|
|
11.23.2004
|
Volume Two
Issue Eleven
|
|
|
|
|
|
Online Insight: Interview with Shayna Englin and Brian Reich of Mindshare Interactive Campaigns
|
|
|
Shayna Englin and Brian Reich
|
If there's anything that history will remember about this presidential campaign, it is that the candidates exploited the use of the Internet as never before.
So, for this issue, we're departing from our regular custom, and interviewing experts in the world of online political campaigns to see what we in the arts can learn from this past election.
Our interview this week is with two executives from Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a company that leverages technology to meet fundraising, communications, and advocacy goals. They have offices in Washington, DC, Boston, and Austin, TX. Here's some background on our two interviewees.
Shayna Englin is the Fundraising Practice Manager at Mindshare, responsible for developing the tactics, strategy, and services for non-political non-profit organizations. She focuses on cultural organizations, in particular helping theaters raise money, recruit and retain subscribers, and lure younger audiences.
Before joining Mindshare, Shayna ran her own consulting firm, which she founded after a decade of organizing, fundraising, and organization-building for organizations all over the country. Shayna has worked with Colorado NARAL, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, O'Connor for Congress, and Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington, to name a few.
Brian Reich heads up Mindshare's Boston Office. He also writes regularly for Campaign Web Review (http://campaignwebreview.com) and National Journal's The Hotline about the impact of the Internet on politics and campaigns. During this past election cycle, Brian coordinated online media for the Democratic News Service at the Democratic convention and was credentialed to blog the Republican Conventions as well as the Presidential Debates.
Prior to joining Mindshare, Brian served as Vice President Gore's Briefing Director, both in the White House and during his 2000 presidential campaign and has spent much of his life working with campaigns and political organizations. Brian has helped direct dozens of campaigns across the country ranging from student elections in Michigan to local initiatives and statewide campaigns in Seattle.
|
|
Q & A with Shayna & Brian
|
|
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF ONLINE ACTIVITIES FOR ANY CANDIDATE IN THE RECENT ELECTION. WHAT DID THEY DO AND WHY DID IT WORK?
Brian: This election was decided on the ground. George W. Bush and the Republicans got more of their supporters out to the polls than John Kerry and the Democrats. The internet played a huge role in this effort. Bush National Field Director, Terry Nelson, told campaign volunteers over the summer that "The web has changed the rules and we are changing grassroots politics." He said, "For many years, volunteers who wanted to walk their precinct, call voters in their neighborhood, or contact undecided voters in swing states to help a campaign had to visit the campaign office to get lists, call sheets, clipboards and brochures." Not anymore. Back in June, the Bush campaign unveiled "Your Virtual Precinct", a tool which allowed Bush supporters to set up their own "precinct" of friends and family across the country to contact on behalf of the President's campaign," and a peer-to-peer network designed to help supporters "spread the word about President Bush's record of accomplishment by sending letters to undecided voters in target states." The system even offered you the ability to download a walk list, complete with map and directions in your neighborhood. Using this system, and the accountability it provided to the campaign, the Republicans were able to identify, and then leverage the time and energy of their volunteers, at levels no campaign had reached before.
Shayna: I agree with Brian that this election was won and lost on the ground. The Republicans had a much better planned and executed effort to deploy volunteers to get out the Republican vote. They used online tools much more effectively than the Democrats to make that happen.
The impact of online strategies went well beyond that, though. Fundraising for the 2004 cycle was a whole different ballgame than it was even two years ago. Campaigns up and down the ticket - from President on down to state legislator - quickly and inexpensively conceived of, wrote, delivered, and saw returns on online fundraising efforts. In 2004 a standard fundraising effort took no more than two weeks, start to finish, because it happened online, though email, blogs, and advertising. Compare that to even two years ago, where the standard fundraising timeline encompassed upwards of five or six weeks and cost considerably more in production (printing, and stuffing), postage, and processing (opening up those envelopes, then tallying and depositing the checks). Both national campaigns successfully took full advantage of the fundraising opportunities online
Messaging across all communication mediums was much more timely and closely targeted than in past elections thanks to the effects of online tactics. Online, as opposed to via direct mail or even TV, messages can be nearly instantly tweaked to respond to real-time events. They can also be delivered in a much more targeted way - to people reading the news section online, for example, or people visiting health care-related websites. In messaging as in ground operations, Republicans seized the opportunities online much more effectively than Democrats. They had compelling, timely, and well-delivered messages that both attacked and defended against attacks, and reinforced their overall campaign messages and themes. An excellent example is the "Ashley's Story" campaign that ran online during the final weeks of the campaign. It was a massive campaign, delivered in banner ads across the country and across a wide variety of websites, that linked to a webpage resembling a page from a scrapbook. Ashley lost her dad on 9/11. She famously got a hug from the President at a campaign rally shortly thereafter. The scrapbook page told her story from hers and her mom's perspective, and reinforced the image of the President as a man of the people, moved by the plight of Americans and concerned in a personal way about their safety. None of the Democrat's efforts matched it in terms of reach, message consistency, or ingenious use of the online medium.
CAN YOU GIVE US SOME SPECIFIC STATS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE INFLUENCE E-MAIL AND WEB MARKETING HAD ON THIS PAST CAMPAIGN?
