"You don't really need to worry about your website"

I spent my day today at Campaigns and Elections Magazine's annual campaign training seminar. At the direct mail seminar this morning, one of the speakers (from the Republican firm of Political Solutions) was reviewing the various campaign media and their strengths and weaknesses. TV is OK if you have a lot of money and a general message you want everyone to hear, radio is good for a low-budget campaign, etc. The last one he mentioned was the campaign website, as an afterthought, and said, "As far as your website, not many voters will see your website and emails are only as good as the list you've got, so you really don't need to spend much time or money on your website."

Now, there's a serious debate to be had about whether the internet is a persuasion medium or just a mobilization medium, but I was shocked to hear a consultant from a prestigious consulting firm dismiss websites so cavalierly. Not just "websites have their weaknesses", but "you don't need to worry about your website or spend much money on it at all."

So, Emi, I see what you're up against in the real world :) With luck, perhaps it will be better by the time we're all out there running campaigns...

Dear Senator Kerry: Stop begging me for money!

I know others have mentioned this in the past, but I was reminded of the unbelievable annoyingness of the Kerry campaign's fundrasing appeals last fall while reading Jacob Neilsen's review of the Bush and Kerry newsletters. He mentioned that both campaigns spent most of their content on asking for volunteers and money, which is fine, but my memory of the Kerry emails is that about 80% were focused on asking for money. They might mention a speech Kerry made before, but they got down to the business of begging for bucks within a few sentences. I remember many people mentioning that they felt like human ATM machines.

The Kerry campaign's biggest mistake, I think, was in failing to connect donations to any particular goal. The DNC recently held a fundraiser to send professional staff to the state parties of four particular states won by Bush in 2004. Supporters were told that if they raised $250,000, they would send a certain number of staff to help build state parties in these states, a big priority for many Democrats. They blew through the goal, doubled it, and blew through it again. Democrats support building state parties, so they were willing to give money to that particular need.

Kerry's appeals tended to be of the "Did you see what outragous thing Bush said yesterday? We need your money to beat him!" without telling supporters exactly how they were going to reach that goal. Donors, especially small donors, are much more willing to donate when they feel like their money is being used wisely. The best way to assure them of this is by telling them how it's being used.

(Assuming, of course, that you're spending your campaign budget wisely. If you're not, probably best not to mention it...)

Young donors

One interesting aspect of online fundraising that the IPDI report mentions is the fact that, overall, internet users are younger than the general population, heavy internet users are even younger, and your typical off-line political donor tends to be older than the population average.

One might interpret this data to mean that the internet would be a poor medium for fundraising, as the people who tend to donate money to campaigns do not use the internet in large numbers. However, recent experience with online fundraising shows that this assumption would be wrong.

The internet didn't just make it easier for anyone with a credit card to donate to a campaign; it brought the idea of donating to a new audience of young citizens in the medium with which they are most confortable. I'm as likely to buy a book from Amazon.com as from my local Border's. I get nearly all of my news and information from the internet. Communicating with my generation through TV ads or direct mail may work to a certain extent, but doesn't it make sense to reach a community throught the medium they spend the most time with? Online donation systems meet young donors where they are, making it far more likely that they'll choose to become involved.

Money Money Money

I'm continually blown away by the amount of money candidates and parties and outside interests can raise on the internet. After the recent kerfluffle about top Democratic fundraisers deserting the DNC because Howard Dean wasn't paying enough attention to them, Atrios put up a fundraising link to raise money for the DNC, with the message being that Dean still has significant fundraising prowess, even if it's not with the party's traditional high-dollar donors.

Between 9:00 on Wednesday evening and 1:15 Saturday afternoon, he and other bloggers linking to his DNC ePatriots page raised $53,925.72 from 1213 people. That's over $50,000 dollars in less than 72 hours, with an average donation of a little over $45 dollars. No plan for the money, or particular motivation, except to support Dean's chairmanship. And, of course, about 7 months after an incredibly expensive presidential campaign that raised record amounts of money from these same low-dollar donors.

$50,000 isn't a huge amount in politics, of course, but it's nothing to sneeze at, either. And the effortlessness with which it was raised is a key part of the efficiency of internet fundraising. No direct mail pleas, no fundraising dinners with bad catered food, no phone time, nothing. Just some computer servers and credit card processing fees.

The DNC deserves credit for enabling this sort of organizing and donating with its ePatriot pages, which allow people to set up their own fundraising pages to send friends and family to, and to track the amount of money they've raised. It's a good way to get people involved in the party, even if they're just raising a few hundred dollars from some friends. Or, if they have a widely read blog with readers who like Howard Dean!