A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[Matt Collins]

The blimp is not mutually exclusive with any of the traditional methods of marketing.

Of course, but the point is that money could be better spent elsewhere. The blimp in and of itself isn't a bad idea, the return compared to the cost of it however is what makes it ineffective.

I majored in marketing, have been self-employed for most of the last 25 years, and have done all of my own marketing and advertising. I pledged $100 towards the blimp simply because it is such an original idea,

You should ask your college for your money back.

The traditional advertising mediums are definitely crucial and RP can't win without them, but big attention-getting stunts pay off as well. Save seats for local print and broadcast reporters and the blimp will generate coverage in those mediums for free in those local markets and expand the number of impressions. It could easily generate 300K worth of free local print and broadcast exposure.

Absolutely, but there is no guarantee. Buying ads guarantees airtime.

This is such an innovative and unique idea it is totally worth the gamble.

It is not a frugal use of funds. "Gambling" on something like this is probably not something Dr Paul would do. I get the point, but why gamble when that amount of money could be used for guaranteed results?

 

[[email protected]]

Of course, but the point is that money could be better spent elsewhere. The blimp in and of itself isn't a bad idea, the return compared to the cost of it however is what makes it ineffective.


You should ask your college for your money back.




Absolutely, but there is no guarantee. Buying ads guarantees airtime.



It is not a frugal use of funds. "Gambling" on something like this is probably not something Dr Paul would do. I get the point, but why gamble when that amount of money could be used for guaranteed results?

You just really don't get it do you?

 

[TechnoGuyRob]

Sorry, Matt.

The blimp flies.

 

[Matt Collins]

You just really don't get it do you?

No, I DO get it, which is why I understand it's a bad idea because the money can be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Rhys]

if you want to team up, we could raise money for a targeted ad campaign the same way the blimp team is doing it.

 

[[email protected]]

if you want to team up, we could raise money for a targeted ad campaign the same way the blimp team is doing it.

I think that is a great idea. And I'll help spread the word if you do.

The difference between the two, is that the blimp thing is special and will inspire people to dig a little deeper to be a part of it and make it happen. And you get a chance to ride in it. It's not money that would be going towards commercials, it's drinking money. Arguing about a better use of it is a waste of time. Without the wow factor of the blimp idea or something similarly extraordinary, it would not exist.

 

[ab25db]

I have to 2nd this comment..

This is more of a media stunt, which is good but with deadlines approaching we need targeted campaigns.

A Robo call campaign for example can call 17,500,000 people (for the $350k) anywhere is the country and we can target registered voters in which ever party we choose.

See www.RonPaulMarketing.com for more info on how to contribute.

-dan

 

[[email protected]]

A Robo call campaign for example can call 17,500,000 people (for the $350k) anywhere is the country and we can target registered voters in which ever party we choose.

See www.RonPaulMarketing.com for more info on how to contribute.

-dan

How effective is it?

I think a little more info on the website about how it works, what the message is, etc. would probably help your cause.

 

[craezie]

Robocalls are BOOORING. I hang up before the Robo gets through the first sentence.

Red, white and blue flyers are BOOORING. I throw them away with about 20 other pieces of junk mail without even looking.

Political commercials are BOOORING. I put the tv on mute because I don't want to hear the drone.

The only people you reach with the "traditional" targeted kinds of campaigns are people who had too much time on their hands. Not the kind of people who are busy, working, productive members of society. Not the kind of people who will vote for Ron Paul. Not people who are jaded by years of listening to phoney politicians.

Ron Paul is utterly unique. His message is unique. Why not do something unique that will get the attention of people who might not be reached by the BOORING advertisements everyone else uses?

 

[Rhys]

Ok, this is cool. Do we just do pledges until we can start one of those 527s or whatever?

 

[Rhys]

We're doing this because we can... we can't just do stunts, although the blimp is awesome.

I foresee the message being this: robo callers will diffuse Ron Paul myths and point to targeted magazine ads which will also dispel ron paul myths.

newspapers will run on short notice to time with events.

This is all assuming we raise $1 mill, which I will make our target. I'm torn on micro targeting Iowa or netting name recognition for General Election appeal... I know that sounds odd, but a lot of people still want a republican who can win. That's why a general elections electability campaign is desirable to me for primaries.

