So do I. This way they're all looking right at the reader. I think it's an important change.
Third Draft of USA Today Ad -- Close to final!!
- Thread starter Bryan
- Start date
- Status
So do I. This way they're all looking right at the reader. I think it's an important change.
Drknows
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
Exactly most foreign and domestic special interest groups wont give him any money because he votes with the constitution.
I also like all the eyes forward.
Cindy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,568
Great except for the anti-war part. Statements like that are a part of why some are calling him a liberal.
He is anti-IRAQ war.
Otherwise, Paul has no problem with defensive war, if we are attacked. Paul did vote to go into Afghanastan after Bin Laden& Al Queda and is currently very miffed at why when we had him on the run in Tora Bora, stopped the chase when he fled into Pakistan, " because they are our allies", gave up on him, and stayed in Afghanastan to nation build instead, then attacked a country where Al Queda had no presense because Saddamn didn't like them.
I would put anti-Iraq war so as not to marginalize him to the liberal side.
He is anti-IRAQ war.
Otherwise, Paul has no problem with defensive war, if we are attacked. Paul did vote to go into Afghanastan after Bin Laden& Al Queda and is currently very miffed at why when we had him on the run in Tora Bora, stopped the chase when he fled into Pakistan, " because they are our allies", gave up on him, and stayed in Afghanastan to nation build instead, then attacked a country where Al Queda had no presense because Saddamn didn't like them.
I would put anti-Iraq war so as not to marginalize him to the liberal side.
stewie3128
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Messages
- 431
This ad would work well in the WSJ - would anyone else like to buy space in that paper for it?
Cindy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,568
What was not aggressive about going into Afghanastan? He supported that.
To say he is anti war is false. Someone could call us or Paul on that line in the ad if they see he supported going into Afghanastan.
To be correct and keep constistant and with the truth, it should say, Anti- Iraq War or Anti-Premptive War.
Afghanstan was not pre-emptive either because we went in to the country after Al-Queda who are said to be responcible for the the 9/11 attacks.
I would hate to see that one line backfire if someone brings up his support of going into Afghanastan after Al Queda. The thing we love about paul is the credibility of his message. Paul corrects interviewers when he calls them anti war. he says, "No, I am against pre-emptive strikes and attacks", and then he reminds them that he supported going after Al Queda.
A lot of money is being spent on this and millions are going to see it.
I would make just that one correction, otherwise I think it is awesome and I will be buying a ton of legal size papper tomorrow to print copies for handing out.
Ron Paul Fan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,005
Yep. I think you or someone else also said this in the 1st draft thread and it was ignored. I'd like some confirmation before we put something in the ad that just isn't true. Can someone tell me with 100% certainty that if a lobbyist was dumb enough to donate to Ron Paul tomorrow that he'd give it back? And do you have a verification of this claim from either Ron Paul, Kent Snyder, or Johnathan Bydlack's mouths?
ronpaulhawaii
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 11,874
1 - Pics- I liked the eyes looking at and facing in
2 - Warnings -perhaps capitalize WILL in the reduce taxes line
3 - I find the anti-war fiscally conservative thing unnecessary and off balance
4 - Left checkmark #3- perhaps replaced "non-interventionalist" with 'commerce based'
5 - TeaParty - perhaps replace "more than any other ..." with 'from over 38,000 individuals'
6 - Right check #2 - Perhaps 'Lobbyists and Special interests have NEVER bought RP's vote...'
and I'm still stunned. My hat is off to this man. However LLepard sees fit is fine by me...
m- to sleep, perchance to dream (not of pedaling I hope
)
2 - Warnings -perhaps capitalize WILL in the reduce taxes line
3 - I find the anti-war fiscally conservative thing unnecessary and off balance
4 - Left checkmark #3- perhaps replaced "non-interventionalist" with 'commerce based'
5 - TeaParty - perhaps replace "more than any other ..." with 'from over 38,000 individuals'
6 - Right check #2 - Perhaps 'Lobbyists and Special interests have NEVER bought RP's vote...'
and I'm still stunned. My hat is off to this man. However LLepard sees fit is fine by me...
m- to sleep, perchance to dream (not of pedaling I hope
)withallmyheart
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2007
- Messages
- 208
'We The People' should be straightened because it looks like sloppy typesetting (although I think the intent was to follow the curve above the picture.)
