Money bombs are obsolete

[Xenophage]

I think our famous money bombs have outlived their usefulness. Back in 2007 it was an effective tool to generate media buzz when we weren't getting any. Black This Out was a great success in this regard, as well. However, as of December 2011 I think we're finally generating respectable buzz, and the money bombs are less important than simply having each individual donate to the campaign as early and as frequently as they can afford to.

The campaign needs money to come in fast, and consistently. We're nearing the kickoff here. The media buzz will come with a win in Iowa, at levels no money bomb could generate. Add that to the general feeling that Ron Paul money bombs are taken for granted now by the media. They expect them, and they aren't the big news they once were. Their effectiveness relies on 'shock'. Further add that to the fact that our money bombs aren't as big as they once were (more, smaller bombs than we had). Overall support and a rise in the polls is what we need, and for that the campaign needs a steady, consistent cash flow.

I don't want to say that December 16th shouldn't happen, because it's already been a long time coming and a lot of promotional effort has already been spent. However, I think it should be the last.

There is one counter argument that has some merit: money bombs might encourage more people to donate more money than they normally would. I don't know if that's the case or not.

Agree or disagree?

[bluesc]

Agree in a way. While I think the idea of a one day promoted moneybomb is dead, tickers are still highly effective. After the Iowa win, I would like to see a ticker up on the campaign site for all the reawakened old guard and closet supporters that decide to visit his site as traffic inevitably surges. No one can deny how effective tickers can be when the campaign needs money.

Moneybombs can be dropped, themed tickers shouldn't be.

[squarepusher]

"just donate money when you have it"


lol

[gls]

Mostly disagree. In the past few weeks the campaign was raising about $30k a day. Then the campaign sent out emails and the ticker went up for this latest drive and they raised $1.1 million in 2 days. So I think it encourages people who otherwise probably wouldn't donate on a 'normal' day. It would be great if we could have a large steady stream of daily donations but I just don't know if that's possible.

[LibertyEsq]

Moneybombs aren't about generating publicity, they're about generating money

I'm betting vast numbers of people will not donate if there isn't a moneybomb (i'm not one of them)

[Xenophage]

Agree in a way. While I think the idea of a one day promoted moneybomb is dead, tickers are still highly effective. After the Iowa win, I would like to see a ticker up on the campaign site for all the reawakened old guard and closet supporters that decide to visit his site as traffic inevitably surges. No one can deny how effective tickers can be when the campaign needs money.

Moneybombs can be dropped, themed tickers shouldn't be.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

[hammy]

I like the money bombs. If the campaign really needs money they'll put a ticker. Just like they did for the Iowa ads. It's not the most ideal, but it's cool and fun for a lot of people. And it makes us unique from the other campaigns, which I think is really important. I mean look at Cain. At the height of his popularity he barely got 1 mil over 2 weeks. We dominate.

[Xenophage]

Mostly disagree. In the past few weeks the campaign was raising about $30k a day. Then the campaign sent out emails and the ticker went up for this latest drive and they raised $1.1 million in 2 days. So I think it encourages people who otherwise probably wouldn't donate on a 'normal' day. It would be great if we could have a large steady stream of daily donations but I just don't know if that's possible.

But that campaign email wasn't really a money bomb. It was an email that went out asking for donations for specific goal, in a certain time-frame. Arguably that's a lot LIKE a money bomb, but it wasn't some month-long planned event and it still got a million bucks! The campaign was specifically asking us to preempt December 16th.

More of THOSE sorts of emails might be more effective.

[Xenophage]

I like the money bombs. If the campaign really needs money they'll put a ticker. Just like they did for the Iowa ads. It's not the most ideal, but it's cool and fun for a lot of people. And it makes us unique from the other campaigns, which I think is really important. I mean look at Cain. At the height of his popularity he barely got 1 mil over 2 weeks. We dominate.

This is a good argument. It IS kind of an identity thing for us. We're cooler than everyone else, you know ;)

But is it practical?

[gls]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

This time putting the ticker up without notice worked out, but don't forget that they asked people to donate half their anticipated Dec 16th donation. It helps to plan it ahead of time so people can work it into their budget (most of us are far from rich after all). Also planning ahead allows for more promotion which ultimately means more money raised.

[Xenophage]

Moneybombs aren't about generating publicity, they're about generating money

I'm betting vast numbers of people will not donate if there isn't a moneybomb (i'm not one of them)

I think the latest campaign email asking for a million bucks shows you're wrong in that regard. The vast majority of people will chip in when they can.

