Tom Latchford, Raising IT- works with charities of all sizes helping them use web and social media..
three things:
1) taking collective action, tapping into existing communities
Leveraging people's close connections. The growth of Facebook was successful because they tapped into existing (university) networks.
St Paul's hostel/soup kitchens - asked for help to get people signing up to help them, volunteer.
They've put together a website before Christmas - asking people to take collection boxes into their churches - they collected 4,000 tins of soups. 400 signed up to be volunteers. Then next week collected 40,000 tins of soup.
MacMillan - same model of tapping into communities. There was none, so they set out to develop a community. But if the target is 1,000 in order to raise a million.
People signed up and immediatly were asked to be a team captain - so they saw this challenge as a challenge ot for themselves but for their network as well.
Introducing justgiving pages. They have just launched teams which taps into this potential.
2) segmentation
Seeing how well other sectors are using it - for example TESCO -
Using an example of online gambling - it went really big because technology gives them a lot if information about the people around the table.
By knowing people you can get them to do what you want.
Obama campaign is a good example - it was top-down coordination but it empowered people to spread it to their networks.
Pyramid:
raw data
customer insight
value levers (comms channels)
effect on segmented groups
[hm, not sure what this is - I think it's over-complicated the idea/process of segmentation]
CRM looking at individuals as well as their networks so that the networks can be take on a journey
Also mobile apps for fundraisers - so people can give by mobile - going through the roof
Raising IT have a CRM which seems to do similar stuff as justgiving (worth checking out if they are better than JG or Aartez)
3) taking people in a journey from taking action to become social advocates using social media - creating
Introduced he Seth Godin funnel:
“A new set of online tools makes this approach not just a possibility, but also an imperative for any organization hoping to grow. Give your fan club a megaphone and get out of the way.”
Looked at Twitter followers for the dyslexia charity and analysed their reach. And based on that targeted people with big reach and getting them to recruit more people..
Looking at Groupon model and see how charities can use it.
Used this for WWF - end result is face to face fundriaising... UNICEF uses the same tool.
Would be interesting how this model would work with campaigning??
Showing posts with label ecampaigning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecampaigning. Show all posts
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Clicktivism vs Activism - another discussion
For those of us who were not here yesterday for the clicktivism vs activism debate, we are taking it away for another spin..
The man conclusion of last nights debate is that online and offline activism can not work one without the other. Also
/more notes coming from @shrinkydinky http://ecflive.fairsay.com/22/19-clicktivism//
Building lists - powerful fundraising tool.
Don't we do the same with campaigns? We are inventing campaigns to engage people - is this ethical? There is a responsibility of what we do. Focus on numbers is damaging the quality of campaigns. Where you are letting numbers come into the way of the issue.
If you build the list in order to use it for engagement once we need them.
We shouldn't idealise what we had before.
Clay Shirky challeneged charity's idea of engagement in the network for good webinar:
Your users are not like you. activists are active, hence the name.
And if everybody outside of your organization cared as much about your subject as you do inside your
organization, your organization would be a thousand times larger than it actually is.
It’s not a matter of turning everyone into an activist, but rather a matter of saying, “We’re going to reach
people where they are. We’re going to reach people at the level that they care about this.”
If I go to Wikipedia, I don’t have to care about Wikipedia as a whole, I can edit one article. I can edit an article on the US highway system and never care that there are articles on both the Crimean War and Britney Spears. It doesn’t matter to me.
The smallest job I can do on Wikipedia is a tiny edit. I can fix a comma splice. I can change a typo.
And so, Wikipedia is able to integrate the work of literally millions of people because those people don’t
have to be activists, they don’t have to be passionate. In fact, they can be, just a little bit annoyed that
there’s a comma splice on a page they happen to care about, fix that comma splice, never be seen from
again, and still have added some value to the system.
If people see that they are part of a big group - it will help building a momentum around the issue.
Where are we actually powerful - in the polling booth really.
Difference in corporate campaigning and political campaigning. Corporations are bothered about how many people have seen your message and they will care about their potential and current customers.
We need to invest more in building up people to become more and more engaged
Erick Lee in the session yesterday - we are all on the same side. What about the right using these same techniques? british Gas buit a website for schools saying tat they are one of the greenest companies in the UK.
The man conclusion of last nights debate is that online and offline activism can not work one without the other. Also
/more notes coming from @shrinkydinky http://ecflive.fairsay.com/22/19-clicktivism//
Building lists - powerful fundraising tool.
Don't we do the same with campaigns? We are inventing campaigns to engage people - is this ethical? There is a responsibility of what we do. Focus on numbers is damaging the quality of campaigns. Where you are letting numbers come into the way of the issue.
If you build the list in order to use it for engagement once we need them.
We shouldn't idealise what we had before.
Clay Shirky challeneged charity's idea of engagement in the network for good webinar:
Your users are not like you. activists are active, hence the name.
And if everybody outside of your organization cared as much about your subject as you do inside your
organization, your organization would be a thousand times larger than it actually is.
It’s not a matter of turning everyone into an activist, but rather a matter of saying, “We’re going to reach
people where they are. We’re going to reach people at the level that they care about this.”
If I go to Wikipedia, I don’t have to care about Wikipedia as a whole, I can edit one article. I can edit an article on the US highway system and never care that there are articles on both the Crimean War and Britney Spears. It doesn’t matter to me.
The smallest job I can do on Wikipedia is a tiny edit. I can fix a comma splice. I can change a typo.
And so, Wikipedia is able to integrate the work of literally millions of people because those people don’t
have to be activists, they don’t have to be passionate. In fact, they can be, just a little bit annoyed that
there’s a comma splice on a page they happen to care about, fix that comma splice, never be seen from
again, and still have added some value to the system.
If people see that they are part of a big group - it will help building a momentum around the issue.
Where are we actually powerful - in the polling booth really.
Difference in corporate campaigning and political campaigning. Corporations are bothered about how many people have seen your message and they will care about their potential and current customers.
We need to invest more in building up people to become more and more engaged
Erick Lee in the session yesterday - we are all on the same side. What about the right using these same techniques? british Gas buit a website for schools saying tat they are one of the greenest companies in the UK.
Another year another e-campaigning forum Plus Greenpeace presentation on mobile
Yes, it's that time of the year and here I am again sitting in the lecture hall of the St Anne's college in Oxford.
Many familiar faces here - a but surprised to hear that majority have come to ECF for the first time! That means a lot of new, fresh discussions and challenges - I am really looking forward to all that.
The first presentation is by Greenpeace International. When you think innovation – look at Greenpeace. When are they going to stop being so cool? It's so annoying (this is pure jealousy speaking obviously).
So Jusi Kivipuro leads on mobile innovation in Greenpeace International and he will tell us how GP is using it in their campaigns.
Mobiles now outnumber PC worldwide by 5 to 1. However they are used in different ways than we do:)
Some stats I have that confirm this but are also encouraging in terms ...
“By 2013 mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common Web access device worldwide.”*Gartner ‘Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users, 2010 and Beyond: A New Balance’. Jan 2010
“For the first time, there will be over 1 billion mobile devices accessing internet by year-end , gaining quickly on the 1.3 billion PCs accessing the internet – as the former is growing at 2.5 times the rate of the latter”
Frank Gens Senior. VP & Chief Analyst, IDC. Speaking in 2010
Mobile is a bridge btw the real world and the internet. People get in touch when it suits them.
This bridge is Augmented reality – it doesn’t have to be this literally – it could be an SMS service which gives you info based on your location (I know of an example I think in Finland where you can get the appropriate bus schedule based on your location)
Case study - China
Looking at comm and campaigning.
Will look at fundraising in the future.
Wanted to run a number of pilot campaigns
Held three different campaigns to reach the new tipping point in mobile campaigning
300k subscriber to comms from Greenpeace - recruited over 18 months.
10 different mobile channels tested and created KPIs for engagement. [WOW]
Campaign - banned pesticides are used in the production by millions of farmers in China. Tried to improve regulation by getting supermarkets to change their sourcing policies and consumers buying habits.
Service for women who do all the shopping - which helps them in shopping and recommend produce for their favourite dishes.
Apps, mobile site, MMS, MMS
SMS - is the unifying platform that everyone can use while Apps are more exclusive - different operating systems, smartphones. But people who are using them are the heavy consumers. So they might be most active/most influential, although not the highest in numbers.
MMS - ads in MMS magazines. In China people read a lot over mobile. When you click on the ad you find the subscription service for GP info.
SMS push campaign - bought the list of people and asked them if they want to receive info about safe food.
Subscriptions followed by a serious of messages with info about sfae food and produce. Then they would have a link to a mobile website. Plus offline events and radip
Also paper ads promoting iphone apps. Had iphone ads as well as s60 - difficult to find developers for the former.
Took time to think about different channels they can use.
Marketing web to mobile - so people can sign up and get GP mobile guide to use it when they need it - so not trying to move them from web to mobile... Show how important it is to think the journeys through. Cos on the face of it, you wouldn't push people from online where you already g=have people one step away form a conversion....
Mobile was cost-effective for Greenpeace.
They could send messages that people wanted to receive. And they didn't kill and trees!
Audience questions
Good comment from the audience - in order to do mobile correctly, charities need to sort out their mobile websites first. Totally agree with that - so often we need to do the shiny stuff rather than sort out the basics, while basics bring better results...
Another question - Greenpeace focussed on reaching out to middle classes. They didn't try to reach farmers as they were not their primary audience.
Interactive service where people could reply to SMS' from GP? They did contemplate Ask Greenpeace type of service... Google developed a service where a farmer can ask a question and Google generates answers from the search and then they get pushed to human being if answers can not be found...
