Mike Du-who?

In his critique of Bush and Kerry's email newsletters, Neilsen hits it right on the head in his section on "Attracting Inbox Attention." He says that both of the candidates' newsletters scored poorly in this area. He's is so right!

He criticized the Bush campaign of sending emails from too many names. I agree that this just confuses people and decreases usability. Sadly, his advice hasn't made it to the RNC. Every GOP TeamLeader newsletters comes from a different person. Here are the latest examples from my Inbox:

From: Mike DuHaime Subject: In Case You Missed It

From: Kevin McLaughlin Subject: BookCast with Michael Deaver

Now, from just reading that, can you tell the first email is from the RNC Political Director and it's an article about Howard Dean? And does anyone know who Kevin McLaughlin is and what Michael Deaver has written? NO!

If the RNC wants me to open their emails and forward them to friends like a good TeamLeader, they need to incorporate more uniformity into their newsletters. I like the idea of an institutional "from" line. If they insist on a million different people sending out the emails, at least make the subject lines a little more descriptive and captivating!

At this stage, I'd have to give the RNC an F in "Inbox Attention," and that just breaks my heart!

Politics is Still Local

I have said this before and will say it again, Bush won because of the campaign's grassroots organization. The Republicans were able to turn out historical amounts of voters in 2004 because the leadership of a president they believed in motivated them to go to the polls.

Neilsen's article about the email newsletters during the last week of the campaign is right on. Neilsen finally gives the Bush campaign the credit they deserve by saying, "...Wise use of email newsletters contributed to his victory."

The Team Leader newsletters put information in voters’ hands and simply asked them to share it with their friends. The success came from empowering the Team Leaders, treating them like informed, intelligent people. It wasn't necessarily what was in the email newsletters, it was what the newsletters inspired people to do, share their thoughts with friends and family. They say politics is local, so what do you do for a presidential campaign? Make it local, person-to-person.

The lesson I think we can all learn from this is Americans are motivated by something or someone to vote for not against.

Personalizing Email Updates

While reading Neilsen's article comparing Bush and Kerry email newsletters, I had an idea, what if campaigns (assuming they're large and have manpower to dedicate to this) could produce multiple types of newsletters? The Washington Post has a number of email newsletters divided by content type and frequency.

Some people signing up for campaign e-newsletters will want one everyday, some only once a week. Why not give them this option? Subscribers could be given a set of options to personalize the frequency and subject of the emails and your campaign never has to worry that you're sending too many emails and annoying them. This is the beauty of the Internet, the ability to personalize.

Why Online Fundraising Can Lead to the First Female President

While reading the book, Madame President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling for another class, I was struck by a passage that read:

Female candidates, more than men, depend on female contributors. A study by the National Women's Political Caucus shows that women typically write checks for $100 or less, whereas men contribute $500 or more. When Elizabeth Dole announced her interest in the presidency, she was taken seriously because it was assumed she could raise the necessary money.... Shut out from the party's big donors, Dole sought contributions from female executives who had not previously participated in politics. She had only moderate success.

It dawned on me that if online fundraising can pull a long-shot candidate to the forefront of a campaign, and if most women make small donations, why can't online fundraising "level the playing field" (at least in fundraising) and help elect a female president?

What Dole should have done was start a female-led grassroots fundraising effort. In a previous post, I wrote about how virtually anyone can be a fundraiser by simply soliciting their friends and family for nominal amounts that can add up to big dollars. This is perfect for women!

My mentor, Nancy Bocskor, says "fundraising is like selling Amway products; friend-to-friend, neighbor-to-neighbor, and colleague-to-colleague." Why can't we empower women to treat fundraising for female candidates like they treat selling Amway, Mary-Kay or Avon products?

If female candidates need to rely on female contributors, then encouraging women to forward emails, host small fundraisers, and become bloggers using existing social and professional networks could end up making a huge difference in electing a female president in the near future!

Conservative Blog Aggregator Launched!

If you're looking for a great blog aggregator from the right, check out GOPINION.COM (pronounced "gee, opinion"). It looks at over 70 different blogs and gives readers the best of them everyday.

"Yeaaahh!" Worked for Lil' John, Didn't Work for Dean

Newsweek has an article in their latest issue about Howard Dean and his recent outrageous comments. Dean actually thinks his comments have been good for his party, and here's why:

1. In one day, the DNC raised $100,000 from online unsolicited donations
2. Under Dean the RNC is out raising the DNC by 2:1 instead of 3:1 in 2001
3. It's estimated that $12 million of the $14 million raised by the DNC this year has been from small donations (under $250)

I'm a little disappointed in Newsweek because I would love to know the flip side:

1. How much has the RNC raised from unsolicited online donations as a result of the Dean comments? (my prediction: a whole lot more than the DNC)
2. How much of the RNC's $36 million raised this year have come from small donations? (my prediction: a similar proportion as the DNC since big, soft money donations are now illegal)

Bottom line, the fact that Dean thinks his comments are perfectly acceptable and even helpful should scare Dems and delight GOPers. It's interesting to see the numbers of how Howard Dean is as a fundraiser for Dems, but I think it’s even more interesting to see the numbers of Howard Dean's impact on GOP fundraising!

A Fundraising Prediction...

In the Ireland/Nash chapter, "Choosing an Online Fundraising System," the authors make the prediction that "online checks will become the preferred payment option for campaigns." I don't necessarily agree with this prediction. Although I do agree online checks do have advantages over credit cards such as no bank fees and immediate access to your funds, I don't think enough people use checks these days to warrant a boom in online check use.

If we're talking about the future here, I think it's more accurate to say checks are on their way out. Our generation is proving this trend. Like NC Dem said in his post , I only write a couple checks per month. I pay all of my bills via online banking and use a check card for the majority of purchases I make. Check cards seem to be the way of the future to me. They combine the benefits of online checks (i.e. immediate access to funds, donors not being able to use credit cards, easy integration into telephone fundraising, and saving time and money on data entry) with the ease and familiarity of using a credit card.

Our society is quickly growing accustomed to paying for everything with our check cards. I know I get miffed at "cash only" establishments. Checks are slowly on their way out and many businesses are now refusing to accept checks. My prediction is check cards will be the preferred payment option for campaign donations in the future.