 

[Matt Collins]

The only people you reach with the "traditional" targeted kinds of campaigns are people who had too much time on their hands. Not the kind of people who are busy, working, productive members of society. Not the kind of people who will vote for Ron Paul. Not people who are jaded by years of listening to phoney politicians

Are you are aware that the average voting age is something between 50-60 years old?

How do you think they get their news? Talk radio, newspaper, and the nightly news on TV. We MUST use traditional media to reach the average voter.

 

[Rhys]

I have a feeling we'll be able to get 20's and 30's people to the booth without much effort. These people have grown up with the computers, and will have an easier time coordinating get out the votes on the correct day. We'll spam the primaries, so to speak. There's major buz. I know this doesn't mean everything, but it's a good advantage to have.

However, our target will be dispelling myths for those who read nasty things in the same place as our ad.

 

[raiha]

Just watching your dollar slide down the slippery slope. As it slides, so my aspirations rise to contribute...
i think its a great idea for the novelty, wacko aspect.(They want wacko...we'll give them wacko!) It seems many articles are mentioning just the idea of it already so it captures the popular imagination. Also i think its bad to do U-turns in the middle of a project. Don't want to be wacko AND flakey!
Anyway its not the blimp so much as all the lovely footage of the blimp. You could even dress some people up to look like Thomas Jefferson and Maddison to launch it.

FUN!! You gotta make people laugh and feel relaxed enough to break out of old voting behaviour.

I don't have a degree in marketingBTW

 

[[email protected]]

Are you are aware that the average voting age is something between 50-60 years old?

How do you think they get their news? Talk radio, newspaper, and the nightly news on TV. We MUST use traditional media to reach the average voter.

I totally agree with you on this. There is room for both though. It's like having a diversified investment portfolio. Some holdings are risky and bold, some are conservative and traditional.

 

[Matt Collins]

I totally agree with you on this. There is room for both though. It's like having a diversified investment portfolio. Some holdings are risky and bold, some are conservative and traditional.

Good point and that makes sense. But since we are on the short end of the fundraising stick compared to Romney and Rudy, I think we should still continue to do what is known to work. If we had more money than anyone else, then yeah I would say diversifying to experimental efforts as you have mentioned would be an okay thing to do. However right now it is not a prudent use of funds.

 

[[email protected]]

Good point and that makes sense. But since we are on the short end of the fundraising stick compared to Romney and Rudy, I think we should still continue to do what is known to work. If we had more money than anyone else, then yeah I would say diversifying to experimental efforts as you have mentioned would be an okay thing to do. However right now it is not a prudent use of funds.

The bulk of it should definitely go to the traditional mediums, and is.

Also keep in mind that Romney and Rudy probably have a grand total of about $100 spent by grassroots supporters outside of their official campaigns. RP has raised almost $20M total officially, but who knows what the total amount spent by the grassroots on top of that is except that it's a shitload. Rudy only has one Meetup group, and it's one that I set up in an attempt to educate Rudy supporters(automatic welcome email message directing them to a website we set up recently). Mitt Romney has a whopping six, and one of those is mine as well.

 

[Matt Collins]

Also keep in mind that Romney and Rudy probably have a grand total of about $100 spent by grassroots supporters outside of their official campaigns. RP has raised almost $20M total officially, but who knows what the total amount spent by the grassroots on top of that is except that it's a shitload. Rudy only has one Meetup group, and it's one that I set up in an attempt to educate Rudy supporters(automatic welcome email message directing them to a website we set up recently). Mitt Romney has a whopping six, and one of those is mine as well.

LOL

 

[Ozwest]

Good point and that makes sense. But since we are on the short end of the fundraising stick compared to Romney and Rudy, I think we should still continue to do what is known to work. If we had more money than anyone else, then yeah I would say diversifying to experimental efforts as you have mentioned would be an okay thing to do. However right now it is not a prudent use of funds.

F*ck Prudent.

Diversify.

Experiment.

Get carried away with your own self importance.

 

[Proemio]

Good point and that makes sense. But since we are on the short end of the fundraising stick compared to Romney and Rudy, I think we should still continue to do what is known to work. If we had more money than anyone else, then yeah I would say diversifying to experimental efforts as you have mentioned would be an okay thing to do. However right now it is not a prudent use of funds.

And that's precisely the kind of thinking that makes "marketing" such a nuisance.

Marketing is all about bureaucratic formulas which are about as useful as those of the government.

Advertising - on the other hand - is about vision, innovation and daring...

"What worked yesterday will get you yesterday's result." - moi