Over the past year I have had numerous conversations with political candidates and their staffs on how they can effectively use social media in their campaigns. Though I am a firm believer that social media should be integrated into their campaigns, it is clear to me that as a communications channel it can not stand on its own. These tools do provide unique ways of reaching additional supporters but they also complement traditional communication channels.
Generally the first question that comes up in the conversation is how they can achieve the same level of success as President Obama achieved in fundraising. Given the costs of running for office, fundraising is the key to electoral success because without it, how do you deliver your message and achieve name recognition? Therefore, everyone wants to replicate Obama’s on-line success.
As I look at Obama’s success, it rested on an aggressive social media strategy that was complemented by the public’s awareness of the candidate. I would argue that mainstream media channels provided the foundation that social media channels were able to build upon.
Obama and other candidates for national office benefit from tremendous network television exposure, as well as thousands of articles in newspapers and magazines. All of this exposure not only creates name recognition, but it begins to build the bond between the voter and the candidate. It is this relationship that creates the basis for the donation. The stronger the relationship, the greater the chance that someone will donate.
As the public gains knowledge of a candidate, they form an opinion, and it is that opinion that governs how they will act. Obama’s effective use of social media as a channel for fundraising allowed his team to effectively exploit the buzz around his candidacy. Through a comprehensive social media strategy that allowed people to donate one time or make periodic payments, and organize donors, they created more than a million donors and fund raisers.
Without the buzz and excitement of the Obama candidacy, would their social media strategy been as successful? Clearly their use of technology surpassed their competitors, but without the buzz and excitement, it might not have achieved the early numbers that provided the funds to compete head-to-head with Clinton, and ultimately surpass her.
The average candidate who is looking to use social media as a fundraising mechanism and achieve Obama-like numbers (relatively speaking), has to understand that success will be a function of how well they have built relationships with the electorate. In today’s economy, fundraising is not an easy task. It will not be easy to get someone to part with $25 on-line, if they do not know who you are or what you stand for. Just having a snazzy web site or Facebook page alone will not do the trick.
Given that candidates for state and local offices will not receive hundreds of hours of free media, how can they effectively raise funds on-line? First, they have to recognize that what worked for Obama can work for them but will take much longer. More importantly, since they do not have the same free media benefits, they will need to use all of the tools at their disposal to build relationships with potential small donors.
I have posted other articles on the importance of using social media to build relationships with constituents, voters and donors. In the absence of significant free media, on-line donation strategies need to be complemented by strong relationship building strategies.
With Labor Day fast approaching the political campaign season will be hitting the home stretch, free media opportunities will increase, and buzz around various candidacies will as well. Those candidates who have built a solid social media foundation will be the ones who will have the greatest opportunity to successfully raise money on-line.
Popularity: 3% [?]
