Could Ron Make More $$$ Without Money Bombs?

[anaconda]

I have wondered if the conventional wisdom is correct on this. Especially in 2011-12. It seems possible that people might actually donate more overall if they donated when they had the money rather than spending it on something else and putting off donating because of a somewhat farther down the road "money bomb" date. For example, I felt that the official campaign's "Statue of Liberty" 24/7 ticker in 2007 that slowly but steadily filled up with green with each donation, and had the dollar barometer scale on the side, was pretty good psychology. I wonder if the official campaign might actually have a preference.

[MRoCkEd]

I do think they should have the perpetual ticker on there, with different goals, like the "fill the quill."

[Michigan11]

I love moneybombs every month!

[trey4sports]

I still think moneybombs are the beezknees.

[dannno]

Nah, I think there's something to the spirit of cooperation and not feeling all alone in your actions.

[Austin]

I do think they should have the perpetual ticker on there, with different goals, like the "fill the quill."

Good point.

Slightly off-topic, but: Ron could raise a lot more money if he made donor phone calls.. I mean seriously, if Ron Paul called and personally asked that you donate everything you are capable of donating.. are you going to say no?

(Un)forunately.. that's just not the type of guy Ron is.

[sailingaway]

I think money bombs add pressure... BUT I think people would have donated right away to the Iowa project list...except they were waiting for the money bomb. I don't know. Moneybombs are kind of our thing. I'm open though.

[truthdivides]

For perpetual tickers, the site isn't working right now for some reason, but www.iowaforronpaul.com/projects.php has 9 different projects to fill up.

About your question, I've only donated on money bomb days so far. It makes it exciting and gets the person like me motivated to donate.

[PaulConventionWV]

I have wondered if the conventional wisdom is correct on this. Especially in 2011-12. It seems possible that people might actually donate more overall if they donated when they had the money rather than spending it on something else and putting off donating because of a somewhat farther down the road "money bomb" date. For example, I felt that the official campaign's "Statue of Liberty" 24/7 ticker in 2007 that slowly but steadily filled up with green with each donation, and had the dollar barometer scale on the side, was pretty good psychology. I wonder if the official campaign might actually have a preference.

I was under the impression that the moneybomb events helped people who wouldn't normally get involved, get involved. In otherwords, it's something exciting that people might not otherwise be excited to participate in. It's like being a part of a special day. Things like "fill the quill" have their place, but they're not as thrilling.

[anaconda]

For perpetual tickers, the site isn't working right now for some reason, but www.iowaforronpaul.com/projects.php has 9 different projects to fill up.

About your question, I've only donated on money bomb days so far. It makes it exciting and gets the person like me motivated to donate.

I understand that many folks prefer it. But I am asking the a potentially important and somewhat different question: "Does it provide the campaign with the best financial outcome?"

[truthdivides]

I understand that many folks prefer it. But I am asking the a potentially important and somewhat different question: "Does it provide the campaign with the best financial outcome?"

I was trying to say that I am much less likely to donate without money bombs.

[RonPaul101.com]

I like the constant ticker concept, but the Money Bomb helps make headlines for Ron Paul which is like a bonus over what he must spend to be heard. I have donated 'when able' along the way and only save up when I get close to a money bomb event. I feel even donating under the radar doesn't make it any less valuable. Oddly enough I often donate out of anger, like when Fox News intentionally doesn't report that Ron Paul is tied for second in a recent poll. I write to Fox blasting them and then donate to Ron Paul; makes me feel better.

[UtahApocalypse]

I do think they should have the perpetual ticker on there, with different goals, like the "fill the quill."

This is more like I remember the beginnings of 07'. When Ron Paul first launched a ticker it was something no one had done before. A real time transparency of campaign donations was new, and it was something we watched days on end for milestones. 100k, the first million, small things that would get posted on random days and times to drive a sudden surge. Money bombs are great for topping off, but we need to find ways to improve the day by day donations.

[Johncjackson]

The campaign really needs both. They need a constant supply of funds to sustain a real campaign, and the Money Bomb events also probably help with media and getting a fast influx of cash.

It's still early, but as impressive as the last campaign's money bombs were, the overall fundraising wasn't really THAT great for a real campaign. It was very impressive for the context and expectations ( as an underdog educational campaign). Even though he might not need a lot of money to defend a liberal record like Romney, he still needs a lot of money to run a serious competitive campaign. Romney can work his fatcats, but Paul should have quite a database of leaner cats he can call on to really build on the efforts of 2008 and the previous 30+ years.