The 'T'" in 'The' ('We The People') should not be capitalized.
I also like the portraits looking forward. It gives balance to the page.
The 'T'" in 'The' ('We The People') should not be capitalized.
I also like the portraits looking forward. It gives balance to the page.
Man from La Mancha
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,007
Me too I still like the eyes forward.
..copy,paste,linked to teaparty07.com
..copy,paste,linked to teaparty07.comaustinphish
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 378
I feel like there are some great quotes out there by Franklin or Jefferson, George Orwell, and the like that are really powerful quotes, that substantiate what is being said - you can back up the warnings with any of their numerous statements regarding said warnings.
RobotJaxxon
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 101
Two thoughts:
1) It does not have a strong, discernible "Quick Glance" message or information for the casual reader. Think of assembling a resume. If someone scans over the ad for 10 seconds, what will they remember? I dunno, I guess Ron Paul is running for president, but there's not much information on him or his stances to be seen quickly. You have to commit to reading the smallest text to see his positions. And if the reader doesn't like the first stance they read, they might make assumptions about the rest of his platform before getting to his next stance and skip the rest of the ad altogether. Is there some way to highlight or enlarge the text explaining his views? In some respects, I think just filling the page with big block letters saying "END THE WAR NOW" with a little info at the bottom would have a broader impact. (I'm not suggesting doing this, I think the ad is beautiful in general...I'm just worried that some people may take nothing from it despite it being a full page ad).
2) Healthcare is conspicuously missing from this rather long list of issues. You have to read the fine print to get that he's an OB doctor, which will get attention from people in the medical field. Perhaps to the left of the RP's picture put in a 3 bullet point bio: "-- OB doctor, delivered 4,000 babies -- 10-term Congressman from Texas -- US Veteran, Flight Surgeon".
1) It does not have a strong, discernible "Quick Glance" message or information for the casual reader. Think of assembling a resume. If someone scans over the ad for 10 seconds, what will they remember? I dunno, I guess Ron Paul is running for president, but there's not much information on him or his stances to be seen quickly. You have to commit to reading the smallest text to see his positions. And if the reader doesn't like the first stance they read, they might make assumptions about the rest of his platform before getting to his next stance and skip the rest of the ad altogether. Is there some way to highlight or enlarge the text explaining his views? In some respects, I think just filling the page with big block letters saying "END THE WAR NOW" with a little info at the bottom would have a broader impact. (I'm not suggesting doing this, I think the ad is beautiful in general...I'm just worried that some people may take nothing from it despite it being a full page ad).
2) Healthcare is conspicuously missing from this rather long list of issues. You have to read the fine print to get that he's an OB doctor, which will get attention from people in the medical field. Perhaps to the left of the RP's picture put in a 3 bullet point bio: "-- OB doctor, delivered 4,000 babies -- 10-term Congressman from Texas -- US Veteran, Flight Surgeon".
Devon, just make your suggestions. Those who are working on the ad will see it.
I'm an English major myself, so hopefully I can make a couple of useful suggestions on phrasing:
- Don't change the phrase "concerned American" to "worried American." Don't listen to the idea that the ad is now "too watered down" to get people's attention.
- I agree that the "Donate Now!" command is unnecessary and redundant. Do away with it.
- I agree that too many websites are listed below. If they're interested, they need only go to RonPaul2008.com and they'll eventually find their way to the other websites. Personally, I would only list RonPaul2008.com and teaparty07.com.
- I want to work on the opening sentence, currently reading: "In 1776 our Founding Fathers risked their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to set up a free and prosperous nation. They warned us that it was our responsibility to keep it that way, but we have strayed from their wise counsel." First, there should be a comma after In 1776. Secondly, I think you should remove the quotes around "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor," and instead bold and italicize that phrase. It will look better and will clearly indicate that you're referencing a historic quotation. Change the words "set up" and replace it with "create."