[qwerty]

Moneybombs aren't about generating publicity, they're about generating money

I'm betting vast numbers of people will not donate if there isn't a moneybomb (i'm not one of them)

totally agree...

This has been proved so many times, i really can´t understand what the anti-moneybomb people think, but i´m sure that not best for the campaign ?


Even the campaign can´t make bigger outreach for donations than we can with the moneybombs, by promoting these we are reaching tens of thousands of people that campaign never reaches.

[Xenophage]

This time putting the ticker up without notice worked out, but don't forget that they asked people to donate half their anticipated Dec 16th donation. It helps to plan it ahead of time so people can work it into their budget (most of us are far from rich after all). Also planning ahead allows for more promotion which ultimately means more money raised.

This is an extremely valid point.

[LibertyEsq]

I think our famous money bombs have outlived their usefulness. Back in 2007 it was an effective tool to generate media buzz when we weren't getting any. Black This Out was a great success in this regard, as well. However, as of December 2011 I think we're finally generating respectable buzz, and the money bombs are less important than simply having each individual donate to the campaign as early and as frequently as they can afford to.

The campaign needs money to come in fast, and consistently. We're nearing the kickoff here. The media buzz will come with a win in Iowa, at levels no money bomb could generate. Add that to the general feeling that Ron Paul money bombs are taken for granted now by the media. They expect them, and they aren't the big news they once were. Their effectiveness relies on 'shock'. Further add that to the fact that our money bombs aren't as big as they once were (more, smaller bombs than we had). Overall support and a rise in the polls is what we need, and for that the campaign needs a steady, consistent cash flow.

I don't want to say that December 16th shouldn't happen, because it's already been a long time coming and a lot of promotional effort has already been spent. However, I think it should be the last.

There is one counter argument that has some merit: money bombs might encourage more people to donate more money than they normally would. I don't know if that's the case or not.

Agree or disagree?

Dude WHO CARES what the media thinks about the moneybombs, or if they generate any buzz at all? It's about hauling in large sums of money from vast groups of people who otherwise wouldn't be donating.

The campaign would be doing a serious disservice to itself to end moneybombs. I'm betting a moneybomb the day after a win in Iowa would net $4 million+, and I'm betting December 16th will put is in a very good position to do so. It's all about timing and promotion

[Xenophage]

totally agree...

This has been proved so many times, i really can´t understand what the anti-moneybomb people think, but i´m sure that not best for the campaign ?


Even the campaign can´t make bigger outreach for donations than we can with the moneybombs, by promoting these we are reaching tens of thousands of people that campaign never reaches.

Also a good point.

[qwerty]

I think the latest campaign email asking for a million bucks shows you're wrong in that regard. The vast majority of people will chip in when they can.

omg, they reach only people who they CAN e-mail ?

WE REACH MUCH MORE with the promotion of MONTHS! :D

[Xenophage]

Okay you guys very quickly changed my mind on this whole issue. Thanks for the discussion!

[qwerty]

i don´t want people to hold their donations, i want to encourage new people to donate!

That´s the point of the moneybombs for me.

PS. i know that some people are trying here to twist the truth, but i don´t care about them...

[gls]

Good point from qwerty about the campaign promotion, if nothing else the tens of thousands of Facebook invites that RP supporters put out help to get Paul's name in front of a lot of people who otherwise might not be exposed to him. Similar situation with twitter and youtube.

[RipperNT]

I love promoting Money Boooooooooombs! Think it's one of the best things I've ever seen to raise funds. Before 2011 never gave one cent to a politician. Now i'm borderline maxed out! I generally will only donate with the Bombs unfortunatly, but if you go on Ron Paul's facebook page it brings allot of energy and chatter with people trying to get people to match etc during the money bombs. Think Money Bombs are one of the most unique fundraising tool I've ever seen. They are fun in allot of ways and creates positive energy!

[bluesc]

i don´t want people to hold their donations, i want to encourage new people to donate!

That´s the point of the moneybombs for me.

PS. i know that some people are trying here to twist the truth, but i don´t care about them...

There can be more than one opinion dude. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are twisting the truth.

[qwerty]

Good point from qwerty about the campaign promotion, if nothing else the tens of thousands of Facebook invites that RP supporters put out help to get Paul's name in front of a lot of people who otherwise might not be exposed to him. Similar situation with twitter and youtube.

Exatcly!


I love promoting Money Boooooooooombs! Think it's one of the best things I've ever seen to raise funds. Before 2011 never gave one cent to a politician. Now i'm borderline maxed out! I generally will only donate with the Bombs unfortunatly, but if you go on Ron Paul's facebook page it brings allot of energy and chatter with people trying to get people to match etc during the money bombs. Think Money Bombs are one of the most unique fundraising tool I've ever seen. They are fun in allot of ways and creates positive energy!

awesome! :)

[qwerty]

Some forum members just use their time to discredit other peoples projects while they have no projects by themselves...

Don´t fall into these tricks, think clear "how is it bad for the campaign to raise much more than they would usually do ?" Yeah, it´s only bad for the RIVALS!

I started to ignore those guys, they have nothing to offer for an activist! talk is cheap, action speaks louder than FORUM REPS! :D

[TheTexan]

Moneybombs won't be obsolete until RP is in the oval office

[qwerty]

Moneybombs won't be obsolete until RP is in the oval office

yeah! Spread the word out, we are making a great progress with the dec 16th moneybomb!

[BUSHLIED]

The money bombs work for those people that enjoy donating to them. While they do not provide media "shock" they do raise money, even if it were 20% of the campaigns revenues..they are still useful. Although I still think they are providing a large percentage of the campaigns income. Keep them going but adapt and try new ways..

Anyway your comment made me think of this song that I like:

long time coming (gone)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71BFOg1J9VI

[lfrml]

I've been totally spoiled by the money bombs. Donating the old-fashioned way is boring. You get an e-mail thanking you for your contribution and then it's over. Money bombs make donating fun. I want to see my name flash across Ron Paul's website (yeah, I'm a bit of a narcissist). I like seeing my name replaced with the names of other donors from all the other states. I like seeing a quickly increasing ticker total and a graph showing the rate at which the money is coming in. I'm nearly maxed out and enjoyed every monthly donation (vs. Romneycare, Ready Ames Fire, Ron's birthday, Constitution Day, Black This Out, Veteran's Day, and also the 2 end-of-quarter pushes).
If there had been no money bombs, I probably would have only donated half as much.

[qwerty]

I've been totally spoiled by the money bombs. Donating the old-fashioned way is boring. You get an e-mail thanking you for your contribution and then it's over. Money bombs make donating fun. I want to see my name flash across Ron Paul's website (yeah, I'm a bit of a narcissist). I like seeing my name replaced with the names of other donors from all the other states. I like seeing a quickly increasing ticker total and a graph showing the rate at which the money is coming in. I'm nearly maxed out and enjoyed every monthly donation (vs. Romneycare, Ready Ames Fire, Ron's birthday, Constitution Day, Black This Out, Veteran's Day, and also the 2 end-of-quarter pushes).
If there had been no money bombs, I probably would have only donated half as much.


this is so awesome post and reality to the majority!

that´s why we need everybody to spread the word!

+100 banners posted today on FB! ;)

will do atleast 200 more..i have a good day today! ;)

[wide awake]

The only place where they have "lost value" is in getting media attention. It gets mentioned but it seems to me that Ron Paul's media coverage has improved (thanks to money bombs and other factors) but will only reach the next level of media attention once he wins a state. Then the next step will be winning multiple states.

Other than that, I think they have a ton a value... they are fun, it gives newcomers (like myself) their first opportunity to feel like they are participating, they emphasize important information about Ron Paul (Constitution, Tea Party, Veteran...) and so on.

One suggestion I have is that perhaps it might make senses in any future money bombs to spread them over a few days where they culminate on the significant day in order to maintain the value they have yet it gives the campaign as much money as early as possible. I'm not sure if qwerty and others heavily involved in the promotion think that is a good idea... regardless I certainly appreciate all the work they do on these.

[KingNothing]

Moneybombs aren't obsolete because they require grassroots promotion of Paul. That is a good thing. As far as the effect they have on campaign coffers... ehh, at this point, I'd say they are helpful but not nearly as important as they used to be.

Times have changed. The campaign raised a lot more money last quarter than many expected because they were able to pull in a lot of cash on non-Moneybomb days.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

The campaign has been good about throwing up a ticker when they need money. And it has been obvious that the grassroots struggles on the best timing of the moneybombs. So it is best if we let the campaign pick WHEN they need the money and then let the grassroots do the promoting. This assessment is based on what we've seen in 2011. Strangely enough, this was proposed back in early 2011 to the decry of "OMG!! WE HAVE TO HAVE MONEYBOMBS ONCE A MONTH!! WHY DON'T YOU WANT THE CAMPAIGN TO RAISE BILLIONS?!?!111"

I can't believe that at this stage of the game people are STILL operating on 2007 rules.


the campaign knows when they need the money so we should not tie their hands down to our schedule. They make the strategy, we get it done.

