I agree with Jonathon's point entirely, but I don't think he is saying this is the *only* reason Obama's campaign succeeded.

Everyone has made important observations here, and the campaign's success is a sum of these, and many other, parts.

Martin's mention of the NSPCC Full Stop campaign is particularly pertinent in relation to Obama's promises for 'Change'. Both are nebulous and, you could argue, unachievable. However, where both succeed is in providing a vision and the sense of being part of a movement that *does* have the ability to change, bit by bit, little by little, and that this all adds up when enough people sign up to it. It's a very clever way of skimming over the detail of *how* you're going to do it and, if you're in the position where you can't really give much tangible evidence, it's a great way to motivate people.

I blogged about this last night here: http://tinyurl.com/65uknv and, a couple of days ago here: http://tinyurl.com/5dth6d. Like most people, I wasn't commenting on every aspect of the campaign, just some of the things that had struck me about it.

My recent experience with IG has led me to believe that like some Sunday newspapers they won't let the true facts get in the way of a good or controversial story!

Thanks Catman.

You make an interesting point about minorities.
Not everything is directly transferrable - I can't think of any charity with a charismatic leader able to stand up in front of an audiance like that. But no reason they can't talk individually to a whole lot of people....

So how do charities learn to reach people who don't respond to TV ads (for those that can afford them)?
Internet? Posters on billboards and the underground? Adverts on buses?
Or even F2F?

Charities have to be able to reach a target audiance. One of the better ways of doing that is to go where the target audiance are and use methods that engage with them there.
Sitting back and just hoping people happen to pop in or call asking how they can help is a bit of a bad idea.

So instead us fundraisers use various means, all of which annoy someone, to try and get people involved.
I wonder how many different ways of engaging Obama used? And how many people did he put off by doing them?

Martin

...seems to be your number one skill Adam.

Firstly, you refer to Sean and Jonathan as "tin rattlers". If this is how you choose to refer to fundraisers then you are doing a diservice to the fundraising profession (like you give a monkeys). I however see you as a glorified journalist, so in the future I will refer to you as a liar.

Simplification works both ways.

Onto Obama. We should note two things:

1) 46% of those who voted chose McCain. The relevance of this point is that Obama did not win everyone round with his consistent language and promises of a better future. His success came from motivating people who had never voted before to take action. This group was made up predomintley of ethnic minorities and young people

2) The detail behind Obamas promises are (in the current global economy) together unachievable. Giving tax cuts to 95% of the population whilst providing near universal healthcare and providing a fiscal stimulus to ease the recession just don't add up in the same 4 year period. As this weeks economist put it "(Obama) has to start deciding whom to disappoint".

So I think we should be asking how Obama managed to get young people and ethnic minorities to vote and see how we can transfer that to "how do we get more young people and ethnic minorities to donate to charity". Well, that is what us tin rattlers should be debating. You liars can do what you like.

As to the second point, I would question the liars ascertation that promising the world is a good thing to do. Unless Obama is incredibly naive (which no one seems to think) he knew he wouldn't achieve all of his promises. Should charities follow that model and promise change that they cannot and do not believe is achievable? I seem to remember you having some concerns with the NSPCC promising to end child abuse in a generation which you felt was not possible.

Pot and kettle syndrome again,

catman

An important aspect of the Obama campaign was his use of th internet and social media in particular to get his message across and raise funds. In particular, this helped hom to reach a younger and affluent audience.
While his team spent millions on online advertising, some of his fundrasing tactics are relatively cheap to implement and should be applicable to charities.

For instance, setting up Facebook / MySpace and YouTube accounts can get a charity's message out to a potentially big audience, as well as helping improve a charity's results in the search engines.

More in this article here: http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/366657/how-charities-can-learn-fr...

Let me know what you think.

G

Adam

I would like to clarify a couple of things.

Firstly, neither you or I can categorically say why Obama captured the imagination and support of the American people. Unless of course we asked all 64 million voters who gave Obama their stamp of approval.

Therefore this is matter for personal opinion and interpretation. That's why blogging is so great because we can all share our own views, have the occasional rant or even stir the pot a little.

Secondly, and more importantly, I stand by my comment that charities can learn a lot from the Obama campaigns clear and consistent 'Change' message.

I don't for a moment dispute that tangibility is important for charities attempting to connect with their consituency - whether that is individuals, corporations and the like. BUT I also see far too many examples of charities not getting the basics right when it comes to messaging and specifically, clarity in messaging.

Let me explain..

As you may see from previous blogs, as well as working with charities in the UK, Australia, HK and Canada on driving and shaping individual giving programs - I've also spent a large chunk of the last seven years measuring how charities around respond to solicitations from members of the public, in other words 'mystery shopping' them.

And one of the things that stands out time after time, year after year, for the 200 plus organizations I have mystery shopped is the inability on the part of many non profits to clearly articulate why they need your money, how it will make a difference and specifically how you (potential donor) can help.

So whilst tangibility as you point out is crucial - it's important for charities to be able to clearly communicate in a consistent and simple way how that will help change someone (or something's) life.

So my point (or rant) here is that we could blog all day about why we personally think Obama's team got it right (or why McCain's team got it wrong - which in part I believe is because his message wasnt clear and consistent) but let's leave that for the political correspondents.

My 'simple' point was charities CAN learn something from Obama's campaigns team: how to develop a brilliant and compelling message (proposition) and keep on that message for a sustained period of time.

Cheers
Jonathon