I would also like to change that opening paragraph a bit. I think this would be better:
"In 1776, our Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create a free and prosperous nation. Yet in the years since, we have allowed our nation to be overtaxed and overrun by bureaucrats and politicians who believe the people exist to serve the government, NOT the other way around." I think that would be a far more direct and to-the-point thesis for the points that follow.
As for the points themselves, if there's any way you can squeeze them in a little bit, it would look better aesthetically. I.E., change them from taking up the middle 80% of the ad to the middle 70% of the ad. It's a minor detail, but it will help.
In point 1, the point that Ron Paul will keep us out of "foreign alliances" is made in point 6. Instead of that phrase, change the phrase at the end of point 1 to read, "Ron Paul will bring our troops home NOW and END the interventionist, preemptive war policies of the neo-conservatives."
Point 2, change it to read: "...warned us to follow the Constitution because power corrupts. Now a secretive government spies on us and detains its citizens at will under the guise of "National Security." Ron Paul will restore civil liberties and habeas corpus and work to make the government transparent."
Point 3: change "taxes at all levels" to "a myriad of taxes" and change "groans beneath this cruel burden" to "groans beneath the burden."
Point 4: italicize "nine trillion dollars."
Point 6 should not say "we submit to the UN global authority," IMO, because we don't, really. We went to war with Iraq without UN approval, we don't participate in Kyoto, we don't allow our President to be tried by international tribunals, etc. We are in the United Nations, true, but we don't really play by those rules. For the average American, our involvement in the UN is not really an issue that voters have a problem with at this time, so there's really no reason to mention it. That's the way I see it, anyway. Point 6 should focus on American sovereignty and our security HERE AT HOME. Not sure how to rephrase it right now, probably because I'm falling asleep.
Hope that helps!
I agree. Here's one idea: move the Ron Paul text to the left side, and on the right side (where the Ron Paul text currently is) add the quote from the "Ron Paul: A New Hope" video currently on YouTube: "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of massive growth. - George Washington."
I'm an English major myself, so hopefully I can make a couple of useful suggestions on phrasing:
- Don't change the phrase "concerned American" to "worried American." Don't listen to the idea that the ad is now "too watered down" to get people's attention.
- I agree that the "Donate Now!" command is unnecessary and redundant. Do away with it.
- I agree that too many websites are listed below. If they're interested, they need only go to RonPaul2008.com and they'll eventually find their way to the other websites. Personally, I would only list RonPaul2008.com and teaparty07.com.
- I want to work on the opening sentence, currently reading: "In 1776 our Founding Fathers risked their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to set up a free and prosperous nation. They warned us that it was our responsibility to keep it that way, but we have strayed from their wise counsel." First, there should be a comma after In 1776. Secondly, I think you should remove the quotes around "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor," and instead bold and italicize that phrase. It will look better and will clearly indicate that you're referencing a historic quotation. Change the words "set up" and replace it with "create."
I would also like to change that opening paragraph a bit. I think this would be better:
"In 1776, our Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create a free and prosperous nation. Yet in the years since, we have allowed our nation to be overtaxed and overrun by bureaucrats and politicians who believe the people exist to serve the government, NOT the other way around." I think that would be a far more direct and to-the-point thesis for the points that follow.
As for the points themselves, if there's any way you can squeeze them in a little bit, it would look better aesthetically. I.E., change them from taking up the middle 80% of the ad to the middle 70% of the ad. It's a minor detail, but it will help.
In point 1, the point that Ron Paul will keep us out of "foreign alliances" is made in point 6. Instead of that phrase, change the phrase at the end of point 1 to read, "Ron Paul will bring our troops home NOW and END the interventionist, preemptive war policies of the neo-conservatives."
Point 2, change it to read: "...warned us to follow the Constitution because power corrupts. Now a secretive government spies on us and detains its citizens at will under the guise of "National Security." Ron Paul will restore civil liberties and habeas corpus and work to make the government transparent."
Point 3: change "taxes at all levels" to "a myriad of taxes" and change "groans beneath this cruel burden" to "groans beneath the burden."
Point 4: italicize "nine trillion dollars."