This sounds like that project in Nigeria 'Learning about living' for children is schools to ask questions about reproductive health. They could do it via web, phone and mobile. Mobile performed best - 10,000 text in the first month, hardly any questions through the web form, and there were pre-set answers that would be played back to the user... (stats from 2008)
Many familiar faces here - a but surprised to hear that majority have come to ECF for the first time! That means a lot of new, fresh discussions and challenges - I am really looking forward to all that.
The first presentation is by Greenpeace International. When you think innovation – look at Greenpeace. When are they going to stop being so cool? It's so annoying (this is pure jealousy speaking obviously).
So Jusi Kivipuro leads on mobile innovation in Greenpeace International and he will tell us how GP is using it in their campaigns.
Mobiles now outnumber PC worldwide by 5 to 1. However they are used in different ways than we do:)
Some stats I have that confirm this but are also encouraging in terms ...
“By 2013 mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common Web access device worldwide.”*Gartner ‘Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users, 2010 and Beyond: A New Balance’. Jan 2010
“For the first time, there will be over 1 billion mobile devices accessing internet by year-end , gaining quickly on the 1.3 billion PCs accessing the internet – as the former is growing at 2.5 times the rate of the latter”
Frank Gens Senior. VP & Chief Analyst, IDC. Speaking in 2010
Mobile is a bridge btw the real world and the internet. People get in touch when it suits them.
This bridge is Augmented reality – it doesn’t have to be this literally – it could be an SMS service which gives you info based on your location (I know of an example I think in Finland where you can get the appropriate bus schedule based on your location)
Case study - China
Looking at comm and campaigning.
Will look at fundraising in the future.
Wanted to run a number of pilot campaigns
Held three different campaigns to reach the new tipping point in mobile campaigning
300k subscriber to comms from Greenpeace - recruited over 18 months.
10 different mobile channels tested and created KPIs for engagement. [WOW]
Campaign - banned pesticides are used in the production by millions of farmers in China. Tried to improve regulation by getting supermarkets to change their sourcing policies and consumers buying habits.
Service for women who do all the shopping - which helps them in shopping and recommend produce for their favourite dishes.
Apps, mobile site, MMS, MMS
SMS - is the unifying platform that everyone can use while Apps are more exclusive - different operating systems, smartphones. But people who are using them are the heavy consumers. So they might be most active/most influential, although not the highest in numbers.
MMS - ads in MMS magazines. In China people read a lot over mobile. When you click on the ad you find the subscription service for GP info.
SMS push campaign - bought the list of people and asked them if they want to receive info about safe food.
Subscriptions followed by a serious of messages with info about sfae food and produce. Then they would have a link to a mobile website. Plus offline events and radip
Also paper ads promoting iphone apps. Had iphone ads as well as s60 - difficult to find developers for the former.
Took time to think about different channels they can use.
Marketing web to mobile - so people can sign up and get GP mobile guide to use it when they need it - so not trying to move them from web to mobile... Show how important it is to think the journeys through. Cos on the face of it, you wouldn't push people from online where you already g=have people one step away form a conversion....
Mobile was cost-effective for Greenpeace.
They could send messages that people wanted to receive. And they didn't kill and trees!
Audience questions
Good comment from the audience - in order to do mobile correctly, charities need to sort out their mobile websites first. Totally agree with that - so often we need to do the shiny stuff rather than sort out the basics, while basics bring better results...
Another question - Greenpeace focussed on reaching out to middle classes. They didn't try to reach farmers as they were not their primary audience.
Interactive service where people could reply to SMS' from GP? They did contemplate Ask Greenpeace type of service... Google developed a service where a farmer can ask a question and Google generates answers from the search and then they get pushed to human being if answers can not be found...
This sounds like that project in Nigeria 'Learning about living' for children is schools to ask questions about reproductive health. They could do it via web, phone and mobile. Mobile performed best - 10,000 text in the first month, hardly any questions through the web form, and there were pre-set answers that would be played back to the user... (stats from 2008)
Thursday, 8 April 2010
UK elections 2010: Vote matching apps
Knowing that UK elections are around the corner, I have been looking out for different vote matching websites. The websites take you through a number of questions and then give you your own personalised short-list of political parties to vote for.
Votematch.co.uk
The first votematch.co.uk website I ever saw was for the London mayor elections in 2008. Apparently it was used by over 40,000 Londoners . It was a neat little website produced by Unlockdemocracy - you choose whether you agree or disagree with statements which in turn produces your shortlist plus you can sign-up to get an SMS reminder how to vote on the day. The website was easy and quick to use although the statements were bias - all the non-lefty statements were leaning towards right-wing so I would be surprised if UKIP and Conservatives made anyone's shortlist.
