Wow. They should have called me. I’d have been happy to put up a website with no information for them for 1% of that price. In fact, they could have gotten any competent firm in town to put that together for 0.003% of that price.
Here's the link to the story I mentioned on the "Using all the tools
in the box" panel.
Along with a handy bailout calculator showing your share of the bailout (no, not what you are getting, what your share of the debt it creates will be) Right.org showcases very succinctly the folly of the impending Obama bailout. They are also incentivizing their users to submit video asking where their own bailout is, and giving $28k (your average personal share of the bailout) away to the best video.
Among the excellent points made in the article are a few that bear refining. Chief among them is that trying to replicate the Obama campaign will FAIL for the Right, because the Right is not Barrack Obama. Now that the message of “running the last successful campaign again won’t necessarily work” is finally sinking in, Republicans seem to want to run the last successful campaign of their opponents. Good luck.
The key, as pointed out by Beam, is to move onto the next thing, “Web 3.0″ as Karl Rove has said. My opinion is that the “next thing” is facilitating centralized coordination with decentralized activism, which is a whole series of posts for another time. However, that notion follows along the other of Beam’s critical points, which is that without an effort that bolsters the entire movement online, certain groups have the opportunity “mobilize online and hold the party hostage,” thereby splintering the GOP.
What we need to do as a movement is not only give the tools away that will facilitate group blogging, online activism, fostering community, etc, but make those tools all work together for everyone so that efforts are not duplicate and that the movement can prosper as a whole, in spite of all of its disparate parts. Yes, we need a common narrative, yes we need an army of bloggers, yes, we need inspiring candidates, but without an easy, distributed array of communication, coordination, and activism tools, what we have are thousands of interest groups reinventing the wheel over and over again.
From a political perspective I think campaigns are now getting to the point where they are ready to embrace outrech efforts that go past the usual “give me money now,” and “vote for me on election day.” The article below is a good synopsis of the potential of episodic video content to be the best ongoing representation of a brand (or candidate) available. As production technology gets easier and easier this type of content should proliferate across campaign websites, and candidates and staff should start thinking of their campaign itinerary in terms of opportunities to record and repurpose their offline activity for online gain.
MediaPost Publications Goodbye Banners, Hello Webisodes! 01/27/2009: “Where banner ads simply flash a message, and rich-media ads only invite interaction, good content and Webisodic series hold the customers’ attention for minutes at a time, lure them back for repeat exposure, and communicate much more than the often forgettable ‘buy me’ messaging of a traditional 30-second spot.Where banner ads simply flash a message, and rich-media ads only invite interaction, good content and Webisodic series hold the customers’ attention for minutes at a time, lure them back for repeat exposure, and communicate much more than the often forgettable ‘buy me’ messaging of a traditional 30-second spot.” Learn more from Motorcycle Pundit
Hillary Clinton is renting out her list (Ben Smith’s Blog: Renting out the list – Politico.com), hoping to cash in on other “aligned” groups who will pay to solicit to people who gave Clinton their email addresses when they supported her political campaign.
How many of those people do you think anticipated getting hit to participate in completely disparate organizations? How effective do you think that list is going to be the 5th time they rent it? The 10th time? I wouldn’t want to be the poor liberal cause that gets stuck at the tail end of that list’s usefulness. Nor would I want to be on that list, even if I were a supporter, since my reason for opting in clearly no longer exists.
This is one more reason why: a) rented email is at the very end of the list of outreach opportunities I suggest to campaigns and, b) amassing large lists for strategic campaign use is ultimately futile, once the specific issue that galvanized people to support the cause has become irrelevant.
This is a theme I’ve been discussing with great frequency of late in relation to the Right’s need to scramble toward a model they are familiar with: listing building and rented email. My thought here: focusing on building mammoth lists for use by the entire online Right is a waste of time.
As a means for groups to try to build up their own base and/or identify online activists, a contact cultivation program that utilizes online advertising to bring users to simple online engagement devices is far more cost effective, scalable, target-able, optimize-able, (insert your favorite “able” here) and ultimately brings the organization more qualified contacts.
Not to mention the list churn issue, which will only get worse as a lists get larger, older, and more diverse.
I agree that email is the killer app, but I take issue with the idea that building and holding huge lists that can be messaged by different smaller groups will ultimately prove nearly as valuable as enabling groups to easily access and leverage the kind of tools they need to cultivate their own contact base. After all, no contact is more valuable than the contact that actually opts into your organization specifically.
