I often get asked by grassroots practitioners just how valuable it is for constituents to add in personal stories, or tailor the suggested text in a grassroots campaign to their Member of Congress.

Our research with congressional offices in the report, How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy, was clear: personalized messages from constituents have more influence than identical form messages. Sending a letter to a Member of Congress isn't the same thing as casting a ballot or answering a survey, where the choice with the most responses 'wins.' Sending a message to a Member of Congress is more like speaking up at a town hall meeting or writing a letter to the editor: you are expressing your views.

It is important to know, however, that every congressional office has different preferences for form messages vs. personalized message. Some offices reveal that they prefer form messages because they are easier to administer, but others insist that their boss is influenced much more by individualized communications.

In either case, the presence of personalized comments confirms that there is a 'real' person behind the communication, not just a name on a list. And, at the end of the day, it's the best way to combat skepticism on the Hill that these messages aren't from real citizens.