For this elections, Votematch.co.uk has been seriously vamped up - in addition to the website, there is also a votematch application on Facebook. 30 questions, user indicates if they agree or disagree and then at the end of the process they indicate which are the most important policy areas for them. Thirty questions did feel like too much at one point, but because statements were written in normal language and were fairly distinct, it managed to keep my attention and get me to the end of the process.
MyVoteAdvisor
Few days ago I came across this website.
It's a really nicely done website very usable in its use of design and layout. However, the mechanics of it are really complex - users are asked to chose the parties they are interested in, then chose between 11 areas of policy (from environment, health and defence to immigration and education) and then rate party responses to 5 questions within each area.
If, like me, a user chooses 3 parties - that is over 100 policy statements to read and judge. In addition, a user can rate how important each of the 5 questions within a policy area is... Phew! It gave me a headache.
Also, the party statements were probably taken out of policy documents and as such, most are impenetrable or can be understood in a number of different ways. So just skimming through won't do.
Although the website creators instruct the visitors many times that they can skip some of the 11 policy areas, I found it easier to drop out of the process altogether than rationalise and grade how much I care about different issues.
My short-list
And in case you are interested, this is what my voting shortlist looks like in the order of preference:
My voteadvisor - greens, Libdems, Conservative, Labour.
Votematch - Lib-dems, Labour, UKIP, Conservative.
Yes, there is a little Hitler in all of us ;)
Vote power
Just today my Twitter friends all told me how powerless their vote is thanks to this neat website. I was confused by their tweets "The power of my vote is 0.12" - I wasn't sure if that was good or bad. But the assumption is that democracy = 1 person, one vote. So 1 is ideal. And then there is the whole explanation on how this index was devised which was super interesting (if you like stats).
Slapometer.com
This one doesn't really help you chose who to vote for. It's more of a light relief after you've been diligently researching party manifestos, listening to leaders and others debates, etc...
Vote with the back of your hand. Surprising how much fun it is to be violent.
Election challenge/
I love this website!
Ideas are user generated - some are odd, some just plain stupid, others are very good. Every user can say if they think other people's idea are good or bad as well as add their own idea. The varied ways of describing good and bad ideas keeps user attention for a long time - this is the only of the elections websites which kept me going for some time. People's ideas are published on Twitter as hot - if they are voted for by people or New - as new ideas come up.
CountMyVote
A website that shows you what the "real" situation is in marginal seats and therefore who you should vote for if you want to vote tactically. Who are the main two parties going head to head. In my constituency the fight is between LibDems and Labour apparently. If only! Then I realise that the stats are based on the votes by website visitors.
Votematch.co.uk
The first votematch.co.uk website I ever saw was for the London mayor elections in 2008. Apparently it was used by over 40,000 Londoners . It was a neat little website produced by Unlockdemocracy - you choose whether you agree or disagree with statements which in turn produces your shortlist plus you can sign-up to get an SMS reminder how to vote on the day. The website was easy and quick to use although the statements were bias - all the non-lefty statements were leaning towards right-wing so I would be surprised if UKIP and Conservatives made anyone's shortlist.
For this elections, Votematch.co.uk has been seriously vamped up - in addition to the website, there is also a votematch application on Facebook. 30 questions, user indicates if they agree or disagree and then at the end of the process they indicate which are the most important policy areas for them. Thirty questions did feel like too much at one point, but because statements were written in normal language and were fairly distinct, it managed to keep my attention and get me to the end of the process.
MyVoteAdvisor
Few days ago I came across this website.
It's a really nicely done website very usable in its use of design and layout. However, the mechanics of it are really complex - users are asked to chose the parties they are interested in, then chose between 11 areas of policy (from environment, health and defence to immigration and education) and then rate party responses to 5 questions within each area.
If, like me, a user chooses 3 parties - that is over 100 policy statements to read and judge. In addition, a user can rate how important each of the 5 questions within a policy area is... Phew! It gave me a headache.
Also, the party statements were probably taken out of policy documents and as such, most are impenetrable or can be understood in a number of different ways. So just skimming through won't do.
Although the website creators instruct the visitors many times that they can skip some of the 11 policy areas, I found it easier to drop out of the process altogether than rationalise and grade how much I care about different issues.
My short-list
And in case you are interested, this is what my voting shortlist looks like in the order of preference:
My voteadvisor - greens, Libdems, Conservative, Labour.
Votematch - Lib-dems, Labour, UKIP, Conservative.
Yes, there is a little Hitler in all of us ;)
Vote power
Just today my Twitter friends all told me how powerless their vote is thanks to this neat website. I was confused by their tweets "The power of my vote is 0.12" - I wasn't sure if that was good or bad. But the assumption is that democracy = 1 person, one vote. So 1 is ideal. And then there is the whole explanation on how this index was devised which was super interesting (if you like stats).
Slapometer.com
This one doesn't really help you chose who to vote for. It's more of a light relief after you've been diligently researching party manifestos, listening to leaders and others debates, etc...
Vote with the back of your hand. Surprising how much fun it is to be violent.
Election challenge/
I love this website!
Ideas are user generated - some are odd, some just plain stupid, others are very good. Every user can say if they think other people's idea are good or bad as well as add their own idea. The varied ways of describing good and bad ideas keeps user attention for a long time - this is the only of the elections websites which kept me going for some time. People's ideas are published on Twitter as hot - if they are voted for by people or New - as new ideas come up.
CountMyVote
A website that shows you what the "real" situation is in marginal seats and therefore who you should vote for if you want to vote tactically. Who are the main two parties going head to head. In my constituency the fight is between LibDems and Labour apparently. If only! Then I realise that the stats are based on the votes by website visitors.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
eCampaigning forum: KitKat campaign
Palm oil production makes Indonesia one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gasses. Because huge areas of forest have been destroyed to create palm-oil planatations.
Sinarmars is the target of the campaign.
Two years ago a big campaign against Unilever re palm oil. Companies have engaged, source their palm oil from sustainable sources but not Nestle. They have been buying palm oil from Sinamars.
Started with an orangutan demo in Croydon.
Video produced - shock-tactics
Youtube removed the video. Greenpeace uploaded video to Vimeo. Also offered the video file for download to supporters.
This was perfect for the campaign to go viral.
Greenpeace made suggestions that people should raise the issues on social networks.
Nestle responses rude - which made people even angrier. Nestle's management of social media was clumsy and it spiralled out of control. The only thing Greenpeace could do is inform people about what's been going on.
Eventually, Nestle apologises. Even in the description of their fan page they say: "Social media: as you can see we're learning as we go. Thanks for the comments."
Outcome:
- 100,000 email sent 700,000 video views
- enthused supporters base
- blogosphere writing about it. everyone amazed by how Nestle handled the campaign on Facebook.
- excellent platform to launch next stages
- emails not received by Nestle as they blocked the Advocacy Online IP
BUT
- this is a fantastic social media event - it doesn't help the end goal of the campaign. Need to move on from Nestle and focus on the issue of climate change.
- risk that there is mob out there which will just switch to another company - similar to Robin Hood Tax and banker-bashing
So what next?
More to come this afternoon on the greenpeace website - call Nestle.
Questions
- plan for success - Greenpeace knew that Nestle will react but could never hope for the reaction they've got.
- passion vs mob - how do you channel the passion of people who hate bankers and have therefore support Robin Hood tax or they hate Nestle because of their handling of social media/baby milk scandal. How do you move people towards your cause? Do you even try?
- copyright - how do you decide how far you can go? Parody is very well protected in Europe and US. Greenpeace used this approach for Esso and Apple.
Sinarmars is the target of the campaign.
Two years ago a big campaign against Unilever re palm oil. Companies have engaged, source their palm oil from sustainable sources but not Nestle. They have been buying palm oil from Sinamars.
Started with an orangutan demo in Croydon.
Video produced - shock-tactics
Youtube removed the video. Greenpeace uploaded video to Vimeo. Also offered the video file for download to supporters.
This was perfect for the campaign to go viral.
Greenpeace made suggestions that people should raise the issues on social networks.
Nestle responses rude - which made people even angrier. Nestle's management of social media was clumsy and it spiralled out of control. The only thing Greenpeace could do is inform people about what's been going on.
Eventually, Nestle apologises. Even in the description of their fan page they say: "Social media: as you can see we're learning as we go. Thanks for the comments."
Outcome:
- 100,000 email sent 700,000 video views
- enthused supporters base
- blogosphere writing about it. everyone amazed by how Nestle handled the campaign on Facebook.
- excellent platform to launch next stages
- emails not received by Nestle as they blocked the Advocacy Online IP
BUT
- this is a fantastic social media event - it doesn't help the end goal of the campaign. Need to move on from Nestle and focus on the issue of climate change.
- risk that there is mob out there which will just switch to another company - similar to Robin Hood Tax and banker-bashing
So what next?
More to come this afternoon on the greenpeace website - call Nestle.
Questions
- plan for success - Greenpeace knew that Nestle will react but could never hope for the reaction they've got.
- passion vs mob - how do you channel the passion of people who hate bankers and have therefore support Robin Hood tax or they hate Nestle because of their handling of social media/baby milk scandal. How do you move people towards your cause? Do you even try?
- copyright - how do you decide how far you can go? Parody is very well protected in Europe and US. Greenpeace used this approach for Esso and Apple.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
The Good agency: the business case for supporter engagement
by Matthew Sherrington of the Good Agency
(a bit patchy, sorry, short attention-span)
What do we want?
time, money and influence= change
We are all marketeers. marketing our causes. Understanding who you talk to, where they are at, how to speak to them, etc etc
BUT
people are changing
technology is changing
market is changing
organisations are changing
It's all about change.
Joining the dots - helping organisations make the link
Supporters are changing
- they are not interested in everything you have to say.
