I am so impressed with the Obama campaign’s use of video. They are really making video a central part of their online strategy and I am certain it has an impact on the crowds they are drawing and the enthusiasm they are seeing.
I got a link to this video by email today. It is the 5th anniversary of Obama’s speech against the war, on October 2, 2002.
Here’s an excerpt from that speech:
“What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
-Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
It shows impressive foresight. But as powerful as it is to read those words, see what they did with the video when they only had 13 seconds of the original speech on tape.
There is nothing here particularly complicated in terms of shooting or editing video. If your organization isn’t finding a way to start using this tool, you are missing a tremendous opportunity.
One of the things we know about email fundraising and advocacy is that requests that are timely are more likely to result in gifts. For example, if legislation is being voted on today and I get an email today asking me to call my Senator, I am more likely to do it than if I received the request two weeks earlier. In fundraising, if I am told that we have 36 hours to meet a deadline so that food aid can be delivered with the next convoy — this is a compelling ask.
I have noticed recently the added idea of speaking to me like I am an insider. I am seeing this mostly in political fundraising. I got a note from Barak Obama last week. Have a look:
I’m just now leaving New York, and you’ve got me fired up. Nearly 25,000 people came together last night for the rally.
Here’s the video:
I’m inspired by your continued energy and support. But we’re still shy of our goal of 500,000 donations to the campaign by Sunday’s deadline.
Make an additional donation now and help us get there:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
More soon,
Barack
Paid for by Obama for America
This email was sent to: michael@see3.net
To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe
The subject of the email above was “Hey.” Hey? As in, “Hey, I just wanted to fire off a quick note to my buddy.” The signature was the uber-personal “Barack”. Yeah, we go way back.
The next day I got an email from Michelle Obama with the subject line “re:Hey” It’s like we’re all friends on a normal chain of emails.
Today, I received an email from Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC.
Hi Michael,
I know it’s Sunday so I don’t want to take up much of your time. You know me, I like to speak frankly.
Here’s the reality check: This election is far from in the bag. There are 60 Democrats sitting in seats that Bush carried in 2004 and there are eight Republicans sitting in Democratic seats. We have a lot of seats to protect and an historic opportunity to expand the playing field. The resources we have now will determine whether or not we win next November.
The FEC end of quarter deadline is MIDNIGHT TONIGHT and the DCCC is just $38,000 shy of its goal. House Dems are matching every gift until midnight tonight so please give what you can before this critical deadline.
http://www.dccc.org/r/99581/3018530/
On to Victory,
Rahm
Sent Wirelessly Via Blackberry
I like the urgency. We have hours to go and we need your help. But “Sent Wirelessly Via Blackberry”???? Yeah, sure. I wonder how my good buddy Rahm got all of this far at the bottom of the email:
To unsubscribe from this email list, please paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.dccc.org/unsubscribe/?p=MTQxNCwzMDE4NTMw%0A
To make sure you always get our emails add dccc@dccc.org to your address book. Find out more about adding us to your address book here.
http://www.dccc.org/r/99582/3018530/
Paid for by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
430 South Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 863-1500 www.dccc.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are not tax deductible.
That’s a lot of Blackberry typing for him to remember.
Yes, friendly and urgent work. But maybe sometimes you need to give your audience a more little credit.
by Michael Hoffman Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
Why should I donate? Yes, you do good work. Yes, I care about these issues. OK, you got me. I will donate. But not now. When I get around to it. (Which might not actually happen any time soon.)
I think this is a common subconscious set of thoughts from donors. I will get to it. I made that pledge, but I didn’t return the envelope. Not because I didn’t intend to do it, but because it’s not URGENT. Creating urgency is an important part of fundraising. OK, I get you do good work. But why is it important that I donate now. Right now. Why not tomorrow? Why not next month?
One way to solve the urgency issue is to use a matching program. A typical match program will get a high-net-worth donor to conditionally pledge some money, say, $75,000. They will pay the pledge if you can get another $75,000 to match it. Often this is a nice way to up a gift from a major donor as well as getting your base excited. I was thinking about this recently because I saw two case studies for running matching gift programs online.
The first is from the American Jewish World Service (AJWS). They sent out an email about a week ago to their list saying that a family foundation has agreed to provide $75,000 if the amount could be matched. In about two days the $75,000 came in online. Here’s the amazing thing… a lot more money came in phone calls! “I just got this email about the matching and I want to donate.” So they were over their goal. (Don’t forget, if you get calls or letters that reference an online campaign, the online campaign needs to be credited for those gifts in your database so you can accurately measure the impact of the campaign.)
