The $2.5 Million Dollar Media Blitz

[tribute_13]

Spending 2.5 Million yet the only ad I've seen almost two weeks into the thirty day "blitz" was a 30 second ad. Not to sound rude or condescending. But this was hyped as a game changer. Getting Paul's numbers up as high as possible going into the primaries next quarter. How does the campaign justify spending 2.5 Million dollars and releasing only one 30 second ad? Are there supposed to be anymore coming out? Is this it? Is this what 2.5 Million dollars gets us? Slipping even more in the polls? We've dropped from 16% in Iowa to 10% and that's where we need a win most. Iowa is our best shot at coming out of the first contests with a win under our belt. What is the campaigns plans for the rest of the month ad wise? Is Secure all we're getting? Or are they planning another ad launch?

[trey4sports]

I bet they haven't went into the "blitz" yet. Obviously it's not about how MANY ads come out, it is about how much they are played on tv, radio, newsprint, and so forth in Iowa, and NH. Hopefully Matt or someone will chime in.

[carmaphob]

I see RP ads all thetime here in Des Moines.

[trey4sports]

I see RP ads all thetime here in Des Moines.

Hmm, well then maybe it has started.

[eduardo89]

Spending 2.5 Million yet the only ad I've seen almost two weeks into the thirty day "blitz" was a 30 second ad. Not to sound rude or condescending. But this was hyped as a game changer. Getting Paul's numbers up as high as possible going into the primaries next quarter. How does the campaign justify spending 2.5 Million dollars and releasing only one 30 second ad? Are there supposed to be anymore coming out? Is this it? Is this what 2.5 Million dollars gets us? Slipping even more in the polls? We've dropped from 16% in Iowa to 10% and that's where we need a win most. Iowa is our best shot at coming out of the first contests with a win under our belt. What is the campaigns plans for the rest of the month ad wise? Is Secure all we're getting? Or are they planning another ad launch?

I don't think they'll spend much on North Carolina where you are. THe blitz will be in NH and Iowa, maybe SC and Nevada too.

[tribute_13]

I don't think they'll spend much on North Carolina where you are. THe blitz will be in NH and Iowa, maybe SC and Nevada too.

I'm not expecting to see anything in NC. I understand playing even a 30 second ad nationally would cost probably tens of millions of dollars. I'm just hoping to see a more relevant ad to make people think twice about writing him off. I'm not so much as concerned about clarifying issues as I am making people aware of the establishments hate for Ron Paul. He needs to use that to his advantage. With an apathetic and disillusioned majority, he should make it a point that he is the ONLY non-establishment candidate. And nothing says that more than being the only candidate thats not establishment pre-approved.

[Napolitanic Wars]

How does the campaign justify spending 2.5 Million dollars and releasing only one 30 second ad?

The real money is not making the ad but airing it. Having more individual ads doesn't mean more coverage.

[Aratus]

dudes!!!
you doubt?
seriously.

[trey4sports]

I'm not expecting to see anything in NC. I understand playing even a 30 second ad nationally would cost probably tens of millions of dollars. I'm just hoping to see a more relevant ad to make people think twice about writing him off. I'm not so much as concerned about clarifying issues as I am making people aware of the establishments hate for Ron Paul. He needs to use that to his advantage. With an apathetic and disillusioned majority, he should make it a point that he is the ONLY non-establishment candidate. And nothing says that more than being the only candidate thats not establishment pre-approved.


That does not win elections.

[tribute_13]

My point. Now that the ad has been airing. It hasn't shown to improve our poll numbers. We need another ad to focus on media blackout and we need to let voters know that if they want an anti-establishment candidate that they can't expect that said candidate to be receiving any positive acknowledgement from the said establishment. We could make another 30 second ad with more relevant substance and split air time and not spend that much more. I'd rather see 10 30 second ads with split airtime than one being recycled. Foreign policy is not the only topic that's being misrepresented. We're operating under the impression that if we fix the lies by correcting it with an ad on what RP's REAL stances are then we'd do better. I agree with this notion. But focusing on only one of those issues isn't going to get new voters. Even if they now agree with Ron on foreign policy, which we're seeing, they'll still have more lies to fall back on as equal deterrents for not voting for him. I see so many people saying, I like Ron Paul and he's so right on so many things, but he's so wrong on social issues, or healthcare.... blah blah, therefore I can't support him. We have a lot of myths to fix and we can't do it by only airing ads on one issues. The last two ads, Secure and The Veterans Best Friend are all about garnering support among veterans and warhawks. But even if we quell that issue people will just find something else to moan about. We need different issues being clarified so people can finally see just how bad the media is painting him.