- they are old - what's going to happen with organisations between the time the new generation of supporters has been created and nurtured.
Older generation - fulfilling their needs - once basic needs fulfilled, spiritual needs are next.
- people's understanding of needs is changing.
Younger generation is more interested in political issues
(BM: REALLY? Who is obsessed with plastic surgeries, Xfactor and fame then? Majority aren't I'd say...
- motivation - guilt, belonging, compassion, inspiration - Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Technology is changing
Market is changing
- online banking, shopping, etc...
Sorry - got a bit distracted - it's all stuff that I kind of know...
People want to be inspired. We should email people more.
Organisations are changing
Organisations - They want to grow and they need the influence.
The key to orgaisaing people is to listen to what they say the issues are, and then either nudge them to live up to their own standards or get them to understand the source of their pain. Gregory Galluzzo, Changemakers
Donors who campaign
Greepeace US-30% of donors were exposed to actions.
House parties to save the whales. Bake-offs etc..
(BM: yes yes yes but this is Greenpeace! they are campaigners first, donors second. What about development charities ????)
Retention rates of donors approved dramatically with participation in campaigning.
Save the children gaza campaign is an example of a good fundraising and campaigning action, but it's a spur of the moment.
Business case
Silo-busting
Campaigners and fundraisers are both stats people so we should get silo-busting and talk to each other in order to get the funding.
We are not talking about campaigners or donors or activists - they are just people who want to engage with you. What's the best way of engaging people. And it's not just about online, it's offline too.
(a bit patchy, sorry, short attention-span)
What do we want?
time, money and influence= change
We are all marketeers. marketing our causes. Understanding who you talk to, where they are at, how to speak to them, etc etc
BUT
people are changing
technology is changing
market is changing
organisations are changing
It's all about change.
Joining the dots - helping organisations make the link
Supporters are changing
- they are not interested in everything you have to say.
- they are old - what's going to happen with organisations between the time the new generation of supporters has been created and nurtured.
Older generation - fulfilling their needs - once basic needs fulfilled, spiritual needs are next.
- people's understanding of needs is changing.
Younger generation is more interested in political issues
(BM: REALLY? Who is obsessed with plastic surgeries, Xfactor and fame then? Majority aren't I'd say...
- motivation - guilt, belonging, compassion, inspiration - Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Technology is changing
Market is changing
- online banking, shopping, etc...
Sorry - got a bit distracted - it's all stuff that I kind of know...
People want to be inspired. We should email people more.
Organisations are changing
Organisations - They want to grow and they need the influence.
The key to orgaisaing people is to listen to what they say the issues are, and then either nudge them to live up to their own standards or get them to understand the source of their pain. Gregory Galluzzo, Changemakers
Donors who campaign
Greepeace US-30% of donors were exposed to actions.
House parties to save the whales. Bake-offs etc..
(BM: yes yes yes but this is Greenpeace! they are campaigners first, donors second. What about development charities ????)
Retention rates of donors approved dramatically with participation in campaigning.
Save the children gaza campaign is an example of a good fundraising and campaigning action, but it's a spur of the moment.
Business case
Silo-busting
Campaigners and fundraisers are both stats people so we should get silo-busting and talk to each other in order to get the funding.
We are not talking about campaigners or donors or activists - they are just people who want to engage with you. What's the best way of engaging people. And it's not just about online, it's offline too.
Ecampaigning forum: Campaigning and Fundraising - Together again by Care 2
Notes from the eCampaigning forum. - apologies for typos - will tidy up later.
Help justify your ecampaigning expenses through fundraising.
Impact on fundraising
14% in online giving 2007-2008 (stats from Convio). More and more people giving online.
cross-over btw campaigners and donors
Donor Centrix 2008
11% of donor revenue is online
9% of donors have given 1 gift online
half online donors - new
online donors account for 16% of all new donors and 27% of NEW revenue
online donors migrate to offline giving
Acquisiton expensive - most budgets switched online,
Lifetime value is extrending. if the organisatio ins;t tracking, no way to make that case!!!!
Email is still the king.
Size of organisations' email list is propotional to the amount raised online
Online actoivists don;t need to be recruited online. Most successful conversinos thourgh direct mail, online marketing, other channels. is this because of the nature of Dm programmes which are tailoerd for print.
online fundraising programme needs a good offline fundraising programme. ecampaigning is a good lead generation.
Silo busting - who funds a message, who owns supporters?
Important to brek down the barriers. Data shows that talking to people with different messages makes them more committed.
It's not just about fundraisers having access to campaigners but also reaching out to donors for campaigning asks.
Email is The way of raising money online.
Social networks - revenue low:
Save Darfur - FB Caiuses raised $28,000 while email $415,000
What is working on FB is the birthday donation on FB.
On social networks need a social permission to ask for money - such as a challenge - bike ride, swim, walk. Otheriwse it doesn't work.
