we should do a full page ad in Wall Street Journal advertising Boston Tea Party I

[jamesmadison]

NY times is more liberal.

Wall Street Journal is more conservative + has more money + about the same # of readers.

You can do an add saying Ron Paul never voted to raise taxes and has always voted to cut spending.
= $$$ in wall streets ears.
= donation to ron paul
= cheering of rick santelli in the pits.

12/16 fundraiser?
Win / Win situation?



The Wall Street Journal U.S.
Print circulation: 1,721,694

Cost: http://advertising.wsj.com/rates/nationalEd.html
Black & White Full-Page Cost $ (Gross): 198,636.48
Black & White Half-Page Cost $ (Gross): 99,318.24

[Lord Xar]

MAX - one of the posters here is coordinating something similiar.. perhaps you can join forces.

THOUGH, I am not sure print is the way to go given the number of impressions. With that kind of money, you could put dozens of commercials on Prime Time potentially reachinig tens of millions.

Still thinking.

[jamesmadison]

MAX - one of the posters here is coordinating something similiar.. perhaps you can join forces.

THOUGH, I am not sure print is the way to go given the number of impressions. With that kind of money, you could put dozens of commercials on Prime Time potentially reachinig tens of millions.

Still thinking.

Yeah, that's why I posted this. I thought it was a great idea, but i also thought that it would work even better in a publication such as the wall street journal rather than the new york times.

[thoughtbombing]

"no New Taxes. No Old Taxes, Either."

[jamesmadison]

I just want some discussion about the pros and cons of WSJ vs NYT - why go with the NYT and why go with the WSJ?

If this is possible, at all.

[JMO]

If your going to do a add in the Wall Street Journal you should ask Peter Schiff if he would make a comment that you could quote.

[ronpaulitician]

NY Times made the mistake of discounting their ad space for the Betrayus ad.

That's why the per-reader cost will be lower when we place our ad in the NY Times.

[Shaun]

ALL of this advertising is a waste of money for three reasons...and these are multiple reasons that a seasoned old vet of campaigns wouldn't spend the money on it; ie; Ron Paul..

1) The cost of the Ads could be donated to the Dec 16th event...

2) The Ads won't bring in more dollars..

3) The campaign will have enormous amounts of free publicity after RP raises the 10m and likely before thanks to Nov 5th. The free publicity alone up to now is worth 10m in donations and hundreds of thousands of voters. Why pay for anything?

4) What does it say about this campaigns grass roots and NEW media success, that we now have to start feeding the hands that have been biting us and open this unique and amazing digital campaign to the critique that will come from the offline media.." see those RP promoters need us old newspaper dinasours after all..."

5) If you DO want to do an add...make it a Black Page with RON PAUL in big white letters and the web address for the 16th down below.

Take heart we will raise the 10m on the 16th.
FRANK: YOU.

[Mark]

THOUGH, I am not sure print is the way to go given the number of impressions. With that kind of money, you could put dozens of commercials on Prime Time potentially reachinig tens of millions.

Still thinking.

.


Yeah.. and sponsor LOTS of people on the ground in NH and Iowa..

"Non 501-C3 Church seeks Donations to Promote Voter Awareness in NH and Beyond"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=34496

.

[terlinguatx]

...

[rrt82]

If we could get Ron Paul's war chest to 2nd if not 1st place among the GOP, that would do far more for the campaign than an ad in the Wall Street Journal. I would say lets work to get Ron Paul in the top 3 among Republican candidates for donations before the end of the year.

Imagine the media attention if we pulled in more than Obama, or Hillary! We can do it, it won't be easy, but we can defiantly do it.

[Mark]

VERY GOOD IDEA -- Wallstreeters are much more receptive to Paul's platform than the average NY Times reader.

Right.. and they ALL already know about Dr Paul and his stances.

They were CLAPPING yesterday during the hearing..

They ALREADY KNOW..

[terlinguatx]

...

[Mark]

Well some do, but most probably don't at this point in the election cycle, but an add in the paper would do a lot to change this and we'd win over the majority of them. I think the OFFICIAL campaign might want to invest in this, because it might be a little too pricey for grassroots support.


How could they have missed the 'smackdown'
Dr Paul gave the Fed Head yesterday?

These are smart people.. they're aware of financial news
and the stance of Dr Paul.

Maybe some 'casual' readers of the Journal don't know much..
but the big money players know what's up..

Is it worth.. Lord knows how much to inform a few people
when the same Tens of Thousands of dollars could sponsor

HUNDREDS of 'boots on the ground in NH and Iowa?

.

[James R]

NY times is more liberal.

Wall Street Journal is more conservative + has more money + about the same # of readers.

You can do an add saying Ron Paul never voted to raise taxes and has always voted to cut spending.
= $$$ in wall streets ears.
= donation to ron paul
= cheering of rick santelli in the pits.

12/16 fundraiser?
Win / Win situation?



The Wall Street Journal U.S.
Print circulation: 1,721,694

Cost: http://advertising.wsj.com/rates/nationalEd.html
Black & White Full-Page Cost $ (Gross): 198,636.48
Black & White Half-Page Cost $ (Gross): 99,318.24

The Wall Street Journal is really a perfect place for the advertisement. Firstly, Wall Street people recognize Ron Paul's economic intelligence and the genius of his economic policies compared to any other candidates. Secondly, they are likely to have money. They know about the dollar getting trashed more than anyone.

My advice is: Go for 1/2 page and set up a PAC to make sure the legal angle is covered. Then because its such a large amount of money, get a credit card merchant account so you don't have to pay outrageous Paypal fees for a chip-in. And finally make it well known who you are, including a photo, so people will trust you with their money.

[Jordan]

Bad idea.

The ad wont generate the amount we spend.
The money sent wont count for RP donations.
Newspaper advertising sucks.
The money is best spent with HQ.

[thoughtbombing]

Jordan, did you see the FIRST CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL?

Trust me, we could spend it better. 1 Newspaper article by Grass roots campaign for Ron Paul is newsworthy--it's not the READERS we are after. We're after Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc... who will report on it. Meanwhile, we're raising the money.

It's about GETTING ON TV. Which is FAR more expensive.

We got about 30 million in FREE advertising by raising that money. We need to keep finding ways to make the news. The media won't even report on it if we don't top the last total.

[LibertyEagle]

Is it worth.. Lord knows how much to inform a few people
when the same Tens of Thousands of dollars could sponsor

HUNDREDS of 'boots on the ground in NH and Iowa?

.

That came to my mind too. With this money, we could setup housing for one heck of a lot of RP volunteers traveling to NH from elsewhere around the country, to campaign.

[bootstrap]

MAX - one of the posters here is coordinating something similiar.. perhaps you can join forces.

THOUGH, I am not sure print is the way to go given the number of impressions. With that kind of money, you could put dozens of commercials on Prime Time potentially reachinig tens of millions.

Still thinking.

Can someone quantify how many 60 second prime time commercials we can get for the same money as 1/2 page in the WSJ? I suspect TV might work better.

Also, we can focus commercials on New Hampshire and/or Iowa, Nevada or elsewhere if we want. We could, for example, focus on New Hampshire with the goal "make sure Ron Paul wins NH". Furthermore, from reading various posts, it seems the best ad is almost certainly different in Iowa versus New Hampshire, which is easy to accommodate in TV ads, but probably not in WSJ. In fact, someone already made fantastic ads with veterans that should play super-well in Iowa.

[ronpaulitician]

The ad wont generate the amount we spend.
That's an opinion, not fact. You may be right, but you may be wrong. It would take but one major news agency to cover the ad for the money to have been worth it.

The money sent wont count for RP donations.
Which can come in handy for those among us that have maxed out.

[Birdlady]

We are better off getting 3-4 ads created by someone here with graphic design skills and then you take them to your LOCAL papers. It will be much cheaper and in my opinion more effective.

$99K is pretty ridiculous for an ad imo.

[Eric21ND]

The Times ad would still be a good idea because the ad itself would be news and probably get some tv play. I think the money for a WSJ ad would be better spent on advertising on tv in Iowa.

[James R]

Can someone quantify how many 60 second prime time commercials we can get for the same money as 1/2 page in the WSJ? I suspect TV might work better.

Also, we can focus commercials on New Hampshire and/or Iowa, Nevada or elsewhere if we want. We could, for example, focus on New Hampshire with the goal "make sure Ron Paul wins NH". Furthermore, from reading various posts, it seems the best ad is almost certainly different in Iowa versus New Hampshire, which is easy to accommodate in TV ads, but probably not in WSJ. In fact, someone already made fantastic ads with veterans that should play super-well in Iowa.

