Search Engine - Do political yard signs actually do anything?

Episode Date: April 12, 2024

It’s an election year and so Search Engine’s campaign desk is answering the questions you really want answers to: all the political yard signs in your neighbors’ yards … do they do anything besides make everyone like each other less? An experiment that definitively answers this question. Support the show! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Serval AI. If you ever worked with an IT team, you know how quickly their day gets eaten up by repetitive tickets, password resets, access requests, onboarding. It all adds up. And as your company grows, those requests just keep piling higher, pulling your team away from the work that actually moves the business forward. That's where Serval comes in. Serval can cut up to 80% of your help desk tickets. And it's not just another tool layering on AI as an afterthought. While legacy platforms bolt AI on, Serval was built for AI agents from the ground up. Here's what that looks like. Instead of a new hire onboarding taking hours or even days, a manager just drops a request in Slack.

And Serval handles everything instantly. No back and forth, no bottlenecks. Serval even writes automations in seconds. Serval powers the latest growing companies in the world, like perplexity, Mercore, Verkata, and Clay. Get your team out of the help desk and back to the work they enjoy. Book your free pilot at Serval.com. com slash search. That's s-e-r-v-a-l-com slash search.

Hi, one sec. My thing is messed up over here. I'm just trying to fix it. I don't know why. Oh, okay. Can you hear me? Yeah. Earlier this week, I was talking to a search engine listener named Sarah Hazelke. I'm always asking people to send in questions for the show. The thing I should warn you, as a listener, if you do this, I might call you a follow-ups. Where are we talking from? Where are you? I'm in my car outside of a library. I come here to use their Wi-Fi while my kid is at their little Montessori preschool program.

Oh, that's really nice. Sarah lives in Chatham, New York. We were talking Monday when everybody's small talk had been orbiting the same topic. What are you doing for the eclipse today? I don't know, actually, because the eclipse is during nap time. My kid naps really late. So I don't, yeah, I don't know what we're going to do. I guess I can look outside.

And with a two-and-a-half-year-old, an eclipse is not a reason to rouse a child? Absolutely not. Okay, so tell me, what is your question? Yeah, so my question is, what's going on with these yard signs? Like, do they work? And why are there so many of them? And when you say yard signs, you mean, like, vote for blah, blah, blah,

Like the political yard signs? Yeah, the political yard signs. Okay. This came up last year, which was just local elections, but we had a very contentious district attorney election. And it was just ridiculous the number of signs. In her email to the show, Sarah had said that this question,

it had come up a few times when talking to her friends and family. In particular, her mom was feeling upset about these signs. The word rage was used. And how did you feel seeing the yard signs? Did you feel any way about them? I feel like it's a lot of visual clutter. Like, I'm a visual artist, and so I pay attention to what I'm seeing out in the world. And it just seemed like there were a lot.

There would be four signs for one of the candidates. And then a little bit later, like, there would be four for the other candidate, too. And now it's like, is it canceling them out? What's happening here? Yeah, I've driven in neighborhood. where, like, you can feel like visually you're seeing, like, a noisy argument happening, and it's sort of unpleasant. Yes.

And it starts to feel like, is this something that we're doing? I don't know. Like, it's a tradition? Or is it, like, sports where people are, like, really into their team? Oh, so the question is, like, does this have an actual utility? Or is this about, like, people signaling what tribe are you kind of? Totally. Yeah.

Like, are we doing this because it's actually used to? Like, should I be putting signs in my yard? Is this actually trying that's changing minds? Or is this just something that people are doing because that's what they've always done? And it feels like you're doing something? Or you're just being obnoxious? Right.

And what's your suspicion? Because I'm just nothing about my personality lens itself. Like, I don't even know where you get a political yard sign. Like, I'm just like, it is, nothing is more opposite my feelings about it. the world, but, like, I always assumed that they don't work, because I've never driven by and been like, oh, like, Dave is for Comptroller. I guess that's what I'm doing. Like, I feel like your suspicion is that they're not doing something. My suspicion is that they're not doing

something. Yes. You said, I don't even know where you would get one. So my neighbor is one of the people that gives them out. She, her porch, like, she's one of the Chatham Democrats. She's, like, very into this. She's very involved politically. And so, She's like a location that people come to pick up signs for our local representatives. And so I think it's maybe more on my mind because of that. You're saying right by the speaker of this. Yes. Yeah.

