Ron Paul Campaign Announces Substantial TV Ad Buy in Nevada and Minnesota

[tsai3904]

http://blog.4president.org/2012/2012/01/ron-paul-campaign-announces-substantial-tv-ad-buy-in-nevada-and-minnesota.html

Ron Paul Campaign Announces Substantial TV Ad Buy in Nevada and Minnesota
Energetic ‘Big Dog’ ad featuring ‘Plan to Restore America’ provisions to air in key early voting states

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign will begin running its celebrated television ad ‘Big Dog’ in the key early voting states of Nevada and Minnesota.

The ad buy is substantial in size, and it is part of the campaign’s delegate strategy to secure the Republican nomination for the presidency. The campaign will air the ads on broadcast and cable television in both states.

This is the fourth time the campaign has purchased ads in Nevada, and the first time it has done so in Minnesota. With respect to Nevada, the campaign announced ad buys for ‘Secure,’ ‘Life,’ and the combined ‘Plan’ and ‘Consistent’ buy on October 7th, 14th, and 20th, respectively.

The 30-second spot ‘Big Dog’ contrasts establishment Republican candidates unwilling to make difficult choices on spending cuts and debt reduction with the sole candidate whose bite on such matters equals his bark: Ron Paul. The ad informs viewers about major provisions of Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America” including his proposals to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in year one, balance the federal budget in year three, and eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.

“Running ads in the key early voting states of Nevada and Minnesota is part of our delegate strategy to secure the Republican nomination. Both states present opportunities for a strong top-three showing in their upcoming caucuses,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, referring to the February 4th nominating contest in Nevada and the February 7th one in Minnesota.

“Ours is the only campaign with the resources, organization, and stamina to defeat establishment candidate Mitt Romney in a 50-state race,” said Mr. Benton.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

[wgadget]

Yep. I forgot to say something, but Jesse Benton mentioned this in his spin-room interview with King last night.

[bobburn]

I hope they run Three of A Kind to hit Mitt, Newt, and Rick.

[kylejack]

Now they're saying substantial? Previously they've said "six figures" or whatever.

[MrGoose]

Now they're saying substantial? Previously they've said "six figures" or whatever.six figures is substantial to me.

[cornell]

How costly are the media markets in NV and MN?

[Sola_Fide]

I hope they run Three of A Kind to hit Mitt, Newt, and Rick.

You think Rick will have any steam left coming out of FL?

[Ilhaguru]

I like Big Dog :D

[damiengwa]

How costly are the media markets in NV and MN?

Cheap, only a handful of people.

[1836]

I completely agree with the strategy of focusing on Nevada and Minnesota (40 delegates there) in this coming desert between Florida and Super Tuesday...

But are ads going to make a difference where the caucus turnouts are so low anyway? Maybe in Nevada, where caucus turnout is a bit higher, but Minnesota's caucuses are very poorly attended. I would just think that the money could be better spent on get out the vote efforts.

You end up spending money to reach hundreds of thousands of people, wherein only a few thousand of those will actually vote.

[rp713]

I completely agree with the strategy of focusing on Nevada and Minnesota (40 delegates there) in this coming desert between Florida and Super Tuesday...

But are ads going to make a difference where the caucus turnouts are so low anyway? Maybe in Nevada, where caucus turnout is a bit higher, but Minnesota's caucuses are very poorly attended. I would just think that the money could be better spent on get out the vote efforts.

You end up spending money to reach hundreds of thousands of people, wherein only a few thousand of those will actually vote.

in states where there is low voter turnout, we'll dominate easily.

[1836]

in states where there is low voter turnout, we'll dominate easily.

I agree, but that wasn't my point. My point was that television advertising buys are only so effective, and only so cost-effective at that. If you have a state where there may be 30 or 40 thousand people caucusing, and you are paying to advertise to hundreds of thousands or millions, then is that cost-effective? Are you getting your money's worth?

Everything has an opportunity cost; what you could spend on if you didn't spend on this thing. And in particular, here, with limited resources, I would think a last-few-weeks' organizational GOTV push would be better than TV advertising.

I've been very complementary of the campaign but buying TV ads in Minnesota strikes me as strange.

[rp713]

yeah but its needed for any campaign. tv buys are a must no matter the voter turnout.

[MsDoodahs]

I hope they run Three of A Kind to hit Mitt, Newt, and Rick.

Nah, that ad will have to be reworked into...'two peas in a pod' or maybe just be an ad exposing Mitt....

[SaulPaulinsky]

How costly are the media markets in NV and MN?

Awesome thing about those two states is that you effectively get most of the population in the state in one market -- Vegas in NV and MPLS-St.Paul in MN.

[1836]

yeah but its needed for any campaign. tv buys are a must no matter the voter turnout.

When resources are limited and there are better ways to spend the money, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

If the campaign micro-targets the advertisements to specific high-turnout markets and specific channels, perhaps, but the "large ad buy" thing has me thinking that no, like in Iowa or New Hampshire, this is a pretty big, general buy.

I don't think it's a good idea here and it costs too much for what the campaign is getting.

[tsai3904]

When resources are limited and there are better ways to spend the money, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

If the campaign micro-targets the advertisements to specific high-turnout markets and specific channels, perhaps, but the "large ad buy" thing has me thinking that no, like in Iowa or New Hampshire, this is a pretty big, general buy.

I don't think it's a good idea here and it costs too much for what the campaign is getting.

Get out the vote efforts are good for closed states where only registered Republicans can vote. You have to spend good money to ID known supporters and those that are properly registered.

Minnesota is not only an open state but anyone can register AT the caucus. In MN, we just need to get people to support Ron Paul and hope that they look for more info about the caucus on their own.

[SpicyTurkey]

I completely agree with the strategy of focusing on Nevada and Minnesota (40 delegates there) in this coming desert between Florida and Super Tuesday...

But are ads going to make a difference where the caucus turnouts are so low anyway? Maybe in Nevada, where caucus turnout is a bit higher, but Minnesota's caucuses are very poorly attended. I would just think that the money could be better spent on get out the vote efforts.

You end up spending money to reach hundreds of thousands of people, wherein only a few thousand of those will actually vote.

True, but we need to say that we one some states.