What a difference 5 years makes. The fact that more people carry cell phones now is an obvious reason for the increase in fundraising potential.  But I believe it is more than that. People are now connected to the world by their mobile device through web browsing, news alerts, Twitter, RSS feeds, etc. They see the world and interact with it through their cell phone.

There is another dimension. Cell phone donations are a way of remaining detached from reoccurring fundraising drives. It’s a one-time commitment. This is appealing to people who don’t want to spend the next six months trying to unsubscribe to mailing lists. Instead of thumbing through a glossy mailing pamphlet or reading a lachrymose donation email, people feel like they’ve chosen to give when they donate via cell phone as opposed to being coerced into it.

Nonprofits and political campaigns should take heed of this trend.

For example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul is famous for an online fundraising blitz known as the “money bomb”. Last month during a huge rally at Kentucky’s annual Fancy Farm picnic, I think Paul missed an opportunity to take it one step further.

He could have announced the money bomb, told the crowd to text “money bomb” to donate $10, and ran short radio ads with the same message for people to listen to when they are stuck in traffic on the way home. Not only do people forget, but why make them wait to get to a computer when they can donate instantaneously?

Paul has done very well with internet donations because much of his libertarian support comes from out of state, but I think it is foolish to limit yourself to a specific rather than a diverse fundraising strategy. Using text-to-give messages for rallies and ads will capture donations where traditional and even online means fail.

Into the General Election, this narrative continues:

            As of September 2^nd, the media page on Angle’s campaign website
displays six videos of television ads—all six of these are anti-establishment ads targeting Harry Reid directly. Interestingly, the Reid campaign has begun to attempt to harness similar voter anger and turn it against Angle. The Reid campaign has attempted to paint Angle as an outsider. It is an interesting advertising play that fits Angle directly into the mold that the Angle campaign wishes to fit Sharron Angle in …. Except to the extreme. The idea is to capitalize on the anger that swept Angle into office in the first place and use it to push her further to the periphery. By characterizing Angle as an extremist, the Reid camp is able to portray her as out of the mainstream and out of touch with the wishes and needs of Nevada voters.

                Similar to Angle’s website, the Reid campaign main page displays four video ads, three of these attacking Angle outright. Clicking the video tab takes you to a similar scenario. (The video page) is stocked with video ads that paint Angle as an extreme candidate; many titled appropriately– “Angle Extreme & Dangerous Education Agenda” and “Sharron Angle: Just too Extreme,” are among the more direct video titles.

     Whether this advertising strategy is successful will be determined in part by the results of November’s General  Election. But one thing is for certain, the desired effect of television advertising in characterizing campaign opponents in Nevada in panning out. According to Rasmussen Reports, “The U.S. Senate race in Nevada remains very close. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state shows Democratic Senator Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle tied with 47% of the vote each. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided. “ (Wednesday, August 18, 2010) (This Narrative is enforced by previous polling) “Earlier this year, Reid was considered to be one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents. He picked up just 39% of the vote following Angle’s primary victory but has seen his own numbers improve to 41% in late June, 43% in early July, 45% in late July and 47% today.”

Three of the most populated states have major political races coinciding with major sports followings.  In New York City, where the Yankees, Giants, and Jets reign in the fall, there will be competitive races for Senate and Congress in both New York and Connecticut. In California, both the Governor and Senate seat will be heating up as will the division leading Padres and USC college football.  Meanwhile in the heart of Texas, a contested Governors race will compete for headlines with the Cowboys, Longhorns, and first place Rangers.

When looking at research in New York City, Dallas, and Los Angeles, there are some interesting trends in sports viewership in order to reach voters. Using survey data from Arbitron, there are distinct differences when comparing consistent voters 35 and older in statewide elections to non voters in the same age range.  In Dallas, ESPN ranks as the second most watched cable network, and 40% of respondents are “Very interested” in NFL (20% more than non-voters). When looking at broadcast viewing habits, sports ranks as the 3^rd highest TV program typically watched (14% higher).  Meanwhile baseball is the craze in New York City, where “Very interested” in MLB leads the category, and voters use the internet for sports scores 20% more than non-voters, the highest percentage difference.  In Los Angeles, voters are 33% more likely to be “Very interested” in college football, and four of the top seven highest voter percentage cable networks are sports related.

