Current Assemblyman, Chuck Devore, representing California’s 70^th district has an uphill battle in front of him. He is running for the U.S. Senate in California against political heavy-weight Barbara Boxer. His litany of life-long accomplishments pitted against Barbara Boxer’s political machine will make this a must follow race in 2010.

However, his New Media Director for the campaign, JUSTIN HART, is shaking things up a bit. He has introduced an innovative fundraising strategy for the campaign that looks promising.

It’s called ChuckBucks.

The site combines ease, transparency, and flair to let campaign donors know exactly where their money is going. The genius is in allowing potential donors ‘pick’ where the money is going by selecting a campaign expense to pay for. The engagement factor is key. When people are invested directly in something, they feel more a part of it. The more excited supporters the better. Finally, the air of transparency builds trust with the donor knowing that their hard earned money is going directly to a specific purpose and not lost in the war chest.

Next, the campaign’s new media savy includes a Twitter feed that lets people know who and how much has been donated. It then links to the individual’s Twitter home page. The focus is on small donations to build grassroots support-much like Barack Obama’s plan in 2008.

In an interview with Wired Magazine’s Epicenter blog, Hart explains,

You’ve got to rise above the noise. You can’t just do it and not have an angle, or a specific thing that makes people want to donate. If you’re a charity, for example, is there a unique angle you can pursue as far as new contributors — new contributors from a specific city, or something around a special event that you’re doing? If you just lay it out there, no one’s really going to pay attention… For us, of course, being conservatives and
Republicans, and having lost the November election, with technology being one of the tools used by the victorious side — not only to vanquish us, but to vanquish Hilary Clinton earlier… conservatives are taking that message to heart. For them, I was kind of this symbolic, poster child of our way back out of the wilderness.

With ChuckBucks’ launch today, we will soon find out whether Hart’s savy will translate into dollars. Yet, the innovative approach and creativity is second to none and will likely be mimicked by campaigns in the future whether or not Chuck Devore is able to take down the Barbara Boxer behemoth.

Capitalizing on the swearing-in of Democratic Senator Al Franken, the NRSC released a web video last week with quite a message. 
 

 
The ad’s message seems to be a warning: with 60 Democrats in the Senate, the party has the magic number allowing them to pass any legislation they want. The Senate will approve government-run healthcare and higher energy taxes. Elimination of the secret ballot will pass. Negotiating with terrorists will no longer be off-limits. It’s a scary thought. 
 
The message appears to convey how NRSC wants Americans to know the Democrats are in charge. And when this administration’s economic policies fail to bring relief to the people, the Democrats are the only ones to blame.
 
The erratic motions of Franken portray the Democrats as crazed politicians. The newspaper quotations emphasizing “THEIR” distances and separates the Democrats and their policies from the will of American people. The music conjures up feelings of despair, as if mourning the death of accountability and partisan oversight.
 
Ads like this run over the next 18 months could be effective as long as current economic trends continue. Coupled with ads promoting Republicans as fiscally responsible and pro economic growth, the message could turn things around in 2010.

Digesting all the spending being proposed in Washington can get difficult. It’s hard to comprehend and place this new massive spending in context.

While sobering, this well-produced video, from Stop Spending Our Future (Sponsored by The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity Foundation) does a good job at providing a visual aid to the many numbers (read: tax dollars and debt) being tossed around by politicians.

They have a number of other well-produced web videos at stopspendingourfuture.org

I’ve dedicated today’s space to a cross post from Patrick Ruffini.  Ruffini first posted this piece, on his conservative blog THENEXTRIGHT.com, under the title, Stop Talking About “Technology”.

Ruffini, who is a top Republican online strategist has posted several pieces since last November’s Election, providing constructive strategic input on best methods for getting the Republican Party back on track and  in position for regaining strength in the future.

This particular post is an interesting take on Ruffini’s views on new methods and the future of party building.  I agree with most of his assessment of the changing way people view and react to media and information, however, I disagree with his strong negative view of traditional advertising methods.

I am an ardent supporter of digital marketing and online message dissemination, especially through social platforms, but I believe traditional forms of communication are extremely powerful in connecting with and impacting most audiences.

My belief lies in full multi-media integration, with targeted audience behavior dictating communication methods, not selecting one method over another for blanket communicating.

One area where I completely agree with Ruffini is in message delivery.  Effective messaging, that is compelling, delivered by a strong messenger has a major role, if not the most important role, in creating intended impact, despite technological advantages or medium selection.

Here’s Ruffini’s Post

The Rebuild the Party plan has often been characterized as a way to remake the party through technology. Though we’ve sometimes slipped in using that word to describe certain elements of the plan — I generally feel uncomfortable with it being pigeonholed as a “technology” plan. I’ve generally struck “technology” from my vocabulary, taking instead about “new media” or simply, the “Internet” or when talking about a generational shift in fundraising or a 435 district strategy, wholesale party reform. Why? Because the word “technology” reinforces old siloed habits of thinking and implies that the solution is spending money on cool tech toys, rather than a quantum shift in approach.

If there is one thing the Republican Party is actually pretty good at right now, it’s investing in “technology.” From Voter Vault to the tools on GOP.com, the Republican Party has invested millions of dollars over the years in building the best political data-mining, microtargeting, and GOTV applications in politics.

This is vitally important. And it must continue. But the Rebuild plan focuses for the most part on something wholly different than these vital campaign technologies (where the GOP has to date held an advantage): getting the warm bodies who will actually use the technology and volunteer and donate.

