GUN MAGAZINE AD, almost complete. WHICH ONE?

[smtwngrl]

Tell them something they don't already know.

With past ads, one claim was that they had too much information. I think the reason this one is boring is (apart from the design) is that it has too little information.

The ad should tell them that Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate for defending the second amendment--and how he is the best candidate. The quotes are good, but the readers need more. In other words, it should say something about what he has done in Congress.

Here's a good page at ronpaul2008.com for gunowners. If you look halfway down this page, it gives info about what things Ron Paul has done in Congress relative to the 2nd amendment.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/

There are also links to other pages that have more information about Ron Paul and the second amendment (including endorsements and other candidates positions).

Whatever information you include in the ad should be tied together. The great thing about the Founding Fathers ad was that it drews the reader into the page and made him/her want to read it. That should be the goal for your ad, too.

Just my .02.

 

[Chase]

I like version 3. It is simple, which makes it easy and quick to read. If I saw "STICK TO YOUR GUNS" in huge font, I'd probably take the time to read the few sentences that followed. And the quote about defense of tyranny would certainly have me Googling Ron Paul if I didn't already know who he was.

 

[krott5333]

With past ads, one claim was that they had too much information. I think the reason this one is boring is (apart from the design) is that it has too little information.

The ad should tell them that Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate for defending the second amendment--and how he is the best candidate. The quotes are good, but the readers need more. In other words, it should say something about what he has done in Congress.

Here's a good page at ronpaul2008.com for gunowners. If you look halfway down this page, it gives info about what things Ron Paul has done in Congress relative to the 2nd amendment.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/

There are also links to other pages that have more information about Ron Paul and the second amendment (including endorsements and other candidates positions).

Whatever information you include in the ad should be tied together. The great thing about the Founding Fathers ad was that it drews the reader into the page and made him/her want to read it. That should be the goal for your ad, too.

Just my .02.

however, with the founding fathers ad, alot of people that I saw look at it would just glance at it. I think there may have been TOO MUCH information. Personally, ads with a lot of white space draw me in much more readily than an ad chock full of information that I don't feel like reading.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

I like the Ron Paul quote in version 3. It's the entire purpose of the 2A in one short paragraph.

 

[literatim]

however, with the founding fathers ad, alot of people that I saw look at it would just glance at it. I think there may have been TOO MUCH information. Personally, ads with a lot of white space draw me in much more readily than an ad chock full of information that I don't feel like reading.

The full fledged color flier is better.

 

[DealzOnWheelz]

How bout a background image of a guy in a flannel with his arms out like he is going to be cuffed and his sleeves are rolled up(bear arms) and tattooed on his forearms are

(FREE) (DOM)

 

[apc3161]

Chipped $10. Should you not move up the deadline? Ideally we need to get these ads in the magazine as soon as possible.

 

[American]

There fliers on the RP08 site look good what wrong with them?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/84.pdf

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/78.pdf

 

[Birdlady]

Here is what I was thinking in my head. I really like the concept of the original ad, but this is what I think makes it look complete. I am by no means a graphic designer, but I am good at visual merchandising which is similar lol

 

[Chase]

That's not bad, would look for a different RP photo though.

 

[krott5333]

if someone can take the flag background out of this, and turn it into grayscale, i might put it on there.

 

[Birdlady]

That's not bad, would look for a different RP photo though.

There is always this picture.

 

[rrroae]

Please don't advertise this.

Gun owners will think this message is out there.

 

[rrroae]

If you really want to understand the pulse of gun owners, look here.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5

 

[AMBurns]

Hope this helps.

 

[BLS]

The full fledged color flier is better.

No, it's not.

 

[BLS]

If you really want to understand the pulse of gun owners, look here.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5

Krott is an AVID member of a gun forum already.
He knows his guns and gun owners.

 

[krott5333]

Hope this helps.

thank you

 

[krott5333]

If you really want to understand the pulse of gun owners, look here.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5

or I could just ask myself

I used to be a one issue voter.. that issue being gun rights.

 

[Smiley Gladhands]

Does the idea of preventing tyranny inspire gun owners who are NOT already supporting Ron Paul? It seems like our target demographic cares more about preventing dirty bombs from blowing up in our shopping malls than preventing tyranny (you have to have your eyes open a bit to even see that the tyrannical path is more likely than a dirty bomb).

Not that the 'preventing tyranny' quote isn't one of my favorites, but it's really the only selling point in the ad. I'm not sure it targets our audience.

I'm a fan of [some] white space, and the 'Stick to your guns' in big print, but I vote that we have a few more facts on there, like how Ron fought against HR 2640 and would veto any legislation banning semi-autos, etc. I actually don't even care which facts, but I prefer something besides telling people that Ron would fight NOT for your right to protect yourself, NOT for your right to hunt animals, but instead for your right to prevent tyranny (that's how it would likely sound to dumb people....and I personally think we've already skimmed the cream of the crop, and that we're going to have to start aiming a little lower). Am I wrong?