PDA

View Full Version : That blimp don't fly!




tangent4ronpaul
12-02-2007, 11:53 PM
That blimp don't fly!

I want it to as much as everyone here does, but this sudden switch from grassroots to business is most likely going to prevent it from happening.

Lets look at some numbers – before this switch, about $500,000 had been pledged. $100,000 we know was a bogus pledger, so $400,000 pledged. From the poll, 71.43% (45 ppl) said they were more likely to donate to a one time grassroots effort for $350,000 than to buy advertising time shares for $500,000 a month from a business. 23.81% would go for the business (though how many of those 15 votes came from the people that would be paid, is unknown) and 4.76%, or 3 ppl said neither. Soooo....
If 23.81% of those that pledged, follow through and donate to this new business model, that would raise $95,200 – that's worth repeating! It would raise $95,200! - a bit shy of the $500,000 needed. Lets assume it works out the same way the Nov 5th money bomb did and we get roughly twice as many donations as pledges – that's still under $200,000. Less than half of what's needed for the new way, and not even enough to get the basic blimp (original) in the air.

In the past 4 days, a very steady stream of donations has been coming in at a rate of about $7,000 a day and $29,050 has been raised so far. At this rate, we will have raised the required $500,000 is about 2 and a half months.

Now to be fair, they have not sent the e-mails out to the people who pledged to donate asking them to now buy time shares in a for profit company, so the numbers are likely to take a temporary upward spike. For something that is going to launch in 7 days, I would have thought that would be a priority. If it had simply been done with a PAC and effort had been applied there, rather than forming a business, and hiring people these past couple of days – I bet the blimp would already be paid for and we would be looking at extras if we got more than needed.

There is also the MEGA TURN OFF in their legal disclaimer: “Your purchase is not refundable. If the advertising you purchase is are oversold, or for any other reason we cannot give you the advertising you bought, we may substitute other advertising of equivalent value that expresses a similar message.”

NON REFUNDABLE. THEY PROMICE TO DELIVER NOTHING – WELL “SOMETHING” THEY CAN SPEND YOUR MONEY ON ANYTHING THEY DESIRE! FOR ANY REASON – UP TO THEM!

Gee! - can you throw another bucket of ice water on me? That REALLY makes me want to buy a time share! (sarcasm)

There are some other discrepancies – no flight hours are listed now, the background information / research page is gone, as is the original page so people can't compare the differences anymore. There was a lot of specific information available before these went down, that is not available now.

Some things I do recall – before, painting the blimp was included. Now it seams we are getting a banner draped over it and it's not included ($25,000). That's a one time expense. So is a lot of the equipment, the jackets, the 10K retainer for the lawyer, etc. yet it's still going to cost $500,000 a month, every month... why?

On the old site, it said that the $350,000 price was so high because A) it was a bigger blimp, B) we were getting it at short notice and C) we were only renting it for a month. Now other blimp companies with longer contracts charge anywhere from $200,000 and $350,000 a month for multi-month contracts, and IIRC the higher figure included one of those huge scrolling LED signs on it. My point is that the cost of the blimp should go down if we keep doing this for multiple months, yet it's still $500,000 a month... so where is that extra money (profit) going to go?

Please don't get me wrong! - I want to see the blimp fly! The question is how to make that happen. While this “time shares” idea is really brilliant, they couldn't have had worse timing and shot themselves in the foot by doing the switch now. It is now 42% more expensive, bloated with extra expenses – kind of like Bills in Congress and people are feeling stung by the “bait and switch” of pledging for one thing and being asked to ante up for another.

By pushing the new business model now, I fear that the whole project will be born earthbound and will end up as a MAJOR EMBARASMENT to the campaign! - I can see the headlines now: Ron Paul's Lead Blimp or The Blimp that Couldn't Fly...

Hows this for a solution to trying to win back some of the pledgers that just walked away from this project in disgust:

FIRST – Go back to the original plan of a PAC for the first month. People liked that, they pledged for that, not what is being offered now. Any add ons can come from $ above $350,000 raised.

