Excerpts and thoughts:
Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a
spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young,
Internet-savvy supporters. But it is the result of an elaborate marketing effort...
Indeed! In fact, it's a Big Campaign around one massive, relevant Rally Cry, with targeted messages and offers for each different segment. And using a multilayered, multiaudience, multichannel engagement strategy.
One of the most effective things about the Big Campaign is that it *hasn't* been inwardly focused upon the candidate, but focused on the voter or supporter. Think of the Rally Cry: "Yes You Can!" Not "Yes Obama Can!"
[T]hey have spent heavily on Internet ads -- $2.6 million in February alone,
more than 10 times as much as Clinton and more than 20 times as much as McCain.
The point here is that they had to pay - a lot - to get the kind of success they've had. But by paying more, they've gotten more, and thus have had even more to spend. They didn't just spend what conventional wisdom told them they had to spend; they are spending far more. Including ten times more on Internet ads!
In a competitive marketplace, when you want to grow, there's no free lunch. In fact, there isn't even a cheap lunch. There's only the very costly lunch. But you don't want to go without lunch.
Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday
on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning. But a
click on the ad did not lead to a request for donations; instead, it took users
to a page where they could sign up for invitations to campaign events.
This is a great example of going after segments outside your core with relevant offers, with a long view in mind. This must be part of our Big Campaign, especially if we have a movement in mind and not just our traditional ministry. We needn't fear somehow dilluting our effectiveness by prudently drawing in and partnering with those who believe differently than we do. And, to do so, we have to be relevant to them. And these two-step acquisitions work; we use them ourselves for certain audiences.
The subsequent paragraph in the article refers to this as "slow walking." Good term for it.
Obama's online investment has not come cheap. In January, he spent
$768,000 in Web ads, while Clinton spent $171,000 and McCain spent
$151,000. In February, when Obama spent $2.6 million on ads, Clinton spent
$198,000 and McCain spent $111,000.
Obama's take via the Internet in January and February has dwarfed those of
his rivals.
There's a cause and effect here. Obama dramatically outspent Clinton and McCain. And he dramatically beat them in fundraising. Again, cause and effect. As creative and well considered as the approach has been, he had to spend to get the desired outcome. And he had to spend a whole lot. "Not come cheap" indeed.
In fact, I'd bet that his fundraising ROI has been quite a bit lower than his rivals. But that's because he gets that ROI isn't what it is all about. It's all about Net Revenue and supporters. And he's gotten much more of both I'm sure.
There are interesting tactics mentioned in the article, some of which we are already doing (two step acquisition, not directly asking for donations, paid search) and others which we want to test, when budgets allow. But the overarching point here is that innovation is possible. And it comes with a price. A price that is, though, quite worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment