Online Fundraising: A Field of Dreams?
Most Americans don't contribute to political campaigns. In 2004, a highly energized and record setting presidential election saw less than 600,000 citizens contribute $200 or more across all of the candidates. There are 296,324,505 Americans. The intrigue about online fundraising is the possibility that huge numbers of previously unengaged citizens will use the internet to cough up cash. The idea is that small donations, if flowing in high enough volume, can be very powerful.
Though it is a new frontier, online fundraising is not a Field of Dreams. You can't just build it and expect them to come. Citizens must first be engaged in the political process, and then in the candidate him/herself before there is much chance they will open their wallets. That's why fundraising, particularly online, must be integrated with internet campaign strategy in a way that is engaging, energizing, and appeals to as many people as possible. It is also crucial to incubate prospective voters (i.e. everyone who visits the site) through quality relationship management so that hesitant contributors can be brought along to the confirmation page at a later visit.
Though it is a new frontier, online fundraising is not a Field of Dreams. You can't just build it and expect them to come. Citizens must first be engaged in the political process, and then in the candidate him/herself before there is much chance they will open their wallets. That's why fundraising, particularly online, must be integrated with internet campaign strategy in a way that is engaging, energizing, and appeals to as many people as possible. It is also crucial to incubate prospective voters (i.e. everyone who visits the site) through quality relationship management so that hesitant contributors can be brought along to the confirmation page at a later visit.
posted by Capitol Hill Rentals @ 5:57 PM
2 Comments:
At 9:38 PM,
Kelly Pike said…
The 2000 Presidential Campaign was also hotly contested yet Bush raised only $193 million (compared to $367 million in 2004) and Gore raised $132 million (compared to Kerry’s $326 million).
Is increased awareness of donating online the only reason fundraising increased dramatically? Of course not.
But I do think more Americans than ever before were aware of the option. After all, 30 percent of both Bush and Kerry’s donations came from people who for whatever reason chose to donate less than $200.
I wouldn’t be surprised if donating to a presidential campaign in 2004 was a first for many of those people to due the ease of Internet contributions.
At 10:21 AM,
Capitol Hill Rentals said…
Yeah, you have a lot of factors contributing to that jump in money raised, but the internet is a very big one. From a campaign's perspective, think of the efficiencies and rate of return. Literally pennies on the dollar to generate money. Even the best direct mail appeal can't come close.
You're also good to point out that my original post conspicuously leaves out data on donations under $200 (couldn't readily find it). That is key to really getting a handle on how many people are involved in the fundraising process.
I would also venture to guess that a hefty percentage of the under $200 donations were generated online.
With the horse race atmosphere created by the press (and fed by the campaigns), I think you are going to see more first time and repeat donors taking advantage of the easy donation process on the internet. The strategy should be to focus on generating volume online. If I'm donating $2K, I'd prefer a rubber chicken, stump speech, and maybe a photo-op.
Post a Comment
<< Home