1. You must be on the Barack Obama e-list just to learn what aggressive online fundraising is all about.
2. I'm sick of getting online fundraising appeals from Barack Obama!
I just read the last 50 emails I've received from the Obama campaign ... emails from Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, various campaign staffers, even Barack!
These 50 emails stretch back to November 15. I have nearly 150 in all ... I signed-up in February 2007, then made one small contribution in March 2007 to really get the fundraising juggernaut rolling.
Of my last 50 emails, TWO deal with issues. One forwarded a video link to Obama's speech to Martin Luther King's church this past January. The other was a video link to Obama's response to Bush's state of the union.
Of the remaining 48 emails, about two-thirds are specifically fundraising appeals, and the other third are organizational (make calls, attend events), though many of these contain a secondary fundraising message as well.
So let's not get too romantic about the role of the Internet in the Obama campaign. It's all about motivating donors and volunteers. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
But if you were expecting to be communicated with on the issues, forget it. Yes, you can find plenty of issue material online if you seek it out ... including from better sources than the candidates' own sites. Just don't expect the candidates or their campaigns to initiate an issue-based dialogue with you. They're much too busy for that.
One can't even take comfort that the fundraising appeals are grounded in issues. They're not. They are all driven by "urgent" goals to meet by this primary or that caucus, or to impress the media, or to trump what the other candidate is doing.
I don't mean to be picking on just Obama here. I'm sure that analysis of emails from Hillary Clinton or John McCain would show the same pattern.
However, he is the guy who supposed to be giving us a vision, no?
Right now, the only vision I'm getting from his online communications is of dollar signs.
Tom
]]>As he puts it:
"America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual."
Does pre-occupation with virtual politics make it too easy to feel like you've actually done something?
I'm a big believer in the empowering potential of the online medium. Certainly it can generate political money. But I fear he might be right.
]]>But some are more adroit than others in their online tactics to do so.
]]>But some are more adroit than others in their online tactics to do so.
Biden, Richardson, and Clinton are running similar online petition campaigns -- "help us send a message to Congress" to de-authorize the war, set a date certain to withdraw troops, whatever. Boring from a tactical standpoint. Plug in [issue] here! I'm amazed that people still "sign" these things. But I guess enough do to keep the prospecting pipeline going.
Dodd takes the same generic name-gathering approach, but focuses his e-petition-signers on his fellow candidates. The predicate in his approach is that he's more anti-Iraq than his fellow candidates. Still boring tactically, but at least you get the idea that he's running against other presidential candidates, not the Congress.
Edwards IMHO is taking the cleverest approach, with his appeal for funds to run anti-war TV and online ads. First, he's using online platform to involve supporters in the very process of creating the ads. Second, he's leveraging the viral potential of YouTube in the process. Third, he's asking for money upfront to do this. Fourth, he's actually using the money specifically to influence the public on the issue (and not accidentally, to position himself as lead champion on the matter). It all seems more credible ... and likely to put Edwards in front of many more people.
Obama and Kucinich seem content to focus their current online appeals on the grassroots psyche of the net population. That is, "Give to me to demonstrate that 'the people' are calling the shots in my campaign." Obama continues to generate the online gifts to support that claim. I suspect Kucinich is somewhat off the pace for reaching his one million $50 gifts goal. Meantime, both candidates' website presents an Iraq plan, but neither is using the issue directly to generate activists or dollars.
So when it comes to Round One of issue-driven campaign fundraising, I'd have to give the round to Edwards ... points for smart use of the online platform, plus points for savvy fundraising.
]]>I'll make the same complaint about their emails, all of which which I've subscribed to in a fit of masochism.