While buying sports can be costly, when looking at specific games or teams and considering the delivery audience, there are efficient ways to buy sports. In Dallas, Cowboys games generate huge audiences, including a 16.8 rating for cable, which is larger than any broadcast show that week. However at $50k a spot, this is not an efficient cost per point.  This does not mean to avoid football, just to buy the appropriate game and rate. The Texas/Oklahoma game will deliver a 15.6 rating on broadcast, and at only $22k a spot will be more cost effective than 12 regular primetime programs that week.  In LA, cable is efficient when looking at USC Football, which pulls in a 1.5 rating, two times higher than the second rated show, and at $7k, it is cheaper per point than 10 other networks. In San Diego, the Chargers are a good buy as well since their 20.5 rating on broadcast is more cost efficient than 20 other programs, including non-primetime shows like the Price is Right.

Therefore, here are the key dates in the fall for the three major sports in several battleground states (PA, OH, CA, FL, TX, NY), which should be cost effective and deliver huge audiences. These teams are either highly ranked, big rivalries, or playoff contenders.

Key College Football Dates/Games:

• 9/11 – Ohio State vs Miami, Penn State vs Alabama, Florida St vs Oklahoma
• 9/25 – Texas vs UCLA
• 10/2 – Florida vs Alabama, Texas vs Oklahoma
• 10/9 – Florida vs LSU, Miami vs Florida St
• 10/16 – Texas vs Nebraska, USC vs California
• 10/30 – Penn State vs Michigan, USC vs Oregon, Florida vs Georgia

NFL Key Dates/Games:

• 9/12 – Cowboys vs Washington Redskins
• 9/19 – New York Giants vs Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets vs New England Patriots,
• 9/26 – Miami Dolphins vs Jets, Houston Texans vs Cowboys
• 10/3 – Philadelphia Eagles vs Redskins
• 10/24-5 – San Diego Chargers vs Patriots, Dolphins vs Pittsburgh Steelers, Cowboys vs Giants

Key MLB matchups before the playoffs on cheaper local networks:

• 9/3-9/5 – Cincinnati Reds vs St. Louis Cardinals
• 9/10-9/12 – New York Yankees vs Texas Rangers
• 9/13-9/15 – Yankees vs Tampa Bay Rays
• 9/16-9/19 – San Diego Padres vs Cardinals
• 9/20-9/23 – Yankees vs Rays
• 9/24-9/26 – Yankees vs Boston Red Sox, Reds vs Padres
• 10/1-10/3 – Yankees vs Red Sox

The teams above will all be contenders to make and go far in the playoffs on Fox and TBS, which begins around 10/6 and will end near Election Day.

While the success of the politician and local team may not coincide, at least you can win by efficiently reaching the voters at the same time.

Meanwhile, Bill White has been financing a significant broadcast campaign since May of 2010, and has held Rick Perry to 47.4% of the vote according to the Pollster Average. Furthermore, while keeping the Longest Serving governor of TX under 50% Bill White has yet to enter the biggest markets in Texas. All of this leads us to start wondering if the DGA knows something that we don and since they haven’t spent a dime (or even requested rates!!!!) do they think that Bill White’s ship is sunk? Or maybe, they just forgot his name?

Another market the DCCC has heavily invested in is Cleveland. There is not a single “competitive” Republican district in the Cleveland DMA, there are however, two “competitive” Democrat incumbent districts. There are strong Republican challengers in OH-13 against Betty Sutton (who has less Cash on Hand then her opponent Tom Ganley), as well as OH-16, where Democrat John Boccieri is not the safest of bets.

These are all extremely important as even the DCCC has admitted they can only seriously target four districts. As a result, while the DCCC may be playing a good defense, this will only make the Democrats feel each loss more because there are less opportunities to pick up seats and lessen the certain pain of the 2010 mid-term elections.

