Fifth Draft of USA Today Ad -- Really about final!!

[SeanEdwards]

Revisiting someone's sample from thread about draft #2... only to point out the Founders' facing center, Ron Paul same size, a PROFOUND improvement:

I like this version best. I think it's much better than the 5th edit version. In particular the fifth edit has returned to using "We The Founders" statement that presents the founders in a weird first-person perspective that is disrespectful in my opinion.

Edit: However, I think there are too many websites listed on the bottom of this version.

 

[sugaki]

Ron Paul's face should at least be as big as the founding fathers. Else you're putting more importance on them and not Ron Paul.

 

[syborius]

Lets see the final draft

I think we are getting close to production regardless.

Besides the bickering this is still a very, very good ad. We can never reach perfection, but I am certain people will take notice.

Thank you for all the hard work!!

For Liberty!

 

[ProBlue33]

HEY llepard RUN IT!

See he likes the ad guys, You know what i notice? Its the younger generation complaining and saying the ad sucks. How many of us read USA TODAY? Or even pick up a paper and read it for 30 mins or more? My generation has Attention Deficit Disorder.

We get all our news online or TV. What works for us doesn't work for the 50 plus crowd.

I'm willing to bet they will read all the way through and enjoy every minute of it. I bet they cut it out and save it.

YES, this is very true, young people perceive things different than older people, since you(llepard) are 50, you must know what will work for them. The 15 year olds have no clue because of the generation gap. Stick with it.

 

[acmegeek]

Yes, thank you Larry Lepard and the team!!!

I'm pretty sure I speak for all of us offering constructive criticism when I say: THANK YOU!!!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, your effort of putting up your own money to publish this ad is truly a selfless act of patriotism.

I don't have anywhere near that kind of money to donate, but I am willing to give of my services as much as I can. And everyone else who has a talent, give what you can!

So again I say a heartfelt thank you to Larry, Linda and all who have been working so hard on this ad!

 

[francisco]

...See he likes the ad guys, You know what i notice? Its the younger generation complaining and saying the ad sucks. How many of us read USA TODAY? Or even pick up a paper and read it for 30 mins or more? My generation has Attention Deficit Disorder.

We get all our news online or TV. What works for us doesn't work for the 50 plus crowd...

I am 53 years old. The Acmegeek version is much better than the latest v.5

 

[4Horsemen]

A suggestion I got from another board.

...warned you to guard your rights of citizenship. Now your borders are left open to legions of illegal aliens. The Constitution is a binding agreement between the government and its citizens. The presence of illegal aliens undermines the will of the People. (Ron Paul will secure our borders and put America and Americans first)

Remeber, many people aren't aware of the U.N. agenda, and it may could turn them off. It still supports the resentment of the people without going into uncharted territory.

 

[Chomsky]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to busy and cluttered. IMHO

 

[acmegeek]

Something to keep in mind....

This is a full page newspaper ad. On our screens it may appear to be cluttered, but on a full page, it won't look that bad at all. In fact, the opposing page, if it has news will be much denser as far as text goes.

So, just keep that in mind. If they were designing something for a brochure or flyer or something, then yes it is too busy, but the space they have to work with is pretty big.

 

[Aballistar]

Still think the founding fathers should be facing center and staring the reader in the eyes. Other than that, GREAT!

Edit: As Sean Edwards shows, above.

 

[DesertRat]

Excellent point...

This is a full page newspaper ad. On our screens it may appear to be cluttered, but on a full page, it won't look that bad at all. In fact, the opposing page, if it has news will be much denser as far as text goes.

So, just keep that in mind. If they were designing something for a brochure or flyer or something, then yes it is too busy, but the space they have to work with is pretty big.

Good to remember that this thing will be printed on a very large piece of paper next to typical newspaper text.

Also, in all my posts offering suggestions I forgot to thank the generous person who is financing this and working so hard to make it happen.

So here is a big THANK YOU!!

 

[adam1mc]

I second that...

Thank you Lawrence

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Revolution is exactly right.

Advice to llepard: Follow your heart.

It's time to just run the ad. Talk talk talk, delete delete delete, they won't like this, they won't like that, blah blah blah. RUN IT DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!

 

[Midnight77]

I must also agree very strongly that Ron Paul should have a much bigger pic then what he has in the ad. Sorry to be picky, but a lot of money is being spent on this and we get one shot at it.

 

[gworrel]

I have not been following the development and discussion of this. As a result my perspective may be a little fresher than some. I had looked at the first draft a couple of days ago and now I have looked at the latest draft and compared some parts of it to the 2nd draft just recently posted.

One first impression when reading the first ad was I didn't understand the "We the Founders" construct. The second draft with "The Founding Fathers..." makes much more sense to me.

Reading the latest draft I hate to say it but I was immediately put off by the first paragraph about foreign entanglements. In the second draft, that paragraph was simple and to the point. In the latest draft, it made me want to just stop reading and skip down. I test in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension but the second sentence in that paragraph is way too complex for the intended purpose here. Once you have read it 5 times it may make perfect sense but the average reader is going to stop reading right there at that sentence. A small part of the problem is the punctuation. There is no reason for a comma after "weapons".

Better yet, I suggest returning to a sentence more like the one in the 2nd draft. My suggestion: "Now thousands of our men and women suffer and die in foreign battles with no real connection to our national security." This helps to bring out the idea that Ron Paul is not opposed to defending the country when our national security is involved. The "we once funded" part is too confusing to people who are not knowledgeable about the history of many of our overseas adversaries. Which means most readers will not know what that is about.

Hope this helps. Thanks.

 

[expatinireland]

Just looked at the ad for the first time. I agree that "The Founding Fathers" reads
easier than "We The Founding Fathers".

In the "warned" clauses, in some instances I find the uses of you, and your confusing. Most people when they see the word "you" take it to mean themselves.

For example In the first "warned" clause I believe "trusted allies and friends America supports" is clearer than "trusted allies and friends that you support".

Parenthesis are not required around Ron Paul's positions in bold.

All in my own honest opinion.

Many thanks to the generous benefactor.

 

[torchbearer]

Surely, but if I were going to drop 100k, I certainly wouldn't mind - actually, strike that, I'd be doing everything in my power to garner as many multiple millions in free MSM-over-reacting advertising as I could get.

Its called the truth - and its on the side of Dr. Paul.

QFT!

 

[freedom_junkie]

Run it, just run it! people will know it was a supporter who ran it, no one is perfect. The message comes out!

 

[Libertarian]

"Reading the latest draft I hate to say it but I was immediately put off by the first paragraph about foreign entanglements. In the second draft, that paragraph was simple and to the point. In the latest draft, it made me want to just stop reading and skip down. I test in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension but the second sentence in that paragraph is way too complex for the intended purpose here. Once you have read it 5 times it may make perfect sense but the average reader is going to stop reading right there at that sentence. A small part of the problem is the punctuation. There is no reason for a comma after "weapons".


Agree 100%

Other than that, the ad is perfect. Even if nothing is changed, it's still near perfect. Just run it. It's GOOD!

 

[davidkachel]

If you change "we the founding fathers" for just "the founding fathers", then all semblance of arrogance is removed and you've got it. You do not want to give the impression that RP or his supporters claim to speak for the founding fathers.