Fundraising by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
22 May 2008
Presidential race USA
You can see from the graph above that Barack Obama, US presidential candidate, has attracted much more funding than his opponent Hillary Clinton – around 23% more.
His team understands how to use the Internet to appeal to new and small donors.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are long-term, highly effective political fund-raisers. Their presidential experience in Washington should mean more funds go their way. Political funds do, in fact, go there way. But those funds, big as they are, just haven’t been enough.
Other, smaller people insist on having their say and sending in their money.
If you break down the figures, the reason why Barack Obama is ahead with his fund-raising is that he has attracted more individual contributions with his clearer ‘unique selling proposition’ (USP)..
The Clintons, on the other hand, have done better with political action committees, lobbyists and other vested-interest groups. That reflects their closeness to the ‘political machine’.
Unfortunately, the Clintons are up against someone who has demonstrated a closeness to the ‘people machine’.
How has Barack Obama attracted so many more individual donations than Hillary Clinton? According to my personal source, a campaigner for Barack Obama, Obama’s website marketing and SEO is superior to Hillary Clinton’s.
—
-
Barack Obama: individual donations 100%
This is the Barack Obama home page. Donate Now is the foremost message.
2008 boosted Obama into the position of the most successful fundraiser, as he continues to pull ahead of Hillary Clinton in the money race every month. He seems to be having no problem appealing to new donors, either. In 2008 he’s been raising more than $1 million a day, largely thanks to small online donors.
-
-
Hillary Clinton: individual donations 91%
This is Hillary Clinton’s home page. Lots of messages here!
Hillary Clinton is down by 9% on individual donations. Although Hillary Clinton was the top fundraiser of either party last year, she has fallen behind opponent Barack Obama. Obama is consistently raising more, sometimes doubling her monthly total. In January Clinton was forced to loan her campaign $5 million to keep up with Obama’s advertising in early primary states and now her campaign is focusing its efforts more on how to use the Internet to appeal to new and small donors.
Barack Obama funds are 100% individual donations, while Hillary Clinton has raised 91% individual donations and 9% through vested-interest groups.
Clearly, being tied to so many groups leaves far less freedom of movement politically for Clinton if she becomes President. And this point carries some interestingly heavy weight. Read on..
Which of the two websites is more effective?
Obama’s website home page (above) shows an immediate request for donations.
Clinton’s home page is cluttered, with the main message asking for helpers to ‘make calls’. The ‘contribute’ button is over the the right below five other, fragmented messages.
From a marketing and fund-raising point of view, Barack’s call to action, being focused on donations with a clear USP (Unique Selling Point) is clearer and more effective.
Barack Obama’s USP
Barack’s ‘grassroots’ appeal, call for change and perceived immunity from vested-interest groups are important campaign issues among politically aware voters — and will be a most powerful set of USPs when used in his forthcoming presidential campaign. It has already proved to be a stronger message than the counter argument that he lacks experience.
If the Republican party try to use the ‘lack of experience’ argument against Obama, the evidence is that it will fail once again to persuade voters.
Based on the quality of the material available for the sales message (and I speak here as a non-political professional copywriter and marketer), my prediction is that Barack Obama will be the next president of the USA.
You just can’t beat good marketing.
(Please note the date of this analysis and prediction is made on 12 May 2008.)
Thanks to www.opensecrets.org and the Center for Responsive Politics for their contributions to this article.
Comments:
Nathan Reynolds
Arkansas, USA
I like your analysis. I think marketing has been a big part of this campaign, even more so than previous ones. As always, candidates choose a message to be the theme of their campaign, and then design their campaign marketing to support that message.
One fault that the Clinton’s campaign had (I think) was not focusing on a specific message, but rather focusing on the results and brand of the last Clinton in office. The brand was very well marketed – very careful to have ‘Hillary’ be on all the signs rather than ‘Clinton’ to avoid any confusion and the wrath of the conservatives here.
Obama’s team have been very good about message control, both with campaign employees and volunteers. Their latest approach has been to signal to regular Democratic 527s (groups that advertise against a candidate’s opponent with any amount of money) that they do not want their help, which goes a long way for message control. It’s hard to run a campaign based on hope and change when you have a group claiming to represent you attacking the other guy. You can read more here:
Part 2: Why is Barack Obama’s sales message stronger?
How Obama and Clinton ask for money
Comment here:
————————————————————————————————————
Previous: Marketing budgets and freedom
Next: Why is The Week magazine so costly?