If you expect your 2014 political or advocacy campaign to benefit from a Facebook following, you need to start early, advises a recent epolitics.com post. For example, in last year’s Virginia governor’s race, Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s campaign spent time and ad dollars to build his Facebook following as early as possible. His goal was to create a base of "social validation" for late-cycle persuasion and GOTV ads. He leveraged the fact that Facebook enhances ads on its site with socially validating information (“X likes this” or “Y people like this”) to get more people to click, exploiting the psychological power of "everybody’s doing it." But for followers’ Likes and Shares to influence their friends, you need to have followers! So start building a Facebook following as early as possible, and that means an investment in advertising. And consider emulating the Virginia Democrats in another way, too. They used a Facebook app that matched the central voter file with their supporters’ friend networks. If supporters allowed it, the campaign could look through a supporter's friends to find priority voters already targeted for outreach, and then ask the supporter to reach those target voters with messages designed to appeal. Again, this technique only works if you have built a critical mass of supporters! So, get going on that Facebook outreach ASAP. See the post at
http://www.epolitics.com/2014/01/05/a-good-reason-for-campaigns-to-build-a-facebook-following-early/
Every savvy candidate and advocacy group in 2014 is going to do some Internet politicking. But do they know how to maximize their online power? "How to Use the Internet to Win in 2014: A Comprehensive Guide to Online Politics for Campaigns and Advocates" offers itself as one guidebook. As summarized by Colin Delany, founder of Epolitics.com, for the Huffington Post, a winning strategy includes both online fundraising, for repeat pushes of those donate buttons, and online recruiting, for donors and volunteers who will become viral emissaries in turn. Campaigns are advised on mobilizing supporters to participate in e-mail efforts, virtual phone banks and digital rallies. Grassroots organizing is given a digital spin, too, with iPads, tablets and other mobile devices used as on-site donation takers (via mobile credit card readers) as well as dispensers of maps, videos and canvass talking points. Digital advertising, meanwhile, can be made more effective with improved analytics and targeting. The Internet is also a great way to quick-test, from A/B subject-line splits to complex positioning. Worried about the high cost of a shotgun mass media effort? Online geographic selection can offer cheaper and more precise targeting. Finally, the Internet is a rapid-response weapon in case of attacks and unfavorable coverage. For more, go to the blog post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-delany/the-internet-in-politics-_b_4420094.html
When corporate leaders decide to take public political stands, they sometimes are surprised by the "blowback" for their brand. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder and CEO, may soon find that out with his new advocacy group Fwd.us. Created in April, Fwd.us promotes policies designed to keep the United States and its citizens competitive in a global economy, including comprehensive immigration and education reform. But the organization also recently paid for television ads that supported two conservative politicians seeking expansion of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drawing criticism from progressive and environmental groups and even a small group of protesters at Facebook's California headquarters. The goal was to back the politicians, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, in exchange for their support of immigration reform, but the environmental groups didn't see it that way. "The advertising, including the harsh and immediate counterattack from the climate change community, underscores the complexity of publicly traded companies and their CEOs frontally engaging in candidate campaigns," Democratic strategist Chris Lehane told the Los Angeles Times in a recent story. "Politics is a full-contact sport and when a company jumps into the arena, even if just through the actions of its leadership, it opens up the political brand of that company." See the full news story at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-facebook-zuckerberg-20130502,0,5421214.story
Nonprofit leaders are worried about the negative impact on all tax-exempt charities from the IRS scandal over 501(c)4 social welfare groups. A recent article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy laid out some of the potential collateral damage from the scandal. For example, charities have wanted the IRS to beef up oversight of tax-exempt groups and give clearer guidance on "political activities" by charities and advocacy groups for many years, but that's unlikely until the political storm passes. Nonprofit leaders are also concerned that 501(c)3 groups, which cannot engage in partisan politics at all, will be tarred with same brush as 501(c)4 advocacy groups that can do politicking as long as it is not their primary activity. "All nonprofits are being smeared as though we are engaging in political activity," fretted Tim Delaney, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, in the article. One unhappy result may be that the non-political charities, who file about 60,000 applications for tax-exempt status a year, will face significant delays in approval as Congress reviews treatment of the 3,500 annual applications from advocacy groups. Without tax-exempt status, charities are significantly impeded; they may not solicit donations in several states and are not eligible for lower postal rates or most foundation grants. Charities now are also likely to shy away from anything that smacks of advocacy, including lobbying Congress on budget issues that affect them. For the whole story, see http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Tea-Party-Scandal-Could/139233/