I'm like I'm near a distribution center for this thing that's happening. And I'm wondering, should I be putting signs on my yard? Because if it did make a difference, like it's a pretty low effort thing. I don't know. Okay, cool. Well, we'll find out what we can find out. out. After these ads, a series of experiments, plus a mysterious fellow named Ben Griffin you may have heard of. That's after the break. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Instacart.

Instacart is more than a grocery technology platform. It's really about giving you back time and making everyday tasks feel a whole lot easier. It connects you to thousands of stores across the country, so you can get what you need without having to plan your whole day around it. Lately, I've been using it a ton when I'm trying to just stay on track with meals during the week. I'll sit down, map out a few recipes, and just build my cart with the things I'll need. Specific ingredients, brands I like, even the little things that I would normally forget. It really feels like everything is being chosen thoughtfully, which makes a huge difference if you care about quality. Plus, there's the convenience factor, which is what honestly just keeps me coming back. Whether I'm

planning ahead or just realizing last minute that I'm out of basics, I can order through the app and get what I need on my schedule. Instacart brings convenience, quality, and ease right to your door so you can focus on what matters most. Download the Instacart app now and get groceries just how you like. This episode of Search Engine is brought to you in part by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors out there whose job is to help your clients keep more of what they earn, Vanguard is here to help you with that.

Vanguard is slashing fees again, this time for more than 50 of its funds. That's on top of big fee cuts they gave last year to investors in 87 of their funds. In an increasingly high-priced world, Vanguard is saying true to excellence without expense. With Vanguard, your clients get access to sophisticated, active, and index bond funds at industry-leading low costs, backed by a fixed-income team that's truly obsessed with consistent outperformance. Lower fees don't just mean savings. They give Vanguard's skilled bond managers more freedom to maneuver as they pursue strong results.

And they give you more flexibility to deliver measurable value to your clients, because top performance shouldn't come at higher cost. Go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com. com slash impact. That's vanguard.com slash impact. All investing is subject to risk, Vanguard Marketing Corporation distributor. Welcome back to the show. Can you just tell me who you are and what you do professionally? My name is Cindy Cam. I am a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Cindy Cam directs an experimental research lab at Vanderbilt. Her work focuses on political psychology and public opinion, which means she drives past the odd yard sign the way

a geologist might pick up an unusual conglomerate rock. Before Dr. Kim started studying yard signs, she actually wondered about them in very much the same way our listener Sarah had. As a typical American, you know, I saw yard signs pop up around election time. Yeah. I was pregnant with my son in 2010. And there was a very noisy election happening in my area

between a candidate whose last name was Henry, and he had signs everywhere. Everyone knew that Henry was running for election. And there was sort of a no-name challenger who was trying to unseat Henry. Well, Henry won. Now he was an incumbent. He had tons of signs.

A couple months later, I gave birth to my son, and his name was Henry. Did the yard signs name your son? I think it's one of these things where you start to see a name and it becomes more familiar to you. It is more pleasant and you kind of start liking it. So I guess like what I hear you saying is the theory of the yard sign is name recognition. Correct. So the psychological process is called perceptual fluency.

Perceptual fluency. You know the first time you hear a song and you think, I don't know. a weird song, but then you hear it again and you hear it again, and it becomes much easier for you to listen to it. Perceptual fluency means that the more you're exposed to something, the more familiar it becomes, and before you even know it, you like it. Talking to Dr. Cindy Cam, I noticed how essentially she's a student of the least rational parts of our minds, the parts we might call our gut instinct, but which are usually really our capacity to bullshit ourselves, to believe.

we know something we don't actually know at all. I was curious how she figured out a method for studying this particular question. You can't run the same election twice. You're not going to convince some city councilor to not use yard signs so that you can learn a little bit more about the world. There will be a concrete answer to this yard signs question,

but before that, I just want to appreciate the process of getting there. How Dr. Cam, cheerfully, methodically, devises ways to measure human irrationality. Well, that's one of the fun things about being a political scientist, is that we get to think creatively about ways to get at our questions in multiple ways. So there have been some political scientists who have collaborated with campaigns and decided to randomly place yard signs in one district versus another, for example, or in one neighborhood versus another. And they are able to then estimate how effective that yard signs. is. That is not the approach we took. Now, my colleague, Liz Zechmeister and I are political psychologists.