Within a couple days, the whole experience got someone else excited about the matching possibilities and I got this email from Ruth Messinger, the head of AJWS:
Dear Michael,
During these Days of Awe I am particularly grateful for your ongoing commitment to AJWS.
Last week I shared the news that, in the spirit of the High Holy Days, a family foundation agreed to match your contributions up to $75,000.
I am so pleased that, thanks to an outpouring of support, we have met the match.
However, the generosity of our supporters did not stop there. After hearing of the success of the first match, an anonymous donor came forward and offered an additional $100,000 in match funds!
With the ongoing help of the AJWS community, we are confronting some of the world’s most difficult challenges. We support the world’s most vulnerable people - where the need is greatest - in communities that have not been reached and not been served by others.
So please, don’t miss this special opportunity to contribute today - your donation will go twice as far and will help AJWS raise up to $350,000 for our critical work around the world!
Thank you for your commitment to global social justice and support of AJWS. May we all be inscribed in the Book of Life.
Warm regards,
Ruth Messinger
President, American Jewish World Service
The second case study is from the Obama campaign. What’s interesting about their approach is the idea of matching real people to each other to create a kind of virtuous circle of leveraged gifts. The Obama people are combining the urgency of the match with the idea of creating community, which has been a lot of what their campaign is about. And they also throw in here a little “prove to me that you’re a man” kind of stuff for added punch (which is the part I don’t really like because I think it dilutes the power of the community sell.) Have a look:
Dear Michael,
Somebody out there believes that you’re ready to own a piece of this campaign.
A fellow supporter has promised that if you make a donation right now, they will match what you give.
So take the next step.
Prove to them that they were right to put their faith in you. Make a donation now and double your impact:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
This isn’t an anonymous donor program backed by big checks from Washington lobbyists or corporate fat cats. This is a one-to-one, supporter-to-supporter effort.
If you make a donation, you’ll be matched up with a real person — another supporter who has put their faith in you. And you’ll be able to read a note from them and send a response.
Here’s how it works:
You choose the amount you’re willing to give — it will be doubled by someone willing to match that amount
You’ll see the name and town of the fellow Obama supporter who agreed to double your donation
You’ll be able to write a note to the person who matched you and let them know why you decided to own a piece of this campaign
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Our movement is funded by actual people — individuals who are moved to give whatever they can afford, whether it’s five dollars or five hundred dollars.
Most campaigns do not realize the value of contributions from ordinary people — they are focused on the money that comes from Washington lobbyists and special interest groups.
But we reject the notion that lobbyists and PACs represent “real people,” and we’ve refused their money since this campaign began.
So it’s up to you.
Make a donation and show your support. Double your impact by giving today and being a part of our supporter match campaign:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
According to the Campaign Finance Institute, we have raised more money in small dollar contributions than any major campaign in history.
If we keep building our movement this way, we have the potential to fundamentally reshape the political process.
We can end the days of lobbyists and political action committees paying for access and influence.
That’s why we’re so focused on bringing new donors into the campaign. For the next ten days you will write the history of this presidential election through your actions.
You have the opportunity to build the biggest grassroots campaign politics has ever seen.
Make a donation, connect with another supporter, and double your impact now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Thanks for your support,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Matching programs can work. So if you haven’t tried it, you should. One rule of creating urgency is that you shouldn’t abuse it. You can’t tell people in every communication you have with them all the time that the sky is falling (even if it is!). If you say, “We need you to act today!” and you say it again next week, they will get burned out. They will begin to feel that they can never solve your problems, that you just take and take and no matter how much they give you are still in this crazy urgent situation. And if they feel that way, then your appeals start to make them feel guilty, and guilt is not a tricky tactic in fundraising. Most of the time people will avoid guilt-inducing situations.
If you have your own matching gift story, leave it in a comment here to share it with your nonprofit colleagues.
I went to a session on Friday at Yearly Kos about the impact of video through the 2008 election. I had meant to “live blog” the session, meaning, I was typing while sitting in it and could have published this, but live blogging doesn’t give you the chance to make sure things make sense for your readers and I was not breaking any news, so I waited until now to finish this.
The moderator of the panel was from the New Politics Institute, a progressive think tank that is tracking changes in politics from the progressive perspective.
Marcy Wheeler a blogger with FireDogLake who has moved to video blogging.
John Amato from Crooks and Liars who we are told was way ahead of his time with web video. The Vlog Father.
