Gene Carr's Patron Technology Blog

Learning from the Democrats: Raising Money Online

I think the online fundraising bonanza that is going on during this primary season is something we in the non-profit world should be watching closely.

I'm not primarily going to focus on how much has been raised, although the raw numbers are staggering. Today's edition of The New York Times reports that of the $36.1 million that Obama raised during January, $28 million (78%) came over the Internet. The evidence is clear: motivated donors choose the Internet. The corollary to that is that if you have online donations enabled on your site, but you're not raising a lot of money, it's not because there's anything wrong with your audience. People need to be motivated to give.

So let's focus on strategy and e-mail design. First, the content of the e-mails that these candidates are sending out is primarily intended to raise money. Clinton's e-mails are exclusively pitches for donations. Obama (or his staff) writes more often with editorial messages, commenting on victories or challenges ahead. They insert links to video clips more often. Obama's e-mail list is apparently over a million names. That's got to be paying off, since they send several appeals a week.

I would prefer more editorial. I find pitches for money tiring. It seems to me that there's an opportunity for a better segmentation strategy where content for existing donors would be different than non-donors, etc. That's not happening now, and I guess we'll have to wait another four years for that.

What's also interesting to me is that a standard template design for e-mails is developing. Take a look at this: 

Note that the "ask" happens in several different places in the same e-mail. There's always a graphic on the right side. Then there's a call to action placed several times within the text. Apparently putting it in several times, separated by white space works. Both Democratic candidates follow pretty much the same layout.

I have never seen a solicitation that looks like this from a non-profit. Perhaps someone should test it?

Smart Ticket Service Fees

Some months ago I wrote a whole series of posts titled "Stupid Ticket Service Fees" which got a lot of responses. Today I counter that with something on the other end of the spectrum: finally a smart ticket service fee.

It all started earlier this month when I spoke at the INTIX conference in Chicago, which is the national gathering of the box office ticketing industry. I moderated a panel which included David Snead, Executive Director of the New York Philharmonic and Burt Dikelsky, Executive Director of the Center for Performing Arts at Governor's State University. 

During our panel, one idea that was discussed was the concept of a "single ticket buyer exchange fee." The concept, now being tested and discussed at some arts venues, is that single ticket buyers should be afforded the same exchange privileges as subscribers, for a fee. From the discussion in the room, some are adding between $2 to $5 per transaction. The general fear is this practice might anger subscribers, by devaluing the benefit of the subscription. But from the comments made in the session it doesn't appear that this has happened.

From my perspective I think this is a fantastic idea. It's the same as when you pay a change fee for changing an airline ticket reservation. Not only does it remove the barrier that a lot of people face in terms of committing to something before they know their schedule, it also sets up a monetary value to the benefit of the ticket exchange when you become a subscriber.

The thing I'd like to add to the discussion here is, why not sell all single tickets with a "ticket return option" upfront? The box office could tack on that fee at the time of purchase - almost like insurance. Seems to me this idea is a no-brainer. I know I would gladly pay a few bucks for that option quite often.

What do you think?

Super Web Tuesday

Today's short post is merely to call attention to an excellent article in today's edition of The New York Times, which compares and contrasts the Clinton and Obama Web sites.

The article, titled "Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC?" summarizes what I have been saying (and writing about) for the last few months. There's a lot to learn from watching how these candidates manage their Web sites, and if there's any question about the generational shift represented by the candidates, it is clearly played out online.

I thought it was interesting that Caroline Kennedy last week said that it was her children that first made her aware of Barack Obama, and I'm just guessing that they were on his Web site a lot.

Read the article here...

...and if you are in a Super Tuesday state, vote!