In order of frequency, the email communications I've received since February have focused on:
1. I need your money
2. I really need your money by March 31
3. Here's the spin on my 1st quarter fundraising
4. Here's what I'm doing this week
5. Watch me here (which occasionally is an event/media appearance where issues might be discussed)
6. Help me send a strong message to the President. the Attorney General, whomever... (essentially e-list building for fundraising)
7. Earnest but trite messages marking holidays and events (Happy Easter to you too)
8. And bringing up the rear, here's my latest speech on ...
Now the last does deal with issues, but only in a one-directional "here's my view, which you should applaud" manner. What's communicated is simply: "Here's my view ... if you like it, support me."
What were we expecting ... a dialogue with the candidate? A chance for US to influence THEM? Naive us! Campaigns are sales campaigns after all.
But even so, the campaigns don't seem to know the basics of what's called CRM (consumer relationship marketing) in the commercial world. It would be so easy for a campaign to ask me online about my issue priorities and then feed me material on those issues. At least give a nod to MY concerns. CRM 101.
]]>The full analysis is here.
Only these two sites have enough visitors at this point for such tracking to be possible.
What BT ultimately means, though, is that browsing patterns of a candidate's backers that are not immediately apparent could be identified and used to target other likely prospects for that candidate ... relying on the "birds of a feather" maxim.
Soon, we'll know which candidate's web visitors are most into music downloads, which are into environmental content, which are into porn!
]]>The bottomline is hugely important for marketers of candidates:
Video ads generate at least twice the response (as measured by click throughs) as standard image (JPG or GIF) ads.
In fact, when all forms of interaction with video ads are included, about 8% of all video ad impressions delivered in the study generated some interaction (2.7 billion video and image ad impressions were studied).
Actual click-through rates range from 0.4% to 0.74% for video ads, as compared to 0.1% to 0.2% for image ads.
The "bad" news is that online videos are short, short, short. The typical :30 second online video is actually viewed an average of 19 seconds, while :15 second videos are viewed an average of 10 seconds.
Not a lot of time for meaningful dialogue in the first instance! But remember, a key purpose of the online video is to trigger the click-through ... from there your candidate can "take the floor" with a more substantial presentation.
The Agitator has been monitoring the e-mail communications of all the Presidential candidates for the past two months. So far, we've been surprised at how little video messaging we've received, specifically in the context of fundraising.
The typical use of video in e-mails has been to recycle video footage of candidate appearances on mainstream TV (e.g. Biden on Leno, McCain on Letterman) or to present recycled or live key campaign speeches and appearances (e.g., all the Dems posted their performances before the DNC Winter Meeting, McCain and others holding online town hall meetings, announcing their candidacies, etc.).
Only rarely have we encountered video-driven fundraising appeals (e.g., pitch for Hillary by Bill, John Edwards capitalizing on Ann Coulter's bigoted comments to the American Conservative Union).
Just for starters, it seems to us that a simple no-brainer would be to use a video thank-you and upsell (to a monthly contribution), directly from the candidate, as the standard default communication after each one-time online donation (including any generated by presence on YouTube, MySpace, etc).
Direct mail fundraisers get fired if they don't exploit the "acknowledgement" process!
We'll have more to report after the March "close-out" of the campaign fundraising reports on our ongoing "content analysis" of candidates' e-mail communications.
]]>Whether in the context of ...
Posting a "Big Sister" Hillary video.
Writing an blog "evaluating" nonprofits.
Making a "Comment" on someone's website or blog.
Sneaking a contribution to a political candidate.
Faking "grassroots support" for a legislative goal.
Hiding behind an e-mail nom de plume.
Anonymity used to attack or manipulate springs from cowardice and/or malice. And perhaps more charitably among the young and enthusiastic, mere stupidity.
It is the antithesis of integrity. It is the enemy of authentic discourse. It is anti-democratic.
Whatever merit the message might hold.
The candidates should have the integrity to refrain from any form of anonymity in their campaigns. And they should have the guts to denounce anonymity as an unacceptable practice in the online political arena. Otherwise the game will have changed alright (Phil) ... for the worse.
Under the circumstances, Obama should go first.
Tom Belford
]]>