Brian: More than 40% of those who use the internet have gotten political material during this campaign, according to the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press - that's a 50% increase than the number who had gotten such information in the 2000 campaign. That translates to 30 million Americans getting news about politics online in 2000. By the middle of 2004, that number was up to 63 million. In the final few months before Election Day, more than four in ten Internet users used the web to find information that helped them decide how to vote. The Bush campaign's database of email addresses was said to have as many as seven million names, while the Kerry campaign added another 2.5 million names. John Kerry's campaign for president raised 60 percent of its contributions through its Internet site, many from first-time donors making small contributions. Some bloggers were receiving one million-plus visitors per day in the final weeks of the campaign. So the fact is, more Americans are turning to the Web for political news and information, and the entire political process is being elevated to new levels as a result.
Shayna: The numbers were staggering for both campaigns in terms of people reached and dollars raised. Again, the Republican campaigns made better use of those numbers. During the final week of the election, the Kerry campaign continued to send out fundraising messages - nearly 2/3 of the messages Democrats received from the campaign asked for a contribution, while only 30% focused on getting out the vote and just 14% focused on issues or current events. In contrast, of messages the Bush campaign sent during the final week, only 8% focused on fundraising, while 38% focused on getting out the vote and 54% focused on issues. The Bush campaign used it's direct line to it's supporters to ask them for what was most imminently needed: votes and unity on issues. The Kerry campaign sent as many messages, but asked for something far less urgent: money.
SINCE OUR READERS ARE MOSTLY NOT-FOR-PROFIT, ARTS AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, WHAT LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED HERE AND APPLIED TO ARTS AND CULTURE MARKETING?
Shayna: In this election and in general, we know that the most important ingredients for success online are content, call to action, and urgency. Arts and cultural organizations are a natural fit because they already have these three ingredients. They are in the business of producing content - theater productions and museum exhibits are nothing but content. The call to action couldn't be clearer - go to the theater, visit the exhibition, come to the event. Urgency is built in - productions have run times, exhibitions have start and close times, and once they're done, they're gone for good. The lessons of building relationships using timely content and making specific asks absolutely apply to arts and cultural marketing. They not only apply, but have enormous potential for increasing dollars raised, visitorship, and visibility for arts and culture organization.
Brian: The Internet has created new opportunities for non-profit, charitable, and cultural organizations to more effectively communicate with their stakeholders. A strong web presence and strategic use of email and other online tools allows an organization to reach supporters and donors, volunteers, and the media more effectively. These online tools must be incorporated into the overall strategy of an organization and used as a key extension of everyday activities to maximize the benefits they offer. Remember, web users are not like the target audiences for television and direct mail, and they need to be approached differently. Web visitors spend far more time searching and learning. Where a direct mail piece may steal a quick glance before finding its way into the recycle bin, the average Web site visitor could spend five or ten minutes at a time actively gathering information at an organization's website. The Internet is simply a more effective tool for educating and energizing subscribers or supporters than any other.
WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'LL SEE IN 4 YEARS AT THE NEXT ELECTION? CAN YOU LOOK INTO YOUR CRYSTAL BALL AND PREDICT HOW TECHNOLOGY WILL CHANGE THE NEXT ELECTION?
Brian: I believe there are three trends to watch for in future elections: First, as technology improves, Americans will get up from their desks and start to receive information via mobile devices - cell phones, PDAs and similar. This means the conversation about politics - as well as arts and culture - must adapt to meet those new standards. The messages must be shorter and more focused; the communication must be timely and relevant; and the opportunities for feedback and response must be flexible (based on the user's needs) and welcome.
Second, as the Internet plays an increasingly important role in people's lives, voter expectations will increase. I believe you will see more video, more interactive 'smart' games, and more opportunities to use the web to take real action. All of these will (or should) serve to lower the threshold for getting information and encouraging participation among average Americans - allowing more people to send letters, knock on doors, and have person-to-person communications about real issues. These opportunities need to be real, genuine, not to mention compelling if they are to be effective.
And third, I believe issues of transparency will be critical for ongoing success on the web. The Internet has been made previously unavailable information accessible to everyone with a click or two. But as the audience has grown - in both size and sophistication - too many political candidates and groups (and corporations, schools, non profits, and everyone else) are being selective about what information they post and when. From my perspective, more information and more choices are a good thing. People can choose what they want to read, and how to think, and use the web to do it. Public figures, politicians in particular, should not be allowed to selectively choose what information the voters are capable of handling. The public won't stand for that, and the need to communicate fully and openly will become the priority for all web efforts to succeed.
|
Click here to visit Mindshare.net
|
|
|
How Does Your E-Mail Look?
|
|
It's tough to handle e-marketing in-house. If you're using Outlook, your mail probably looks like the first image - not exactly the kind of professional image you'd like to project.
In addition, you're probably having to handle opt-out requests and bounced e-mail in your inbox.
If you're feeling that you'd like to move up from your in-house method, but don't want to spend a fortune, we'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate PatronMail to you.
With PatronMail you can:
* Create and Send professional looking e-mails without knowing HTML
* Track & Compare your results with other arts organizations
* Build your list automatically on your web site
* Comply with the CAN-SPAM law, and "remove" requests automatically
We invite you to schedule a free 15-minute phone demonstration to learn more about how cost-effective PatronMail could be for your organization.
And, if your list is under 1,000 names, ask us about our special "starter" pricing plan.
|
Click here to request a PatronMail demonstration
|
|
Please watch for our next Monthly Update, coming November 23, 2004.
Our mailing address is: 850 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019
|
| |
