Trevor Lyman is back - with a MoneyBomb for Rand Paul!

[carlton]

Website looks really good, but how do the donations work? Is it to you and then Paul's site (which I am apprehensive of) or are the donation links just a forward to Paul's website?

 

[Indy Vidual]

Trevor Lyman is back
Blimp!

 

[dusman]

A few thoughts:

I'm totally on board with using a web site to promote moneybombs. I got frustrated in 2012 of moneybombs moving toward Facebook events and warned that such move would produce lackluster results. So we shifted back to web-site-centric marketing for Black This Out and Tea Party '11, with great success. Unfortunately, that understanding didn't carry over this year and I would contend that its part of the reason moneybombs haven't produced reasonable results in 2016.

With that said, I'm not entirely sold on the concept of paying blogs to promote the moneybomb via advertisement space. I'm not sure why we wouldn't instead ask blogs to simply write blog posts promoting the moneybomb web site. Not only is that more likely to generate substantially more traffic, but it also boosts the web sites ability to improve its natural ranking in Google for relevant keyword terms (over time, of course). Additionally, I'd feel far more comfortable donating money to a wide-reaching Google Adwords campaign that targets those same blogs who very likely already have Google Adsense incorporated.

I fail to see how the proposed solution differs from Google's solution and I would contend the power of Google Adwords is far more worth leveraging to properly target the ads and even do remarketing. If the issue is wanting to provide incentive for blogs and web sites to contribute, we solved that problem in 2012 by promoting those web sites from the moneybomb web site and exposing them to huge audiences. I could probably look back and provide data on how much traffic was delivered to produce a use case that can be promoted to those web sites.

What I'd be willing to really donate toward is a high-end "commercial" to promote a moneybomb that can then be advertised across Rand/Ron Paul videos on YouTube. That to me is the next progression of our moneybomb efforts and would likely be quite successful.

Finally, I am not convinced that moneybombs, as approached for Ron Paul, work for Rand. It was both novelty and nostalgia that drove 2008 and 2012 moneybomb success. If we want to do successful fundraising for Rand, we will need to approach it from an entirely different way. I've proposed a more sustainable model that I termed "moneystream" and is focused on gaining commitment from supporters to donate $10 per week. So those same 20,000 donors would generate $200k every week, perpetually until the end of the campaign. I think that is more valuable to the campaign, in my opinion. The benefit of that model is its not dependent on a one time boom or bust and efforts can contribute to a singular growth pattern and market penetration. The current model demands we expend effort to promote the moneybomb and the value of that effort expires the very day after the moneybomb is finished.

Let me also point out that in 2012, I committed to the belief that the moneybomb e-mail list belongs to the grassroots as a direct response to the questionable use of the 2008 list that then became unavailable to us in 2012. We agreed that for anyone to acquire the list that it must never be sold and it was well guarded from that happening. Today, I believe Orenbus has that list and acquired it on that same principle.

I think it would be wise for us to demand from Trevor that the e-mails collected will never be sold to a third party. To put that into legal effect, I'd request that there is a disclaimer, like we had in 2012, that the list won't ever be sold to a third party. Then the grassroots has a measure for recourse if the list is used inappropriately.

 

[angelatc]

I like Trevor. Yes he gets paid. I'd rather pay him for marketing than that fat little Benton. So it all works out. If you do not want to donate to the campaign, then this is an option.

 

[carlton]

I like Trevor. Yes he gets paid. I'd rather pay him for marketing than that fat little Benton. So it all works out. If you do not want to donate to the campaign, then this is an option.

Wait, donations made through his site won't go to the campaign?

 

[wizardwatson]

Wait, donations made through his site won't go to the campaign?

Trevor is asking for you to donate to the moneybomb "effort". In other words, you moneybomb the campaign on the date specified, but Trevor is asking for donations to him for the effort of promoting it. That's what the website looks like to me anyway.

He's also collecting emails.

