I’m especially interested in seeing if we can convert our online efforts into actual giving. Done correctly, I think it will. But the challenge will be offering tools and services that are actually usable, then creating a viral interest in using them.

A good place to start would be an Alumni Technology Forum to serve, in part, as an unscientific needs assessment tool. How do alums want to use technology? Do they want email for life? Class news and homepages? Class blogs and forums? In the words of The Kinks, we have to give the people what they want. Otherwise, why would they bother to hang around, let alone give?

Upward and onward.

RC

So in my mind here the goal here was to raise money — which they did surprisingly well at. In fact, the belief early on was that Dodd wouldn’t make it through the fall, never mind all the way to the caucus. His ability to stay in the race as long as he did was partially due to some nontraditional techniques.

There’s a reason I think they call it Advancement, and not Winning — because it’s about increasing reputation and funds, and sometimes that’s incremental.

With institutions (or candidates) if you are attaching metrics to *tactics* the metrics cannot be about winning. Candidates come into races with wildly different resources and advantages. Institutions are the same — we couldn’t compare our endowment efforts to Yale or even UNH, or compare our press to Harvard’s.

The metrics have to be about advancement from a projected baseline. In online fundraising and online support the Dodd online team did fantastically well given their resources, which is why I mention them here.

Part of my goal in the newly formed office is to make our online effort strong, vibrant, and innovative. And I’m going to trust those in the more traditional channels of Advancement and Public Relations know better how to invigorate their own sections than I do. In other words, I’m going to focus on doing what I know how to do well, which is the online component. And avoid getting in people’s way on the other stuff.

I know that sounds snippy or sarcastic, but the goal was to get nominated, right?

Sometimes achieving the ultimate goal is the only goal…sometimes the survival of the cause, the campaign, or the institution depends on it.

The breakfasts are actual a good example — that’s the idiom of the New Hampshire Primary. And your campaign needs someone that understands that idiom. That’s not too far different in a way…

Nice blog. I think you hit the nail right on the head. Online communications continue to be counterintuitive to most large organizations. The example you provided was excellent. Whether or not it was gimmicky is not the point. Instead, the point is that people recognized the format and responded to it because it felt right. Just like we all know that those “breakfasts” in Iowa and New Hampshire are gimmicky - they feel right for that environment.

Here is another example by way of Jackie Huber’s Church of the Customer: http://www.adamandtyler.com This is a blog about branding a new Philly Cream Cheese product from Kraft. Interestingly enough, the brand campaign focuses on how to develop the brand using YouTube and other 2.0 technologies. Is it gimmicky? Perhaps, but in reality they are building the brand by putting the brand out to the community for a response.

It seems to me that you are in the same business. You will need to be the solutions department and the creative driver for how to accomplish traditional goals with new tools and approaches. My suspicion is that you are perfectly placed to mashup a whole host of different technologies, approaches, tools, and yes, even gimmicks to help your “customers” accomplish their goals in ways that they have never imagined.

Good luck!

John Z