Online Gale Winds
A ton of positively gushing commentary has been written about how the internet will come of political age in the 2008 cycle, ushering in wonderful new forms of citizen participation and engagement. Unlimited information on the candidates. Unmediated views of the candidates. Citizen reporting on the campaigns. Small gift fundraising nirvana. Power to the people.
Blah, blah, blah.
Sure, the internet brings a lot of good stuff to the political process. But before we all collapse in ecstasy …
Here's an article by political writer Carla Marinucci in the San Francisco Chronicle that explores the “dark side” of the emerging — often unaccountable — online political arena.
She concludes with the views of ad agency exec Steve Harty:
“Campaign consultants in 2008 must be prepared for what may happen to a candidate's brand when “political dirty tricks in our winner-take-all political system meet an unregulated but highly influential media channel,'' he said.
Videos may “whip around the electorate at gale speed'' — too fast for mainstream media to understand, interpret and report, he said.
That means such “viral accusations and innuendo” may represent a whole new generation of October surprises that could undo “years of careful policy articulation” and political branding literally overnight, he said.”
Most nonprofits don't operate in the “kill or be killed” environment that presidential campaigns do. Organizational character assassination might be more difficult to pull off than the personal variety.
Still, this article is food for thought for everyone marketing a cause or charity. Because it describes the dangers posed to any brand by any individual agitated enough to exploit an easily-accessed media channel that offers little by way of authentication, redress or accountability.
Tom
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer