There is an excellent article in the Washington Post by Cecilia Kang on what happens to your data when a service goes under or is acquired. The results range from the good (Google takes over, imports all your data and makes the user experience even better), the bad (you’re data gets sucked into a vortex never to be seen again), and the ugly (your data is sold to the highest bidder).

So remember – what is free today may be gone tomorrow. Always good to have a backup plan.

The day after Stewart announced his rally, I went to the Web site, expecting some incredibly fancy site with all the bells and whistles that had clearly taken months and months to put together. But I was (pleasantly) surprised. The site was simple, with an almost late-nineties-like design, four buttons (FAQ, Getting There, Forum, Donate) and two features (Share This and email sign up).

And I loved it. Because while the rest of the world saw a simple Web site, I saw developers sipping on margaritas and remaining quite sane in the face of what was probably a crazy Web campaign. It was effective, and yet easy (or at least, that’s how it looks to me).

Now the site has a few more complexities. But it is still beautifully simplistic. And there is much to learn from this simplicity.

• It’s all temporary. Campaigns have a beginning, and more or less, an end. Consider the effort you’ll want to put into what is eventually going to be a short-term project.
• Evolve. The day after the campaign, the rally site was incredibly simple, and offered the minimum of what was needed in order to learn more. As time went on, more pages and features were added. Your site does not have to be 100% of what it will be on day one of your campaign.
• Stay in the box. Use the tools (paid and free), that you have before you, and don’t try to fool with them too much. The rally site uses WordPress. It’s using out-of-the-box Facebook and Twitter feed plugins.
• Don’t re-invent the wheel, or invent something else altogether. As I mentioned above, do your best to use what has already been tested and works. And even if you’re going to create a customized feature, don’t complicate it – look to other sites that are already doing something similar. Even the customized saneornot.com voting feature of the rally took the simplest pieces of functionality from the hotornot.com site.
• Keep your design simple. Stick to a few colors, and try to not to throw in too many fun and fancy design features that usually make your developers grumble (rounded corners, gradients, things that move). Find one thing that will make your site interesting.

But now, if your non-profit has its community data in a free Ning product, Ning has just become a nightmare. This highlights the problem with “free” software. Free is rarely free.

We come to depend on the fact that this software will be available for us tomorrow.  But when your software is hosted and free, your data, your community, your images may not really be yours. Google can rescind Analytics tomorrow, and there is not much we as users could do about it. It’s unlikely, but it’s always a possibility.

I love recommending free and fun tools, but you must always remember the caveat: online software that is free today may be gone tomorrow.

Luckily, the days of this kind of implementation being limited to the domain of the tech-savvy few are over. Thanks to services like AddThis and ShareThis , adding this kind of functionality on your site can be a simple half-hour operation. It’s important to consider the pros and cons of using these kinds of free services (their branding will appear on your site, limited customization and integration, the service getting your data, and the possibility that they could go out of business). But if you can stomach the cons, there’s no reason you can’t easily implement a social networking bar on your site.

Here are some of Tim’s points, rebutted:

• Statistically, not a lot of site users use these social networking bars. This is true. Statisically, not a lot of people look at your press releases from December 2005. But do you remove them from your site? No, because it’s not an effort to keep them, and some day, someone might need it. So if some of your users want to link to Twitter, why not make there lives easier? And while the overall numbers for social networking may not look that impressive over the entire site, I bet if we drilled down to the campaign level, we’d have a lot of promising numbers.
• Most users don’t know what to do with a social networking bar. I can’t argue with this one. I find myself dizzy going through all the Social Networking icons, trying to figure out what’s what. But, if I know I’m on Facebook, I’m pretty sure I’ll recognize the Facebook icon. And if I can’t figure it out, this is a perfect opportunity for you to educate your audience on the wonderful world of Social Networks. One of my favorite examples of this is the AFSCME Web site . Right underneath their social networking bar, there is a link to explain what it is, and how to use it.
• Since most people don’t use the social networking bar, you won’t learn much about your audience. It is true, that if you get 150,000 visitors a month, and 100 of them use the social networking bar, you won’t learn a lot about 149,900 of those visitors. But you will learn a lot about 100. For starters, you’ll learn what social networks they use and what content on your site interests them most. And that’s important, because those 100 users are your super-users – they love you so much they are willing to spread your message for you. These are people worth knowing about.

Tim’s advice on contemplating the use of a social networking bar on your site is good advice. But don’t let him frighten you. If you think there’s any value at all to be had in social networking links, go ahead and give them a try.

Now, as the Washington Post reports (h/t The Notion via TechPresident), we learn that Barack Obama considered the same thing: offering their email list as collateral for a loan. While they never actually needed the loan, it would be hypocritical not to be equally disappointed with the Obama camp as I was with McCain’s.

Anyway, most of my thoughts on the issue are laid out in my original post, so go read that if you want more details on why I think that this is bad, but here’s the bottom line for candidates, non-profits, and anyone with an “enter your email” field:

Your email list should not be used as collateral. Mortgaging it is mortgaging your credibility. Using your email list in this way risks ruining email marketing for everyone.

Many non-profit fundraisers cringe at the thought of premiums and merch. “If you get your supports hooked on premiums, they won’t donate without them” is the conventional wisdom, and there’s certainly some truth to it. Merchandise, on the other hand, requires significant outlays to produce and may just sit around your fulfillment house for months (or longer).

Barack Obama’s campaign didn’t see either of these as a barrier. Part of that was due to the volume his campaign could expect – it’s no problem to get a hundred thousand union-made, environmentally-friendly T-shirts made when you’ve got three million donors and sixty-five million (and counting!) voters. That basically puts his supporter base in a tier that few non-profits can match – add in about a million percent name recognition and you’re seeing a consumer base closer to that of Apple or Nike.

Adding to this is the strong brand identity that Obama established – not only with the distinctive logo, but with the general energy of his campaign that made people want to be a part of it – it was cool to be an Obama supporter and show it off in a way that just wasn’t the case with Gore or Kerry, and certainly not with McCain or W. My colleague Eve is going to chime in later this week with a post about the Obama brand, but it seemed to be a big part of what made Obama gear more than just an obligation and into an important part of their fundraising arm.

So what lessons can non-profits take from the Obama campaign if they aren’t as big or cool as Obama? Four do’s and one big don’t, and how your non-profit can learn from their example, below the fold…

The first is judicious use of premiums. I was a relatively consistent donor to Barack’s campaign during the primaries (fueled in part by their clever strategy of announcing their fundraising haul after winning or losing primaries, creating dozens more “reporting deadlines” than most campaigns can use), but by the summer, had started to slow down. In June, though, I got a message asking me to make a donation to the campaign and offering me one of a brand new line of “Environmentalists for Obama” organic cotton T-shirt. The novelty of this piece of swag was enough to get me to pull out my credit card and make a gift. Non-profits should take this as a lesson: don’t just remind people that you have existing stuff to sell, roll out new gear to your email list as a premium before adding it what doesn’t sell right away to the store.

Second, toward the end of the campaign, when the barrage of email was getting a little beyond ridiculous, as Obama, the DNC, and MoveOn competed for who could send me the most email in a week, the Obama camp rolled out some conditional content gifts as a premium ask. I didn’t actually realize that these were conditionally selected until one of my officemates mentioned seeing an offer for a T-shirt, and I remarked that I had the exact same email, but offering me a car magnet. We asked around the office and got a mix of the two premiums – everyone on the list got one of the offers, so we didn’t think it was a test (unless something has gone horribly wrong with the random sample generator), but based on geography and giving history, all we could figure out was that they may have made the assumption that they shouldn’t offer car magnets to people who live in DC and are less likely to drive.

Unless someone from Obama’s internet team steps forward with an explanation of the segments, we may never know, but the lesson here is that all premiums are not created equally. People with a reliable giving history should always be upsold to the next level, otherwise you’re in essence losing money because you’re getting the same gift you would have anyway, but having to pay to create and ship them some swag. Similarly, people who don’t own cars might not want magnets, people living in New Hampshire might enjoy a sweatshirt more than those in Texas, and I promise to donate to the first NPO who offers a branded ice scraper to their Wisconsin list.

The third takeaway I’d like to talk about is the most nebulous, but here it is: there’s something to be said about being cool. If your gear is just fairly standard fare with your logo on it, it’s not as likely to get somewhere as something that will attract some attention. I’ve got a closet full of old political T-shirts I never wear, but my Feingold “Backbone” shirt still makes it into my regular rotation, because it gets attention. Similarly, Obama has some gear that’s just cool to wear – unfortunately, most of the store is offline now that the election is over, so I can’t find pictures.

Fourth, the Obama emails frequently advertised gear as being “Limited!” “First Edition!” “Exclusive!” “Super Exclamatory!” In doing so, they created a greater sense of urgency – this wasn’t just another car magnet, it was a first edition car magnet! And when you’re running as an historic candidate, I don’t see anything wrong with suggesting that people ought to pick up a piece of history (and help make history with a contribution in the process). Non-profits can make similar use of this tactic – even if you’re only planning one run, there’s nothing wrong with calling it “First Edition.”

The last thing I’d like to highlight is a lesson from one thing that the Obama campaign did wrong: make sure you ship your items promptly. The Obama campaign’s record on this is not good: they generally promise six to eight weeks, which is great if you’re a rebate you hope people will forget about, but not so much if you’re a campaign that wants repeat donors. After it took about two months to get my “Environmentalists for Obama” shirt, I was much more wary about buying gear just before the election, knowing that there was pretty much no chance it would get there before November 4. While I’m assuming they used a fulfillment house rather than campaign staff to ship items, and that every dollar that goes into faster shipping is one that’s not used on the air, they probably could have balanced this better.

While it may not have won them the election, or even any given state, the Obama campaign’s effective use of merch was a key part of their fundraising juggernaut. Hopefully we’ll see this same effective strategy out of more non-profits in the coming months. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to purchase my “Victory” T-Shirt.

• Google has a bevy of cool tools to help voters – there’s a map to help you find your polling place, indexed audio of ads and speeches, so you can find what candidates have said about your key issues, and, as the polls close, live results.
• Twitter is featuring an election update page that moves really fast, but is nonetheless cool. Though the candidate statuses on top make me wonder if one candidate might be more connected to Twitter than the other…
  
• When you log into Facebook, you’ll note that it’s asking you if you’ve voted yet – there’s a running tally of people who both voted and checked their Facebook today, and while it’s lower than expected, that’s probably a good thing because it means that people are getting out the vote rather than visiting Facebook.
  
  Facebook also features an “election central” page, which isn’t as useful as Google’s, but does hawk their gifts. This made me laugh a little bit – first of all, how can a virtual gift be sold out, second, it’s probably not a good sign for McCain:
  
• TechPresident is going to be the place to be throughout the day, particularly after 4 PM Eastern when they start liveblogging. I’ve found TechPresident to be one the best blogs in the business for those of us interested in technology and politics, and their cross-partisanship gave me a look at McCain’s operation.
• My favorite electoral vote calculator is Daily Kos’s scoreboard. For now,it’s just in prediction mode, but it’s supposed to start getting a feed of AP data tonight as polls close. It also shows off downticket races that won’t get as much play on TV.

Look for more on the Beaconfire Wire later this week and month, as we resume our regular posting schedule. For today, though, do what you can to Get Out the Vote!

This makes sense – in general, restricted giving is dangerous, as your supporters aren’t always the best judges of how you should spend your campaign resources (as any field organizer will tell you if asked about yard signs). But look at the place where Senator Obama is at:

• Ahead in the polls by about 6 points nationally
• Winning enough states by 8 or more to get to 270 EVs without even considering battlegrounds
• Flush with cash, to the point that he’s running TV ads 3 to 1 in states where he’s competing with McCain, and running unopposed in other states
• Expanding the map to states that no one considered remotely near the table a year ago
• Running out of time to place more TV buys

This is no reason to be overconfident – as a Democrat, I’m quite used to playing Charlie Brown to the electorate’s Lucy. But it is a reason to consider bold new ways to involve your contributors: why not just let them pick the states to target their fundraising?

First, consider that this one fundraising campaign is a drop in the bucket – you’ve got plenty of other appeals, not to mention big dollar fundraisers and merch. Plus the value of money is dropping daily – a dollar given today is worth much less than that same dollar in May, since he’s pretty much hit the saturation point with TV anyway and has started expanding to XBox Live and iPhones.

Second, there’s no reason the campaign has to get too specific. Don’t let donors determine exactly what the contribution is for, but maybe just the state or general expense area. With so many states in play, it’s unlikely that more than a token amount of money will go to states where it’s completely wasted, since even Massachusetts and DC have field expenses that could be reallocated later.

But more than anything, it gives donors a sense of ownership in the campaign. They’ve seen countless presentations by David Plouffe with his charts and maps showing the plan for victory, so why not let your most dedicated supporters direct their contributions to make it possible – I’d be willing to bet that the results would look a lot like the maps that the campaign is looking at.

Non-profits lucky enough to find themselves the recipient of similar windfalls should also consider relinquishing control to donors. As long as you make the choices such that almost anything is good, and set up disclaimers to allow you to shift unallocated dollars to general revenue, the benefits of increased giving that always come from restricted dollars should outweigh the headache to your accounting department. And while you’ll still have to do much of your fundraising as unrestricted so that it can be used to pay for less photogenic programs, like administrative costs, a few “donors choice” restricted fundraisers a year can do wonders for your net revenue.

For Barack Obama’s campaign today, a restricted gift isn’t really restricted – there’s almost no bad place to spend his money. Telling the donors, “You decide” and meaning it would keep up the tidal fundraising that’s been a sign of the massive grassroots support he’s enjoyed so far – and might do the same for your non-profit.

Senators can now legally post YouTube videos on their Web sites, thanks to a long-awaited update to the chamber’s rules.

Until now, any Senator who embedded a YouTube video or linked to a Flickr album was in violation of outdated rules that required them to keep within the senate.gov domain. Some posted such links anyway, and few were reprimanded.

But last week, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee voted to allow Senators to use third-party sites.

This is pretty much indisputably a good thing. Not only does it allow Senators to bring their websites into the 21st century, but many of these tools foster interactions between citizens and their representatives in Washington. In addition, Congress’s ability to use technology is directly related to their ability to understand and regulate it wisely.

No movement yet on the House side, but hopefully we’ll see some changes there with the next Congress once they see how effectively their Senate colleagues make use of user-generated content tools.

In the meantime, I’d like to suggest that Senators celebrate their new freedom by embedding this video on their homepages:

The Web Foundation will focus its programs around research, technology and social development, with a particular emphasis on global collaboration and outreach to underserved populations.  Currently, only about 20 percent of people access the Web. 

The Knight Foundation has provided a $5 million dollar grant to get the Web Foundation started on its path of connecting humanity via technology.