The Long Tail of Obama’s online fundraising

Posted Monday, May 26, 2008 at 3:04pm in PR General, Technology | 6 Comments

The Guardian’s sister Sunday newspaper, The Observer, yesterday ran a piece by Andrew Sullivan titled, “Barack Obama is master of the new Facebook politics” which details the fundraising antics of both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, as they both continue to battle out to take leadership of the US Democrat Party.

Perhaps surprisingly, the amount of money raised by Obama ($38m) was considerably more than that of Clinton ($6m) who, given who her husband is and was, has the biggest name in the Party. The reason behind this is because Obama has taken to a new democratic way of fundraising which follows the notion of The Long Tail theory.

The article quotes Peter Leyden of the New Politics Institute, who says, “Hillary built the best campaign that has ever been done in Democratic politics on the old model - she raised more money than anyone before her, she locked down all the party stalwarts, she assembled an all-star team of consultants and she really mastered this top-down, command-and-control type of outfit.”

What Clinton hasn’t done, however, is use the power of online ‘micro fundraising’ like Obama has by building online social spaces (using well-known social media sites) where the young can interact and donate money (no matter how small) to Obama’s campaign. Because of this, last month’s fundraising sum of $31m was donated all online and, more interestingly, 94 percent of it came from sums of $200 or less.

Clinton, on the other hand, relies on the old method where supporters have to persuade friends and colleagues to contribute the maximum donation allowance of $2,300, which may prove to be much more difficult in these economically turbulent times.

Expect similar initiatives taking place in the UK and elsewhere soon.

Carphone Warehouse listens

Posted Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 12:03pm in Blogging, Business, PR General | 7 Comments

Editor of NMK and blogger at twopointtouch, Ian Delaney recently received poor customer service from mobile phone supplier, Carphone Warehouse. Ian, who has used the company for around four years, was due a phone upgrade and was contacted by a Carphone Warehouse salesperson to renew his contract. In a nutshell, the salesperson was shisty and provided Ian with incorrect information on his new contract along with a false extension number to contact him on should any issues arise. This resulted in Ian receiving a hefty bill for using the mobile internet when he believed he was on a fixed cost.

After receiving little help from other Carphone Warehouse staff Ian eloquently detailed his experiences on his blog. The clever part of Ian’s blog post and probably the most important which people fail to understand is what he calls “The Science Bit” and how aiming to make a quick buck results in poor treatment of customers and loss of reputation which affects the bottom line: cold hard cash.

HAPPY ENDING

Less than 14 hours after writing his less than positive blog post, Ian received a phone call from a customer services manager from the company who had been alerted to the post through an email notification from her Google Alerts subscription. The customer services manager promptly retrieved Ian’s files and called him up to sort out the matter. Two hours after the phone call he received an email confirmation that his account had been credited with the money. This was all done on a Saturday.

The question remains unanswered whether Carphone Warehouse has procedures that proactively monitor company mentions online or whether this was a sole initiative from a smart employee. Either way damage limitation was quashed in a short period of time and such efficiency deserves extra credit for happening on a weekend. Remember, the internet doesn’t take the weekend off unfortunately.

In his latest post on the issue Ian rightly states, “A lot of people might see this as a victory for blogs and bloggers. I’d agree, sure. But, on reflection, I think it’s more of a victory for Carphone Warehouse.”

Agreed.