 

[carlton]

Trevor is asking for you to donate to the moneybomb "effort". In other words, you moneybomb the campaign on the date specified, but Trevor is asking for donations to him for the effort of promoting it. That's what the website looks like to me anyway.

He's also collecting emails.

Hmm... doesn't soliciting donations for his site and other traffic sending sites sort of water down the potential donations that can be given directly to the campaign??

 

[CPUd]

A few thoughts:

I'm totally on board with using a web site to promote moneybombs. I got frustrated in 2012 of moneybombs moving toward Facebook events and warned that such move would produce lackluster results. So we shifted back to web-site-centric marketing for Black This Out and Tea Party '11, with great success. Unfortunately, that understanding didn't carry over this year and I would contend that its part of the reason moneybombs haven't produced reasonable results in 2016.

With that said, I'm not entirely sold on the concept of paying blogs to promote the moneybomb via advertisement space. I'm not sure why we wouldn't instead ask blogs to simply write blog posts promoting the moneybomb web site. Not only is that more likely to generate substantially more traffic, but it also boosts the web sites ability to improve its natural ranking in Google for relevant keyword terms (over time, of course). Additionally, I'd feel far more comfortable donating money to a wide-reaching Google Adwords campaign that targets those same blogs who very likely already have Google Adsense incorporated.

I fail to see how the proposed solution differs from Google's solution and I would contend the power of Google Adwords is far more worth leveraging to properly target the ads and even do remarketing. If the issue is wanting to provide incentive for blogs and web sites to contribute, we solved that problem in 2012 by promoting those web sites from the moneybomb web site and exposing them to huge audiences. I could probably look back and provide data on how much traffic was delivered to produce a use case that can be promoted to those web sites.

What I'd be willing to really donate toward is a high-end "commercial" to promote a moneybomb that can then be advertised across Rand/Ron Paul videos on YouTube. That to me is the next progression of our moneybomb efforts and would likely be quite successful.

Finally, I am not convinced that moneybombs, as approached for Ron Paul, work for Rand. It was both novelty and nostalgia that drove 2008 and 2012 moneybomb success. If we want to do successful fundraising for Rand, we will need to approach it from an entirely different way. I've proposed a more sustainable model that I termed "moneystream" and is focused on gaining commitment from supporters to donate $10 per week. So those same 20,000 donors would generate $200k every week, perpetually until the end of the campaign. I think that is more valuable to the campaign, in my opinion. The benefit of that model is its not dependent on a one time boom or bust and efforts can contribute to a singular growth pattern and market penetration. The current model demands we expend effort to promote the moneybomb and the value of that effort expires the very day after the moneybomb is finished.

Let me also point out that in 2012, I committed to the belief that the moneybomb e-mail list belongs to the grassroots as a direct response to the questionable use of the 2008 list that then became unavailable to us in 2012. We agreed that for anyone to acquire the list that it must never be sold and it was well guarded from that happening. Today, I believe Orenbus has that list and acquired it on that same principle.

I think it would be wise for us to demand from Trevor that the e-mails collected will never be sold to a third party. To put that into legal effect, I'd request that there is a disclaimer, like we had in 2012, that the list won't ever be sold to a third party. Then the grassroots has a measure for recourse if the list is used inappropriately.

I've thought about micropayments a a model for mobile platforms, a lot of that infrastructure is already set up for newer devices. There would need to be an incentive to access some service, multiple times per user, and a cost-effective way to get that to the campaign. Remember if you donate $5, they are not really getting anything from it except a +1 to the small donor tally. Micropayments would be much less than that. Suppose a user has a device with ApplePay, etc. They could make a purchase somewhere, get charged a whole dollar amount, subtract the actual amount and the difference would be the micropayment to the campaign.

In order to pool that and send larger sums to the campaign, we might need to set up a PAC.

 

[dusman]

I've thought about micropayments a a model for mobile platforms, a lot of that infrastructure is already set up for newer devices. There would need to be an incentive to access some service, multiple times per user, and a cost-effective way to get that to the campaign. Remember if you donate $5, they are not really getting anything from it except a +1 to the small donor tally. Micropayments would be much less than that. Suppose a user has a device with ApplePay, etc. They could make a purchase somewhere, get charged a whole dollar amount, subtract the actual amount and the difference would be the micropayment to the campaign.