             AOL is not the only group looking for a piece of the pie. In California, The Fair Political Practices Commission is exploring ways to regulate new political appeals via modern forms of media. The commission is contemplating ways to place restrictions on political advertisement over the Internet and other forms of communication, such as text messages and social networking sites like YouTube or Facebook. “To put it simply: the subcommittee is recommending that paid political advertising online should be subject to the same disclosure regulations as mailers, phone calls, and television commercials.”[2] But there are hurdles. Online advertisements come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, from pup-ups to banners. Online videos can be several seconds or many minutes long. How do you place disclosure standards on a 140 character tweet or a limited text message? Often bloggers are paid by campaigns to publicly ‘advertise’ their opinions of a candidate or proposition. Currently, the targeting of regulation in California makes an exception for bloggers-even if paid directly by the campaigns. However, this could change with time.

            With increased focus and a larger slice of campaign budgets dedicated to Internet spending, this trend of oversight and regulation is almost a certainty in the near future. My prediction.. This is headed to the national stage and federal level. “Like California’s current regulations, federal campaign watchdogs regulate only paid political advertising, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states also are just beginning to consider whether their disclosure laws are sufficient to cover modern communications.” [3]

1. Bachman, Katy. “Political Advertising to Surge in 2010,” AdWeek. 10/21/2009

2. “Politicians’ Accountability Extends Online,” San Francisco Chronicle. 8/4/2010

3. Thompson, Don. “California Campaign Watchdog Eyes New Internet Rules,” Silicon Valley Mercury News. 8/2/2010

                Three of Smart Media Groups clients, we were honored to be a part of, won GOP primaries last night, all including Kansas City as their main market.  These races varied in scope and size, ranging from the US Senate race in Kansas to a Missouri State Senate district.

                In the Kansas GOP primary for the US Senate, KS-1 Congressman Jerry Moran defeated KS-4 Congressman Todd Tiahrt 49% to 45%.  Moran held a comfortable lead in spending and polling leading up to the election and will face Dr. Lisa Johnston in November. Meanwhile for Congress, Kansas State Rep. Kevin Yoder cruised to victory over former state Rep. Patricia Lightner 45% to 37%.  The “Yoder Voters” will be needed in November to upset Stephene Moore, wife of the retiring incumbent Dennis Moore.  Last, but certainly not least, in a tight battle for Missouri’s 8th State Senate District, state Rep. Will Kraus edged out fellow state Rep. Bryan Pratt 40% to 38% despite being outspent $148k to $85k.

                National or local, Smart Media Group’s clients in Kansas City are primed for successful runs in November.

For example, the DCCC placed $950k in the Washington, DC broadcast market for October 2010. There are fourteen congressional districts which fall under the Washington, DC market. Below is a map of the Washington, DC broadcast market, and the congressional districts which fall under it’s broadcast area.

This map below shows each district and it’s full area spanning outside of the DC broadcast market.

Finally, the darker shaded portions of the congressional districts in this third map represent which parts of the districts fall under the DC broadcast area. As you can see, only a few of these congressional districts fall under the DC broadcast area in their entirety: VA-11, VA-08, VA-10, MD-04, MD-8 to name a few. Other districts, such as WV-01, WV-02, PA-09, and VA-06 only have one or two counties which fall under the DC market area.

So which district will receive the brunt of the DCCC’s $950k DC ad campaign in October? In this case, it makes the most sense that the DCCC would put their resources towards VA-11, where the Republican candidate Keith Fimian will challenge Gerry Connolly for the second time. The other districts in Maryland and Virginia do not appear to have any real contestants running against the incumbents. It would be extremely inefficient to place ad dollars in the DC market for PA-09, since Fulton County is the only county in PA-09 which falls into that market; the majority of the district falls into the Harrisburg-Lancaster and Johnstown-Altoona markets. Although WV-01 looks like it could be a toss-up election, it would also be an inefficient buy since most of the district falls under the Clarksburg-Weston and Wheeling-Stubenville markets.

