FANCY =-) The New YAL

[mediahasyou]

young americans for liberty new site: http://bit.ly/xZCc5

 

[Austin]

That is what CFL's site should look like..

I'm very proud to be a part of YAL.

 

[0zzy]

it's decent

 

[Austin]

it's decent

Is there something in particular that you don't find appealing?

 

[t0rnado]

It's nice and it looks like it's the same company that made Ron Paul's original campaign site and Bob Barr's site.

 

[Knightskye]

Seriously, check out the homepage. It's awesome.
http://www.yaliberty.org/

That is what CFL's site should look like..

Yeah, CFL actually gave them seed money.

 

[AuH2O]

That is what CFL's site should look like..

I'm very proud to be a part of YAL.

Handsome yes, but worth the cost, I don't think so. It is a violation of most donors' trust to spend that kind of money on an attractive website when there is so much else to be done.

 

[AdamT]

Handsome yes, but worth the cost, I don't think so. It is a violation of most donors' trust to spend that kind of money on an attractive website when there is so much else to be done.

Oh really? A website is the first thing new visitors see and consider, and they make a decision within seconds if what they are looking at is something they want to re-visit, or is an organization they might want to get involved with. They are trained by professional million dollar sites they look at and shop at everyday - and may not find an amateur site design very worthy or credible.

We need to increase our numbers, bottom line. That requires converting mainstream MSM-watching Americans to overcome their life-long programming and come to our side (no easy chore right there on it's own).

If the first thing they see is an amateur site design at the CFL - and get turned off - then all our efforts at the grassroots level at bringing in new people are pretty much wasted. This irritates me to no end. So yes I would consider an investment in a beautiful and modern website a top priority in dollars spent. Then we can actually feel good about handing out flyers with the CFL website on them. Hell, if the site was awesome it could even be a talking point on getting people to check it out.

I really hope the CFL takes the hint here, seeing their sister organization now has a website design far superior to their own. IMO it's a violation of the donor's trust to have a crappy design that turns new people off within seconds.

 

[AuH2O]

Oh really? A website is the first thing new visitors see and consider, and they make a decision within seconds if what they are looking at is something they want to re-visit, or is an organization they might want to get involved with. They are trained by professional million dollar sites they look at and shop at everyday - and may not find an amateur site design very worthy or credible.

We need to increase our numbers, bottom line. That requires converting mainstream MSM-watching Americans to overcome their life-long programming and come to our side (no easy chore right there on it's own).

If the first thing they see is an amateur site design at the CFL - and get turned off - then all our efforts at the grassroots level at bringing in new people are pretty much wasted. This irritates me to no end. So yes I would consider an investment in a beautiful and modern website a top priority in dollars spent. Then we can actually feel good about handing out flyers with the CFL website on them. Hell, if the site was awesome it could even be a talking point on getting people to check it out.

I really hope the CFL takes the hint here, seeing their sister organization now has a website design far superior to their own. IMO it's a violation of the donor's trust to have a crappy design that turns new people off within seconds.

If you think the way most people are won to an activist organization is a website, you are spending too much time on Ron Paul Forums.

I agree that the "website is the first thing new visitors see and consider", but you are completely ignoring the fact that not everyone introduced to your organization is being introduced by way of your website.

For the $50k+ that website cost, you can solicit more new members through other means.

A large chunk of the several million dues-paying members of the NRA have never seen their website. But if you think they don't give to the organization, or take part in influencing legislation or elections (often negatively, because the NRA sucks, but you get the point), you are dead wrong.

This is a new age and the internet is critical, but traditional marketing methods are proven to work and are still proving to be as effective, if not more, than ever before. If someone runs some A/B tests and shows me some proven empirical data that spending over fifty grand on a website is a more effective expense, dollar for dollar, than an effective direct mail campaign, I'll eat my words. But there just isn't any proven evidence of this.

With that said, I think the website is awesome, very good looking, and should have some very useful tools. I just don't believe it is worth the cost.

 

[Jordan]

Please tell me that website didn't cost $50k.

Shit, that site could easily be done on a $1000 budget. I don't know what the members area looks like, but contracting a site to a design shop rather than freelancers makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Epic]

I doubt that cost 50k.

The website couldn't be more important though - it's the first impression for most people.

CFL has a lot of money - they should do the Terra Eclipse thing and fork over whatever it costs.

If the LP, BJ Lawson, Adam Kokesh, McClintock, and Vasovski can afford a Terra Eclipse, CFL can probably afford a tricked-out site.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I miss Banksy's flower thrower.

 

[dr. hfn]

I doubt that cost 50k.

The website couldn't be more important though - it's the first impression for most people.

CFL has a lot of money - they should do the Terra Eclipse thing and fork over whatever it costs.

If the LP, BJ Lawson, Adam Kokesh, McClintock, and Vasovski can afford a Terra Eclipse, CFL can probably afford a tricked-out site.

agreed

 

[dr. hfn]

Oh really? A website is the first thing new visitors see and consider, and they make a decision within seconds if what they are looking at is something they want to re-visit, or is an organization they might want to get involved with. They are trained by professional million dollar sites they look at and shop at everyday - and may not find an amateur site design very worthy or credible.

We need to increase our numbers, bottom line. That requires converting mainstream MSM-watching Americans to overcome their life-long programming and come to our side (no easy chore right there on it's own).

If the first thing they see is an amateur site design at the CFL - and get turned off - then all our efforts at the grassroots level at bringing in new people are pretty much wasted. This irritates me to no end. So yes I would consider an investment in a beautiful and modern website a top priority in dollars spent. Then we can actually feel good about handing out flyers with the CFL website on them. Hell, if the site was awesome it could even be a talking point on getting people to check it out.

I really hope the CFL takes the hint here, seeing their sister organization now has a website design far superior to their own. IMO it's a violation of the donor's trust to have a crappy design that turns new people off within seconds.

I like all the features on the C4L site, it just isn't attractive

 

[mediahasyou]

the website was worth it considering the audience. all YAL members are young, tech savvy students.

 

[tonyr1988]

I miss Banksy's flower thrower.

http://www.yaliberty.org/join