The difference between the Bush ‘04 campaign and the Obama ‘08 is simple: the Obama campaign did the same thing, but with ten times more people. Technology was the instrument, but message was the impetus behind this shift.

Getting people to participate by the millions is the biggest job of the next RNC Chairman. That will require a wholesale overhaul in our message and how we communicate. First, the leadership and the grassroots will have to collaborate to shape the message. However one felt about the immigration debate, imposing change from the top as an elite project hatched at the White House was never going to fly politically. Ditto for spending, Medicare Part D, and to a lesser extent, education. The days of a leader deciding a message in a vacuum without grassroots input are over. There has got to be some buy-in from the grassroots — or else you’ll have a hollowed-out party with no boots on the ground. This is a pragmatic matter of survival as much as it is one of principle.

It also means changing our style of communication in a new era. Leaders have to be accessible, open, aggressive, and willing to throw the playbook out the window when necessary. Technology has made it easier to filter bottom-up input so that the good ideas rise to the top, so there is no excuse for at least some personal engagement with new media. Unless you’re the guy with the nuclear launch codes, you’re not too important to Twitter or blog at least every now and again.

Some of these reforms are substantive (changing the message) and others are meta (making people feel invested by applying a personal touch). And none of them are really dependent on technology — I consider the Internet, blogs, Twitter, and YouTube to be media not technology per se. Here are a couple of other paradigms to think about in evaluating this fundamental shift in politics:

 Push vs. Pull

By far the biggest mindset-change the RNC Chairman must — and I reiterate, must — wrap his arms around is that media is moving away from “push” to “pull.” An inordinate amount of time at the committee — and by political conultants everywhere — is spent on shaping, testing, and coordinating messages that are pushed out to voters. As in, how many pieces of mail can we push out there? How many phone calls or volunteer door knocks can we push out there? And ultimately, how much media can we buy — which is the push equivalent of the magic sin button. The messages themselves don’t always have to be very interesting, as long as they’re proven and poll-tested.

(more…)

I recently found this very informative blog / podcast site, boagworld.com, produced by Paul Boag, who lives across the pond in the UK and spends time producing podcasts on web and marketing subjects.  I found this particular post to be of interest, as it illustrates some of the key fundamentals for  providing a call to action for visitors to websites.

I am an ardent supporter of providing a clear and distinct call to action in most media and materials in the corporate or political world.

This is a great read, not just for digital folks, but for anyone in advertising and marketing.

Here are the essential techniques for an effective call to action:

1. lay the groundwork
2. offer a little extra
3. have a small number of distinct actions
4. use active urgent language
5. get the position right
6. use white space
7. use an alternative color
8. make it big
9. have a call to action on every page
10. carry the call through

Boag’s post is long and is peppered with a lot of art…..so head to his site for the read!

These days, many people think conventions are a tool of the draconian past – old stodgy events composed of party insiders and elites.  The media and many average people lay claim that they are too scripted and lack the action of the fights and votes of conventions of yesteryear.

I agree.  Conventions are overly scripted and highly produced events, meant to obscure any hint of unmanaged drama.

However, conventions still serve an enormously important purpose.  What conventions still do, that is critical to health and wellness of our political system, is provide each party an unobstructed opportunity to roll out it’s brand and produce a product for market.

This  mandatory event, every four years, is like Apple’s annual conference.  Each year,  Steve Jobs presents to the stockholders and the consumers, in general, the state of the Apple brand.  He reminds the public what Apple is about and where it is going in the future as a consumer brand.  Jobs and Apple also use a highly produced and hyped event to roll-out it’s new key product or product line.

This annual occasion places Apple’s work and vision in the open.  Naked and true – open to fair and unfair critique.  Apples short term and long term success and failure usually starts with these annual conferences.  It’s smart and healthy, allowing stakeholders and consumers to understand more about the brand and it’s key product in advance of making a decision to buy it or into it.

This is what the contemporary political convention serves as – a branding (or re-branding) opportunity with the delivery of a key product.  Both events go hand in hand to pave the course of the party, driving its success or allowing it’s failure.

This year, the Deomcratic party, did a very effective job at re-branding and rolling out it’s major new product, Barack Obama. Aside, from the Bill and Hillary Kabuki, the party appeared more unified and excited than year’s past.  It also effectively hid some of the fringe element, the more liberal wing, that’s less palatable to average American viewers and voters.  Obama delivered, living up the hype and excitement created around his product unveiling.

Obama took critics and his competition head-on, discussing his fitness to serve and his commitment to more moderate stances on important issues facing America.  Obama and the Democrats also did a very good job at hiding his flaws (just as Apple does).  Not much attention paid to Obama’s big government solution program and liberal track record that makes Ted Kennedy seem like a centrist.  Classic Apple approach to hype the heat and hide the weak.

All in all, Democratic Party did a very good job at it’s branding and product roll-out convention.

Now it’s the Republicans turn to take the stage and show the American public what it is exactly about and what product it’s created for this year’s spectacle. Already, it’s showing signs of re-branding and a new approach.  Just like Apple, putting out well-timed leaks and peeps into what one might expect at the convention.  All in an attempt to drive excitement and interest for the perfect product roll-out.

With the success of the Democrats performance and roll-out, the Republicans have their work cut out for them.  Clearly, the stakeholders and the country at-large is clamoring for change and new ideas.  Hopefully they will show a little more Apple and a little less Microsoft.