But what about the markets in which the DCCC has placed, and it is not abundantly clear which district the buy correlates with? For example, the DCCC has also placed ad advertising schedule in the Phoenix, AZ broadcast market for October. There are a handful of Arizona districts which this could apply to – only time will tell.

                Reflecting back on the past decade or so it would be difficult to forget (or dismiss) the rapidly increasing presence of the Internet in the campaign advertising world. Jesse Ventura is generally given credit for pioneering the idea of political organizing via the Internet during his successful 1998 campaign for Minnesota governor. In 2000, Arizona Senator (and 2000 presidential candidate), John McCain, raised record amounts of Internet donations for his campaign. [1.] “In the week after the senator from Arizona won the New Hampshire primary that year, supporters flooded his campaign website with $2.2 million in contributions.” [2.] George Bush also received record Internet fundraising in 2000. TIME Magazine reported, “In 2000, George W. Bush revolutionized campaign fund raising—and shattered existing records—by creating a muscular network of “bundlers,” each of whom committed to bring in $100,000, $200,000 or more from friends and associates.”[3.] In 2004, Howard Dean would again shatter previous Internet fundraising records through creative innovations in online advertising and soliciting for donations.

                Not surprisingly, by the 2008 election cycle, political advertising and Internet fundraising had become the norm for sending e-mail updates, event notices, pleas for fundraising, volunteer sign-ups, poll location information and local supporter organization. By the end of the first quarter of 2008, over a million people had donated more than $230 million to the Obama Campaign… undeniably the envy of Hillary Clinton’s camp. [4.] Obama had recruited hordes of donors and likely voters via the Internet through a highly modern and innovative advertising campaign.

                One thing that these historical examples of political Internet solicitation have in common is that they all revolve around major political campaigns; making its debut during a statewide governor race and then quickly ascending to the national level to play a role in competitive presidential bids—a place where the Internet is extremely useful in reaching voters across the nation.  However, today Internet advertising has begun to mature as a political advertising medium. Its role in national campaigns will only increase. Similarly, its function in local and statewide fundraising is also developing rapidly. This is not limited to candidate races, issue groups and action committees are also gaining an increased share from Internet advertising.

                Following this trend, on July 22, 2010, America Online launched the AOL Advertising Politics hub. MediaWeek explains, “the AOL Advertising Politics hub (www.advertising.aol.com/politics) …is designed to serve as a sales tool and do-it-yourself ad purchasing platform for political advertisers.”[5.] This site will allow media buyers to easily navigate the vastly fragmented Internet audience and target likely voters and donors. It will also allow small organizations to act directly on the grassroots level and bypass traditional marketing firms and buying agencies. With an ever increasing role in the use of Internet advertising and the 2010 midterm election cycle now entering the General Phase, it will be interesting to watch the development of web solicitation. Going further, political advertising professionals and the general voting population alike will almost certainly see some form of record setting Internet advertising and fundraising during the coming campaign seasons.

1.  Drinkard, Jim and Lawrence, Jill. “Online, off and running: Web a new campaign front,” USA TODAY, 7/14/2003
2. Barnes, James A. “Online Fundraising Revolution,” National Journal, 4/19/2008
3. Tumulty, Karen. “Obama’s Viral Marketing Campaign,” TIME Magazine, 7/5/2007
4. Barnes, 2008.
5. Shields, Mike. “AOL Launches AOL Advertising Politics,” MediaWeek, 7/22/2010

Handle’s CPV was $0.65 – a feat of efficiency when compared to the other candidates. The runner-up, Congressman Nathan Deal, paid $2.37 per vote, or 3.6 times what Handel paid. Moving down the list of candidates, third-place finisher, former State Senator Eric Johnson, paid $8.85 per vote. That’s 13.65 times what Handel paid and 197% more than the statewide average. Finally, fourth-place finisher and current statewide office holder John Oxendine paid a shocking $11.86 per vote, or almost 18 times what Karen Handel paid. Oxendine’s CPV was 256% above the statewide average of $4.49.

The old rule of quality over quantity seems to hold true with Cost Per Vote. Beyond a kitschy phrase, however, lies the startling revelation that CPV stands out as an ominous predictor of candidate’s success.