Demographics!

1. The Wall Street Journal readers are likely to vote.
2. The Wall Street Journal readers have the economic knowledge to understand and appreciate Ron Paul's economic positions, such as a stable dollar policy, "Reaganomic" tax reductions, and lower government spending.
3. Ron Paul's greatest endorsements have been from financial sector investors, economists, and authors. Exactly the type to read the Wall Street Journal. For example, the article could include quotes from Milton Friedman, Fleckenstein, and other big-shot financial people that most WSJ readers know and respect.
4. The Wall Street Journal readers tend to be highly intelligent, and Ron Paul has drawn his strongest support from intellectual type of people.

Therefore, the WSJ is ground zero for potential Ron Paul supporters in my opinion and there would be no better newspaper to be advertising in.

[Ozwest]

The Times ad would still be a good idea because the ad itself would be news and probably get some tv play. I think the money for a WSJ ad would be better spent on advertising on tv in Iowa.

Agreed, the idea is to do something big and ostentatious so other media picks up on it, thereby multiplying your initial investment x 10.

[transistor]

waste of money

[James R]

We are better off getting 3-4 ads created by someone here with graphic design skills and then you take them to your LOCAL papers. It will be much cheaper and in my opinion more effective.

$99K is pretty ridiculous for an ad imo.

According to a chart I found on the internet, a half page newspaper ad normally sells for roughly $12 per 1,000 impressions. Given a readership of about 2 million and the sticker price of a 1/2 page of $100,000, the WSJ ad would be $50 per 1,000 impressions, or about 400% more expensive than usual. The question is though, would the ad be more than 400% more effective because it would target a prime demographic of ours?

[jamesmadison]

According to a chart I found on the internet, a half page newspaper ad normally sells for roughly $12 per 1,000 impressions. Given a readership of about 2 million and the sticker price of a 1/2 page of $100,000, the WSJ ad would be $50 per 1,000 impressions, or about 400% more expensive than usual. The question is though, would the ad be more than 400% more effective because it would target a prime demographic of ours?

Well, if we put in the text of the add something in the nature of:

"Never voted to increase taxes, or government spending."
"Wants to abolish income tax."
etc. I think most might consider it a small investment to make for future gain.

It's not too unreasonable to think that at least 1/1000 people would donate 50$ to the campaign given his fiscal record.

Just look at peter schiff in telling his 60,000 clients to donate a full 2,300$ to the campaign.

Wall street for Ron PauL!

[James R]

Well, if we put in the text of the add something in the nature of:

"Never voted to increase taxes, or government spending."
"Wants to abolish income tax."
etc. I think most might consider it a small investment to make for future gain.

It's not too unreasonable to think that at least 1/1000 people would donate 50$ to the campaign given his fiscal record.

Just look at peter schiff in telling his 60,000 clients to donate a full 2,300$ to the campaign.

Wall street for Ron PauL!

Here is how I would sell Paul to the WSJ crowd:
1. Quote Richard Russell of Dow Theory, who has very strongly voiced support for Paul.
2. Quote Milton Friedman, a famous economist who most WSJ subscribers will have heard of.
3. Quote Ronald Reagan talking about Ron Paul.
4. Quote the former secretary of Treasury (forgot his name) talking about Ron Paul.
5. Quote Fleckenstein (spelling?) on Ron Paul.
6. Quote one or two multi-billionaire investors who have voiced support of Paul.

Show the Boston Tea Party cartoon with the "Iraq war", "Inflation", and "National Debt" boxes being thown overboard.

And finally invite people first to read about Ron Paul at "RonPaul2008.com" and then donate at "TeaParty07.com".

[born2drv]

I think this is a great idea, especially coming off of RP's monetary policy getting more attention and the crashing dollar..

in fact we can even pitch it like this, make a plea to the american people to help ron paul to save our economy.

[jamesmadison]

I think this is a great idea, especially coming off of RP's monetary policy getting more attention and the crashing dollar..

in fact we can even pitch it like this, make a plea to the american people to help ron paul to save our economy.

True.

"Save our economy.
---RonPaul2008.com"