What we need to is to RETIRE the money bomb..

[hazek]

People are irrationally obsessed with these money bombs because the first 2 were a real major success but they forget to ask why that happened and so they falsely, clearly, still have hope for a repeat.

There are a bunch of small reasons why that is but here are what I think were the 4 most important ones:
First and foremost back in 2007 it was something completely new, something no one else ever did so people had an immediate feel good factor about being part of something special giving them a lot of motivation to participate.
Second both the nov 5. and dec 16. had an emotionally strong underlying story of Guy Fawkes day and the Boston tea party which again a lot of the people identified with and were really strongly motivated to participate.
Third we had some awesome emotionally powerful promotional videos spread wide and far with hundred of thousands of views on youtube that spread the awareness.
And fourth there was this huge desire by the grassroots facing all the smearing and marginalizing and ignoring by the media to be heard and everyone felt like raising big money would be something they couldn't ignore anymore.

So when you objectively look at those reasons and you compare them to today, you can quickly discover that we will probably never repeat the same success we had with those first major two..

What about now?

IMO the money bombs are held way too often, the themes aren't inspiring enough, there are no excellent promotional videos on youtube viewed my hundred of thousands, and the grassroots still very much remembers the pain of the defeat in 08 and to top it off the media doesn't ignore us anymore.


Obviously anyone with some sense of rationality can deduce that the recipe for a majorly successful money bomb is clearly laking it's key components and we should either work on acquiring these components or if that isn't possible we should abandon the concept for a better and more successful one.

I'm personally of the opinion it's impossible to have all the needed ingredients ever again so I suggest we come up with a new scheme to replace the "money bomb", find a very emotionally inspiring reason to hold the fundraising event and have all the promotional aspects figured out.

I seriously hope that we the grassroots have enough rational people that can clearly see the evidence that the last few money bombs have shown us and we're capable of taking this evidence and doing the right thing. Otherwise we are no better than anyone else with an obsession and we will certainly fail in our endeavor.

 

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Give early and often.


But the next big push will be for the end of the quarter.

 

[brandon]

I agree. Been saying this for a while now.

We need some type of longer-term fund raising contest that takes place mostly off the internet. The contest should reward the top fundraisers in some meaningful way. It should be run with the campaigns endorsement and support.

 

[Indiana4Paul]

People are irrationally obsessed with these money bombs because the first 2 were a real major success but they forget to ask why that happened and so they falsely, clearly, still have hope for a repeat.

There are a bunch of small reasons why that is but here are what I think were the 4 most important ones:
First and foremost back in 2007 it was something completely new, something no one else ever did so people had an immediate feel good factor about being part of something special giving them a lot of motivation to participate.
Second both the nov 5. and dec 16. had an emotionally strong underlying story of Guy Fawkes day and the Boston tea party which again a lot of the people identified with and were really strongly motivated to participate.
Third we had some awesome emotionally powerful promotional videos spread wide and far with hundred of thousands of views on youtube that spread the awareness.
And fourth there was this huge desire by the grassroots facing all the smearing and marginalizing and ignoring by the media to be heard and everyone felt like raising big money would be something they couldn't ignore anymore.

So when you objectively look at those reasons and you compare them to today, you can quickly discover that we will probably never repeat the same success we had with those first major two..

What about now?

IMO the money bombs are held way too often, the themes aren't inspiring enough, there are no excellent promotional videos on youtube viewed my hundred of thousands, and the grassroots still very much remembers the pain of the defeat in 08 and to top it off the media doesn't ignore us anymore.


Obviously anyone with some sense of rationality can deduce that the recipe for a majorly successful money bomb is clearly laking it's key components and we should either work on acquiring these components or if that isn't possible we should abandon the concept for a better and more successful one.

I'm personally of the opinion it's impossible to have all the needed ingredients ever again so I suggest we come up with a new scheme to replace the "money bomb", find a very emotionally inspiring reason to hold the fundraising event and have all the promotional aspects figured out.

I seriously hope that we the grassroots have enough rational people that can clearly see the evidence that the last few money bombs have shown us and we're capable of taking this evidence and doing the right thing. Otherwise we are no better than anyone else with an obsession and we will certainly fail in our endeavor.

I completely agree. We need new tools to continue to grow this movement.

I personally thought the Obama campaign's 'lottery' was a great idea. They sold $5 tickets for a chance to have dinner with Obama. It raised some money but it also expanded the size of his Campaign lists to help spread the message.

One thing the campaign might consider is to expand on this idea and tie them to Iowa and NH. I think Dr. Paul's intellectual approach to politics would lend itself well to this type of campaign.

 

[V4Vendetta]

I agree with everything you said hazek!

 

[jbuttell]

many valid points, even if they've already been said ad nauseum.

What I didn't get out of your post was a reason to stop. While we haven't seen 6mill moneybombs this cycle yet, we have seen multiple successful ones. I measure success by the fact that we're bringing money in steadily, it's a very visible and exciting way to show us working together. I think people like donating together, it feels almost like your money is worth more, instead of just a drop in the bucket.

I see no reason to stop, Ron's fundraising stats suggest we keep it up.

that said, I'm all ears for a better idea.

