This is my treatise as to why the song should stay titled as "Bombs."
By putting Ron Paul's name on it, we can safely assume it will be relegated to the realm of Ron Paul supporters and once again we will be preaching to the choir, which is a waste of time. By calling this "The Ron Paul Song," the iTunes bomb will effectively be an internal stunt that will be looked upon as Paulbots spamming iTunes. So we get it to the top of iTunes, then what? We give each other high fives and watch the song fall off the map?
Other than supporters, who else is going to download it now? Uninitiated voters will be more likely to listen to the song if it is called "Bombs" and then google the title which will pull up the music video (which has RP in it). This is a subtle marketing strategy that lures people in rather than hits them in the face with politics right off the bat. The music video for this song is a very powerful tool for converting people to Ron Paul and the anti-war message... but it won't work if they are turned off by the title of the song and never listen to it.
Haven't we had enough experience with the media bias yet? Nothing with RP's name on it is going to get outside of our circles... either online or on air. I have a connection to a DJ at the influential radio station KCRW in Los Angeles and was going to ask if he would play "Bombs" on his show. I am fairly certain he won't be able to do that now as the title will be seen as too political.
We can raise a lot more money and reach more voters by keeping RPs name out of it. The song is a great anti-war anthem and sounds very professional and mainstream. It has the potential to really go somewhere if we go about this more subtly. It is not always the best strategy to be blatant... especially while we are trying to reach new audiences.
Take a clue from what has been the political strategy for other campaigns:
Herman Cain's campaign anthem says nothing about him in the song or the title. There are no images of Cain in the music video, but it has a strong message of patriotic protest, with tea party rallies and images of the "Don't tread on me" Gadsden Flag. In 5 months it has nearly 1.2 million views and everyone associates it with Cain despite the fact it's not called the "Herman Cain Song":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw
Meanwhile, the Aimee Allen song titled Ron Paul Revolution has had 400K views over FOUR YEARS, and never got heard outside of RP circles.
Also, the ad against Newt that the Ron Paul's campaign put out yesterday has gone viral, and has upwards of 200,000 views in less than 24 hours. There isn't even one image or mention of RP in the video. Only a short logo at the end. Yet, it has been our most effective ad yet.
I read angry complaints from some supporters who thought the new campaign ad should have shown Ron Paul, but the video never would have been spread around the online media if it was a direct face off between Newt and Paul. Good thing the political strategists made their own decisions on this rather than taking a vote from supporters who most likely would have rallied to have Ron all over it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=youtu.be
It was my understanding that the goal was to use this song to spread the message to new voters who aren't familiar with RP yet. What is the point of doing this otherwise? iTunes takes the majority of the money for each download, so it's not even an effective fundraising strategy. It's only worthwhile if we intend to reach out to new people, which will only work if it has a mainstream title.
Remember when Karl Rove was on Greta and he said the organization of RP supporters is unparalleled, yet we are talking to ourselves? This is one of those "talking to ourselves" moments:
“Ron Paul needs to broaden his base,” Rove suggested, and “figure out a message that reaches outside of the people he’s already got for him.” While he complimented the Ron Paul base as “passionate” and “well-organized,” he concluded “they seem to spend a lot of time talking to themselves and he spends a lot of time talking to them,” and that won’t attract voters."
SO, for those of you who were especially vocal about this and said you wouldn't support the iTunes bomb unless the title was changed to "The Ron Paul Song"... you are effectively shooting the outreach effort in the foot. This song will stay in the kiddie pool with all the other Ron Paul songs because you insisted we mark our territory and burden it with political baggage. (and yes, Parocks, I'm talking to you)
