Social Ch@nge

You’d think with the election over, we would shut up about Obama’s internet strategy - but not so much. Because it turns out that an oft-quoted statistic about his campaign isn’t quite right. See, I went around telling everyone that small donors formed the bulk of his campaign contributions. I bragged about how the internet had made it possible to mobilize huge numbers of regular folk, who gave small amounts of their hard earned cash until, together, they put Obama in the White House! Power to the people, baby!

A nice story, but according to a study of his campaign finances, not exactly true. And the truth is more interesting.

The reality is that an estimated 2.5 million donors gave contributions with an average amount of about $62 each. This is significant - no denying. But these small donors were active in the last campaign as well. Part of what made Obama different was the scale of the operation - he managed to reach about the same number of small donors as all of the 2004 candidates combined (2.0 to 2.8 million.)

But what’s really interesting to us is the way that a particular group of donors behaved, called “mid-range repeaters.” These donors were part of the online community created by the Obama campaign - they were engaged, plugged in. They started off with small contributions, but then kept giving repeatedly over the course of the campaign. Obama’s team was able to use the internet to reach out to this same group of about 200,000 supporters again and again, both for volunteer help and financial contributions. These “repeaters” made a difference - about 27% of Obama’s funds came from donors in a middle range ($201-$999), and more than half of these started out small and kept giving.

Mind you, very few of this group ended up in the top group of givers - only about 13,000 of them gave more than $1,000 in their cumulative contributions to become “large donors.” And large donors were critical. About 47% of Obama’s money came from large donors. McCain, on the other hand, relied on large donors for 60% of his money. But because Obama’s 47% was based on a larger total, he raised more money in absolute terms. Size does matter.

What’s the lesson for non-profit fundraisers? EVen if you have a base of small donors, you should consider how to turn them into mid-range repeaters. How? Clearly, engagement using some form of internet strategy is a key. It helps if you have a clear campaign, and an urgent call to action. For one approach, check out the rapid donor cultivation strategy from Common Knowledge.

And now we promise - no more Obama posts. At least for a little while.