I think it's best to give early and often, if you can, and not worry about coordinating your own donations with an event. The fact is, the events HAVE to bring in new donors or they are a failure. The same people donating to the the same moneybombs over and over is not going to cut it. They need the money now to build the campaign. Of course I say all this assuming in good faith that this campaign will be more professional than the last. I sure as hell don't want to see any $5 million fundraising days followed by 50 buck commercials.

[anaconda]

I was under the impression that the moneybomb events helped people who wouldn't normally get involved, get involved. In otherwords, it's something exciting that people might not otherwise be excited to participate in. It's like being a part of a special day. Things like "fill the quill" have their place, but they're not as thrilling.

You are correct. The burning question, however, is whether the excitement for some translates to an overall better financial outcome for the campaign? It strikes me as possible that the conditions for 11/5/07 and 12/16/07 were unique, and that that formula may or may not be optimal this time. Money bombs back then accounted for about one-third of Ron's donations. So a lot of money came in on non money bomb days. So it would be highly useful to know how much less if at all 2011-12 money bombers would contribute this time if there were no money bombs? AND, how would this compare to people donating to the statue of liberty ticker when visiting the website? I also worry that "Money Bombs" also have a bit of a reputation of a Paulite-insider-clique sort of thing. The casual outsider looking at Ron Paul may defer participation in donating, preferring to remain disengaged and sit back and marvel at "what the Paulites will do on this money bomb day or that money bomb day?.." I would like to actually receive some feedback from the official campaign on this matter. Ron could go public and ask for no more money bombs...just money. He could say that the 2007 supporters yield to and welcome a bigger tent. Or something.

[Bryan]

I've been saying, I think the "fill the quill" or thermometers, etc are perfect and better for an end-of-quarter push. That's what we need starting tomorrow. The money bombs obviously are still good-- so do both.

[mport1]

I understand that many folks prefer it. But I am asking the a potentially important and somewhat different question: "Does it provide the campaign with the best financial outcome?"

I don't think RP would raise nearly as much money without them. It really helps spread awareness and pushes people to donate. People want to be part of the events and are more likely to donate.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I don't know if he could raise more money or not, but he could definitely get the money faster without them. The first moneybomb the '08 campaign experienced was a 2 day weekend push that brought in a million bucks. It was fueled by a live ticker with the stated goal of first $500K and then $1 Million. This is what I think we should do. Instead of setting the bar so high, we need to set attainable goals and then blow them completely away. I wish we would do away with the "moneybomb" and let the campaign take care of "when" they receive donations.

A 24/7 ticker with a stated goal would go a long way in bringing in good sums of money faster. I personally do not feel the excitement during moneybombs this time around that I felt in the fall of '07. I want constant relatively small goals set by the campaign for us to fulfill.

i.e. "500K by Sunday!" -- then if we get the $500k by friday, the campaign ups the ante to "$1 Million by Sunday!!"

or maybe even

"Project Knock Knock 10,000 Homes By Friday" -- and if we report that we've hit 11,000 homes by Wednesday they up the ante to "20,000 Homes By Friday!!"

This approach shows the grassroots what the immediate goals and expectations are from the campaign, and it allows the grassroots to see itself meeting and exceeding those goals. There is a sense of victory once the 1st goal is met and then a sense of urgency when the second goal is set. I feel like people would respond much better to this. Also, with the different types of projects available for this kind of marketing, it would keep the grassroots alert and on their toes, not knowing what they will be called to do next.


But all this requires a 24/7 ticker. Contact the campaign! :)

[tpreitzel]

I was trying to say that I am much less likely to donate without money bombs.

Right, it's the collective energy of the donors to the money bomb that inspires donors and thus fuels it.

[enjerth]

I really like the idea of having project goals for many different projects that supporters could donate to and watch the goals get reached.

And then I thought, what if the campaign put up a few select grassroots ads and you could donate to which ads you like the best? You judge which ads make it. Donate!

[anaconda]

I don't know if he could raise more money or not, but he could definitely get the money faster without them. The first moneybomb the '08 campaign experienced was a 2 day weekend push that brought in a million bucks. It was fueled by a live ticker with the stated goal of first $500K and then $1 Million. This is what I think we should do. Instead of setting the bar so high, we need to set attainable goals and then blow them completely away. I wish we would do away with the "moneybomb" and let the campaign take care of "when" they receive donations.