If what we’re trying to do is shoot fish in a barrel, instead of trying to just make one fish barrel bigger, why not give everyone their own barrel along with all the tools they need to fill it with their own fish? Then we can focus on making it easy for barrel owners to let their fish interact smartly with one another so that all the players gain the maximum amount of benefit from the community of fish.
In other words, we give organizations the tools that they need to identify and cultivate their own supporters while at the same time ensuring that those tools also facilitate the process of leveraging those supporters across the spectrum.
While discussing the ramifications of social networking pages that have been vacated due to the death of their progenitors, it dawned on me that there could be a social network for dead people. Not an online cemetary (which has been done to death) but an actual network, ostensibly kept up by the living, perhaps on behalf of the dead. But, why bother when the dead people can do all of the networking themselves:
Social Networking for Dead People: An idea refined – The Bing Blog
The overall points I took away from this event were that businesses in the new media space are better off specializing in their core competency and concentrating their business model on it, rather than trying to be generalists. Starting a new business, it is important to reach out to the current networks that either speak to your niche or contain your targets (workplace giving at corporations, Hollywood). Plan for scale and think about the long term from day one — this will benefit your own employees and make your business more attractive to investors.
Notes: How does new media make money?
Pete Synder, New Media Strategies
Mari Kuraishi, Global Giving Foundation
- $250 Billion in philanthropy per year just from US]
- Global Giving a project of The World Bank
- Getting started
- 2000 – end of .com boom
- Turned down angel money from IFC and HP
- Business model
- Take 10% of donations
- Tapping into existing networks that focused on giving
- Employee giving through work\
- Driving traffic
- Traditional media mentions
- Paid search
- Partnerships with aligned sites: business development
- Contributions: bundled – batches are better for developing country distributions
- Average varies
- $130 – $150/trans
- Use multi-channel media to encourage offline givers to move online
- Uses online A/B testing within projects showing suggested donation amounts
- Many small donors online, few big check writers = 2/3rds money coming in online
- Target 90% of total funds online
- Competition: focuses on small international projects, provides only online presence for charitable projects. Doesn’t mind competing with larger interests where they provide better value added for donors.
- Most “competitors” are collaborative with more specific foci (works with Kiva)
- Daily standup meetings
- Stats are projected on a “board” for quick look status
- Viral promotion
- Giving competition
- Winners recruited over 1,500 donors in their own networks
- What is the urgency
- Make the process easy
- Make the process rewarding
- Real-time feedback using mobile and video
- Tapping into people’s online identities
- Plug-in the giving opportunity into pre-existing social networks
- How does the giving process fulfill donors and complete their identity?
- Started NMS from his apartment in 1999
- Got money from 3 Fs
- Turned down VCs
- Profitable in the 3rd month
- Started with 1 employee, had 3 in first year
- Now has 96
- Investors forced Pete to plan for scale and end game from day 1
- Research clients before you pitch: Monitoring online communication about clients
- Hollywood was where the “progressive” marketing people were for initial market penetration with high dollar word of mouth online intelligence campaigns
- Competing clients
- No competing clients in the same space: different services for players in the same market
- Takes on D’s and R’s but not when they are fighting each other
- NMS is one of the few that actually combines the online monitoring and research with the action side of WOM and buzz marketing
- Many others do one or the other
- Smaller focus is a better business plan
- 3 year plan
- Annual plan
- Quarterly plan
- 3 times a week, all managers gather for “huddle meetings”
- 7 minutes
- Standing up
- What’s going on
- What people need help with
- Gets everyone on same page
- Not focused on eternal retention
- How to make NMS the best 3 years of an employee’s career?
- “We sell fear and opportunity”
- Something is being said about your brand, or
- You have something that needs attention/buzz
- Start with background on what people are saying online about target brand or person
- Influence the influencers to generate buzz
- Facilitated 250,000 online conversations about Ironman movie
- Change the way brands communicate
- 35% of corps and brands are buy into the concept
- Refining the corporate culture
- Keep small company feel
An article in Politico today lays out some interesting facts in light of the seventh anniversary of 9/11. The kicker in the story:
In 2002 and 2004, roughly 25 percent of all Americans considered terrorism and national security the country’s top problem. Today: Four percent do.
Facts worth remembering today – Jim VandeHei – Politico.com
There hasn’t been a domestic terrorist attack since then, and evidently people aren’t too worried that one will happen in the future. To say this is foolhardy is a ridiculous understatement.
Some may feel that replaying the news coverage from that day and indulging in remembrances is theater of the macabre, but if that’s what it takes to get people to wake up to the reality that this nation needs to protect itself, so be it.