Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Connie Mack Endorses Mitt Romney

This is a great pick up for Team Romney. It adds to the growing list of Florida endorsements including:
  • Former Lieutenant Governor Toni Jennings
  • Former Speakers of the House Allan Bense and John Thrasher
  • Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles Bronson
  • Former Chairman of the Florida Republican Party Al Cardenas
  • Former U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL)
  • St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker
  • State Representatives Anitere Flores and Trey Traviesa
  • Former Representatives Dennis Baxley and Dudley Goodlette
  • David Griffin
  • Former Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood
  • Former Senator and Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida Van Poole.
  • U.S. Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
More on Mack:

"Congressman Mack has been a champion of conservative leadership in Florida and in the United States Congress. I am proud to have his support and counsel," said Governor Romney. "We agree that we have lost our way in Washington and that it is time for us to return to the core Republican principles of fiscal discipline, lower taxes, a strong military and less government. I look forward to working with Congressman Mack to take our message of strong new leadership to Floridians across the state during the coming months."

"Governor Romney is a proven problem solver with an unparalleled record of success in both the public and private sectors," said Congressman Mack. "Governor Romney is a mainstream conservative leader who will be a champion of hope and opportunity for every American, a catalyst for conservative change in Washington, and a staunch defender of our freedom, security and prosperity. I'm pleased to offer Governor Romney my endorsement and look forward to working hard to help elect him the next President of the United States."

Labels:

Monday, October 15, 2007

Case Study: Calculating the Viral Rate

As we noted in our piece on "Big Seed Marketing," a marketing "virus" must infect one or more people. Anthing less than a 100% infection will peter out and eventually die off. As Watts and Perreti note, designing a truly "viral" campaign is almost impossible. Most viral efforts are flukes and exceptions. Better, say the authors, to hit a large swath of people with a message, hope for a decent viral rate and then gather in more people as the message slowly decays back to parity.

Here is an update on a case study I published last week (a petition about an Oprah show), the results we saw from our petition, and how we calculated the "viral" or reproduction rate.

By any measure, the petition has been a success. To date 21,000+ people have signed on. This from a seedbase of no more than 7000 emails. So, what was the viral rate of this campaign? It's more difficult to calculate than you think. First let's set up some definitions:

  • General Viral Rate - This is calculated by taking the number of recipients divided by the number of people infected over one generation of the email. So, for example, if I send an email to 10 people and half of those people send it on to one other person then the viral rate is 50%. Without using software such as ForwardTrack this number will be an estimation because we don't know the number of generations that have been processed nor the true number of "opens" and forwards.
  • Impression Viral Rate - This percentage narrows our focus to the number of people who have actually opened the email and sent it on to other people who actually opened the email.
  • Click-through Viral Rate - Now we're getting down to those who actually clicked through to a landing page to take action.
  • Conversion Viral Rate - Lastly, we're looking for the % of people who actually signed on to the petition.

This is a fairly young science and we're treading on new ground here. Some of these rates we can calculate pretty accurately. Others, not so much.

Here are the facts on the ground frame from Phase 1 of our (which ran from 10/3 through 10/9):

  • Recipients: 6871
  • Total opens: 4136
  • total click-throughs: 1912
  • Unique petition page visitors: 25000
  • Conversion rate: 45%
  • Sign-ups: 11000

    Here's a verbal walkthrough: On October 3rd we sent out our petition request to 6800 recipients. Over the next 4 days the original emails were opened by 4136 people (this includes the original recipients and people that received the email in return) and nearly 2000 people clicked through the links in those emails. In the end, however, 25,000 people visited the petition page and 11,000 of those people signed the petition (a 45% conversion rate). Apparently, people created their own emails and forwarded the link onto their friends. (Note: we use iContact for our email system and Google Analytics on the website).

    There are quite a few unknowns here. So let's go with the three facts that we know for sure: number of original recipients, unique visitors to the pettion form and petition sign-ups over those 4 days.

    RECIPIENTS OR OVERALL VIRAL RATE

    Basically, we want to determine what the infection or viral rate would have to be on the original number of recipients (6800) to get to 25,000 visitors on the petition page. There are two ways to calculate this. 1) use the 6871 number as assumptive starting point or 2) assume a 30% open rate and bring the starting number down to 2061. In other words: should the viral rate be calculated to the overall bucket of recipients or the assumed 30% open rate? Well, let's do both.

    Total Recipients To get to the magic number of 25,000 unique petition page visitors we come up with a viral rate of 78.5% over 30 generations. Which looks something like this:

    Basically, this chart shows a total accumulation of 25,000 people by the 30th generation. Of course this assumes that everyone clicked through to the petition who received the email. This is the extreme case and unlikely but this model gives you an idea of what were doing here.

    30% Opens

    Starting at 2000 who opened the email we need an average viral rate of 91.9% over 50 generations to get to 25K.

    Of course, we don't know what the viral rate was between successive generations and it's likely that the open rate was different for different people.

    Alternate Calculations

    One alternate theory is that the first generation email of Phase I was above 100% on average and that the rate slowly degraded from there. This is possible but again difficult to calculate.

    Lastly, we can work ourselves backwards by increments and guestimate what happened:

    1. 11,000 people signed the petition during Phase 1 (solid number)
    2. 25,000 people visited the petition page with 45% of these converting (signing ) the petition (solid number)
    3. Assuming a 25% click-through rate we get 125,000 emails that were opened (estimation)
    4. Starting with the 6800 recipients we would need average viral/reproduction rate of 94.5% over 100 generations to get to the 125K number.

    My conclusion is that our viral rate was probably above 80% and below 100%.

    Next Steps

    In Phase II of our campaign we sent a follow-up email to the 11,000 signs-ups and encouraged them to forward it on to two other people. After another 4 days we had essentially doubled the petition sign-ups. Working off the same model of total recipients and 30% open rate we came up with 51% viral rate over 10 generations and 84% over 45 generations respectively. As you can guess ,the open rates and click throughs were lower for phase II as would be expected.

    Rinse, lather, repeat. Tomorrow (Monday) we will send another email out to the new 11,000 emails who signed up over Phase II and try to anticipate the number of new sign-ups. My guess is that we will see similar results but a decaying number of sign-ups. We've put a few new measures in place to track things more accurately. Stay tuned.

  • Friday, October 12, 2007

    Mitt Romney New Hampshire Interactive Map


    View Larger Map

    Fundraising 101

    Here's the one rule you need to know about fundraising, everything else is ancillary. It is the one guiding principle I've used to set expectations and predict success over the last three years.

    In short: fundraising is very hard work.

    But with the right model in place and the requisite sweat equity, you can accomplish amazing things.

    Here are some quick thoughts on what it takes to raise money.

    First and foremost, understand some of the underlying rules of fundraising:
    1. "People give to people to help people"
      I've been working with non-profit organizations for almost a decade. Without fail, a general clarion-call for money will fail compared to a plea for a specific cause, especially when it is linked with a picture and a story. You need to have a compelling story with a person who can conjure up a compelling reason to compel people to open their wallets.

    2. "People give relative to their means"
      No matter what the cause, the dollar amount donations from the 35-65 crowd will far outweigh the 20-30 crowd for one simple reason: they have $ to spend. This is why online fundraising has not yet exploded on the scene. As Patrick Ruffini has noted, the Dean revolution was an email revolution not a website coup. The Facebook, blogging and Web 2.0 crowd are truly young at heart. It will be a few years before they can churn out the $$$ to make a difference in the fundraising sector.

    3. "Those closest must set the pace"
      When Romney kicked off his exploratory committee with a national call day January 8th, the 5 Romney boys set the example for the other 400 fundraisers by sticking at their tables for the entire duration of the event. When Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay takes 9 hours out of her day to sit down and ask her friends for money it makes an impact on everyone around her. The candidate, the board, the members, the founders must make their efforts public and powerful.
    Next we need to take a look at the trends in fundraisings. I note some of the efforts that I've been involved in as quick case studies for each point:
    1. Growing use of the Internet for fundraising.
      Again, "growing" is the operative word. By most accounts donations raised via the Internet are pithy and underwhelming. Only a handful of non-profit organizations and candidates can boast more than 6 figures in online fundraising. The trend is obviously toward the Internet but it has not been the harbinger of $$$ that many expected

    2. Innovation and adopting new practices and models.
      The key to fundraising is innovation. I wager that any one of us receives half-a-dozen letters a week soliciting for donations. Standing out above the noise is the key to successful fundraising. Take for instance Romney's "Students for Mitt" program where college students can receive 10% back on everything they raise for the campaign.

    3. Involve everyone in fundraising
      I know some professional fundraisers who were very upset at the Romney campaign for opening the floodgates to anyone and everyone. But it's paid off. For example, as a "Patriot" level fundraiser I have the ability to create "associate fundraisers" I get credit for whatever money they bring in and they in turn get credit for being part of a successful team of advocates. Many non-profit organizations are building bonus structures for their staff based donations that they bring in.

    4. Contemporary corporate marketing practices
      Like any aged market, the political sphere has its own consultants, approaches, and software packages. Most every political campaign uses Aristotle Publishing for voter lists and most every 501(c)4 uses Capitol Advantage for online advocacy. Romney has broke the fundraising mold by utilizing a contact management system called SalesForce.com typically utilized by large and dispersed sales and business development groups. Many non-profit organizations are using ROI models to predict success and maximize margins on the donations.

    5. MOST IMPORTANT: FOCUS ON DONORS
      When you give $2300 dollars to a campaign you are the man (or at least you should be treated like "the man".) Next to your unpaid fundraisers, you must focus like a laser beam on your high end contributors. By creating incentives and time factors into your efforts you create an energetic need to get involved and "max out". Everytime a donation comes into the Lighted Candle Society, I personally call the contributor to thank them.
    Lastly, you need to understand WHY people give:
    • They believe you are making a difference in a cause they care about.
    • They value your work
    • They see it as an investment
    • They get something in return
    • They feel good about themselves
    • Returning a favor
    • Solving a problem
    • Sending a message
    • Receiving quality information
    • Aligning with peers
    • Bringing justice to the world
    If you cater your message to these efforts your fundraising effort might just work. But note this: by my calculations 60-70% of the money that Romney has raised has been at in-person events.

    You may have heard about the $80,000 we've raised at MyManMitt.com for the Romney campaign. I should admit here openly and honestly that $40,000 of that money came from me working the phones. Of course, the website became the fulfillment engine for those donation, but the work to get the people there was manual.

    But once that momentum was in place I was able to do some amazing things online. In the last two days of the quarter we raised $5000 and I didn't make a single phone call. I basically customized an email to my previous donors and asked them to make a difference.

    Next week I'll talk in more detail about why I think the Democrats have been so much more successful at fundraising online that the GOP.

    Labels: ,