New Media gateway - really good graph showing what people do online -
eCampainging is the fastest way to grow your email list.
Video really useful but very hard to plan the viral effect.
IRC - online audience grew from 16,500 to 59,000 via online petitionsm viral growth - 25% from viral.
React quickly. Build the list for big moments.
advocacy email response rates are highest
Response rates:
fundraising - 0.7 - 0.6%
enews - 2-3%
advocacy 5.5-6.3%
eBenchmarking study 2009
People who have taken action online are 2.3x more likely to donate.
National bureau of research - Charitable Evidence from a large scale online experiment
Techniques for getting activists to donate.
- welcoming - sequencing of messages.
Soft ask - (p.s. in an email) donation ask after taking action
Online actions provide a context for asking for full contact information.
Converting donors into actions has been done but no data publicly available.
Demographics of the people giving online - younger than traditional. New generation of donors. The avearge age of direct mail donors is very old. Actions are a way to access this new younger group.
Challenge in boiling the campaigning issues down (as they can be complex and borinng - hence not a recruiter)
Segmentation - essential - sending specific messages to specific people - levelof knowledge/interest. We'll be seeing the increase in segmentation on ecampaigning emails.
Help justify your ecampaigning expenses through fundraising.
Impact on fundraising
14% in online giving 2007-2008 (stats from Convio). More and more people giving online.
cross-over btw campaigners and donors
Donor Centrix 2008
11% of donor revenue is online
9% of donors have given 1 gift online
half online donors - new
online donors account for 16% of all new donors and 27% of NEW revenue
online donors migrate to offline giving
Acquisiton expensive - most budgets switched online,
Lifetime value is extrending. if the organisatio ins;t tracking, no way to make that case!!!!
Email is still the king.
Size of organisations' email list is propotional to the amount raised online
Online actoivists don;t need to be recruited online. Most successful conversinos thourgh direct mail, online marketing, other channels. is this because of the nature of Dm programmes which are tailoerd for print.
online fundraising programme needs a good offline fundraising programme. ecampaigning is a good lead generation.
Silo busting - who funds a message, who owns supporters?
Important to brek down the barriers. Data shows that talking to people with different messages makes them more committed.
It's not just about fundraisers having access to campaigners but also reaching out to donors for campaigning asks.
Email is The way of raising money online.
Social networks - revenue low:
Save Darfur - FB Caiuses raised $28,000 while email $415,000
What is working on FB is the birthday donation on FB.
On social networks need a social permission to ask for money - such as a challenge - bike ride, swim, walk. Otheriwse it doesn't work.
New Media gateway - really good graph showing what people do online -
eCampainging is the fastest way to grow your email list.
Video really useful but very hard to plan the viral effect.
IRC - online audience grew from 16,500 to 59,000 via online petitionsm viral growth - 25% from viral.
React quickly. Build the list for big moments.
advocacy email response rates are highest
Response rates:
fundraising - 0.7 - 0.6%
enews - 2-3%
advocacy 5.5-6.3%
eBenchmarking study 2009
People who have taken action online are 2.3x more likely to donate.
National bureau of research - Charitable Evidence from a large scale online experiment
Techniques for getting activists to donate.
- welcoming - sequencing of messages.
Soft ask - (p.s. in an email) donation ask after taking action
Online actions provide a context for asking for full contact information.
Converting donors into actions has been done but no data publicly available.
Demographics of the people giving online - younger than traditional. New generation of donors. The avearge age of direct mail donors is very old. Actions are a way to access this new younger group.
Challenge in boiling the campaigning issues down (as they can be complex and borinng - hence not a recruiter)
Segmentation - essential - sending specific messages to specific people - levelof knowledge/interest. We'll be seeing the increase in segmentation on ecampaigning emails.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
eCampaigning forum: Email is still the no1 way of engaging supporters
Open rates
one example
- general list - 20 -25%
- segmented list of 30k - 75%%
other example
general list - 15-19%, segmented list - 35%-45%
27k list about public broadcasting. If content is related to the recession
- open rates increased - from 25% to 40%
12% action rate (conversion)
- a lot of email activity lately because it's cheaper
- not always able to test emails due to lack of time/staff
- quick wins - easy to forget that there are many areas to look at to make an email successful
- split AB test with a new subject line
- test the landing page
- email content - Obama example - some emails are only 300 words
- user journeys need to be thought out - emails tailored accordingly. Need to be careful in how you welcome then and what they'll receive next.
