Draft of USA Today Ad

[tonyr1988]

Unbelievable....I don't remember anyone asking for every Tom, Dick, and Harry what their opinion was of this article.

If you don't like it, pony up your own cash and take out your own ad! Otherwise, STFU nobody cares what you think! This person has done something wonderful and we have a group of self-righteous jackasses who want to tell him how to improve it in their images...

Reminds of the way these Meetup groups are going....I'm RP to the end, but I'm tired of the Paulites out there....you people are really irritating...

Most people are offering helpful, constructive criticism of the advertisement. I don't know about other people, but when I hear "draft," I assume there's a little bit of work to be done.

Granted, some people have taken it too far, but that doesn't warrant criticism of all the critics.

Plus, you're being awfully harsh and "irritating" yourself. There's absolutely no need for that type of outrage over something like this.

 

[antboy]

What fringy stuff? Okay, there's some, but the NAU is a BIG issue for a lot of people.

The readership of USA Today is cosmopolitan, business-oriented, and includes a LOT of people who are traveling and who aren't afraid of the rest of the world.

The two issues that are going to be a turn-off to such a reader are the lack of clarity on trade and the negative tone of the discussion of immigration

(1) It should include a statement that Ron Paul is FOR free trade, rather than just a promise to repeal all the trade agreements of the past decade: which by itself sounds like the anti-globalist movement and a strong threat to the type of reader who gets USA Today at his hotel. Point out that managed trade isn't free trade: don't condemn free trade (Ron Paul certainly doesn't do so, and is far more careful in his statements to not sound like an isolationist on trade, as this ad sounds). Use Paul's favorite Jefferson quote supporting "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations."

(2) If we scan skip abortion, we can skip immigration. A business reader told Paul is going to end illegal immigration is going to think (a) SURE he is, (b) I'm having trouble getting qualified workers as it is, and (c) he probably is going to support crackdowns on business hiring and add to my regulatory burden. This is the WORST possible audience to press on immigration: the USA today readers are far and away the most libertarian on immigration. If the ad must address it, the tone should be more positive: (a) end the welfare state and return to an America which attracts people who want opportunity rather than free benefits and (b) reform immigration to welcome those who play by the rules and not reward those who don't. I'd prefer a judicious deletion of the entire immigration topic from this ad, given its audience, but at least let's not drive them away with a fear-filled treatment of the topic. Others have already pointed out that "ending birthright citizenship" is a terrible way to address the subject, and I agree.

Overall, too many topics and too much of a laundry list: his appeal to the USA Today crowd will come from his non-interventionism, sound economic policies, and protection of civil liberties. Appeals that sound anti-globalist and anti-immigrant will dilute and harm the message for the USA Today audience, and make the piece less readable and positive. If we're going to be prudent, let's be prudent.

Like others, my great appreciation to Mr. Lepard for this potentially great contribution to the success of the campaign. My focus on criticism should not be taken as my opinion of the ad: I love most of it, and am focusing on where I think it can be improved for efficiency reasons.

 

[jacmicwag]

First, thank you so much for putting up the money for this ad. If it just contained a pic of Ron and the phrase "who is Ron Paul" we'd probably gain 100,000 votes. Since your draft must be in tonight, I would just recommend more white space and a large picture of Ron at the top. A few quotes would be nice if you can fit them in.

A second option might be to delay printing by a week and just digest some of the many great comments on this thread. If this were my buck, I might also seek the opinion of some folks who create ads for a living and get their take on layout, wording, etc.

As my dad use to say "measure twice, cut once."

 

[skyorbit]

Isn't it
1-877-RON-PAUL (that's 1-877-766-7285).

Not 877 Ron2008?

Tracy

 

[Craig_R]

It's an ad... jezz

no, its an opportunity to introduce Paul to potential voters who may have never heard of him before, much less understand any of his positions.

 

[sugaki]

I commend Illepard for his bold partaking in the campaign.

That said, I'm skeptical as to the efficacy of this.

- I support Ron Paul, but I didn't read all of it, especially the smaller print toward the bottom about Ron Paul
- The UN/NAFTA thing comes across as some assault-gun-wielding, Libertarian dogma. I agree w/ your point, but putting UN and illegal immigration in the same bullet point makes anyone seem like a loonie. The point of about self-dependence can be made without bringing up UN and NAFTA.
- Too much reading. I think it's trying too hard to fit in everything it wants to say into a single page. It needs to pick its battles more.
- I understand it's tapping into Revolution as in the American revolution, but the bigger print should be Ron Paul for President
- Readers are finicky and have a short attention span. They need shorter, catchy text to drive them to read. Word count could be cut by at least 75%.
- The ad can be construed as patronizing. Saying that "We the founders" support Ron Paul is a bit too boastful, esp if people are on the fence about RP and are to believe that RP is a humble guy.

Yeah I'm full of negativity, but by nature of my job I deal with ads all day.

 

[Paulitician]

Nice graphic and ad overall. I have some objections.

Instead of "Now a secretive government" it should be "Now your secretive government." "A secretive government" sounds like it's independent from this government, not to mention it sounds like a conpiracy theory. Speaking about secretive, nowhere in the ad does it say that anything about government transperancy. That's a biggie.

"...warned of the dangers of political parties. Now you have two powerful parties that conpsire against the people, plundering you while they pretend to oppose each other. Ron Paul would return the government to the people."

Really, they conspire? Sheesh. Some people appreciate their political parties. I think instead of saying it's a huge conpiracy, you should suggest that the two parties our constantly in a power struggle and aren't very different ideologically, while pushing the American people to the side. And instead of "would" use the word "WILL." You should use will throught out the ad. "Would" sounds very weak, and theoretical.

"...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."

Well, first of all, mainstream media doesn't need to be capitalized. Secondly, do you really think that would be great in USA Today newspapers? Sheesh. If you're going to be critical of the media, perhaps you should criticize how their horrible performance led us into the war, or something more concrete than those glaring generalities (though I'd agree with them).

Speaking of capitalization, some phrases like national debt, central bank, and national security don't need to be capitalized...

"Is opposed to a North American Union"

Most people don't even know what the NAU is, and those who do know, probably brush it off as conpiracy theory. I think you should say something like "is opposed to the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America, otherwise known as the North American Union, which proposes to join the US, Canada and Mexico into one with with a single currency" or something. Perhaps just leave it out all together.

I think we could do away with the Real ID too. It's not a big issue to most people. And in front of Patriot Act, probably add the word unconstitutional.

Also, I don't think you can speak for the Founders of the country. That's seems dishonest to me and somewhat offensive. Perhaps, you can say something along the lines "For these very reasons, Ron Paul perfectly fits the mold of a Founding Father" or "... Ron Paul shares the same vision for America as the Founders Fathers of America."

Why is Ron Paul's picture so small? People will barely get to see what he looks like.

I like that little box with the tea party site URL, but I don't like the text above it. "Raising 4.3 million in one day got their attention." Got whose attention exactly, and why should I care? "Now it's time to win!" Win what, and why should I care? "If not you, who? If not now, when?" What does that even mean and why should I care? The rest of the text is fine though.

Also, I think you should keep the links at the bottom simple. I would include only the official website, and the telephone number. Maybe leave Ron Paul library.org there as it's a great resource. But a blog and a youtube video... uhh. No doubt they need to hear him speak, but they can find videos on his website.

And, most importantly, are you a professional or have you contacted a professional to get their opinion on it and advice? You might want to do that!

 

[Craig_R]

didnt read the entire thread

heres my suggestion:


Tired of WAR?
Taxes?
Inflation?
Typical Politicians, and Partisan Politics?

So am I. Thats why I'm Voting

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT

Maybe you should too.


(the websites and what have you)

end

But thats just what I would do.

 

[tttar]

The duplicate line after the page break isn't really in the original, is it?

All in all, I see very little I'd want to change.

Of course no one will read it all, as some point out - but it's set up so that the boldfaced parts people are likely to read still tell enough of the story, and if they want to learn more they can read the rest and go directly to what is also my favorite video, the "Stop Dreaming" one.

Maybe also put in boldface the most important few words in each point for easier scanning.

One thing we might be blind to, though: we understand and value each of these messages - but shouldn't the ad maybe be informally tested first on a few hundred people (or on focus groups) who don't normally think about the issues as much as we do? (Or maybe it already has been.)

Ask them how much they read, what first caught their eye, etc. They will respond to it in ways that we won't be able to anticipate, and you'll think of some revisions that will communicate the message in terms they may better relate to.