So given we wanted to study the psychological processes, we went to our laboratory. Phase one in the lab. So the background for our study comes from the psychological tradition. There are these really interesting psychological studies that have shown, for example, that if Research subjects are asked to read a random list of names on one day. Then they come back the next day, and they are asked to look at a bunch of different names on a list. They decide that the ones that seem kind of familiar to them must be famous. Interesting. That's called the false fame effect.

So we have the sense that being exposed to things does affect sub-exemptive. subsequent decisions. Okay. The counter-hybottes or whatever, like, the argument against this idea would be if I believe that I was a totally rational, fully informed person, which I know that I don't meet either of those criteria, but if I were, the idea that a politician is well-known would not be a reason to vote for them. Because what my rational mind would tell me is they could be well-known for anything.

Most politicians, at least on a local level, are well-known. Like, it shouldn't matter. But you're testing whether it does. Yeah, so in an idealized democracy, citizens are all-knowing to vote as much time as they can to be becoming fully informed. And when it comes time to vote, one, they turn out. And two, they cast fully informed votes that are consistent, say, with underlying value or policy preferences. So that's the utopia. We did not live in an idealized democracy.

So you're measuring what we have and what happens? So instead of imagining, you know, this paradise, we want to know in the real world what happens. But before we get to the real world, we want to know in the laboratory, can we capture a psychological process? The funny thing about our study is that we expose people to names, but we did it subliminally. How do you do that? Our research subjects are seated in front of a computer. they are told you will see some

words or letters flash in front of you, ignore those. This is just part of the study. So they are asked to just watch the screen for about 30 seconds. Inside that 30 seconds, they are randomly assigned to receive a nonsensical set of letters

or a name. So our candidate's name is Ben Griffin. We selected this name because we wanted a name that would not be so unusual that people would notice it. We just selected sort of a name that seemed reasonably common. Yeah. So in the experiment, our research subjects who are randomly assigned to receive the name, they're sitting there, they're looking at a screen, and Griffin is popping up, hidden amongst a bunch of other letter strings so that it is not visible to, you know, someone who is just looking at the screen. It's presented subliminally in microseconds.

Yeah. Later, we ask them, you know, we're a political psychologist, we're interested in elections. So imagine there's a hypothetical election between two candidates. There's one candidate, Mike Williams, another sort of just kind of common name. Yeah. And then there's another candidate. His name is Ben Griffin. Would you be willing to vote for this candidate or the other candidate? Have you given them any other information about these hypothetical candidates? No, in this baseline experiment, we give them no information. And so the fully rational person would say, I have no idea. I have no information.

I'll flip a coin. You know, we're not dealing with these fully rational people. So we find a 10 percentage point increase in willingness to vote for Ben Griffin. 10 percentage point? Correct. Interesting. And that would hold? Like, that's a real effect.

You get 10 percentage points off of, I've heard this name before. for. That's correct. And people don't know that they've heard it before because it's subliminally exposed. So they're not saying themselves, oh, this is the Ben Griffin who I like. They're just like, I just have a feeling and I can't explain it. That's correct. Yes. So we have these feelings and a gut feeling, right? That, oh, this name is kind of familiar. I don't know where I've heard it. Yeah, I guess I'd be willing to vote for this guy. So that's what we found in our first experiment was that subliminally priming a set of our respondents with the last name Griffin increased their willingness to support Ben Griffin. And we did follow-up questions asking people to distinguish between the two

candidates on their traits, their experience, and their viability. Have you given them any information about their traits? We have given them no information about these candidates. Dr. Cam and her colleagues asked voters follow-up questions about Ben Griffin's traits versus the traits of his made-up competitors. Did Ben Griffin seem more empathetic? Did Ben Griffin see more experienced? Voters did not say Ben was more experienced or more empathetic. He just seemed, for some reason, like a more viable candidate.