At the start of the session he showed the famous Johnson daisy ad.
This was really revolutionary when it ran. It is very powerful. I wonder about the “we must love each other” part. Not sure what he meant by that really.
Another point mentioned at the start of the session was that we have come along way from that ad, where everyone who saw it saw it on TV. Google’s revenue is approaching the total ad revenue from all network television.
We then saw the famous Macaca video. At one point someone asked what the real impact is of all this online video. The answer - we know a US Senate seat was lost because of it. If you haven’t seen that video, I pasted it below. The context is that an Indian-American is basically being called racial names from George Allen, who actually thought he would become the President of the United States.
Macaca video.
The campaigns are getting into the act of using web video. At the session we saw screen shots from Obama’s web video announcement, for example.
We are also seeing the parody. The best known one is probably Obama Girl.
Basically, there is a wave of video innovation going on now and it is changing politics.
There are categories of videos here. Viral Hollywood. Campaign video blogs. Event clips.
Not as much Flash animation these days. Will there be more? [I don’t think so.]
We also have TV clips that go viral.
And now we are starting to see web features — 5 to 10 minutes.
YouTube CNN Debates, for all the criticism will mark the coming of age of new media.
So here we are today. Lets go to the panel to talk about what’s next for web video.
John Amato on the phone:
“The power of video is truly amazing. With Crooks and Liars I was just getting into the blog world and when I actually saw Bill O’Reilly using right wing propaganda to frame every issue I realized the power of video through television was unique and I needed to get it online. Reading transcripts wasn’t enough. If you see them, see the spin, that would go viral and people needed to see this… ”
The most important things we will see with web video will come from individuals. People will watch the Obama Girl. It will be people at home with their video camera and an idea who can now take action on their ideas. The real power comes from us.
Julie Bergman Sender
Campaign for America’s Future wanted to kick off month long campaign around issue of obstructionist Republican Congress. She then showed us a video she said they did in one day. Staring Jason Alexander. Here it is:
[Love to hear what you think of it. Thought it had some good lines, but seemed too insider to me to have an impact on the masses.]
She also said… and these might not be exact quotes…
“In 2004 when I approached America Coming Together to do the Will Ferrell thing they looked at me like I was a Martian. It had three very clear policy points in it. The key is finding a popular culture conversation to tease out policy points.”
“I think we are in a transformational moment. As Wesley Clark said this morning, who are we? And how are we going to reinvent ourselves and return to the image of ourselves as Americans that we are not living up to.”
“[Speaking of the folks working on new media and web] there are a bunch of new thoroughbreds approaching the gate the if the old guard [of consultants] doesn’t get out of the way they will be trampled. There is a place for straightforward political messaging, biographical narrative treatments, etc. but there is also the person like Wesley Clark who talks about war… he is former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and he is on our side. It’s about authenticity.
There is still a stranglehold from old guard. We have to throw them over. This new crew, the bloggers, the individuals, the spirit of Yearly Kos that is everywhere… I think this is the new way to look at this paradigm, it is not a vertical command center of messaging, it is horizontal and people can take leadership and then blend it all together and the ones that know this will be the ones that succeed.”
Marcy Wheeler
FireDoglake… they covered the Libby Trial and they matched and surpassed the the old media in that. “I wrote these long posts that had readership of 2,000 people or maybe 10,000 people is max readership. Too long, too detailed and too inside baseball to change the narrative or really take on AP or Washington Post. Then I would write shorter, punchier posts for outlets with higher traffic.”
The live blog from the Libby trial was getting up to 200,000 people a day. There is no way we are going to beat the speakers on Fox… so we thought we need video. After 8 hours of live blogging did 5-10 minutes of video. A lot of people got to us for the first time through video.
People who couldn’t read the live stuff — but they would start with the video then scan the live blog. It gave me an appreciation for telling the story quickly.”
“If I would do this again there should be a video component all along.”
Dan Mannat
Shows this video…
What’s going to happen in the next year? His predictions:
1. VideoRoots — tracking, archival work, the folks doing Crooks and Liars on a local level. Basically the netroots phenomenon that we see so influential moves to video.
2. Self funding videos… contribute money so we can get this on the air. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was substantially on the web before it went to TV.
3. The Convention — how will they incorporate video? With inspiration of YouTube debate it will be interesting to see what happens with the convention.
4. Video Ad Watch - deconstructing attack ads with video. As soon as an ad goes up you will see video responses. Matter of hours before there will be video responses.
