While this guide specifically looks at online political advertising, any nonprofit looking to target and engage a constituency online will find it very useful.

As the guide says: “What makes video advertising unique is its ability to incorporate calls to action and enable supporters to easily respond. So, not only can campaigns target a persuasive message to voters, they can fulfill secondary goals like generating email signups, helping voters find polling places—and, yes—raising cash.”

In other words, the techniques and tools presented in this guide are applicable to just about any online call to action.

While the guide provides case studies and strategic/tactical advice from various consultants, perhaps most useful to nonprofits will be the basic ‘nuts and bolts’ information — costs, online advertising types, format standards, video ad networks and what they offer, and various ad technologies that can add interactive functionality to online video ads.

Kate Kaye, you deserve a raise.

Tom

Also some cause examples — from Hunger Action Month to volunteerism to gay marriage foes.

ClickZ’ Politics & Advocacy is a good news feed if you want to follow political use — often at the cutting edge — of the digital realm.

Tom

Drawing from a study by Jen Schradie reviewing Pew Internet Research data, he notes that education level is by far the most significant predictor of participation with the ‘social Web’ versus age or any other factor. The study tracked the relationship between socio-economic status and 10 online activities (using Facebook, blogging, video sharing etc) most likely to influence the public, opinion shapers and policy makers.

In an article titled Is the Internet for elites?, he concludes:

“The most vocal and active segments of the Internet are disproportionately debating, discussing and promoting the most elite-focused and elite-themed content. The logical result is that the ‘social Web’ seems less like a desperately needed haven of dissidence, envelope pushing and new thinking, and more like just a bigger but equally poorly produced version of ‘Hardball’ — a place dominated by talking points, gossip, status-quo worship and general politician star-f***ing, not by what rank-and-file America is generally interested in or worried about.”

What do you think? Is the ‘social Web’ just another Hardball or is it a venue for ‘envelope pushing and new thinking’.

If you’re only looking at political and issue debate, perhaps Sirota is right.

But many nonprofits and their fundraisers are not focused on that debate. Instead they are focused on a mission that is far removed from politics, be it digging wells in Africa or generating support for the arts in Boston. For them, social media are simply another channel to develop and engage with an interested community of believers. To say nothing of the individual empowerment social media enable … as demonstrated in our post earlier this week … If This Doesn’t Inspire You …

Tom

P.S. Sirota’s latest book is “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now.”

The 2008 Obama campaign re-wrote the online fundraising handbook, and all the wannabees have studied it closely.

This report from Clickz.com provides several articles for you political groupies, covering Obama, Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Huntsman … and even Ann Coulter.

As always, my interest in this political propaganda is chiefly from the perspective of … Anything here for us legitimate, principled fundraisers?

Tom

Here are some findings. Among online adults:

• 16% sent email related to the campaign or the elections to friends, family members or others;
• 12% revealed online which candidates they voted for in the November elections;
• 7% used the internet to organize or get information about in-person meetings to discuss political issues in the campaign;
• 22% used Twitter or a social networking site for political purposes;
• 6% took part in an online discussion, listserv or other online group forum such as a blog, related to political issues or the campaign;
• 5% used the internet to participate in volunteer activities related to the campaign—such getting lists of voters to call or getting people to the polls;
• One-third (35%) went online to look for information about candidates’ voting records or positions on issues;
• 8% of online adults signed up online to have updates about the campaign or the election delivered to them directly;
• 31% viewed campaign-related videos online (jumped from 19% in 2006 Congressional elections);
• fully 20% went online to follow an interesting election campaign in another part of the country.

And for you fundraisers, 5% of Republican voters and 6% of Democratic voters donated money online in 2010.

The study includes plenty of demographic and political affiliation breakdowns of the stats. Naturally, on a trend line basis, virtually all of these numbers are up over the 2008 election, even though that election was a — presumably — higher interest Presidential year.

Tom

For example, a report on mobile use in connection with the 2010 US congressional elections. Pew terms 26% of adult Americans “mobile political users.” Some of their reported usage …

• 14% of all American adults used their cell phones to tell others that they had voted.
• 12% of adults used their cell phones to keep up with news about the election or politics.
• 10% of adults sent text messages relating to the election to friends, family members and others.
• 6% of adults used their cells to let others know about conditions at their local voting stations on election day, including insights about delays, long lines, low turnout, or other issues.
• 4% of adults used their phones to monitor results of the election as they occurred.
• 3% of adults used their cells to shoot and share photos or videos related to the election.
• 1% of adults used a cell-phone app that provided updates from a candidate or group about election news.
• 1% of adults contributed money by text message to a candidate or group connected to the election like a party or interest group.

You can download the full report here.

Tom

The article is interesting, but most valuable to Agitator readers might be this link to ClickZ’s free handbook — Digital Political Campaigns 101 — featuring basic digital campaigning advice from political communicators across the ideological spectrum.

Election campaigns aside, whatever kind of online campaigning your nonprofit might do, this guide — covering topics like list-building, making compelling videos, online fundraising, online targeting, social media — will be helpful.

Tom

Although The Nature Conservancy has never hidden the fact that it has received  $10 million in gifts of cash and land from BP for international projects it reportedly has been bombarded with complaints from donors upset that the organization would accept such contributions.

Ditto Conservation International which accepted $2 million from BP, advised the firm on oil extraction methods, and included John Browne, BP’s CEO at the time, on its board from 2000 to 2006.

And eyebrows are being raised in the direction of groups like Environmental Defense, which has never accepted corporate money, but helped BP develop its carbon-trading system, and more recently campaigned along side it in the US Climate Action Partnership, as did the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Resources Institute, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Of course the less environmentally friendly pro-business-at-any-cost groups are having a field day. The Business and Media Institute uses the BP ties to not only attack the mainstream environmental movement, but the hypocrisy of the media as well.  The headline of its current newsletter says it all: “Washington Post Exposes BP ties to Eco-Groups, Other Media Ignore Controversy.”

In short, the horrific nature of the spill serves to add credence to the arguments of anti-corporate purists that non-profits should accept no money from companies because it risks putting off and losing the support of millions of individual donors.

I believe that in the long-term the benefits of cooperation far outweigh the risks.  Not a popular position to take these days.  What do you think?

Roger

The comment I found most interesting is the "gap" one expert noted between Obama presidential campaign’s pathbreaking online campaigning in 2008 and the feeble use of this army to support Administration initiatives in 2009.

One wonders if this is a matter of key personnel moving on (reminding us that really shrewd, innovative issue campaigners are hard to find, whatever their medium of choice); passion leaking from the balloon; or, related, most of the folks who climb aboard the train during the excitement of a campaign just not having the sophistication to realize that it doesn’t end, it just begins, on election day.

I’ve always believed that issue advocates and campaigners have a far more difficult job (including the related task of fundraising) than political campaigners. The former must deal with the supreme challenge of maintaining momentum, commitment, and loyalty through all the twists and turns of the policy-making process … a process that can be incredibly arcane, full of mid-course defeats, and years long.

Tom

An entire arsenal of online advocacy tactics have been unleashed, including:

• Search ads
• Online videos
• Facebook presence
• Online fundraising
• Petition sign-ups
• Animated display ads
• Online games
• Dedicated websites
• Targeted action alerts

The article gives plenty of examples. Pundits say even more spending is to come for online advocacy as the action moves to the Senate.

Even individual members of Congress are running online ads on the issue. My favorite line is  from Florida Congressman Alan Grayson(D): "The Republican health care plan is don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly."

Tom