No Advertising

The Wikimedia Foundation has always declined to run advertising on its pages. Given that it is one of the most popular destinations on the Internet, it could surely make more than $6.2 million in revenue every year, but the organization, and Jimmy Wales in particular, have always vehemently rejected this idea in favor of direct donations from users.

"The main theme that jumped out at us is that major donors -- or the wired wealthy as we call them -- are very active online with the intention of becoming even more so when it comes to their philanthropic support," said Vinay Bhagat, Founder and Chief Strategy Officer for Convio in a press release. "Based on what these important donors told us, we believe a tremendous opportunity exists for nonprofit organizations to better leverage their online presence to improve the online experience of the wired wealthy."

Convio, Edge, and Sea Change expect that the results of their research will change the way some charities approach online fundraising. Specifically, they found that more than half of those surveyed preferred giving online, and 80% said they did at least some of their donating via the Internet (and a good portion do it via credit card to get the frequent flier miles). That's imporant because even though the "wired wealthy" made up just about 1% of donors to the charities involved in the study, they accounted for approximately 32% of their annual gifts.

Unfortunately for charities, less than half of respondents thought charity web sites were generally well-designed, that charities did enough to connect with them online, or that they were inspired by charity sites. So how can organizations better connect with these important constituents? Email is one method. According to the study, 65% of the "wired wealthy" always open email sent from charities they support, and about 3/4ths of respondents said that email reminders about the renewal of an annual gift are "appropriate." But just 43% thought emails from charities were usually well-written or inspiring, indicating that thus far email has been a lost opportunity for many non-profit organizations. Further, a large majority of respondents said an email letting them know how their donation was spent would make they more likely to give again, as would controls on how often a charity was allowed to email them.

More than half of respondents also use YouTube, which points to online video as another pontential way to connnect with wealthy donors online.

"We believe this research will fundamentally shift the way some nonprofit organizations approach their relationships with major donors online," said Mark Rovner, Principal of Sea Change Strategies.

The study revealed three distinct personality types among the "wired wealthy."

• 29% are Relationship Seekers - Relationship seekers put the most stock in how a charity web site forms a connection with them. They tend to skew younger (under 45) and are most likely to engage in social activities with the charity. 2/3rds of relationship seekers say that a charity's web site plays a role in whether or not they give money.
• 41% are Casual Connectors - Like relationship seekers, so-called casual connectors also seek a connection with the charity. However, for them it is less personal -- they're more interested in things like how efficiently the charity is using their money and want easy access to that information.
• 30% are All Business - The all business set doesn't care about feeling connected to the charity, rather they want the donation process to be as easy and painless as possible. They also tend give the most money.

It certainly seems possible to appeal to each of those personality types via a single web site, which is exactly what the authors of the study hope will happen. "The research provides important insight into the ways non-profits can better connect, motivate and retain these donors. The results of this research will provide a variety of different non-profit organizations -- both large and small -- the tools to assess their online strategy and make adjustments where necessary to better capture big opportunities," said Rovnar.

In September, we wondered if the web was still a windfall for non-profits. With online donations up 37% in 2006 according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, it is clear that the web, if not yet the main point for charitable donation, is playing an increasingly more important role. As part of that online fundraising strategy, targeting the "wired wealthy" is something that charities should be taking into account.

UPDATE: Also check out Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday, our guide to following Super Tuesday via the Internet.

Looking over Obama's numbers, we see that an overwhelming amount of that $28 million was via small donations -- 90% under $100 each. 10,000 people gave between $5 and $10. That's a whole new paradigm for fundraising. Rather than chase $2,300 checks from a few hundred rich people at lavish fundraisers (okay, they still do that), campaigns can more easily focus on collecting thousands of smaller donations from regular people that add up to the same amount (or more).

Further, 10,000 donations under $10 means the email addresses of 10,000 people who can still give more money later. About half of Hilary Clinton's money came from "maxed out" voters compared to just about one third for Obama. That gives Obama a much larger pool of donors to hit up for more cash and to put on notice for get out the vote campaigns.

Though I am loathe to agree with Karl Rove, he's right about how the Internet is affecting campaign fundraising. "The Internet dramatically shortens the gap between political success and raising money," he wrote. "Today, if you do well in a debate on Tuesday night you can begin raising large sums of money Wednesday morning. Effective fundraising can be a mouse-click away."

That's something that nearly all of the campaigns are doing. Within hours after Obama's win in South Carolina, his campaign had dispatched emails to supporters pitching for donations. However, raising money doesn't win elections. "Raising the most amount of money by no means assures you of winning the presidential primary," says former chairman of the Federal Election Commission Michael Toner. And for Paul, money and online popularity hasn't translated into votes. For Obama, though, arguably his online success has had an impact at the polls.

The reason may be in get out the vote efforts of each party. Both Paul and Obama, with their anti-war stances and Internet savvy, are attractive to young voters. But only the Democrats are succeeding in getting young people to the voting booths. In Iowa, exit polls showed 40% of voters under the age of 44, and Obama killed in those demographics. On the Republican side, just 26% of voters were under 44. That picture was repeated in other early primary states.

Incidentally, this is also potentially the reason that Mike Huckabee has faded as well -- he appeals to young people with, as one South Carolina paper writes, "his celebrity supporters, preacher’s gift for humor and skill with an electric guitar."

The Democrats are succeeding with young people because they are targeting young people and they are using the Internet to successfully microtarget and rally their base. The Obama campaign, for example, uses sophisticated targeting tools that let them send specially tailored campaign materials to each voter. Firm supporters get a different email than those on the fence.

Other progressive organizations are using similar tools. One is called Catalist. It is used by large progressive organizations like MoveOn and the AFL-CIO to microtarget their campaigns. According to Tony DeYoung of Catalyst Resources (unrelated to Catalist -- Catalyst is a design firm that was contracted by Catalist to redesign the UI of their "Q-Tool" software), Catalist utilizes "on-demand data analysis services to help Democratics microtarget in their voter outreach efforts. Microtargeting uses sophisticated computer models regularly used in commercial marketing, which helps campaigns to locate sympathetic voters and target them with individually tailored messages on issues that are predicted to be most important to them."

This is the same technique the Republicans employed to great effect in 2004 to get out messages to conservative evangelical Christian voters -- who this election cycle don't have a clear cut favorite among the front runners. Which may explain why their get out the vote efforts aren't working as well this time around.

So while both Obama and Paul are running effective online campaigns, albeit in different ways, the get out the vote efforts of the Democrats, which target young people, play to Obama's strength. While strong turnout by voters over the age of 45 have played to John McCain on the Republican side.

Related: Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday