PDA

View Full Version : Have a $1 donation option




dfalken
11-08-2007, 06:40 AM
Definitely encourage people to donate $100, but don't drive away anyone that might not afford it and doesn't realize that smaller donations are more than welcome. Some people will see the $100 donation request and be driven away by it as they will feel "inferior" because they can't afford it.

Breaking the all time donation amount record is not going to be a problem, but what is truly amazing about Ron Paul's funding is that we are getting these big numbers with small donations, unlike the big money candidates that do it with mostly "maximum allowed" donations from big money interests.

Breaking the donation amount record is going to make headlines, but the number of individual donors could make even bigger headlines. With a $1 option we might even get people that don't really follow the Ron Paul campaign to donate just for the heck of it to feel like they were part of that historical day. I've been looking at the funding numbers online and 75% of Hillary's 90 million comes from 47k donors of more than $200 each...that still leaves over 20 million from smaller donors which could put her total donor number in the 200k to 300k area. If we do this right we could get that many individual donors on that single day. We got almost 40k last time which I bet is several times higher than we got on any fund raising effort before (I wasn't here yet before november 5th so i don't know) and I would expect that Dec 16th is going to be several times larger than the 5th. The 5th is the first time that a fund raiser really got the campaign big media attention...which is going to make the 16th that much larger.

Let's not drive a single donor away because they feel "inferior" because they can't click on that $100 option.

just some thoughts,
David

jcoenen
11-08-2007, 07:04 AM
My only thought is that the credit card fees would eat up a considerable part of that donation, but yeah I guess having additional donors wouldn't hurt anything.

dfalken
11-08-2007, 07:13 AM
Aren't credit card fees a percentage? Or is there a minimum fee for small charge amounts? The number of donors is going to make just as much if not more headlines than the total collected (which will undoubtedly be a new record)...let's make sure everyone feels welcome and feels they can truly be a part of the Ron Paul revolution even if 1 dollar is all they can afford to show their support. Many people in this country have nothing but debt and donating at this point will not be an option for them, but a 1 dollar symbolic donation is attainable by anyone that wants to be a part of this historical day.

jumpyg1258
11-08-2007, 07:17 AM
They already have an option for other where you fill in the blank. A $1 option is not needed since you can already do this through that.

wisconsinite
11-08-2007, 07:39 AM
Since all donations go through the oficial ronpaul2008 site , and there you can choose any amount, it would seem unnecessary to complicate the pledging on the teaparty site. Everyone knows you can donate less than $100, but having $100 as the standard pledge for the one day drive helps motivate those who can afford it to part with more money that they'd otherwise just waste on beer.

dfalken
11-08-2007, 07:59 AM
We know we can donate less than $100 but I think a lot of people not involved directly with the grassroots will be donating this time around as Ron Paul has been getting more media attention and they won't know you can donate $100. What is obvious and common sense to your or me or many of us here is not so obvious to many average people on the street. Not trying to insult anyone, but we need to be realistic. If Ron Paul is going to win the election he is going to need a lot of the people out there with "not as much common sense" to vote for him...let's not alienate them. I guess, if we do have a fill in the blank option that should be enough, but maybe having some text saying something to the like "if you can't afford to donate $100, make your most generous donation to be a part of this historical day" or something like that, just to make everyone feel welcome.

jgmaynard
11-08-2007, 11:01 AM
No.... $1 would be sucked up by transaction fees. I like the $25 lowest "tier" pledge that was part of the compromise. :)

JM

justinc.1089
11-08-2007, 11:13 AM
I agree with this.

The $100 idea is good for the hardcore Paul supporters because it pushes them to donate at least that much, but its different for the people that are outside of the campaign so to speak.

They see it as a fundraiser, so how do political fundraisers usually work? There is a minimum donation you are allowed to make, usually really high like $200-$1000 dollars at least. So people will think the $100 push is the same, that unless you donate $100 you can't be a part of the fundraiser.

I know thats stupid, but thats what most people will assume thanks to other stupid politicians.

So if they see $1, then they will think "You only have to donate $1 to be a part of that fundraiser?" because they are used to seeing fundraisers asking for huge amounts of money.

I agree with this totally. I think there should only be pledges for $1, $20, $50, and $100. Maybe $1000 idk. Having a pledge option for $1 DOES promote more people to donate some on the 16th, and is worth the trouble.

Also the next option up should be $20, not $25 because $20 does not seem to be as much as $25. Just think why would you put 25 as the next option? Because its a quarter of the way to 100, which will make the lower donating people less likely to decide to donate $25. But $20 is not thought of that way as much, so 20 should be the next option up.

tonyr1988
11-08-2007, 11:21 AM
I like the idea of having $12.16 as the lowest tier option - it seems insanely small, and most people can come up with that.

I'll confess - I usually only donate $5 to the campaign at a time - I just can't afford much more. But $12.16 would be almost cool enough to splurge. :P (I'm hoping that I'll save up much more before Dec. 16, though....I'd like to do $121.60 :)).

justinc.1089
11-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Yeah but then the certain number will again make people think this fundraiser has requirements in the amount of money you donate or else you can't donate.

The idea with $1 is to help them to see you can donate as little or as much as you want, and then the higher donation pledge options will show them we want them to donate a lot lol.:rolleyes::D

kylejack
11-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Don't encourage $1 donations. That's probably part of Huckabee's fund-raising failure.

justinc.1089
11-08-2007, 11:36 AM
Ah yeah on second thought if someone is going to donate, they have the money to donate at least $50. I mean I'm a college student with practically no money and I manage to donate around $60-$100 each month. So if I can manage that somehow, then most people can do $50 I think.

So I agree, we should not promote small donations because if the people are there they are already planning to donate, and if they can donate they can donate a decent amount of money. Last time we asked for $100 donations, and the average was $103, so I think its fine to go with the same strategy.

We don't need to re-invent the wheel when it got us somewhere no one has been before.:)

tonyr1988
11-08-2007, 11:42 AM
I think the biggest incentive for smaller donations was to get new donors. People are willing to spend a few bucks than $50 for a first-time donation. Many people, for various reasons, are hesitant to donate to a political campaign.

I'm still on the fence about the low pledges, but I think that's the main reasoning behind them.

dfalken
11-08-2007, 11:42 AM
The average person in the US is drowning in debt and many are loosing their homes. $100 is not even an option for them and like someone else mentioned they might think that to participate in this fund raiser they have to donate $100 or otherwise they can't participate. I know to us this seems trivial but like the other poster said the average person might think that and be turned away. Maybe just have two or three options but don't drive away the guy or gal that wants to support Ron Paul and WILL VOTE for Ron Paul and possibly convince other people to vote for him by making him feel his donation is not welcome. The media attention Dec. 16th will generate will be worth many times more than what we collect on Dec 16th. The record for one day total money number will be broken easily so now let's focus on the number of individual donors as that will TRULY make headlines as each $1 donor is still a voter just as much as each $2300 donor. To go mainstream we have to prove we have mainstream numbers.

kylejack
11-08-2007, 11:45 AM
His donation is not unwelcome~ He can specify any amount. Huckabee offers this option and has been an utter failure at fundraising. His A Buck For Huck has terrible consequences.

shepburn
11-08-2007, 11:57 AM
$1 is a waste of time.

tonyr1988
11-08-2007, 12:04 PM
I don't know all the numbers, but I think Fill the Quill was one of the best fundraisers that Paul had, because it encouraged new donors ($1 counted just as much as $2,300). Once people are comfortable donating a little, they will be more likely to donate large amounts later.

Any chance we could get the campaign to do another "Fill the Quill"ish fundraiser, basing it entirely on number of donors, to try and encourage new people to donate? It would be nice to get a boost in the number of donors for Dec 16. A lot of new people donated on Nov. 5. It was the second time that I've donated a small amount, and I finally feel like donating significantly more on Dec 16.

dfalken
11-08-2007, 12:06 PM
I am not saying to encourage a $1 donation....definitely encourage the $100 donation but at least have something saying to the effect of "if you can't afford $100 your most generous donation is welcome"...the total head count is going to be as important if not more important than the total amount (unless we raise 50 million or some unreal sum like that). Make sure no one is turned away by thinking $100 is all they can donate.

jgmaynard
11-08-2007, 12:54 PM
Yup - $100 "suggested donatoin" w/ a $20ish dollar "lowest tier pledge" would probably generate the greatest dollar and donor # results. :)

JM

James R
11-08-2007, 12:57 PM
Definitely encourage people to donate $100, but don't drive away anyone that might not afford it and doesn't realize that smaller donations are more than welcome. Some people will see the $100 donation request and be driven away by it as they will feel "inferior" because they can't afford it.

Breaking the all time donation amount record is not going to be a problem, but what is truly amazing about Ron Paul's funding is that we are getting these big numbers with small donations, unlike the big money candidates that do it with mostly "maximum allowed" donations from big money interests.

Breaking the donation amount record is going to make headlines, but the number of individual donors could make even bigger headlines. With a $1 option we might even get people that don't really follow the Ron Paul campaign to donate just for the heck of it to feel like they were part of that historical day. I've been looking at the funding numbers online and 75% of Hillary's 90 million comes from 47k donors of more than $200 each...that still leaves over 20 million from smaller donors which could put her total donor number in the 200k to 300k area. If we do this right we could get that many individual donors on that single day. We got almost 40k last time which I bet is several times higher than we got on any fund raising effort before (I wasn't here yet before november 5th so i don't know) and I would expect that Dec 16th is going to be several times larger than the 5th. The 5th is the first time that a fund raiser really got the campaign big media attention...which is going to make the 16th that much larger.

Let's not drive a single donor away because they feel "inferior" because they can't click on that $100 option.

just some thoughts,
David

David, an idea was suggested on the Grassroots forum that I like a lot. The idea is this: Have two options:
1. $100
2. All In (As much as you can afford.)

"All In" means you give as much as you can afford, even if it is only $1. What do you think of that?

dfalken
11-08-2007, 01:02 PM
The All in option sounds good as long as somewhere along side it you specify ALL IN means as much as you can afford and mention the $1 amount, otherwise ALL IN will have the connotations of a larger donation than $100, in fact many might associate it with $2300. We need to have something besides the $100 donation even if that is the main focus, we don't want to discourage a single person that can only afford $1 as if they vote just as much as the $2300 donor.

Let's keep our eyes on the price....to elect Dr. Paul not to collect XXX on Dec 16th.

JoshLowry
11-08-2007, 01:08 PM
Keep it simple. Do it exactly like the November 5th site.

Don't make it all fancy with lots of options. Just an email, $100
pledge, and a ronpaulgraph.

;)

dfalken
11-08-2007, 01:12 PM
I don't agree sorry. There is a reason only 18k signed up on the site yet 38k donated....probably a bunch couldn't afford $100 so as honest people they didn't sign up on the site. The higher the number of pledges the more likely someone that visits the site will be to sign up. People are lured by numbers. People do what their neighbor does. Head count will be just as important if not more important for the media attention. We MUST make sure nobody is turned away and the bigger the number of pledges the more likely the number will grow. The guy who pledged $1 is much more likely to tell his buddy about the drive than the guy who visited the site and felt he couldn't pledge $100.

Let's look at the big picture people, the campaign is going mainstream but we are still catering only to our ilk.

James R
11-08-2007, 01:14 PM
I don't agree sorry. There is a reason only 18k signed up on the site yet 38k donated....

That is a very good point!

Revised Proposal:
Option 1. $100
Option 2. All In (As much as you can afford from $1 to the $2,300 legal max.)

dfalken
11-08-2007, 01:16 PM
Thank you James. I am new to these forums so I don't know the hierarchy and I don't know who to contact or if my posts are being read by the right people but I do know that I am making a valid point that needs to be considered. The grassroots effort has been amazing but to elect Ron Paul it will have to go mainstream and this is our chance...let's not blow it.

texasbelle
11-08-2007, 01:18 PM
I think the $1 option is not a good idea because transaction fees will pretty much eat it away. Why not put a $5 option if you want to attract new donors who are leary to give money to a political campaign? JMO.

literatim
11-08-2007, 01:18 PM
I don't agree sorry. There is a reason only 18k signed up on the site yet 38k donated....probably a bunch couldn't afford $100 so as honest people they didn't sign up on the site.

Ron Paul supporters can be paranoid and not want on a list.

James R
11-08-2007, 01:21 PM
Ron Paul supporters can be paranoid and not want on a list.

I wouldn't call it paranoid... a list of thousands of people who donate money would be a very valuable thing to hold, and something a hacker might want to try to "take a crack at".

francisco
11-08-2007, 01:43 PM
If $1 is to low to cover transaction costs, How about $5 as the lowest tier option?

The cost to the campaign in terms of revenue -maximizing strategy is that having a low cost options easily selectable by a a contributor may encourage him to pledge a lower amount than he would otherwise be willing to make.

The benefit to the campaign in terms of revenue -maximizing strategy of having a low cost selectable option is threefold:

1) The first time giving is the biggest hurdle: once someone has contributed once, they have "ownership" and a sense of belonging to the movement, and are much more likely to give again.

2) Contributors who are unwilling or unable to contribute at least the amount of the lowest option, and are not prompted by the open-ended any-amount blank, will contribute at least something, and also be included in the number of donors.

3) The campaign will now have the contributor's e-mail and will be able to directly approach them for action or donation.

ALL IN ALL, I favor a low selectable donation option, as long as the marginal transaction costs are covered. $5 is my personal preference. When the day of donation finally arrives and spirits are running high, they will feel part of the action and will very possibly give more.

kylejack
11-08-2007, 01:45 PM
There is no lowest tier option. You can donate a penny if you want.

francisco
11-08-2007, 01:45 PM
If $1 is to low to cover transaction costs, How about $5 as the lowest tier option?

The cost to the campaign in terms of revenue -maximizing strategy is that having a low cost options easily selectable by a a contributor may encourage him to pledge a lower amount than he would otherwise be willing to make.

The benefit to the campaign in terms of revenue -maximizing strategy of having a low cost selectable option is threefold:

1) The first time giving is the biggest hurdle: once someone has contributed once, they have "ownership" and a sense of belonging to the movement, and are much more likely to give again.

2) Contributors who are unwilling or unable to contribute at least the amount of the lowest option, and are not prompted by the open-ended any-amount blank, will contribute at least something, and also be included in the number of donors.

3) The campaign will now have the contributor's e-mail and will be able to directly approach them repeatedly in the future for action or donation.

ALL IN ALL, I favor a low selectable donation option, as long as the marginal transaction costs are covered. $5 is my personal preference. When the day of donation finally arrives and spirits are running high, they will feel part of the action and will very possibly give more.

tonyr1988
11-08-2007, 01:46 PM
The only problem I can see with the "All In" is that when you let people make their own donation promises, they usually underestimate it. There's a reason that campaigns have discrete donation options: on Paul's website, there's $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000, and $2300.

If you ask someone how much they would donate, and they were thinking around $80ish....putting $100 on the site would nudge them to go up just a tad. The best part is that people usually go up - they hardly ever downgrade.

I think this is much more important for the smaller donations. If you just have a box where they type in their amount, many new donors will have no idea what to give - "They recommended $100. I don't have near that amount...I guess I've just give $1 or 2." Give some lower options - $12.16, $15, or $20. "Push" people a little.

I think we should have something like: The lowest option, $50, $100, and a couple above that. Then a box if people had a custom one in mind. That way you give people some ideas about a personal goal to reach, but you have the leniency of "All In"

James R
11-08-2007, 01:58 PM
The only problem I can see with the "All In" is that when you let people make their own donation promises, they usually underestimate it. There's a reason that campaigns have discrete donation options: on Paul's website, there's $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000, and $2300.

If you ask someone how much they would donate, and they were thinking around $80ish....putting $100 on the site would nudge them to go up just a tad. The best part is that people usually go up - they hardly ever downgrade.

I think this is much more important for the smaller donations. If you just have a box where they type in their amount, many new donors will have no idea what to give - "They recommended $100. I don't have near that amount...I guess I've just give $1 or 2." Give some lower options - $12.16, $15, or $20. "Push" people a little.

I think we should have something like: The lowest option, $50, $100, and a couple above that. Then a box if people had a custom one in mind. That way you give people some ideas about a personal goal to reach, but you have the leniency of "All In"

Thats probably right. Charities almost always have suggested amounts and then and "other". They probably do that based on research and experience. But, the "all in" option has never been explored, so there is a risk it could be worse and there is a chance it would be better. I personally would like to see what the "all in" option can do for us.

jgmaynard
11-08-2007, 02:10 PM
Wait! Wait! :)

Why couldn't they work together as ideas?

Have the tiers like most charities, campaigns, and Ron has on the sites (after all, the donations are going through his site, it would make sense to have the same categories, I guess), but instead of "other ___ " on the BTP site, just call it "All in _____ ."

Eh? Eh?

JM

Jobarra
11-08-2007, 02:32 PM
Whatever we do, unfortunately $5 is a bad idea as a donation amount. The media are already working hard on the story of criminals testing out stolen cards by donating $5 to the campaign. While most people familiar with identity theft realize this is just because a single transaction in a heavily used site is harder to track than otherwise, the regular public thinks that this is somehow a criminal act by the campaign no matter how untrue that actually is. I would say $10 is a good bet. ANY new donors are good though for reasons already laid out. While transaction fees would eat up a little bit of the donations, I think it would be better to have 100,000 new donors and spend $30,000 on transaction fees(conservative .30 per transaction fee for all .01 donations) I think.

jgmaynard
11-08-2007, 03:53 PM
Wel, since the idea of minmum dollar amount is back up in the air, may I suggest something I had suggested earlier for a minimum donation?

$17.73

For the year of the BTP. Symbolic, small enough where no one will be turned off, and large enough where it doesn't get eaten in transaction costs or suffer confusion with any CC security issues.

Eh? Eh? :)

JM

justinc.1089
11-08-2007, 04:25 PM
I think around $15-20 should be the lowest option now that I've thought a bit. I mean people that are going to donate have money to donate. End of story. They can manage AT LEAST $20.

And who would want to fill out all that crap just to donate $1 anyway? That would be a waste of time almost lol. Most people would donate at least $10-$15 anyway if they didn't want to donate a lot, because they know a dollar is basically nothing on its own. So I say we push for a little higher, meaning $15-$20.

itsnobody
11-08-2007, 04:36 PM
I disagree I think the lowest should be $100, you can't get $!3 million in one day with $1