Organizing for Action, the advocacy group launched in January to support President Obama's second-term agenda on issues like immigration and gun control, has attracted just a fraction of the donors from Obama's re-election campaign so far. OFA, which is a nonprofit social welfare group and so without the strict limits placed on individual contributors to an election campaign, raised $4.9 million in the first quarter of this year, an amount dwarfed by the more than $1 billion drummed up by Obama's re-election effort. And it may be an interesting comment on the post-election fundraising challenge that Obama's generous Hollywood supporters, like Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, have not yet turned out for OFA. Meanwhile, the new advocacy group claimed "grassroots" strength and reported 109,582 donors and an average donation of $44 for the first quarter; it also voluntarily released the names of the 1,428 donors who gave $250 or more. For more, see the USA Today report at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/12/organizing-for-action-president-obama-fundraising/2077201/
Barack Obama, the first sitting President with a Twitter account, has over 29 million Twitter followers, but do most of those fans realize that the account is no longer run by the President and his staff? Shortly after the recent election, Barack Obama's campaign handed over management of social media accounts, including Twitter and Facebook, to a newly formed entity called Organizing for Action, a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit. Like its conservative counterparts, such as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, Organizing for Action (OFA) can't advocate or seek donations for a particular candidate, but it can independently advocate and raise funds for social issues and public policy, such as gun control legislation, or even causes not supported by President Obama in theory. Nonpartisan OFA should not to be confused, despite the similar initials, with Obama for America, the campaign organization that managed social media communications during Obama's first campaign, first term, and second run for office. It's all legal, but some may wonder about the gray areas introduced by political use of social media. Is it ethical to quietly hand over a valuable political online identity to a nonpartisan outside group? Is it ethical that @BarackObama Twitter followers may think they're hearing from the Oval Office when they are really getting messages from an independent nonprofit? For an in-depth discussion, see the recent story by Philip Bump for The Atlantic Wire at http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/youre-not-following-barackobama-twitter/63930/
Social media and online-tech leaders are flexing their political muscle. Clear proof is that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is starting a political advocacy group of technology leaders, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article. Per the WSJ story, Zuckerberg and group co-organizer Joe Green, Zuckerberg's former Harvard University roommate, have already received monetary pledges from other heavyweight tech executives, including LinkedIn Corp. founder Reid Hoffman. They have also enlisted savvy political operatives such as Rob Jessmer, former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Joe Lockhart, former press secretary under President Bill Clinton and former Facebook vice president of global communications. The advocacy group, which has not chosen a name, aims at raising $50 million to lobby for federal legislative reform on issues ranging from immigration to education, according to WSJ sources. The group plans to register as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit social welfare group. Stay tuned for an official announcement of this new incarnation of targeted online and social networking power. For the full story, see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578384781088854740.html
Advocacy groups know that campaigning doesn't end with an election cycle -- working to get supporters engaged and active is their year-round mission. A recent "Campaign & Elections" magazine article pointed up five lessons that advocacy organizations may have for your campaign or cause. A quick summary starts with keeping staff and processes flexible and working outside of the communications silos. Second, advertise to scale: A small targeted social media campaign that leverages influencers can deliver more bang for the buck than trying to target within a big ad buy. Third, when you create those ads, stay on message but don't avoid creative, outside-the-box appeals to attract a broader audience. Indeed, engagement is the name of the game, advocacy groups remind; keep the channels that worked during an election cycle active and promoting, win or lose. And, finally, your organization doesn't have to go it alone; leveraging like-minded groups to cooperate on a short-term campaign can have long-term benefits. For the complete article, go to http://www.campaignsandelections.com/magazine/us-edition/361487/learning-from-the-advocacy-world.thtml