Dr. Cam said there are limits, of course, to the benefits of name recognition. Comptroller Ted Bundy, for instance, is unlike. to sweep. And there are other effects that can overpower name recognition. For instance, Dr. Cam's team ran other studies in which voters were given more information about these other fake candidates. In these studies, they were told that the candidate name they recognized was now running against an incumbent, a person whose name they didn't know, but who they were told was already in power. In these studies, the name recognition advantage melted away. It felt like the team now understood the power

and the limits of this name recognition effect, of the strength of a yard sign, at least in a lab. Now they were ready to move on to the next phase. Phase two, out in the real world. So our first three studies are these very clean laboratory studies with undergraduates. And from an academic standpoint,

they have high causal leverage. We can really say that exposing people to these subliminal primes affects their vote choice, or in the case of studies two and three, does not affect their vote choice because they are relying on the incumbent queue. Yeah. But the follow-up question is,

does it make a difference in the real world? Right. So how do you test that? We came up with a design that exploits natural variation in the real world. world among parents who are dropping their kids off for school. So what do you mean? What does that look like? There is a local school where half of the parents are randomly assigned to enter the

school using, say, street egg. And then the other half of this parents are told to use street B. Oh, this is just so the school doesn't end up with like a huge clustered knot. Correct. Oh, but you can, I see. Their traffic managing strategy means you can put yard signs on one of these two approaches. That's right. So we took advantage of a school's decision to manage traffic using one path versus another path.

How did you, sorry, I know this is the most important question, but how did you find the school? Was it just like someone who was doing this study? He was like, by the way, I have to do this for my kids anyway? Yes. Very smart. So this is one of these things where it's. It's helpful to be in the real world and be thinking about, oh, how do we actually do this in the real world? And what are the ways in which people are assigned to take particular paths in life?

Yeah. So we exploited this natural variation and we placed three yard signs for Ben Griffin in front of a home that happened to be along one of the two routes. Yeah. Those three signs stayed there for three days. Yeah. We took them off, and then we launched a survey, and we included a key question on our survey, which asked the parents which route they took to school.

And then we included our own questions, which were about an upcoming city council race. Got it. So the upcoming city council race was a complicated one where I believe there were eight candidates on the ballot. We included two additional ones. on the list in our survey. We said, here are the candidates running for election in the city council.

And then we hid our two names in that list. And I'm assuming one was the name that you put on the yard side and one is a totally made-up name that's also, well, they're both made up, but one wasn't yard-signed. Correct. So, Ben Griffin and Milp Jenkins were inserted in the list of city council candidates. Ben Griffin is the person or the name for whom we posted the signs. Milt Jenkins is considered the placebo name. Yeah. Another fake name.

So we ask the parents in the upcoming race for city council, who are your top three choices for city council? And what did they say? It turns out that Ben Griffin received a 10 percentage point increase among those who were assigned to take that travel route to school. So it's a very sturdy effect, even in the real world. Correct. 10 percentage points.

10 percentage points, which means our listener, Sarah from Chatham, can walk next door to her sign-supplying neighbor, pick up a plastic piece of junk, jam it in the soil of her yard, and assuming enough of her friends do the same thing, and assuming it's a relatively low-information kind of election, they might reasonably hope to sway the outcome by 10 percentage points. I'm sorry, that is a strange reality to be forced to consider. After the break, how exactly should we feel about that?

Dr. Cam's interpretation, not at all what I expected. But that's after Sam's. Fowles are at Nordstrom Rack stores now, and they're up to 60% off. Stock up and save on Ragginbone, Made Well, Vince, All Saints, and more of your favorites. as Adidas. Why do we rack? For the hottest deal. Just so many good brands. Join the Nordy Club to unlock exclusive discounts, shop new arrivals first, and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite rack store for free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack. Leverage varies by plan. If you contract and exclusions at endurance warranty.com. Do you own a

2005 or newer vehicle with a manufacturer's warranty about to expire or no warranty coverage at all? With the cost of living on the rise, endurance is now offering a low-cost vehicle coverage. plan designed to save you thousands off costly vehicle repairs. Get your vehicle protected under this coverage and have all future covered auto repairs paid directly to the repair shop for you. Roadside service, towing, and rental coverage are included. Visit endurance warranty.com. Endurance warranty.com. Welcome back to the show. So I wanted to know the thing I usually want to know when I learn things. If yard signs are powerful enough to have a 10 percentage point effect, how am I supposed to feel about that?

