product. Door delivery’s value is
strengthened by cleaner household counts, standardized addresses, historical participation data, and field-refined delivery intelligence.

The Research Question
The practical question is not simply whether a piece of literature can change behavior. Research separates several possible outcomes:
 Delivery and exposure: Did the communication reach an eligible household?
 Awareness: Did recipients recognize or learn about the candidate, organization, event, or offer?
 Mobilization: Did the communication make an already sympathetic person more likely to act or vote or buy or participate?
 Persuasion: Did the communication change candidate preference, opinion, or purchasing intent?
 Response: Did recipients scan, call, attend, donate, inquire, purchase, or otherwise respond?

These outcomes should not be treated as interchangeable. Literature may increase name recognition without changing preference, or increase turnout among supporters without
persuading opposing voters (Foos & John, 2018; Miller & Richey, 1980).

What the Evidence Shows
1. Literature can transmit information and build recognition
A campaign-brochure experiment in a low-information county race increased candidate name identification and voter knowledge, although it did not significantly change candidate ratings or preferences (Miller & Richey, 1980).

This supports a conservative but useful claim: household
literature can make a candidate or organization more visible and informative.

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
Drop It at the Door, LLC • RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION • 3

2. Written household contact can increase turnoutRecent U.S. experiments found measurable turnout gains from direct mail or postcards. A Chicago experiment involving more than 52,000 young registered voters found that a mailed voter guide increased turnout by approximately 0.9 percentage points, with effects concentrated in higher-income census tracts (Miller et al., 2017). Pennsylvania postcards sent by the state increased
registration and turnout (Bryant et al., 2022). A New Hampshire experiment found that mail increased turnout but that sending more than five pieces produced no additional gains (Green & Zelizer, 2017).

3. Leaflet effects vary by election and audience
A British field experiment found a 4.3-percentage-point turnout increase from party leaflets among in-person voting households, with only a small additional effect from a canvassing visit (Townsley, 2025). A systematic review concluded that mail-delivered GOTV efforts are especially
promising in primary elections (Fortier-Chouinard et al., 2023). An Ontario experiment found only a modest overall effect, concentrated in neighborhoods demographically receptive to the candidate (Brown et al., 2010).

4. Targeting and context are central
Field experiments repeatedly show heterogeneous effects: the same message can mobilize one segment, have no effect on another, or alter the partisan composition of turnout without increasing turnout overall (Aggarwal et al., 2023; Foos & John, 2018; Shaw et al., 2022). Modern
campaign effects are therefore better understood as conditional rather than universal.

5. Mobilization is easier to demonstrate than persuasion
Kalla and Broockman’s (2018) meta-analysis found an average persuasive effect near zero in general elections. That result does not mean campaigns or literature never matter. It means changing a firmly held candidate preference late in a high-salience general election is difficult. Effects are more plausible when voters know less, the contest is a primary or ballot measure, the
communication is informational, or the audience is near a participation threshold (Broockman &
Kalla, 2022; Fortier-Chouinard et al., 2023; Kalla & Broockman, 2018).

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION • 4
Selected Evidence at a Glance
Study Contact Setting Finding
-Party leaflets UK local election; Leaflets increased turnout 4.3 points among in-person voting households. Townsley (2025)

-Up to 10 mailers New Hampshire U.S. Senate Mail raised turnout; no added gains beyond five pieces. Green & Zelizer (2017)

-Voter guide by mail Chicago mayoral election Turnout increased about 0.9 points; effects varied by neighborhood income. Miller et al. (2017)

-State postcards Pennsylvania Postcards increased
registration and turnout. Bryant et al. (2022)

-Mail-GOTV meta-analysis Multiple elections Mail effects were stronger in primary elections. Fortier-Chouinard et al.
(2023)

-Candidate literature drop Ontario election Modest candidate-support effect concentrated in receptive neighborhoods. Brown et al. (2010)

-Campaign brochure drop U.S. county race
Increased name recognition and knowledge; little preference change. Miller & Richey (1980)

-49 field experiments U.S. general elections
Average late-campaign persuasion effect was
approximately zero. Kalla & Broockman (2018)

-Large-scale campaign activity 2012 U.S. presidential race
Estimated sizable turnout effects in highly targeted
states, linked largely to ground campaigning. Enos & Fowler (2018)

-Door canvassing meta- study Six European countries
Pooled effects were positive, but smaller than many U.S.
estimates. Bhatti et al. (2019)

Evidence from U.S. Pollsters
Reputable U.S. pollsters such as AP-NORC and Pew Research Center study voter attitudes, issue
priorities, trust, and election behavior. Those surveys are useful for understanding audiences, but
they generally do not randomly assign households to receive a door leaflet and then measure.

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
Drop It at the Door, LLC • RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION • 5
verified outcomes. Therefore, they cannot isolate the causal effect of a literature drop in the way a randomized field experiment can.
AP-NORC’s nationwide VoteCast program provides high-quality descriptive evidence about the
electorate, while an AP-NORC/USAFacts poll found widespread distrust of campaign information
in 2020 (AP-NORC Center, 2020, 2023). That trust finding strengthens the case for clear sourcing, factual materials, recognizable branding, and relevant local information. It does not, by itself, prove that door literature changes behavior.
Research standard: Use pollster research to understand the audience. Use randomized field experiments to justify claims about effectiveness.

