Earlier this month U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore of California tried a new experiment in fundraising: Tweet for Chuck was the creation of online strategist Justin Hart to tap into the newly organized Top Conservatives on Twitter. The experiment has generated 136 donations so far, mostly between $10 and $25.
Although this was hardly a fundraising haul for DeVore, it was the first time a candidate used the microblogging platform to raise money. It generated positive press and got him noticed in a tough race against incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer. The website Hart built tracks donations (promoting transparency) and referrals (inspiring competition).
After observing the success, my Heritage Foundation colleague Nathaniel Ward and I asked Hart to create a similar effort for Heritage. Year-end fundraising is a priority for every nonprofit, and we saw very few downsides to asking for donations on Twitter. Last week we launched Tweet for Heritage.
Despite having more followers than DeVore, we haven’t enjoyed the same kind of success. That could be because DeVore was the first to do it or the holidays are keeping people occupied. Regardless, I hope the experiment prompts other nonprofits to use Twitter in new and creative ways.
Will fundraising work on this platform? The jury is still out for our experiment. But it would be great to have feedback or suggestions for others considering similar campaigns.
In the continuing debate over new media vs. old media—what’s online vs. what’s offline—the sub-debate about advertising is instructive.
On one hand, online ads are vulnerable to the tyranny of choice. The metrics can be overwhelming, the jargon can be off-putting and success can be mistaken for failure. Moreover, unlike traditional ad buys, online campaigns demand continuous monitoring and fine-tuning.
On the other hand, if you’re tired of one-off shots in the dark—where your one-page spread for life insurance runs opposite to an article on video games, or your spot for an SUV runs in the middle of a segment on high gas prices—then online ads may be right for your organization. Here’s why:
READ MORE »
Posted by: Alan Rosenblatt
Mobilizing online activists is the bread and butter of many advocacy organizations. But successful campaigns need to go beyond signing petitions and sending emails to policymakers. Yes, these remain important elements to any campaign, but it is equally important to use the internet as a persuasion vehicle. While campaigns are driving activists to take action, they should also be working to spread the message of the campaign across the web.
One way to achieve this is to incorporate a fundraising appeal specifically designed to raise money to run online ads for the campaign. Online ads are not only affordable, but they can also be very effective at persuasion and shaping the language of a policy debate.
We have been using this approach recently at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Our two current campaigns, How Did This Happen?, a campaign to educate the public about how conservative policies and ideology are the root cause of the current financial crisis (HowDidThisHappen.org), and the Golden Pledge to protect Social Security from privatization (GoldenPledge.org) each supplement an action request with a fundraising appeal to help run online ads promoting the campaign’s message (see the ad images below).
While funds raised in this manner may be modest for some campaigns, it doesn’t take much to make a difference. For example, running the ads on blogs, rather than major media sites, can be very cost effective. For each $1,500 raised, an ad can be served nearly a million times. That is enough exposure to reach tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of new eyeballs; people who are not already on your email list.
And if you build a tell-a-friend feature into the campaign, so that anyone taking action or donating funds on your website is prompted to send the link around, you have the potential to reach even more people.
Cross-posted on e.politics
Well, at least we’ve gotten ONE thing settled this political year: we now know what e.politics actually IS. At least according to (former) reader-via-email-signup K— S——, who sent this friendly message a couple of days ago (font size rendered accurately).
You left wing Marxist racist scum!
Dont send me any more of your crap.
Which brings up one of the classic issues involved in running an email list: how to deal with people who unsubscribe violently.
READ MORE »
Last Tuesday as I was sharing my thoughts on Twitter during the second presidential debate, I noticed frequent updates from the Cato Institute. Like Heritage, Cato reguarly tweets about its policy work. But what made Cato’s debate coverage special was the instant reaction from its analysts.
Rather than wait until after the debate to comment on the candidates’ policy proposals, Cato’s manager of new media, Christopher Moody, put the libertarian think tank’s policy experts to work right away. The result was instantaneous and informative analysis. The experiment was such a success that Cato plans to replicate it tonight.
By my count, Cato provided 44 updates on Twitter during the 90-minute debate. Its Twitter team included Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow for energy policy and environmental protection; Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies; and Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow for economics and expert on entitlement reform. READ MORE »
Cross-posted on e.politics
Even in the Early Days of epolitics.com, back when we powered the servers with wood, coal and fuel-grade mummies, plenty of people were already predicting the demise of email as a marketing/communications tool. More than two years later, it’s still a popular hobby among online experts (hi, Jeff!). I understand the logic behind the idea of a slow fade for electronic mail, and I’m sure that those predicting it are at least partially correct — as a communications channel, email’s gained so much competition over the past few years that any other trend would be hailed as an online miracle.
READ MORE »
Earlier today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Adfero Group and the Politico sponsored the last event in the Innovative Advocacy series: Intelligence, Media Monitoring, and Tracking the Buzz.
Panelists included three K Street Café contributors: Peter Waldheim from the Blog Council, Chris Kinnan from FreedomWorks and Brad Fitch from Knowlegis. Others on the two panel discussions, moderated by Mathew Zablud of Adfero Group and Brad Peck from the U.S. Chamber, were Chris Ramsey from Radian6, James Tipton from Google, and Evan Tracey from TNS Media Strategies.
Here were the key points from the two panels: READ MORE »
Posted by: Alan Rosenblatt
Rather than respond in the comments to a question from JK on my last post, Millennials at the Gates, asking for evidence of the reshaping of American politics, I will respond here.
I understand JK’s hesitation about waiting for the evidence. After all, I was a full-time academic for many years. I remember back in 1992 when I was on the Political Science conference circuit talking up Rock the Vote’s voter registration drive. I kept getting comments like, “We hope we are wrong, but young voter turnout programs never work,” from political scientists. Well, they were wrong. Rock the Vote register a million first time voters and for the first time since the 18 year olds got the vote, turnout in the 18-24 group went up.
I also like to remind people that many who waited until the evidence for television’s impact on politics found themselves on the losing end of a TV campaign by their opponent. If we wait for the evidence to arrive, we will always be behind the curve. READ MORE »
When I graduated from journalism school, I never envisioned being the editor of a think tank’s website. For nearly the past year, though, I’ve been overseeing Heritage.org. The experience has been interesting and educational — similar in some respects to running a news website and also challenging in its own unique ways.
My first few posts at K Street Café this week will examine the various ways think tanks can spread their message more effectively online.
I’d like to start at the top — literally. Writing a good headline or title can make a huge difference in the number of eyeballs on your research. READ MORE »
Cross-posted on e.politics
A tough question came up in a conversation with a visiting group of Danish communications professionals last week — how do you actually measure the effectiveness of social media outreach? At that moment, the questioner seemed to be looking for some grand sweeping mechanism, but I think the reality is much more complicated: how you measure social media depends on what you’re trying to make it do.
Trying to Grab Hold of a Cloud
Here’s the problem: as with so much communications work, the effects of social media outreach can be quite diffuse. Say your advocacy campaign has a video on your issue out on YouTube — how do you measure the influence it has on the public mind? Some thing with that network of activists you’ve laboriously built up through Facebook — how do you find out how much good they’re actually doing you?
READ MORE »
