Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad: Here's why.

Brian Bailey

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
519
From Paulunteer.com.

Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad
December 11th, 2007 · 1 Comment

Speculation is running wild at RonPaulForums.com.

Is the official Ron Paul campaign planning something massive? Some people claiming insider information insist that it is, but they aren’t saying anything. These insiders could be sworn to secrecy, or they could just be inflating expectations for their own amusement.

I’m going to write about the first possibility.

Here is why a Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad would be awesome:

The Super Bowl this year is on February 3rd, just two days before Super Tuesday, February 5th, when 23 states will hold their nominating process.

A 30 second spot during the Super Bowl costs about $2 Million.

90 Million Americans watch the game.

Ron Paul is probably going to raise more money than any other Republican candidate this quarter. An expenditure such as this would announce this fact to everyone as emphatically as it can possibly be announced.

The viewership is a demographic that crosses all spectrums, but let’s face it, consists of a lot of people who are probably not very politically active. A Super Bowl Ad reaches all of them.

We will most likely raise between $6-10 Million on December 16th. Can you think of a better use for a paltry $2 Million of that huge sum?

The only sure way to win the election is with something huge like this.

I repeat: 90 Million Americans. Two days before 23 states hold their primary.

So, February 3rd a captive audience of 90 million people see the amazing ad that the campaign and grassroots put together. (Remember, people actively watch commercials during the Super Bowl.) February 4th everyone goes to work and talks about Ron Paul. February 5th everyone goes to the polls and votes for Ron Paul.

Result: We. Win.
 
Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.
 
It makes sense to me. Plus, people are going to be talking about the ad before it even runs, so thats even more exposure.

If we can get celebrities endorsing Paul for the ad it would be even better.

It can be the grassroots making the ad, no HQ.
 
If it's to be done, it should be a grassroots effort like the blimp, forget HQ. Hell, maybe see if we can contract Liberty Advertising to do it. I'm sure they won't mind diversifying into television from zepplins. We'll hold our own YouTube contest like HQ did for CNN, with roughly the same rules (though the 2nd format should be 1080i if commercials are going to be aired in HD this year), but with all entries public. Hell, even allow older 30-sec ads as entries.

The only question is: is raising 2 million between 12/16 and whenever the ad would have to be submitted possible?
 
Do you have a captive audience of 90 million people in your pocket that you're not telling us about? Cuz that would be cool...
Yes, we have access to approximately 300 million people, many who are of voting age. Go pass out some slimjims.
 
I would say if he gets $10M+ on Sunday, that this might be a good strategy. I don't know of anywhere else where so many people are glued to the commercials. I usually watch the commercials instead of the game :D IF they can somehow put together a humorous commercial, I think it will be worth the money spent for those who would be new donors. Even if you only got a 1% response, you have hundreds of thousands of new supporters who are now also spreading the message. Think of all the watercooler talk as well. I think the commercial should focus on the war AND the economic situation/IRS.
 
To run a 30 second commercial ONE time during the Super Bowl is going to cost millions. I think there is better ways of spending that money, but that is just me.
 
What about the show right after the Super Bowl? Those ad spots have to cost less, and we should still get plenty of viewers. Anyone have historical ratings?
 
Yes, we have access to approximately 300 million people, many who are of voting age. Go pass out some slimjims.

No reason to be nasty. You have no idea what I'm doing for this campaign.

I'm not sure you know what a captive audience is, either.
 
It would cost more than $2 million... This sort of thing needs to be professionally written and produced. If it's not, unless you get extraordinarily lucky, you've wasted your $2 million and on top of that the ad would most likely reflect poorly on the campaign. Besides, people generally aren't open to strong political messages during the Superbowl, especially when they're usually in loud, boisterous groups having a party. It would risk turning off lots of potential supporters. My opinion: too little time, not enough money, and even though it has a potentially large upside, the downside has no bottom.
 
Political ads aren't allowed for Superbowl commercials.
They tried it for Kerry/Bush and were declined.
 
I think it's a great idea. Especially if it's announced before IA/NH to generate some MSM buzz. Just announcing they were going to do this would be news worthy IMHO. Getting RP into the casual voters short list of viable candidates is a big deal, and the buzz would help.
 
This is a horrible idea for many reasons.

1. Advertisements need repetition to become effective
2. 30 seconds isn't long enough to have a big enough impact
3. The money could be better spent by spreading it out
 
I don't think this is a good idea at all, honestly. Perhaps it would fly if we were trying to win the general election, but we're not. We're trying to get the Republican party nomination, and that means we need to not just get people to say "Oh, hey, I know who Ron Paul is now" but also to say "I'm going to go vote for him in the primary". The call to action is the tough (impossible) part with a 30 second superbowl spot. You'll increase name recognition among the general population if the ad is done extremely well, but you won't get any more people out to the polls.
 
were not gonna win this election tip-toeing around. theres a time for calculated risks and what better time than in front of 90 million people? think of it, we've done pretty decent in the early states lets hypothetically say we are in a statistical 4th place finish coming into the super Tuesday and BOOM just like the Terry Tate commercial of yesteryear we have a great response whether the ad makes fun of other republicans or if its very positive. the chance of not only reaching 90 million viewers but also the possibility of having a very creative ad that has people saying "hey i like this guy and im not too happy with any other presidential candidate, why not vote for this guy"
 
Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.

Maybe the campaign should hire a pro ad firm to produce the commercial.
 
Back
Top