If Elijah doesn't change the graphics back, he is going to loose half the pledges

[TooConservative]

The artwork is in production? ...and nobody even knows for certain that there is going to be enough funds donated to cover the cost of the blimp? Who is footing the bill for this artwork to already be "in production"?

I am not taking any sides here....just seems odd.

It starts to sound like a hard sell. The answers provided aren't encouraging.

Four lawyers hired, artwork "in production", etc. This thing is turning into quite a huge production for a flying billboard.

I think a traditional billboard campaign or efforts like the very nice USAToday ad look a lot better now.

Why didn't anyone tell the donors all this other stuff up front?

 

[DealzOnWheelz]

ELIJAH

Ron Paul for President 2008 is a must!!! The reason is because we are at a crucial moment in the campaign. So the next step is Branding the campaign. Who is Ron Paul? and Google Ron PAul are great around college campuses. But the people that don't have internet access won't have any clue. The other reason is when a person see's the official campaign logo on the blimp saying Ron Paul for President 08 and then they drive past a Campaign sign they will remember the blimp. Your Retention Rate just doubled and then every other time they see another sign it gets ingrained even more.

 

[RonPaul2012grassroots]

I think only the words RON PAUL should be on the blimp, as big as possible, that way you can see it from as far away as possible. If people are curious they will google it. If they don't google it, they weren't going to anyways, putting the word "google" or "who is" on the blimp won't change that.

This thing is going to be pretty high up in the sky and you want as many people to see it as possible.

Extra words are just a waste


KEEP IT SIMPLE!... These guys know what they are doing:

This is precisely why we have "Ron Paul" as the most predominate aspect of all our artwork. We are trying to build a sense of familiarity. It is really no different than selling soap, toothpaste, deodorant, etc. The blimp is ancillary to other advertising and activities, e.g. placing signs & banners, canvassing/precinct walking, passing out DVDs, push cards, & slimjims, working events, youtube videos, rallies, sign waves, etc., etc. It should not be the focus and cannot reasonably be expected to be the focus.

I suggest the dropping of the 'messaging'. It is a waste of space. I also suggest the boldness and size be boosted for maximum visibility at a distance. As noted, you don't see other advertisers attempting to message on the same space.

IMO

Also, you will note on our artwork we have eliminated the "for", as it conveys a negative subliminal.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I suggest the dropping of the 'messaging'. It is a waste of space. I also suggest the boldness and size be boosted for maximum visibility at a distance. As noted, you don't see other advertisers attempting to message on the same space.

Yes!

And get rid of that damned question mark and the scribbled and carated/inserted "Who Is" which nobody would be able to see anyway--i.e., nobody would see it except the press who would feature it as an example of pathetic anti-social Randian outsiders--whose only hope is to escape to a fantasy gultch (or their mothers' basements).

But it doesn't look like its going to happen anyway. Well, it was a great idea and fun while it lasted.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

The Metlife/Snoopy design would have been a great model. "Ron Paul" and then a big RP Face similar to the stenciled ones on all of our signs (but nicer).

 

[Man from La Mancha]

The Metlife/Snoopy design would have been a great model. "Ron Paul" and then a big RP Face similar to the stenciled ones on all of our signs (but nicer).

But with out the picture the letters would of been bigger.

.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Yes, that would be fine too. But you notice that all three of the professional examples above combine a graphic/logo with their monster name somehow--and we've been doing that with all of our stenciled signage around town.

 

[AAjax]

They are basically asking us to fund the start of their new company....it started out as a blimp for Ron Paul, but it is something else now....even the news is reporting Trevor is trying to start up his own company...

There is some truth to this. When it became for-profit I think it may have jumped the shark.

I truly hope not, however I think Ill hold off donating until I'm assured of just one thing.

Will I get my money back if it dosent fly in time for the tea party?

If the answer is yes, than you've got my contribution.

 

[Bakkhus]

Blimp's Message Was Aimed at 2 Parties

I suggest the dropping of the 'messaging'. It is a waste of space. I also suggest the boldness and size be boosted for maximum visibility at a distance. As noted, you don't see other advertisers attempting to message on the same space.

What people are forgetting in believing that dropping the message was a good idea is that the blimp's function is to both draw the attention of the people on the ground and the media (especially local media). An argument could be made that the media attention actually trumps the attention of people on the ground who largely may ignore the blimp, their lives being already so ad-saturated. Thus with the message you are leading the local media to focus their attention on the three primary pillars of Paul's campaign: Peace (the only candidate campaigning to bring our troops home from all over the world), Prosperity (the only candidate campaigning to back our currency with hard assets), and Freedom (the only candidate to vote against the Patriot Act and the only candidate who believes in the sanctity of personal freedoms and liberty across the board). The idea that any other republican primary candidate (as some posters have argued) could run on these pillars is unfounded. And it is these three things (peace, prosperity, and freedom) which the average American is most concerned about at this time. While the "Revolution" logo is nice for certain marketing/PR activities, it isn't appropriate here, as it needs to be kept in mind that most Americans don't want a revolution; that idea scares them; and, as such, they find some of Paul's ideas pretty scary and too radical. To ease these fears it is better to promote the positive aspects that will result from Paul's platform--and his belief that there is "a lot of good in the American" people which can effect change abroad much more effectively than at the point of a gun.