- Thank you email should always be personalized
- some emails are building capital (giving info, fun) and some emails are taking capital (data)
- different from name
- donation is a form of political action
Social networks
- Facebook - people keen to join up but it doesn't convert people
- forward this email to a friend - needs to be more prominent
- set the target - it works well for the people - donations go higher and people re-visit the page to check if the donation got higher due to their donation
- relating email that you are writing now to the next email - like a soap-opera - so that every email works on its own
Segmentation
- based on who is likely to respond to the action
- based on people's behaviour and based on people's preferences
one example
- general list - 20 -25%
- segmented list of 30k - 75%%
other example
general list - 15-19%, segmented list - 35%-45%
27k list about public broadcasting. If content is related to the recession
- open rates increased - from 25% to 40%
12% action rate (conversion)
- a lot of email activity lately because it's cheaper
- not always able to test emails due to lack of time/staff
- quick wins - easy to forget that there are many areas to look at to make an email successful
- split AB test with a new subject line
- test the landing page
- email content - Obama example - some emails are only 300 words
- user journeys need to be thought out - emails tailored accordingly. Need to be careful in how you welcome then and what they'll receive next.
- Thank you email should always be personalized
- some emails are building capital (giving info, fun) and some emails are taking capital (data)
- different from name
- donation is a form of political action
Social networks
- Facebook - people keen to join up but it doesn't convert people
- forward this email to a friend - needs to be more prominent
- set the target - it works well for the people - donations go higher and people re-visit the page to check if the donation got higher due to their donation
- relating email that you are writing now to the next email - like a soap-opera - so that every email works on its own
Segmentation
- based on who is likely to respond to the action
- based on people's behaviour and based on people's preferences
eCampaigning forum - Obama campaign insider tells us about blogging for the elections
Sam Graham-Felsen of Obama campaign
blogger on the campaign
- The campaign knew Obama was an underdog - the plan was to harness the energy of grassroots - Obama said to the team that "it had to happen from bottom up"
Three pillars of online campaign
- message
- money
- mobilization
MESSAGE
- authenticity
- it's about everyone not only Obama. African Americans felt that they can be anything they want to be.
- over 2,000 videos uploaded - telling stories of people who supported the campaigns
- 5 times as many videos as other campaigns
- 1 billion minutes of video web content was consumed = 2,000 years of viewing - youtube powerful because they are usually sent with a personal recommendation
- video explaining why Obama campaign in Florida needs 39 million dollars used to raise these funds
- mini-documentaries - although 18 minutes - it worked - the video was viewed over million times
- fun videos that plugged the action around the campaign (e.g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg56KbtmARc)
- using supporters content - reached out to supporters - example of Shepard Fairey
- "yes we can" youtube video
The game is changing:
*new media - building the movement - turning people from passive supporters to evangelists of the movement
* traditional media - getting votes - of those who are undecided
MONEY
- how to raise half a billion?
- fundraising was never about money - they didn't set the goals which were about money - instead of we need XXX dollars by the end of the week they would say we need XX people to join the movement
- people could be chosen to meet Obama even if they give a smallest donation (breaking down the barriers)
- asking supporters to explain on video why they donate to the campaign, what motivates them
- an email in response to Sara Palin speech where she dismissed grassroots campaigning raised 10 million dollars
Building the email list
- the Obama campaign list grew organically, Republicans campaign bought lists
- competitions (dinner with Barack)
- Send to a friend - made it very easy - you can upload all of your contacts and pester them
- Active presence on My Space Facebook and LinedIn
Online Ads - asking people to join the campaign
- the match game - traditionally one wealthy donor says they will donate 1 million if a bunch of people donates 1 million ; change is to ask a bunch of donors to pledge to donate more if other donors donate more (this was done using a sophisticated segmentation system)
- 2/3 of income of the whole campaign came online, most of donations are under $100
- house parties - neighbours will go and organise their own
- mybarackobama.com made it easier for field organisers to organise supporters. It help build real relationships. Campaigners were working together already - relationships already built, so this was easier for field organisers when they arrive at a location.
Other campaigns had to start from scratch - train people and organise them.
QUESTIONS
1 Online ads - example of a different way of doing it - caucus look-up tool (location) - flooded Iowa newspaper websites with it as well as the social media
2 Opening up to user generated content and keep it open is sometimes an issue for NGOs
- Example - a group against Obama's position on some law on privacy/data protection Obama voted for in the Senat. The group grew to 20k. Obama didn't want to change his position. He wrote back to the group - explained why he disagreed with them and he knew that he will lose some of them
- Keeping people engaged after the victory - Organising for America - campaign supporters now - campaigning still - gathering support for Obama's plan. The group will be supporting Obama's presidency.
3 Sign-off
Sam's posts were reviewed until he was trusted to do it himself. When he started employing bloggers he told them that bloggers need to tell their story from their own perspective, but their post shouldn't end up in the media
4 Subject lines for emails - rigorous testing
5 In-depth content viewing? - focussed on building a grass-roots movement, voices of ordinary people
6 Importance of Facebook and Twitter in comparison with email lists?
Didn't want to have paople only sitting on Facebook. They tried to move them onto http://mybarackobama.com. This site was seen as a mobilization network not a social network. Email had the best impact - in terms of raising funds. Mainly because you can test and tweak email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)