Draft of USA Today Ad

[Joey Wahoo]

• 
  ...warned of the dangers of political parties. Now you have two powerful parties that conspire against the people, plundering you while they pretend to oppose each other. Ron Paul would return the government to the people.
  I'm not american so i'm not sure how people feel in your country. This seems a bit conspiracy like though. Specially since that word is used. I'm not sure how people will feel when they read this. Probably part will like it, and a part will be turned away by it. Specially with the "crazy" image of Ron Paul supporters im not sure if such a thing should be included. Might be good to get rid of the "crazy" image to open the door to new voters.

• 
  ...warned of the importance of an honest, independent and unbiased press. Now your centralized "Mainstream Media" is full of propaganda, distortions, and omissions. Ron Paul would communicate honestly.
  This advertisement is placed in one of the most populair mainstream media of america. My question is: Does this bulletpoint add to the credibility of your message in the eyes of the people that buy this newspaper?

.

I strongly agree with these two comments. We're seeking the nomination of the Republican party, and we've got a lot of Republicans to win over. So why trash the party that Ron Paul has been winning elections in for over 20 years?

And PLEASE reconsider trashing the media. Just today we got lots of positive publicity from those who used to ignore us. As I've learned before, if you take on the media, you'll always lose. They are not the enemy in this election.

I greatly admire you for doing this. Hope you don't mind the sincere feedback.

 

[Ron Paul in 2008]

One more suggestion...

I think saying "We the founders" is a little presumptuous. I think it will be A LOT better if it was changed to "The founding fathers warned"

 

[Jmaths117]

Such excellent advice in this thread, I really hope Llepard is reading this.

 

[nayjevin]

I'm not presuming they don't mean that, I'm saying that it's laughable to pretend to know who the Founding Fathers would endorse. We would all like to think RP and Ben Franklin would be like two peas in a pod, but the fact remains that to the average person who does not know who RP is, that'll seem like nothing more than a shallow ploy to give a politician false accolades.

Frankly I think its overdone. It's very preachy, and all the bullet points at the bottom about Ron Paul's record does nothing to establish why these are good ideas. It's the usual stuff that scares people off. Abolishing the IRS, replace money, what?!?! stuff like that...

I think a better idea is focus on one issue, the fall of the US dollar, and why Ron Paul is the solution to this problem. Then lets back it up with quotes and opinions from CNBC types (steve forbes? Kudlow? Santelli?). Old people who read the people will think about their savings, working professionals will think about their future, etc... If we're going to address this issue, lets use the whole ad to do it. We can make quick mentions about foreign policy and how this ties into the massive overspending.

Lets think about the audience and lets think about how we can really really break through and get them thinking, not bombard them.

I agree with all of this. Never did like this ad for the general public.

I love the ad for me -- I just think it's a poor choice for the public.

 

[texasbelle]

That Ad totally rocks!!!!!! You are a true patriot llepard!!

 

[James R]

Obviously the final result will be just one pic- I had to break it up here for speed reasons. Post your thoughts.

Bryan, I like the concept but the ad itself seems to need a bit of work. Here is what I have so far for a recommendation:

I forgot to note why I made certain changes:
Delete "deliberately" from "borders deliberately left open" because it causes disagreement yet is not necessary to get across the point.

Change "honest" to "honest rather than popular" because the focus is on the media, not on honesty..

 

[Mark]

Who's buying the next ad?
Maybe, if you don't like it the way it is,
create an ad you do like,
and pay for it. Yourself.

http://www.revmark.org/forumfiles/ad.htm

 

[SgtBulldog]

Only one suggestion to add: change all the verbs to active voice. Instead of saying "Ron Paul would change the world," say "Ron Paul will change the world." Utilizing active voice is a very critical aspect of good, persuasive communication.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html

 

[Proemio]

Who's buying the next ad?
Maybe, if you don't like it the way it is,
create an ad you do like,
and pay for it. Yourself.

http://www.revmark.org/forumfiles/ad.htm

Yup - great ad - wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Falseflagop]

Keep the AD the way it is!!

Bryan, I like the concept but the ad itself seems to need a bit of work. Here is what I have so far for a recommendation:

I forgot to note why I made certain changes:
Delete "deliberately" from "borders deliberately left open" because it causes disagreement yet is not necessary to get across the point.

Change "honest" to "honest rather than popular" because the focus is on the media, not on honesty..

DON"t Changeanything!

 

[MadOdorMachine]

this is the same CRAP we heard from the naysayers of Nov. 5th...