I know we don't live in a utopia, and I know that if it turns out Ben Griffin is not the world's best city counselor. Like, the world doesn't end tomorrow. But there's also a part of me that is slightly freaked out by this, I guess. Like, how am I supposed to feel? As a political scientist, I think it's fascinating. What about as a citizen in a democracy? So as a citizen in a democracy, I will say, One is we have idealized notions of what citizens ought to do,

and the second is, do we want to know the truth? We want to know empirically, that is, how do people actually make decisions? Yeah. In the absence of controlling other information, people do rely on name recognition. I will say we do not study what makes people recognize some names over others. That's not something that we do because in our studies, we experimentally manipulate recognition. In the real world, right, some candidates have their names out there, right, for whatever

reasons. That is, they're doing more to raise money. They're doing more to reach out to candidates. They're doing more to be out on the media, right? So it's possible that name recognition can be efficient and efficient heuristic in the absence of all information because those are candidates who are very invested in the race and who are doing their best to get their names out there. Yeah.

I will also say, though, that there are, you know, ways that people can learn about candidates. And if they learn more information about candidates, the name recognition really doesn't matter. And when you say there are ways that people can learn more, I assume you mean like either they can read journalism, they can watch debates, and that in, say, a presidential election, there's so much information, whether the information's, you know, good, bad, accurate, not people are theoretically making more informed decisions in elections that get more attention and coverage. Correct. My sense here is that name recognition matters on the margins in the absence of other sources of information. That also suggests people are not choosing randomly. So maybe that's a minimal comfort that instead of going to the ballot booth and simply flipping coins, people are using their guts.

And some of these guts are maybe informed by real behaviors by the candidates and the media. Have you seen, I mean, your work has been published. Have you seen political campaigns? I don't want to use the word weaponized, but like, have you seen people use the findings from your work in the real world in a way to either win or manipulate elections? No, I have not. It just makes you realize, like, oh, if I found a fringy enough election and just really, really went hard with yard signs, it's not impossible to imagine winning or increasing my odds. Yes. So there is a little anecdote that I've heard of but have not verified, which is in a small northeastern town, a young man decided he was going to run. I believe it was for something like city council.

He was interested in politics, but, you know, as a sort of 20-something, had not really had much experience in politics. But his uncle was a sign maker, and it turns out he won the election. Obviously, the search engine team never wanted to miss an opportunity to over-research something, tried to fact-check this fun, possibly apocryphal story. We weren't able to confirm it. we did reach out to the politician that Cindy had heard this rumor about,

they did not get back to us. Perhaps it was true and they didn't want to talk about it. Perhaps it was untrue and they thought we were deranged. Regardless, I had gone into this interview expecting, honestly, to learn that yard signs didn't really work or rarely worked. I still didn't know what to make of the fact that, according to Dr. Cindy Cam's research,

they have a measurable and consistent effect. How does your work make you feel personally just about democracy? I'm pausing because that's a really interesting question. As empirical social scientists, we don't really think about how we feel about democracy. We just want to explore how it works. Yeah.

I would say it's a healthy step forward for the field not to be hung up on idealized versions of what would happen in a utopia, but rather to think about how ordinary people make decisions in the context of their real lives. Right. So it's like, I mean, the way I feel about democracy is, I really like it and I really worry about it.

And it sounds like one reason that you do, the work you do, is because your underlying belief is if we understand how this actually works rather than how it would work in a perfect world, we can decide how we feel about that. We seem to have decided for now that actually there are elections where we're okay with the idea that some percentage of the decision of who ends up in power is just like yard signs and name recognition. But we could change that if we wanted to, but we couldn't change it unless we understood that that was what was going on.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think that what's helpful is to know how do people make decisions, and then what are maybe some interventions that could be made to improve the quality of their decision making. So one possibility is to think about these elections. where people don't have a lot of information and to think, one, is there a way that we can provide them with more information?

Or two, should we reduce the burden on citizens and have some of these positions be appointed, say, by people who are elected when voters actually do pay attention? Oh, interesting. So, like, you could have a world where, rather than voting for... The dog catcher.

Yeah. Maybe the dog catcher does not have to be someone who is on a ballot. Right. One of the things about American electoral decisions is that, one, we are asked to do them a lot, and two, the ballots are extremely long. Yeah. And this is unique and different from the context of the rest of the world.