Point 6 should not say "we submit to the UN global authority," IMO, because we don't, really. We went to war with Iraq without UN approval, we don't participate in Kyoto, we don't allow our President to be tried by international tribunals, etc. We are in the United Nations, true, but we don't really play by those rules. For the average American, our involvement in the UN is not really an issue that voters have a problem with at this time, so there's really no reason to mention it. That's the way I see it, anyway. Point 6 should focus on American sovereignty and our security HERE AT HOME. Not sure how to rephrase it right now, probably because I'm falling asleep.
Hope that helps!
Last edited:
Another design revision
I posted this under the second draft thread, but I just updated the graphic to use the third draft text.
-----------------------------------
We can debate copy forever, but more important than getting every word right is getting people to notice, period. We simply need people to stop as the flip through the pages, arch one eye, and say "Hey, just who is this guy?"
If we can get people to at least recognize Ron Paul's name and be interested in finding out more, then this ad will have done it's job. If people actually read the ad and make a decision based on it, then that's a huge bonus.
That being said, I own a small web development/design company and my natural inclination is to try to redesign things. So I redesigned the ad, at least the graphic part of it. I didn't touch the text, in fact, I simply overlaid the text from the current draft. So, understand that the text and faces, don't looke all that great because they were just copied from the low res web version.
But all the rest is done in Illustrator and could scale to be as big as a bus. (or more I guess)
Let me know what you think!
http://s3os.com/misc/ron_paul_ad.jpg
Thanks for looking!
I posted this under the second draft thread, but I just updated the graphic to use the third draft text.
-----------------------------------
We can debate copy forever, but more important than getting every word right is getting people to notice, period. We simply need people to stop as the flip through the pages, arch one eye, and say "Hey, just who is this guy?"
If we can get people to at least recognize Ron Paul's name and be interested in finding out more, then this ad will have done it's job. If people actually read the ad and make a decision based on it, then that's a huge bonus.
That being said, I own a small web development/design company and my natural inclination is to try to redesign things. So I redesigned the ad, at least the graphic part of it. I didn't touch the text, in fact, I simply overlaid the text from the current draft. So, understand that the text and faces, don't looke all that great because they were just copied from the low res web version.
But all the rest is done in Illustrator and could scale to be as big as a bus. (or more I guess)
Let me know what you think!
http://s3os.com/misc/ron_paul_ad.jpg
Thanks for looking!
acmegeek, it looks GREAT! That's a fantastic redesign. I do wonder, though: will it look as good in print as it does on a computer screen? Just want to make sure the font would still be legible if it were actually printed with the background Statue of Liberty and such.
Not Bad BUTTTTT CAN BE A LOT BETTER
My Main concern is that it is OVERKILL, you are hoping that people will sit and read "all" the info, and here you have a plethora. I would consider also making another ad , where you just have the Basics, and use huge FONT like :
Ron Paul will END THE WARS NOW
Ron Paul will "Eliminate Income tax" and work to phase out the corrupt IRS
Sorta make the impact, like "the revolution has arrived" here, with the current ad, it makes sense, but it's a bible. I would consider changing it. Reduce the content by 80%. You need to remember most people do not have the attention span to read all that, AND, most Americans hate being "sold", what they like is "intrigue"
Using my strategy We will get more converts out of sheer curiosity.
Think about it!..
This is the third draft of the ad being commissioned by llepard. Obviously the final result will be just one pic. Post your thoughts.
Detailed view - top half:
Lower half:
Full view:
My Main concern is that it is OVERKILL, you are hoping that people will sit and read "all" the info, and here you have a plethora. I would consider also making another ad , where you just have the Basics, and use huge FONT like :
Ron Paul will END THE WARS NOW
Ron Paul will "Eliminate Income tax" and work to phase out the corrupt IRS
Sorta make the impact, like "the revolution has arrived" here, with the current ad, it makes sense, but it's a bible. I would consider changing it. Reduce the content by 80%. You need to remember most people do not have the attention span to read all that, AND, most Americans hate being "sold", what they like is "intrigue"
Using my strategy We will get more converts out of sheer curiosity.
Think about it!..
- Status
Similar threads