5. No candidate has done what Al Gore showed us.. the policy video. Integration of multimedia to explain policy — make it substantive - -we will see that in the next year.
6. Smear videos — honeymoon during primary, but for general gloves will be off.
Questions he has:
Will there be a YouTube general election debate? Will Commission on Presidential Debates incorporate it?
November Surprise videos.. last time we had Bin Laden…
In 2004 some effort to combat voter fraud with video. In 2008 we will see real time reporting of how long lines are on every precinct in the country. You can auto-post cell phone video to YouTube today.
The session ended with everyone agreeing that video is having and will continue to have a big impact and that the organizations that are able to teach video literacy will be the ones able to have a big impact. (Andrew Rasiej, who was in the audience called it “videacy” or something like that.)
Mainstream media spends a lot of time trying to be more relevant in our world of unlimited online channels. So in this context I can excuse people for being skeptical that the CNN - YouTube debate was anything more than a gimmick. If you are unfamiliar with this, the idea was that instead of the moderator asking questions, YouTube users would submit videos that ask the questions.
The debate aired on CNN tonight and I just finished watching in online in my living room on CNN.com with my wife Jessica. (Why the video of the debate wasn’t also on YouTube, I don’t know. CNN has a very annoying player that required me to download a new plug-in.) Some criticism before the debate, particularly from Jeff Jarvis, was that CNN shouldn’t be deciding which videos to show. In this way, he and others argued, CNN was simply replacing questions they would ask with the same questions being asked by YouTubers. What these critics wanted was that the most popular question videos on YouTube be the ones they show at the debate. CNN argued that if they did that then the candidates might try to manipulate the popularity of the questions online. I would add that we would probably have had 30 questions about health care.
In the end, I think CNN made the right choice and I think this was a much better debate than usual. Jeff Jarvis thinks it sucked. He says that an online debate, with the candidates responding directly to the videos would have been better. Probably. And you have to agree with his point about the “horse race blather” from the commentators after the debate ended. This might be baby steps, but it is certainly steps.
Michael Bassik, an authority about all of this from MSHC Parnters, was quoted in the New York Times as saying it was less about which questions are picked and more about simply giving people a voice that don’t have in the traditional debate format. After seeing it, I agree.
Jessica said it’s all about stories. The videos became real reality check stories. At one point, John Edwards told us about a man he met on his recent poverty tour with a medical problem — a cleft pallet that he didn’t get fixed until he was 50 years old. This story, stuck in the can by Edwards before the debate and pulled out to show he is in touch with real people, seemed totally hollow to those of us watching from the couch. It didn’t have any impact because minutes before he told his story we saw videos of adult kids feeding their mother with Alzheimer’s and a woman taking her wig off and talking about being denied preventative care because she didn’t have health insurance.
Yes, there were too many candidates. And Dennis Kucinich has to be the most annoying candidate that ever ran. And there is never enough time. But millions of Americans saw this video. And I think that really is a difference.
What I like about this piece from James Kotecki and David McMillan is how a couple of guys can contribute to the presidential conversation while demonstrating how you can create effective media on a no budget. According to Jeff Jarvis on his site PrezVid, these guys haven’t even met in person and they are creating a show together. Yes, the lighting and sound could be improved, but it works.
Continuing to jump on the political bandwagon, MySpace recently announced a series of in-person events that it will host on college campuses with presidential aspirants. This report from CNET also says MySpace is working with Mark Burnett (Survivor) on something called Independent “a new program that uses television and the web to discover budding political minds.”
In a meeting with a major nonprofit this week, I was asked about the tension and issues related to Web 2.0 and losing control of content. It’s the magic question. How do we take advantage of user-generated content and user-controlled forums such as MySpace and YouTube without totally losing control of our brand? The answer is, very very carefully.
Even the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, which has put big resources into these issues couldn’t escape serious problems. Their case is special, however. There are laws about having people doing things on behalf of the campaign — either they are “on-the-books” and you as the campaign have to account for everything they say and do, or they are totally “off-the-books” and you can’t even talk to them without fear of breaking federal election laws.
The Obama MySpace page was originally created by a volunteer, and originally didn’t say “official site”. It then grew and grew and grew and the campaign wanted — needed — to take it over and control it. Some of the info on the site wasn’t right, for example. This was not a random fan site, but the one MySpace page with his name in the URL. The person who created it then wanted to get paid for all the work he had done. Not happening. They should have spent the money and kept the fan. Now they have people running around all over the web calling them bullies.
