Ron Paul, Buy a 15 Minute Block Of TV Time. Subvert The MSM! Speak To The People!

[tangent4ronpaul]

Also, maybe this is for another thread, but what about a 15 minute, uninterrupted radio broadcast? Can you buy a 15 minute block of time? Would this be any cheaper? Too scattershot?

Haha, can you tell I'm getting blurry eyed over my John Galt radio address fantasy? Ahhh, a fellow can dream.

Available ad buys are 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 28.5 minutes, and 57 minutes.

15 minutes is not an option.

-t

 

[Andrew76]

And a lot of people like that idea. REALLY LIKE IT!

And SUPRISE! - A lot of people that like Paul are NOT registered Republicans. We probably have more Paul supporters that are Independents, disenfranchised Democrats and people that have never voted before than we have registered Republicans. The numbers were posted somewhere here before from a poll, but I believe Republicans were the minority. In many/most states these people can vote in a primary.

Most of them don't know that or why they should.

Planning, production team, moneybomb, ad buy = done deal. It's not like we are stealing door knockers from the campaign, if anything we are trying to give them more people to knock on doors and they are too set in their narrow vision to see that.

-t

I agree we could raise the money. It's the logistics I'm wary of. TV production for broadcast is no small task. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

 

[Andrew76]

28.5 seems decent. Maybe we could do both! Seize the damn airwaves! The glory!

 

[Tarzan]

Also, maybe this is for another thread, but what about a 15 minute, uninterrupted radio broadcast? Can you buy a 15 minute block of time? Would this be any cheaper? Too scattershot?

I would suggest a new thread with the Radio idea rather than the TV and radio topic in the same place... way confusing.

As for me, nationwide radio is largely dead. There are some rural markets where it might be effective but the target venues are too numerous.


I wish you could appreciate the humor of quoting Shorty's Shadow (sorry, insider joke).

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I agree we could raise the money. It's the logistics I'm wary of. TV production for broadcast is no small task. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

There are people in the movement that do it for a living as well as professional film makers.

I was slightly off on that 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 breakdown. From Gallup Aug 11-14 2011

Republicans 28%
Independents 44%
Democrats 26%

-t

 

[parocks]

Who are these campaign staffers who are constantly here telling us what to do? I'm somewhere in the middle on a lot of this grassroots / campaign stuff, but if I knew I was arguing with an official campaign staffer, I'd quickly come to their way of thinking. I don't think there are many staffers here who are making themselves known as staffers and issuing instructions. I would be in favor of that.

The election is months and months away. Is Rick Perry currently sending his minions door to door, is he identifying his voters already? Is Romney? Is anybody? Or is it just us.

There will be a time when the official campaign needs a lot of people to go door to door and to make phone calls. Ususally it's a lot closer to the actual election, not months and months beforehand. What we should be doing, as grassroots, is finding those people, many new volunteers, get them organized, and ready to work on the official campaign when the official campaign needs people to do that work.

Not as much as starting the voter ID now, but basically acting as a volunteer coordinator.

 

[parocks]

And a lot of people like that idea. REALLY LIKE IT!

And SUPRISE! - A lot of people that like Paul are NOT registered Republicans. We probably have more Paul supporters that are Independents, disenfranchised Democrats and people that have never voted before than we have registered Republicans. The numbers were posted somewhere here before from a poll, but I believe Republicans were the minority. In many/most states these people can vote in a primary.

Most of them don't know that or why they should.

Planning, production team, moneybomb, ad buy = done deal. It's not like we are stealing door knockers from the campaign, if anything we are trying to give them more people to knock on doors and they are too set in their narrow vision to see that.

-t

Where are you getting the idea that the people who are arguing against these ideas are somehow involved with the campaign?

Also, if you thought that they were with the official campaign, shouldn't you be listening to them?