A 24/7 ticker with a stated goal would go a long way in bringing in good sums of money faster. I personally do not feel the excitement during moneybombs this time around that I felt in the fall of '07. I want constant relatively small goals set by the campaign for us to fulfill.

i.e. "500K by Sunday!" -- then if we get the $500k by friday, the campaign ups the ante to "$1 Million by Sunday!!"

or maybe even

"Project Knock Knock 10,000 Homes By Friday" -- and if we report that we've hit 11,000 homes by Wednesday they up the ante to "20,000 Homes By Friday!!"

This approach shows the grassroots what the immediate goals and expectations are from the campaign, and it allows the grassroots to see itself meeting and exceeding those goals. There is a sense of victory once the 1st goal is met and then a sense of urgency when the second goal is set. I feel like people would respond much better to this. Also, with the different types of projects available for this kind of marketing, it would keep the grassroots alert and on their toes, not knowing what they will be called to do next.


But all this requires a 24/7 ticker. Contact the campaign! :)

Thank you for this. there are some brilliant ideas here. The only thing I am wary of is the "second new goal" after the first is met. People often donate till it hurts on the first one. You don't want to instantly turn a win into a failure. People may also have a plan to pace themselves. I think this is all the more reason to get a schedule down ASAP. The campaign can do it a lot faster than we can. You said so many right on things here. I believe that the big shock and awe money bomb was something specific to the 2007-08 campaign. Our needs are different this time.

[libertarian4321]

I think the MBs do help raise more total money. We just need to make sure we don't do them too often- it'll suck if we start having MBs that raise only a small amount of money.

[anaconda]

I think the MBs do help raise more total money. We just need to make sure we don't do them too often- it'll suck if we start having MBs that raise only a small amount of money.

I just wish there was some way to make a more scientific evaluation or estimate. The campaign may have access to some very talented experts in things relating to this.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Thank you for this. there are some brilliant ideas here. The only thing I am wary of is the "second new goal" after the first is met. People often donate till it hurts on the first one. You don't want to instantly turn a win into a failure. People may also have a plan to pace themselves. I think this is all the more reason to get a schedule down ASAP. The campaign can do it a lot faster than we can. You said so many right on things here. I believe that the big shock and awe money bomb was something specific to the 2007-08 campaign. Our needs are different this time.

I think the thing that made the '08 fundraising pushes successful was that after the people that knew about it donated (and then the goal was raised), they were then motivated to get out there (whether online or real world) and let others know about it. That's what the second goal does. It increases awareness and donor base. That second goal is our true test to see if we as a movement are growing or just stroking ourselves.

That is what we are missing right now.

[Sweman]

Oddly enough I often donate out of anger, like when Fox News intentionally doesn't report that Ron Paul is tied for second in a recent poll. I write to Fox blasting them and then donate to Ron Paul; makes me feel better.


Money bombs are great for topping off, but we need to find ways to improve the day by day donations.

Maybe a constant ticker, and everyone donating more than 100$ gets to write a twitter sized message explaining why they donate to Ron Paul. The messages are rotated and shows at the bottom of the ticker for 24 hours.

The messages should be moderated, of course, before published, but this must be done relatively quickly in order to provide the satisfaction of getting a message out on ronpaul2012.com.

[mrsat_98]

I understand that many folks prefer it. But I am asking the a potentially important and somewhat different question: "Does it provide the campaign with the best financial outcome?"

Doing both will provide the best financial outcome. Different strokes for different folks.

[thedude]

I don't know if he could raise more money or not, but he could definitely get the money faster without them. The first moneybomb the '08 campaign experienced was a 2 day weekend push that brought in a million bucks. It was fueled by a live ticker with the stated goal of first $500K and then $1 Million. This is what I think we should do. Instead of setting the bar so high, we need to set attainable goals and then blow them completely away. I wish we would do away with the "moneybomb" and let the campaign take care of "when" they receive donations.

A 24/7 ticker with a stated goal would go a long way in bringing in good sums of money faster. I personally do not feel the excitement during moneybombs this time around that I felt in the fall of '07. I want constant relatively small goals set by the campaign for us to fulfill.

i.e. "500K by Sunday!" -- then if we get the $500k by friday, the campaign ups the ante to "$1 Million by Sunday!!"

or maybe even

"Project Knock Knock 10,000 Homes By Friday" -- and if we report that we've hit 11,000 homes by Wednesday they up the ante to "20,000 Homes By Friday!!"