Maybe we should have passed this around for you for a while, using several versions, or had voted on several versions before you committed yourself to publishing it. (I first heard about it only just now.) I hope you'll have enough time to think about all the feedback to make any changes.

I can only say that if everyone were like me, 100% of USA Today's readers will be impressed and will start supporting Ron the same day...

Check out advertising guru Jay Abraham's excellent advice on how to hook the reader into taking the next step, etc.

 

[tremendoustie]

llepard, as I'm sure you realize, that gmail account is going to be blown out of the water. If you actually use it for anything, you might consider opening a different account for this. I'm sure you know this anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there just in case.

 

[tttar]

Point out how much each family's debt share is. Many might respond to the "$9 trillion" with "the government will think of something."

Ron Paul Himself has pointed out the much larger $65 TRILLION estimate (almost $600,000 PER HOUSEHOLD), which is the present value of our future unfunded liabilities.

But maybe that's a little *too* scary - "can even He pull us out of that one?" Maybe then they'll want to run back to some schmuck who'll make them feel more secure for the time being, by telling them it's not real.

 

[Eric21ND]

I think that ad kind of lacks focus. There's way too much going on in it. The pictures of the Founders are great, but should they be the focus of the ad? I'm not sure. I think an ad with a hopeful message would get better play by the average reader. I understand that you want this ad to run ASAP so a total overhaul probably isn't in order, but we might gain a lot of insight in doing so. For the price of the ad it should be perfect and not rushed to the presses IMO. It might be wise to open up the concept, beyond just the founders ad, maybe a tea party theme, or just a huge picture of Ron Paul smiling and conveying hope and some large bullet points. I agree with another person above, that the ad has a gloomy tone. People don't want gloom and doom right now, they want to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Just my 10 cents.

I would step back from rushing this out.

I would totally open up the ad to new ideas/concepts. Maybe even scraping the founder ad all together.

Lastly its your ad buy so you can do what you wish, I just think with more time we could come up with a really amazing ad like the mosiac one in Iowa. That one was simple and to the point. I doubt people will read all that and actually make it down to the Ron Paul stuff.

 

[stewie3128]

Other uses outside USA Today

Are we going to use this to post in store windows or anything? Certainly this thing should have a life beyond the USA Today adbuy. ...Which absolutely rocks, btw.

 

[tttar]

Yeah, a full-color version we can use for posters would be great.

 

[agisthos]

Even though I love the add personally I think it would be 3x more effective to drop the founding fathers stuff and just have Ron Pauls key points there blown up in bigger font size.

 

[tttar]

There's a lot of value in using a "we warned against, we told you so" theme, though.

"Call Ron Paul a crackpot, and you say the same about the Constitution you say you believe in, and may have even sworn an oath to defend" they need to be wrestling with. And since thinking is something that comes very hard to most people, that just may mean it will be staying on their little minds for that much longer.

Even if he doesn't make it, there will be one hell of a "he told you so - NOW will you listen?" theme for others to use in 4 years.

At least Orwell got the "memory hole" thing wrong. The web isn't going away!

 

[Ozwest]

Why not steal a Mitt Romney ad, and insert Ron Pauls name where his usually goes?

 

[freelance]

Wow, what a bunch of critics.....

llepard,
Don't change a thing if you don't want to. There will be a million different little things to nitpick and critisize....but the message remains the same (Ron Paul is awesome).

Everyone has their own unique way of getting the Ron Paul message out there. Everyone needs to do spread the message their own way instead of attacking others.

Great work and thank you for getting it out there. 3 cheers for llepard!

Very nicely said.

 

[Paul Fan]

Ad is fantastic and will really draw attention. The changes thus far have improved it significantly. I agree there should be a telephone number; so many people still don't use the internet.

Also, a minor suggestion: in line about donations "strictly" from individuals, replace strictly with "only" or "solely." "Strictly" sounds negative and restrictive.

Llepard you are a true leader.

 

[rancher89]

And thank you for taking everyone's advice into consideration. When the people who have a large effect on the campaign listen well, it says to me that we may very well win.

Ditto, I can't wait for the "final" version to be posted!

llepard, thanks for listening to everyone's opinions. We all have "one", and we will work hard for Dr. Ron Paul-Revere so that we will not lose our right to express those opinions.