I never get the idea that the usual suspects naysayers are involved with the official campaign. They just have their own idea, which does have a real kernel of truth in it. Of course, we can't forget those who are likeliest to vote - old registered Republicans who typically vote in primaries.

It's really up to Ron Paul to make the sale, not random bands of grassroots volunteers. We, the random bands of grassroots volunteers need to be ready, to be organized, and to be numerous, for when the official campaign needs us to make phone calls to find those people that Ron Paul has persuaded to like him. We call them, or go to their house, or whatever method that the official campaign comes up with.

 

[Tarzan]

if I knew I was arguing with an official campaign staffer, I'd quickly come to their way of thinking.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

bump

 

[cmlanc]

I agree with this idea COMPLETELY.

 

[angelatc]

experienced, campaign-types push those traditional tactics

Every single campaign is doing exactly those same things. Only one of them will win.

because those are the things that have a history of being effective.

But so are television spots. This isn't an either / or proposition.

 

[angelatc]

Why are some people so liberal with the spending of campaign funds? I see these threads, and it reminds me of our Congress.

A 15 minute spot cross-targets too many of us who are already on board. It's not exactly an effective way to spend money. Ross Perot aired infomercials, and while it did help, it also turned off many voters too. Not to mention, that was such a different era, it's not even fair to compare the two.

We all know the campaign is deaf to us. Nobody is talking about spending their money. It is absurd to say that Perot's television spots turned people off. He went from 3% to 32% instantly. Perhaps it is a different era, but the sitting president used the same technique during the last election.

There is no legitimate reason to think that this will hurt Ron Paul.

 

[erowe1]

I haven't kept up with this thread. Is there some kind of a grassroots thing being planned?

 

[kazmlsj]

Agree.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts. Abraham Lincoln

 

[trey4sports]

Every single campaign is doing exactly those same things. Only one of them will win.
But so are television spots. This isn't an either / or proposition.

When you have limited funds it really is. Why don't you see small campaigns doing tv spots? Because they're not as effective as other tactics.

 

[Tarzan]

When you have limited funds it really is. Why don't you see small campaigns doing tv spots? Because they're not as effective as other tactics.

Wow... that's just not true. We have used them with great results in local elections for the state legislature. They were surprisingly affordable and generated outstanding results. Conversely, we saw rather poor results from direct mail pieces when we tracked them directly. When considered in conjunction with a combined marketing effort, the direct mail pieces did slightly better. This is a completely normal result in a combined marketing effort. The methods you are supporting are only part of a total marketing strategy... and will fail when used in isolation.

It sounds like you took training from CFL and have been misinformed... or, do you actually work for CFL or the campaign?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I haven't kept up with this thread. Is there some kind of a grassroots thing being planned?

Yes - something is being planned. To save you a bunch of time reading through the thread - any post by Napolian's Shadow, Agent Orange or Tray4sports can be ignored as about 1/4th of the posts are their effort to derail this project and mostly all say the same thing. At least one is a confirmed campaign staffer. They are using classic trolling tactics to stir up shit.

You might also want to skip posts by parocks.

-t

 

[Todd]

Didn't this work for Perot? Great idea.

 

[erowe1]

Yes - something is being planned. To save you a bunch of time reading through the thread - any post by Napolian's Shadow, Agent Orange or Tray4sports can be ignored as about 1/4th of the posts are their effort to derail this project and mostly all say the same thing. At least one is a confirmed campaign staffer. They are using classic trolling tactics to stir up shit.

You might also want to skip posts by parocks.

-t

I haven't read much of this thread at all, including whatever those people have said. So I apologize if this is repeating anything. And I hope I'm not coming across as negative.

But why not just keep donating to the campaign and RevPAC, and if they decide that that's a good use of the funds they get then they can bankroll it? Or, if they want to raise funds specifically for an infomercial, they can send out an email. I'm sure they'd raise more toward it than a grassroots upstart group would.

 

[CrissyNY]

I would donate to this project. I think it's a great idea.