So…Why does Drop It at the Door Data Approach Matter?
The literature indicates that effects depend heavily on whom a campaign reaches. DID’s operating model addresses several practical sources of waste and measurement error:
 Standardized addresses reduce mismatches and duplicate formats.
 Householding accounts for multiple selected voters living at one deliverable door.
 Tarrant Appraisal District property data helps distinguish and organize physical properties.
 Tarrant County voter-registration and primary-participation history support audience selection.
 Dropper reports refine future delivery intelligence by recording locked gates, animals, obstructions,
vacancies, demolished properties, apartment restrictions, and other field conditions.
 Verified completion and exceptions help distinguish planned contacts from eligible, accessible
deliveries.
These features do not guarantee persuasion or response. They improve the likelihood that the intended material quantity and route correspond to real, eligible delivery locations—the first requirement for any communication effect.

Claims DID Can Responsibly Make
Recommended website language: Research indicates that well-targeted household literature can increase awareness and, in some elections, voter participation or candidate support.
Results depend on the audience, message, timing, repetition, election type, and other conditions. DID strengthens household outreach with standardized, householded, and
continuously field-refined delivery data.
DID never claims “guaranteed to increase votes,” “proven to increase sales,” or a universal percentage improvement.

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
Drop It at the Door, LLC • RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION • 6
Building DID’s Own Evidence
DID can gradually develop Tarrant County evidence without overstating causation. With client permission and an appropriate study design, future projects could use matched geographic areas, randomized delivery waves, unique QR codes, dedicated telephone numbers, event-registration links, promotional codes, or post-election turnout files. Predefined outcomes and comparison
groups would be essential. Simple before-and-after comparisons are useful operationally, but are
not as strong as randomized or carefully matched evaluations.

Drop It at the Door, LLC
Bibliography
━━━━━━━━━━
APA-style references are listed alphabetically. Article titles and report titles are linked for website access. Some publisher pages may provide an abstract while full text may require institutional access.

Aggarwal, M., Allen, J., Coppock, A., Frankowski, D., Messing, S., Zhang, K., Barnes, J., Beasley, A., Hantman, H., & Zheng, S. (2023). A 2 million-person, campaign-wide field experiment shows how digital advertising affects voter turnout. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 332–341.

AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2020). AP-NORC/USAFacts poll: Many in U.S. distrust
campaign information.

AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2023). Assessing AP VoteCast 2022.

Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2018). Can governments use Get Out the Vote letters to solve Europe’s turnout crisis? Evidence from a field experiment. West European Politics, 41(1), 240–260.

Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2019). Is door-to-door canvassing effective in Europe? Evidence from a meta-study across six European countries. British Journal of Political Science, 49, 279–290.

Biggers, D. R., Hendry, D. J., & Huber, G. A. (2024). Messages designed to increase perceived electoral
closeness increase turnout. American Politics Research, 52(1).

Broockman, D. E., & Kalla, J. L. (2022). When and why are campaigns’ persuasive effects small? Evidence from the 2020 U.S. presidential election. American Journal of Political Science.

Brown, S. D., Perrella, A. M. L., & Kay, B. J. (2010). Revisiting local campaign effects: An experiment involving literature mail drops in the 2007 Ontario election. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 49–67.

Bryant, L. A., Hanmer, M. J., Safarpour, A. C., & McDonald, J. (2022). The power of the state: How postcards
from the state increased registration and turnout in Pennsylvania. Political Behavior, 44, 535– 549.

Cheema, A., Khan, S., Liaqat, A., & Mohmand, S. K. (2023). Canvassing the gatekeepers: A field experiment to increase women voters’ turnout in Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 1–21.

Coppock, A., Green, D. P., & Porter, E. (2022). Does digital advertising affect vote choice? Evidence from a
randomized field experiment. Research & Politics, 9(2).

Enos, R. D., & Fowler, A. (2018). Aggregate effects of large-scale campaigns on voter turnout. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(4), 733–751.

Fieldhouse, E., Cutts, D., Widdop, P., & John, P. (2013). Do impersonal mobilisation methods work? Evidence from a nationwide get-out-the-vote experiment in England. Electoral Studies, 32(1), 113–123.

Foos, F., & John, P. (2018). Parties are no civic charities: Voter contact and the changing partisan composition of the electorate. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(2), 283–298.

Fortier-Chouinard, A., Bodet, M. A., Gélineau, F., Savoie, J., & Ouimet, M. (2023). Getting the message out: Why
mail-delivered GOTV interventions succeed or fail. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(1), 42–49.

Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.

Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a
large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.

Green, D. P., & Zelizer, A. (2017). How much GOTV mail is too much? Results from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(2), 107–118.

Green, D. P., McGrath, M. C., & Aronow, P. M. (2013). Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(1), 27–48.

Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148–166.

Miller, P., Reynolds, R., & Singer, M. (2017). Mobilizing the young vote: Direct mail voter guides in the 2015 Chicago mayoral election. Research & Politics, 4(4).

Miller, R. E., & Richey, W. M. (1980). The effects of a campaign brochure ‘drop’ in a county-level race for state’s attorney. Communication Yearbook, 4(1), 483–495.

Pons, V. (2018). Will a five-minute discussion change your mind? A countrywide experiment on voter choice in France. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1322–1363.

Shaw, D. R., Dun, L., & Heise, S. (2022). Mobilizing peripheral partisan voters: A field experimental analysis from three California congressional election campaigns. American Politics Research, 50(5), 587–602.

Townsley, J. (2025). Is it worth door-knocking? Evidence from a United Kingdom-based GOTV field experiment on the effect of party leaflets and canvass visits on voter turnout. Political Science Research and Methods, 13(1), 21–35.