SECOND – Start a new pledge for the new business model for months 2+. That removes the “bait and switch” sting people are feeling, and people would know what they are getting for the money. This also gives the project a one month trial to see how well Trevor and co can handle it and determine how effective it is.

THIRD – start a pledge for a PAC funded months 2+ continued operation at the leaner price and let the people paying for this vote by pledging to the business model or the continued PAC model.

Lets get this airship over Boston on the 16th!

Nathan

steph3n
12-03-2007, 12:12 AM
tangent, you can't ignore laws. the PAC WONT WORK.

synthetic
12-03-2007, 12:15 AM
tangent, you can't ignore laws. the PAC WONT WORK.

Thats funny I was just thinking the opposite. That a PAC will work. In fact the law says if a group spends more than $1000 to effect a federal elections outcome a PAC is required.

I hope Liberty Advertising has enough cash to beef up its "team of lawyers". Just incase.

steph3n
12-03-2007, 12:16 AM
Thats funny I was just thinking the opposite. That a PAC will work. In fact the law says if a group spends more than $1000 to effect a federal elections outcome a PAC is required.

I hope Liberty Advertising has enough cash to beef up its "team of lawyer". Just incase.

you need to RESEARCH IT!!!
It would have to advocate TWO CANDIDATES to be able to accept funds and not take away from the official campaign!

Do you want two candidates on the blimp?

tangent4ronpaul
12-03-2007, 12:22 AM
tangent, you can't ignore laws. the PAC WONT WORK.

I have never seen a limit to how much a PAC can raise for a project. Yes, you can't donate more than $5,000 to any one PAC in a year. The vast majority of donations are going to be in the $25 - $100 range anyway.

This has been going on for months. If what you say is correct, and I don't believe it is, that would imply that Trevor and company are grossly incompetent for promoting it as a PAC for months and not figuring out it was illegal until a week before the launch date.

-n

steph3n
12-03-2007, 12:26 AM
I have never seen a limit to how much a PAC can raise for a project. Yes, you can't donate more than $5,000 to any one PAC in a year. The vast majority of donations are going to be in the $25 - $100 range anyway.

This has been going on for months. If what you say is correct, and I don't believe it is, that would imply that Trevor and company are grossly incompetent for promoting it as a PAC for months and not figuring out it was illegal until a week before the launch date.

-n

The $5000 is for a multi candidate NON SINGLE CANDIDATE PAC.

tangent4ronpaul
12-03-2007, 12:27 AM
you need to RESEARCH IT!!!
It would have to advocate TWO CANDIDATES to be able to accept funds and not take away from the official campaign!

Do you want two candidates on the blimp?

We went over this before - just drop a banner under the gondola listing the names of RP delegates, people running for the house and senate under his platform, etc. in the various states. You could use a bed sheets and a stencil - it would be cheap!

You could also add "and running mate (to be determined)

-n

tangent4ronpaul
12-03-2007, 01:32 AM
Quite the discrepancy between this poll and the one here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=46029&page=4

how come only 40% here want the same fixed price, $350,000 blimp while 70% there want it?

It could be because only 24 people voted here so far, while 80 voted there and most of the pro-business model votes came at the very beginning of both polls so the numbers in this one could change radically. The other difference is that that poll was advertised on Facebook, Daily Paul and Myspace while this one was not - therefor is more accurate of the grassroots sentiment.

But lets take 40% as a hypothetical. 40% of the $400,000 in legitimate pledges is $160,000. Double that, like Nov 5th and we end up with $320,000 ALLMOST enough to fly the bare bones blimp.

So what happens if we come up with say, $360,000 - enough to rent the original blimp, as promoted and promised? but not enough to cover the corporate pork and doo-dads? I'm willing to bet it won't fly in that case. And here I thought it couldn't get any worse... BREAKING WONKET - "Paulturds raise enough to rent blimp but promoter greed torpedo's project" - Mike Farrol(sp?) will have a field day!

I REALLY want that blimp!, but these last minute changes are threatening that dream.

-n