Air ads correcting these myths. Let the voters hear it straight from the horses mouth. When they see ads stating his views, and then see talking heads on the media saying the exact opposite I feel it will help us in the long run. A media blitz needs to be more than one or two ads airing, both of them being about the same issue. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as whiny or if I'm missing the mark. But this is fueled from what I see and hear people saying about their potential support for Ron Paul. We have so many potential supporters who's only qualms are a couple of issues they feel he's wrong about. What they don't realize is that those few issues they think he's wrong on, they're just misinformed because the media blatantly lies about his stances. This needs to be rectified. I guarantee you if you made an ad parroting RP's debate performances on these issues he'll see a huge boost in support when the few issues keeping a lot of people from supporting him are rectified.

[tribute_13]

It's a running theme for voters that they want a non establishment candidate. They want someone to change things yet the irony is they only choose between the establishment approved candidates. How does harnessing that demographic, which is what we say is our goal (curing apathy and waking people up) no win elections all of a sudden? How do you win elections? Running ads on foreign policy for a month and hope for the best?

[ItsTime]

Just saw one at the pizza place waiting for food. It was the immigration one.

[tribute_13]

My only point is this. RP running ads is fantastic, every time I see one I love it. TV ads are a much larger part of the campaign this go around than they were in 2008. However I feel like given the amount of issues that misconstrued on MSM, that a more efficient use of air time should highlight many different issues instead of just one or two. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that.

[tribute_13]

Ok, so I'm missing some things, I apologize for that. That was the point of me making this thread. The only ads I was aware that were airing were the Veterans Best Friend and Secure. How many ads are currently airing in the four states? I'm just looking for clarification. Don't attack me or feel like I'm being disrespectful. I just want some clarity on whats being done.

[trey4sports]

Ok, so I'm missing some things, I apologize for that. That was the point of me making this thread. The only ads I was aware that were airing were the Veterans Best Friend and Secure. How many ads are currently airing in the four states? I'm just looking for clarification. Don't attack me or feel like I'm being disrespectful. I just want some clarity on whats being done.

not sure, but i know they are supposed to be premiering 3 new ads this month, and 2 have been shown so there is at least 1 more coming down the pike.

[1836]

My point. Now that the ad has been airing. It hasn't shown to improve our poll numbers. We need another ad to focus on media blackout and we need to let voters know that if they want an anti-establishment candidate that they can't expect that said candidate to be receiving any positive acknowledgement from the said establishment. We could make another 30 second ad with more relevant substance and split air time and not spend that much more. I'd rather see 10 30 second ads with split airtime than one being recycled. Foreign policy is not the only topic that's being misrepresented. We're operating under the impression that if we fix the lies by correcting it with an ad on what RP's REAL stances are then we'd do better. I agree with this notion. But focusing on only one of those issues isn't going to get new voters. Even if they now agree with Ron on foreign policy, which we're seeing, they'll still have more lies to fall back on as equal deterrents for not voting for him. I see so many people saying, I like Ron Paul and he's so right on so many things, but he's so wrong on social issues, or healthcare.... blah blah, therefore I can't support him. We have a lot of myths to fix and we can't do it by only airing ads on one issues. The last two ads, Secure and The Veterans Best Friend are all about garnering support among veterans and warhawks. But even if we quell that issue people will just find something else to moan about. We need different issues being clarified so people can finally see just how bad the media is painting him.

Air ads correcting these myths. Let the voters hear it straight from the horses mouth. When they see ads stating his views, and then see talking heads on the media saying the exact opposite I feel it will help us in the long run. A media blitz needs to be more than one or two ads airing, both of them being about the same issue. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as whiny or if I'm missing the mark. But this is fueled from what I see and hear people saying about their potential support for Ron Paul. We have so many potential supporters who's only qualms are a couple of issues they feel he's wrong about. What they don't realize is that those few issues they think he's wrong on, they're just misinformed because the media blatantly lies about his stances. This needs to be rectified. I guarantee you if you made an ad parroting RP's debate performances on these issues he'll see a huge boost in support when the few issues keeping a lot of people from supporting him are rectified.

I think you are shooting a bit high with your expectations of what a television ad can actually deliver. I've worked on many campaigns, and TV ads are not even all that effective for the most part. The biggest thing about a well-done television ad(s) in a campaign is increasing candidate exposure and maybe, if you are lucky, getting the voters to associate you with one or two big issues.

While we are at it, why don't we just try to summarize Mises' Human Action in a 30-second spot. I mean, we can't be unrealistic.

[trey4sports]

well, it worked.

The goal was to use the media blitz to move Ron into second place.