This approach shows the grassroots what the immediate goals and expectations are from the campaign, and it allows the grassroots to see itself meeting and exceeding those goals. There is a sense of victory once the 1st goal is met and then a sense of urgency when the second goal is set. I feel like people would respond much better to this. Also, with the different types of projects available for this kind of marketing, it would keep the grassroots alert and on their toes, not knowing what they will be called to do next.


But all this requires a 24/7 ticker. Contact the campaign! :)

+rep

Consistent smaller goals with a 24/7 ticker!! I have begun donating a percentage of each of my paychecks. If I noticed that a goal was approaching and there was a strong push, I would put in a bit extra. The moneybombs were born from these smaller long-term goals (i.e. push it to 500k everybody!!). I like the 1 Mill days, but they're only once a month. If we could do 4 1Mill weeks, or just 4 500k weeks, a month, the campaign would bring in more dough. Reasonable small pushes with end of the quarter strong pushes (to outdo the previous quarter, or such) will provide longer incentive. The MoneyBombs for related events and historical dates is nice, but if we did the MoneyBomb out of pure grassroots like, "Hey, let's push this thing over next Friday (or Tuesday, or Thursday, or whatever)," then it would feel more real and more alive. Select groups like the Meet-Up of East Begeezus, OH could have their own MoneyBomb and be proud they pushed the ticker up another 100K. Instead of going zero to 2 Mill, how many more people could you get to donate if all we needed was 100k by Tuesday? I think there would be a natural push that would bring it over the desired goal. Meeting goals, regardless of how high or low, motivates everybody to keep going.

Pitch it to the campaign!!!

[BrendenR]

I know I am personally motivated to donate more, thanks to the moneybombs.

[nelsonwinters]

One idea would be to give users a way to enter how much they've donated so far and see what percentile they are in terms of donations compared to everyone else. Also, showing donations by state, employer or profession would be fun to see as well. More information would get people more interested and possibly donate more.

[Krugerrand]

Maybe a constant ticker, and everyone donating more than 100$ gets to write a twitter sized message explaining why they donate to Ron Paul. The messages are rotated and shows at the bottom of the ticker for 24 hours.

The messages should be moderated, of course, before published, but this must be done relatively quickly in order to provide the satisfaction of getting a message out on ronpaul2012.com.

I like this idea, too. I'm not in favor of eliminating the money bomb.

A while back I pitched the idea of Money Grenades - or lots of smaller, issue targeted things. Put these two together, and we might be on to something.

Edit: found it:

Just to throw a new idea into the mix ... how about something a tad different.

I'm thinking a group of people commit to donating $x every time something happens that assaults liberty ... it could be a specific thing, such as an action by Obama ... or a list of things such as Bernanke actions or whatever.

Whenever those events happen, they trigger a "Liberty Money Grenade" - or perhaps something that might have a catchier abbreviation. Then, the event can be countered with yet another $20,000 for Ron Paul or something like that. It would turn negative actions to fund raising for Ron Paul.

I'll have to kick the idea around some more ... but it's something to keep the money bomb fresh.


Okay ... here's the best I've come up with so far. ....

Obama actions trigger "Sling Shot" donations of $20.12.
Support Liberty in National Government (I'm not sold on that if somebody can come up w/ something better.)

When ever Obama signs anti-Liberty legislation, veto's pro-liberty legislation ... or any other list of things that would make this not too overwhelming, but effective .... those who can commit to the advance pledging donate $20.12.

Ideally we could get at least 1,000 people on board. Then, whenever RP is being interviewed on something he can slip in that another $20,120 raised was raised for liberty in response to such and such.

"Sling shot" also has a nice David v/ Goliath feel to it.

It would be a nice twist that every action the opposition takes would be generating money against them.

[thedude]

One idea would be to give users a way to enter how much they've donated so far and see what percentile they are in terms of donations compared to everyone else. Also, showing donations by state, employer or profession would be fun to see as well. More information would get people more interested and possibly donate more.

Yes, and while we are at it, why not make it a bar graph with phallic symbols too... Exploiting the inferiority complex is always a great motivator...




Neener, neener, neener, you have a tiny.... amount of donations compared to many others!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

//