[JohnGalt23g]

I think our famous money bombs have outlived their usefulness. Back in 2007 it was an effective tool to generate media buzz when we weren't getting any. Black This Out was a great success in this regard, as well. However, as of December 2011 I think we're finally generating respectable buzz, and the money bombs are less important than simply having each individual donate to the campaign as early and as frequently as they can afford to.

The campaign needs money to come in fast, and consistently. We're nearing the kickoff here. The media buzz will come with a win in Iowa, at levels no money bomb could generate. Add that to the general feeling that Ron Paul money bombs are taken for granted now by the media. They expect them, and they aren't the big news they once were. Their effectiveness relies on 'shock'. Further add that to the fact that our money bombs aren't as big as they once were (more, smaller bombs than we had). Overall support and a rise in the polls is what we need, and for that the campaign needs a steady, consistent cash flow.

I don't want to say that December 16th shouldn't happen, because it's already been a long time coming and a lot of promotional effort has already been spent. However, I think it should be the last.

There is one counter argument that has some merit: money bombs might encourage more people to donate more money than they normally would. I don't know if that's the case or not.

Agree or disagree?

Agree. Early money is better than late money.

[Jingles]

Moneybombs are good because they give the campaign a lot of money at once. Its better than getting a couple thousand or something a day. They get us excited and get us to get others to donate. If we didn't do them we really wouldn't raise the money the campaign needs.

[qwerty]

Agree. Early money is better than late money.

What about the people who need encourament to donate or those who the campaign can´t reach ?


the campaign knows when they need the money so we should not tie their hands down to our schedule. They make the strategy, we get it done.

Yes, and they say like "tomorrow" we need 10 million...That won´t happen if they want to raise much we need month to promote it.

Your problem is that you don´t see the fact,

most of the supporters are not as dedicated as you are, that´s why we have only +100.000 donors. moneybombs try to increase the amount of donors. i can´t tell you how many new donors we got with BTO but that was LOT! Also lot of people need encouragement to make them donate and there´s not better way to encourage people than example.

And the campaign planned moneybombs have never been as succesfull as grassroot planned simply cause we have much more time to promote those.

ofcourse it would be best that ALL OF THE PEOPLE WOULD MAX OUT FOR DAY ONE, but that´s not reality and we need to be creative to raise as much money as possible and that´s why we use moneybombs cause they have been and are still succesfull.

[bluesc]

Agree. Early money is better than late money.

Quite simple, yet apparently so hard for some to understand.

[AmberH]

Disagree

Many people only have 10-20 dollars to donate to the money bombs. Some supporters even have to save up that $10 for the money bomb. Would it really be better if people in that kind of situation gave a dollar a day because the campaign needs it now not later? No

Without money bombs people who don't have much money to give would just not donate. They would feel like it wasn't enough money to make a difference anyway. Or they would just wait until they had a higher amount of money to donate, and that time might not ever come.

Money bombs make people feel like now matter how small their donation might be, they are still making a difference because they know that with all the other people donating "it still adds up".

[qwerty]

Disagree

Many people only have 10-20 dollars to donate to the money bombs. Some supporters even have to save up that $10 for the money bomb. Would it really be better if people in that kind of situation gave a dollar a day because the campaign needs it now not later? No

Without money bombs people who don't have much money to give would just not donate. They would feel like it wasn't enough money to make a difference anyway. Or they would just wait until they had a higher amount of money to donate, and that time might not ever come.

Money bombs make people feel like now matter how small their donation might be, they are still making a difference because they know that with all the other people donating "it still adds up".

this is so great point AMBER!

[squirekyle]

Agree in a way. While I think the idea of a one day promoted moneybomb is dead, tickers are still highly effective. After the Iowa win, I would like to see a ticker up on the campaign site for all the reawakened old guard and closet supporters that decide to visit his site as traffic inevitably surges. No one can deny how effective tickers can be when the campaign needs money.

Moneybombs can be dropped, themed tickers shouldn't be.

sort of agree, HOWEVER, if you leave the ticker up there all the time people will get used to it going slow and it doesn't generate as much excitement as a money bomb, they will probably leave the ticker up there 'till the end of the year for the "Final Quarter PUSH"