techPresident - Lifting Voters' Voices: Dodd vs. Romney - Comments

Great observation

Michael Whitney — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:57:19 -0500

I think it's key for campaigns or, really, any online fundraising drive to connect what they send out in emails with what they put on their website. It's easy for the people who do those campaigns to not connect with one another - and I think part of the variable is if campaigns test conditional content or different text and goals to different parts of the list.

What they tell non-donors could be very different from what they tell people who have already donated, which they can control through variables in the email set up.

I'm biased coming from a Dean-centric worldview, but my impression of the 2004 fundraising efforts were that there was transparency, and there was a focus on building community on the campaign blog and website, and emails were in part a vehicle to get people invested in the larger community.

My impression of this year's fundraising campaigns are that folks are encouraged to spread fundraising efforts through people they already know - instead of focusing on building a community from scratch on their own, they count on fundraising efforts expanding virally through existing social networks.

So while it's likely more effective for people to push asks to their friends, there is definitely somewhat of a disconnect between the email sphere and the website sphere.

Clinton vs. Obama fundraising e-mails

tlsmith — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:45:38 -0500

Thanks for the good article. On a similar vane, I received e-mails this week from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns trying to take advantage of the rhetoric between the two campaigns. Here are my observations on the differences between the e-mails.

Clinton's e-mail arrived in my inbox at 9:32:05 a.m. EST titled, "Dead Heat In Iowa." The e-mail mentioned that they have a goal of raising $1.25 million by the end of the week, "to ensure that we have the resources needed to win." There is no direct mention of any other Democratic challenger, just one sentince that says, "in Iowa, we're in a dead heat." The rest of the e-mail was a pretty generic fundraising appeal, personalized with my name when appropiate. The graphic is of a calendar showing "31 days left," a reference to when the Iowa caucuses will be held. Looking on her website today, there is no reference to how much was raised towards the goal, nor can I find it quickly.

Obama's e-mail arrived in my inbox at 2:03:18 p.m. EST titled, "When Hillary Attacks." The e-mail started out mentioning that Obama was now leading in a poll conducted by the Des Moines Register. The e-mail went on to mention, "less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama." The e-mail continued requesting, not a specific dollar goal be reached, but they get 10,000 donors within 48 hours. There were no graphics with this e-mail. When I went to Obama's web site, there was a counter showing how many people had responded to the fundraising drive. Granted, it isn't Howard Dean's bat, but it was well done. As I write this, the graphic is still there, but I don't think they've updated it since the 48 hours ended.

I just find it interesting how the campaigns are reacting differently yet similarly to the same event.

In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed to both campaigns, but I have contributed more to Obama than I have to Clinton.

Lifting Voters' Voices: Dodd vs. Romney

Michael Whitney — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:35:43 -0500

Chris Dodd and Mitt Romney's campaigns sent similar messages to their supporters yesterday. Both fundraising emails highlighted donors' notes to the campaign, but the ways each campaign asks for money are almost polar opposites. Dodd's message highlights people who gave $100 or less and suggests a $25 donation, while Romney's message encourages people to forward the notes to your "entire rolodex," and asks for donations of at minimum $80. Join me to take a look at both of the messages.