Now, on the one hand, more democracy seems like it's better, right? Having more choices and more options, yes, it is more democratic. On the other hand, there is a burden of decision-making of choice, right? And sometimes people get overwhelmed with having too many choices. It's interesting. You're describing a world where there's a paradox wherein if you have a super abundance of democratic choices, eventually the world becomes less democratic in a sense of you overwhelm people and they either don't choose or they choose somewhat randomly and the system becomes very imperfect.

Yes. And this is a psychological phenomenon. as well called the paradox of choice, where having too much choice can be dissatisfying to people, can make them averse to choosing. But on the other hand, having choice is so classically democratic. Yeah. So it is a real conundrum. There's this concept of like the low information voter, you know, the person who is not an election, obsessive, they're half paying attention. I know that people who do political science use that term descriptively in the world of journalism. I sometimes hear journalists use that term pejoratively.

I feel like what surprises me about the way you talk about it is that I think often the implied solution is everyone just needs to be a better democratic citizen. You know, people should spend more time learning about their comptroller or whatever. And I feel like what I hear you saying in your work is like, sure, that's one way to do it. But the reality is it's not what is always are often happening, and perhaps we might consider fixing this by looking at the system we're presenting people rather than expecting human nature to suddenly change. Yes, I think one of the ways that we can approach voter decision-making is to try to rehabilitate the voter, right, or to try to create structures that work with who the voter is.

I mean, so one of the ways to think about this also is we encourage people to, to turn out to vote, but we should also be encouraging them when they do turn out to vote to think about, you know, what are the races that I want to vote for? And it's okay to leave some blank if they don't have an opinion. I found myself thinking about Cindy's observation in a not-settled way for a while after this conversation. In America, democracy is both our system of government and an affirmative value. Something all of us, minus, I guess, a few pro-monarchy people on sub-Sac, publicly agree is good. And I do too. So I've never asked, what's the right amount of democracy?

Or is there an amount of democracy at which things become less democratic, where the wisdom of the crowd becomes decreasingly wise? Yard sign democracy. A concept I expect I'll sit with for a while. Okay, last question. Why do you think, because the listener who wrote in, she was describing how in her family, these yard signs were provoking rage. I've sometimes felt that way. Why do you think that something can both make somebody feel like, I don't know if there's even a point to

this, and I'm mad about it? That's the nature of politics, isn't it? That's a good answer. Thank you so much for talking to us about this. My pleasure. Dr. Cindy Cam, professor, researcher, and William R. Keenan, Jr. Chair at Vanderbilt University.

Search Engine is a presentation of Odyssey and Jigsaw Productions. We have a premium version of our show called Incognito Mode. If you've already subscribed, thank you so much. You are helping keep this thing running. If you'd like to sign up or just learn about the many benefits of Incognito mode, you can learn more at search engine.com. This week, our newest subscriber is Pablo from Stockholm. Thank you, Pablo from Stockholm.

I've never been to Stockholm. I am a huge fan of the syndrome, though. The show was created by me, PJ Vote, Struthy Pinnaminame and is produced by Garrett Graham and Noah John. Fact-checking by Mary Mathis. Theme, original composition, and mixing by Armin Bizarrian. Our executive producers are Jenna Weiss Berman and Leah Reese Dennis. Thanks to the team at Jigsaw, Alex Gibney, Rich Porello, and John Schmidt, and to the team at Odyssey. Jady, Crowley, Rob Morandi, Craig Cox, Donnelly, Kate Hutchison, Matt Casey, Moira Curran, Josephina Francis, Kurt Courtney, and

Hillary Schuff. Our agent is Oren, Rose. at UTA. Follow and listen to Search Engine with PJ Vote on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcasts. That's it for this week. Thank you for listening. We'll see you next week. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building.

Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Hey, business owners, the NFL season is a big revenue driver. Now there's a smarter way to get ready. Everpass is the only. authorized commercial platform for NFL Sunday ticket, delivering every live out-of-market regular season Sunday afternoon game. Lock in the best offer now with up to 40% off saving up to $2,500. For the first time, you can pay over nine months.

Get up to six free devices and a free bar kit. Sign up by April 27th. Visit everpass.com. Limited time offer, terms apply.