FYI.....there IS talk of a draft...you havent been following..RP himself has said it

do u really think we could occupy Iran without a draft??

To the gentleman running this ad with HIS money....pay no mind to these naysayers...JUST DO IT BABY!

Is there any proof there will be a draft? It's more likely that there will be incentives for people to enlist in the military (ex. sign on bonuses etc.) than another draft occurring. Yes, there is talk about it, but it's out of fear. Right now there are no signs of an imminent draft, yet the ad implies it's in the planning stages. The ad points the finger and sounds accusational. If there's no evidence to back it up, it's not useless, it's counter-productive. It will hurt the credibility of Ron Paul, and will enforce the idea that Ron Paul supporters are fanatical, conspiracy theorist loons. That's exactly what we don't need. As far as occupying Iran goes, where on God's green earth are you getting this information from? How does the U.S. or Israel bombing nuclear facilities equal occupation? The statement isn't factual, plain and simple. Comparing it to naysayers of the 5th of November has no legs either. There's a big difference between people being doubtful a significant amount of money would be raised and a person stating the goverment is secretly planning to bring back the draft. One of them is a passive opinion, the other is an aggressive fallacy.

 

[krott5333]

Bryan, I like the concept but the ad itself seems to need a bit of work. Here is what I have so far for a recommendation:

I forgot to note why I made certain changes:
Delete "deliberately" from "borders deliberately left open" because it causes disagreement yet is not necessary to get across the point.

Change "honest" to "honest rather than popular" because the focus is on the media, not on honesty..

BRAVO!

 

[James R]

Who's buying the next ad?
Maybe, if you don't like it the way it is,
create an ad you do like,
and pay for it. Yourself.

http://www.revmark.org/forumfiles/ad.htm

I disagree. The draft was posted so we could recommend changes. Why else would it be posted? I want Ron Paul to win and don't care about slightly damaging someone's self esteem regarding their skill with words. The bottom line is that the ad can be improved a bit and it would be crazy not to improve it.

 

[disciple]

I think saying "We the founders" is a little presumptuous. I think it will be A LOT better if it was changed to "The founding fathers warned"

Agree.

Or "We were warned by the founding fathers"

 

[Vvick727]

Bryan, I like the concept but the ad itself seems to need a bit of work. Here is what I have so far for a recommendation:

I forgot to note why I made certain changes:
Delete "deliberately" from "borders deliberately left open" because it causes disagreement yet is not necessary to get across the point.

Change "honest" to "honest rather than popular" because the focus is on the media, not on honesty..

YES. PICK THIS.

 

[Jmaths117]

This is what an anti-Ron Paul guy said on another forum:

i think its GREAT!!!!
lollololol.... non ron paul fans will see u all for the conspiracy theoriest goof balls u are....LOOOOOL!

I really think the message needs to be tempered. It would not be smart to ignore the advice in this thread.

 

[jabbott0]

Thoughts

First I'd like to thank Lawrence for stepping up and putting his own time and money on the line for this ad. I have some [hopefully] constructive criticism. After looking at this ad, it didn't jump out at me like the Iowa Straw Poll ad. The first reason is "We the People" vs. "We the Founders". This new ad is putting words into the Founders' mouths by saying they support the Ron Paul Revolution. That is just not right. Using "We the People Support Ron Paul for President" instead is much more appropriate.

Also, many of the statements in the ad appeal only to 10% of the population. Rather than having lots of "10% statements", there should be a few "100% statements" (ones that everyone can agree with).

The current ad doesn't mention of primary elections. I don't mean to be negative -- I just want as many USA Today readers as possible to know why and when to vote for Ron Paul after reading the ad. Good luck with the ad!

 

[dwdollar]

Well... looks like this thing will be sanitized...

 

[Nickel]

Bryan, I like the concept but the ad itself seems to need a bit of work. Here is what I have so far for a recommendation:

I forgot to note why I made certain changes:
Delete "deliberately" from "borders deliberately left open" because it causes disagreement yet is not necessary to get across the point.

Change "honest" to "honest rather than popular" because the focus is on the media, not on honesty..

This is excellent. The only thing I would add is "would" to the Founding Father's support statement:

For these reasons, we The Founding Fathers would support
Ron Paul For President

 

[tmg19103]

I say BRAVO for doing this!

The one thing I would do before dropping over $100k on a newspaper ad, though, is drop a couple hundred dollars for a consultation with a marketing specialist.

You can take or leave the advice from a marketing expert, but at least that person can tell you if your ad is impacting as many people as possible in the most positive manner possible in regards to learning about RP's message while also garnering more name recognition for him.