 

[Gage]

And yet a majority of the $2 million of what Ron raised last quarter would've probably not been raised without a moneybomb.

 

[reduen]

To me it seems you base your reasoning on the assumption that the past few money bombs have been some sort of failure. I am all for something new but I do not consider the last few to be a failure by any means. We still even today beat the snot out of anyone else's grassroots fundraising (we are ahead of everyone except Romney) and 500k to 1 million is nothing to laugh at in my book.

I personally think a win at Ames puts us in great shape to have another record breaking money bomb but even if I am wrong, 4 million dollar money bombs is still 4 million dollars. What is the next big thing? I am all in....

 

[IndianaPolitico]

I don't think we should stop having Money Bombs, I just think the campaign needs to expand their fundraising. The idea of having a ticket put into a drawing to have lunch with Ron Paul for every 5 dollars given, is a good idea. Also, he never has any big 1,000 dollar a plate fundraising dinners. I know that is what the establishment does, but it works! I am sure that he has some fairly well to do donors that would show up.

 

[hazek]

I don't think they were a failure in a vacuum, certainly not when compared to the rest of the field.

But I do think there is a huge potential out there to raise a whole lot more and I feel like the money bombs are holding us back and in that sense they are a failure.

 

[William R]

600 thousand is actually pretty good. Keep the Money Bombs.

 

[ProIndividual]

I'll give you this much...if the themes of the money bombs were related to dates in American history, not "end of Quarter pushes" (although I'm not suggesting that can't be the actual reason), they would have more widespread emotional effect.

But I would not retire our bread and butter. That's like refusing to play Aces in poker because you won less than your average expectation a few times in a row. You still profited, albeit less, and you still on average make more than enough to make riding out a bad streak worth it.

 

[V3n]

I get caught up on the excitement and camaraderie of the money bomb. Like jbuttell mentioned - see you're little bit of cash in the huge ticker makes you feel like you're making a real difference - not that we should donate just to make ourselves feel good - but it's definitely a motivator to get more donations or larger donations.

 

[reduen]

I don't think they were a failure in a vacuum, certainly not when compared to the rest of the field.

But I do think there is a huge potential out there to raise a whole lot more and I feel like the money bombs are holding us back and in that sense they are a failure.

You don't think that working to improve them is the answer? I mean with all the campaign finance rules and stuff what is next?

 

[JamesButabi]

Any other candidate would be ecstatic to have consistent money bombs held by grassroots. This is Ron Pauls main source of funding. We very well might have just funded every single Iowa project if the campaign so desires to use it there. I get people to donate to moneybombs that would normally not do it. Give them up? Nah. Make them better? Sure! We just need to get the creative juices flowing.

 

[tremendoustie]

I agree with the analysis that certain motivations are not quite as strong at this time in this cycle as they were in november or december of 2007.

However, these moneybombs are still successes. If there is a better idea, I'm sure we're all ears, but the fact that they are not as huge as in late 2007 does not imply that there is a superior alternative.

 

[SilentBull]

I just posted this idea for a MoneyStream site:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?304155-We-need-a-MoneyStream-site-not-money-bombs!

 

[ChrisDixon]

Moneybombs are vital. These short fundraising events rally the troops. It's much more than just money, it's energy for the people. Do you think we'd have people sitting in front of their computers all day, aggressively pushing Paul's message, on any given day? Scattered, yes. But when we all combine in an effort, it makes a bigger impact.

Furthermore, it keeps Ron relevant. The media didn't really do much to emphasize Paul being the second highest GOP fundraiser, yet, his moneybombs generally got coverage because you don't find any candidate (outside of maybe Romney) who can come close to raising so much money in such a short period of time.

This is a spark for the fire, it's a spike of energy. We NEED the moneybombs.

 

[reduen]

Any other candidate would be ecstatic to have consistent money bombs held by grassroots. This is Ron Pauls main source of funding. We very well might have just funded every single Iowa project if the campaign so desires to use it there. I get people to donate to moneybombs that would normally not do it. Give them up? Nah. Make them better? Sure! We just need to get the creative juices flowing.

I tend to agree with you James. I was pretty excited last night as we approached the top but we are a group of very creative individuals in here. I think that the best can still be yet to come...

 

[hazek]

But I would not retire our bread and butter. That's like refusing to play Aces in poker because you won less than your average expectation a few times in a row. You still profited, albeit less, and you still on average make more than enough to make riding out a bad streak worth it.

As a professional poker player I strongly disagree with your analogy because comparing the concept of raising money via the money bomb to aces suggests that this is the most profitable concept possible which I strongly disagree with.

Money bombs were extremely successful for us, they are still profitable but what I'm saying is that because we are acting like obsessed fanatics having faith that this is the best concept available, while all the potential I'm sure is out there is not realized just because we aren't looking for a better method, we are shooting ourselves in the foot and with the current trend I fear we are losing valuable time, time that will cost us all of our chances.

For example just on facebook there are over 400k likes on Ron's page, just $10 from each is 4mil, yet we can barely raise 1? There has to be way to realize this potential and all I'm saying is that we stop and try and figure out how, instead of clinging on to something that doesn't appear to get the job done anymore.