In order to pool that and send larger sums to the campaign, we might need to set up a PAC.

There would definitely need to be consideration given to the transaction cost. To our benefit, the campaign already has recurring payments setup on the web site which is the big hurdle to implementation. The current option is $20 per month, but I imagine they can change amount and frequency to whatever they like. So at this point it might be simply promoting the concept and allowing the campaign to make the proper adjustment on the web site. A per month donation isn't too bad either, but I felt that per week keeps things engaging and we get more real-time details on growth.

Micropayments as a model for donations is where things will inevitably go in my opinion. For example, leveraging 100k donors @ $10 per week is $1 million per week (without consideration for transaction fee). $12 million a quarter would make Rand competitive and 100k is obtainable I think.

Not to derail the thread though. I'm interested in Trevor's idea and involvement here.

 

[Crashland]

I'm not against the idea in principle, but I would want something in writing that claims when all is said and done, that at least x % of the money will be demonstrated to have gone directly to the Rand Paul campaign. Anything perhaps legally binding that could make it a lot more expensive for Trevor if he were to decide to not deliver on that promise. I don't really care if 10% or 15% of the proceeds go to the websites that bring in the donations, if it can actually raise a substantial amount of money for Rand.

 

[carlton]

If this moneybomb is legit, I think an Audit the Fed theme would be better than simply just 'revolution moneybomb'

 

[mhad]

I just don't understand how you people never learn a lesson. Trevor has proven time and time again that one thing matters...padding his own pockets. He is a cockroach that shows up when he smells an opportunity. I suppose some of you will learn the hard way.

Note: Everything LibertyEagle has stated is 100% accurate.

 

[dannno]

Hmm... doesn't soliciting donations for his site and other traffic sending sites sort of water down the potential donations that can be given directly to the campaign??

Not if they significantly increase the total donations.

 

[eleganz]

Sorry to disappoint but I'm sorry this is pretty silly. If people want to donate to Rand, they'll find a way. It isn't like donating is foreign to liberty activists and supporters.

Why take the long way home (paying someone to donate more to Rand) when you can take the short way home?

 

[Indy Vidual]

Why?
Trevor is the $5 Million Dollar Moneybomb Man, let's see how big this can get.

 

[mhad]

Why?
Trevor is the $5 Million Dollar Moneybomb Man, let's see how big this can get.

Won't even come close to breaking seven figures.

 

[derek4ever]

Won't even come close to breaking seven figures.

I've seen some weird stuff this year but who knows? Anything's possible, since this is the guy who created the moneybomb and gave Ron a historic one day hit. We'll just have to see, a case of trial or error!

 

[mhad]

"Created the historic money bomb"...ha! I think you mean took credit for many people's work and abused the data then. There are so many levels to his shadiness I wouldn't donate to this unless my life depended on it.

 

[derek4ever]

"Created the historic money bomb"...ha! I think you mean took credit for many people's work and abused the data then. There are so many levels to his shadiness I wouldn't donate to this unless my life depended on it.

I know that the moneybomb idea was created by somebody else. I wouldn't mind if you fill me in on what really happened by PM.

 

[mhad]

I'll tell you right here. One of the most blatant things he did (or does, tbd) is puts a donate button on the moneybomb page. These donations are to pay for the cost of "hosting" the money bomb. The problem (not for him) is that people don't realize this and donate on money bomb site the day of the event instead of donating at the campaign site and he keeps all of the money, including the accidental donations. There were many threads telling him to be more clear and move the personal donate button to the footer or somewhere else on the site and make it clear what it was. He wouldn't change it and left it right on the top dead center. How many people do you think will accidentally donate for the "marketing" on January 10th on his website? Who will keep that money? He know what he is doing.

This is one of many tactics.