Comments on: Have a Merry Census

By: John Schultz

John Schultz — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:13:03 +0000

Maybe $1000, although at that point I would get irritated enough to start rattling the cages at the ACLU or similar groups that might be interested in litigating the matter pro bono.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:37:59 +0000

John S,

How high would the fine have to be before you filled out the entire census?

By: DaveG

DaveG — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:37:00 +0000

David Stokes, I don’t think I am on a different side from you and Sarah. If they are just spending money to get more mana money, then this makes no sense at all.

My point was that they are using proven business marketing strategies and pop culture as a route to increase their response rate. I see nothing wrong with this as long as it costs less than the value of the increase in responses. (And I am talking overall costs here.) Corporations pay millions for accurate market information. I praise them for their changing marketing tactics in an attempt to increase their effectiveness. I would hope there is a sound business case behind their campaign to substantiate the spending, but I wouldn’t bet money on that one…

By: John Schultz

John Schultz — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:43:02 +0000

Personally, I’m salting away the $100 fine I presume I’ll be paying for only put down how many people live at my residence. The other nine questions on the census form are not authorized by the Constitution and I’m not planning on answering them. I don’t think the government needs to know if I own or rent, my age or birthdate, my Hispanic origins or race, phone number, sex, and so forth. I imagine I’ll make the census spend more than that $100 fine in followup visits, unfortunately that money is still coming out of our pockets.

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:15:00 +0000

I am definitely with Sarah here, Dave G. All this census promotion garbage is just local, state, and federal governments spending tax dollars so that they can get (in the case of local and state gov) more tax dollars from the Federal Government, as if that Fed tax money is manna from heaven. It is the exact same issue as governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments for more tax dollars. Someone desperately needs to stand athwart the world and yell “Stop.” This entire census promotion bit is absurd lunacy.

By: Sarah Brodsky

Sarah Brodsky — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:36:26 +0000

Thanks for the comment. The Census Bureau spent $167 million to promote the 2000 Census; it’s spending $340 million promoting the 2010 Census. I don’t think the increase is justified by a marginally better response rate.

The 2000 campaign began in November of 1999; the 2010 campaign started at the end of October:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/2010_census/014353.html

That’s not such a big difference, but I hope campaigning doesn’t start even earlier in 2019.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:20:02 +0000

To me it appears that the census people are attempting to market their program in 2010. As long as the additional money spent is equal to or less than the value of the additional information gathered, I don’t see this as a bad thing. If your blog is accurate that the census starts earlier and has more marketing every decade, perhaps they have found success with the investments of time and money.

Let’s face it, this is a “me” society. With the overwhelming success of Facebook, YouTube, and other self-promoting websites, why wouldn’t the government dabble in similar marketing efforts if it is cost justified? Plus if giving people more advance notice of the census increases the chances of a higher response rate, it sounds like a potentially good use of their resources.