Yet another Hightimes poll

[fortilite]

Ok, another poll. Yeah yeah, I realize this is the 4th one but we kept getting entries. This ad idea seems to spawn a lot of competativeness. So this one is WebFX's current champion vs. one by DefCreative:

Entry 1: http://urbanized.ca/ronpaul/paulad-webfx2.jpg

Entry 2: http://www.global-netventures.com/defcreativepaulad25.jpg



About the ad: We will get prime page placement, it is $3600 in a highly targeted magazine with a circulation of 206,000!!!!! Help Chip-In because this is a GREAT opportunity: http://ronpaulht.chipin.com/hightimes-full-page-ron-paul-ad

The deadline is Friday.

[terryp]

fortilite i know it's late in the show to say anything but one more comment.

I like the toned down #1's moderate approach. If only it looked as snappy as
as #2's.

Great job can't wait to see it.

[Cap'n Crunk]

I like the first one

[yongrel]

Option #1 has better information, but is slightly weaker in the graphic design arena.

[BLS]

Option #1 has better information, but is slightly weaker in the graphic design arena.


AGreed...the 2nd one is more pleasing to view, but less informative.

Combine the 2, and you've got a perfect ad.

Otherwise, I voted the 2nd one, because it catches your eye. And that means it will be read.

[hillertexas]

Option #1 has better information, but is slightly weaker in the graphic design arena.

+1

Use #2 but add something about Ron Paul being republican and give the viewer specific instructions on what to do to elect him.

Also, The American flag over "Ron Paul" makes it hard to read.

[trey4sports]

i love number two, it says all the readers need and its attention-grabbing. keep it as it is i really like this one

[BenIsForRon]

number two really gets to the heart of the matter. Pharmaceutical companies are the main influence keeping pot illegal (you can't patent a plant).

[fletcher]

Definitively #1. #2 seems like a waste. Everyone that reads High Times already knows that it doesn't make any sense that medical marijuana is illegal. It's a waste of half a page.

[amonasro]

I like #2 a lot more. It's more eye-catching and doesn't overload the reader with info. I hope more people donate to this cause, this ad would reach a lot of readers that would instantly support him and VOTE!!!

[devil21]

#2 is definitely an improvement. Just add a little more info to it and it would be very eye catching and effective.

[defcreative]

Thanks for your guys' comments on my design. (#2)

When I tried to come up with a concept for the high times ad, I considered a few things. First of all I understand that there is a very solid chance that a person reading a high times magazine has about NO interest in seeing a political ad. As a matter of fact, before I discovered Ron Paul, I might have been one of those people because I had absolutely no interest in politics because I knew the politicians were all full of BS. In that case, if I had seen any page that immediately screamed "political ad" to me, I would have had my "auto ignore" sense kick in and that page would be turned right away. People reading high times are going to be reading about *gasp* WEED, so that should be a hint on how to grab their attention. :)

So therefore I choose a little less direct method to grabbing the reader's attention. I intentionally made the name at the top with the American flag overlay take a slight bit more effort to read then the surrounding text. Why? Because it is important to understand where the focal point will be on the ad immediately. As the reader is first glancing over the page and there is that 1-2 second window where they decide whether or not it will be read, they will be looking for color and interesting images. That is the point where they will likely either be caught by the "end the war on drugs" in bold red, or by the dramatically lit marijuana = prescription drug image.

That is the most important part of the whole process, is simply getting the reader's attention. After that point they will read the rest of the page, as they will be interested in knowing what message corresponds with the imagery. Then the next most interesting part in the top section will be the intentionally harder to read "Ron Paul" text and then finally the bottom portion with all the information that the reader needs to know to grab their attention. I kept it short and sweet in order to keep the reader desiring for more information (so they visit ronpaul2008.com) and so it does not discourage them from reading the information in the first place.

I just want you guys to understand the concept and goals of the design. There are two very nice designs up to bat so I don't see us losing out either way. This was a last minute first draft that I put together in ~6hrs with most of the time spent on photo manipulation creating the main image. Nothing is set in stone, so I can always change some details if the majority think it should be changed.

Remember, we want a quick EXPOSURE here, not oversaturation. Thats why there isn't a whole essay of information, just the bare necessaries that will be important to the reader. Also, in the area of legibility, its important to remember that this is a 25% resolution image. I also have a 50% resolution image uploaded at http://www.global-netventures.com/defcreativepaulad50.jpg if people want to see some of the higher resolution details. Of course 100% looks the best by far since there are no pixels being chopped, but I will withhold that for high times.

Now enough rambling from me. ;) I appreciate everyone's positive responses and I can always adjust anything everyone wants.

[krott5333]

I vote #2, with the following suggestions.

The American-flagged "RON PAUL" at the top needs to have a white outline to help it stand out.
The bottom section that shows the information about Ron Paul, get rid of the blue border on the bottom, its kind of weird looking.


I dunno though.. #1 is also very good. I kind of like that it would have a brighter and more colorful tone than the rest of the magazine. However, as suggested previously, the top needs to read "END THE WAR ON DRUGS" and then "VOTE FOR RON PAUL" in the lower area.

[defcreative]

I vote #2, with the following suggestions.

The American-flagged "RON PAUL" at the top needs to have a white outline to help it stand out.
The bottom section that shows the information about Ron Paul, get rid of the blue border on the bottom, its kind of weird looking.


I dunno though.. #1 is also very good. I kind of like that it would have a brighter and more colorful tone than the rest of the magazine. However, as suggested previously, the top needs to read "END THE WAR ON DRUGS" and then "VOTE FOR RON PAUL" in the lower area.

You know what, I agree and I am going to revise the image right now.

I'll post when the new version is uploaded.

[jake]

#2 really catches the eye. Voted #2.

[Birdlady]

On the 2nd ad it says no where that he is running for President. That is important!

[dmspilot00]

On #2 the bullet points are Xes. Not a good idea, its like it's saying those statements are false. I like #1 better but I still think the changes should be made that I suggested in the other thread.

[defcreative]

I took into consideration the main complaints and the images are updated. :)

[defcreative]

On the 2nd ad it says no where that he is running for President. That is important!

Haha, why yes I suppose that is important. :p

Updated

[AtomiC]

On # 2 its says marijuana is a drug which is WRONG!

Marijuana is actually a plant, the drug in marijuana is called THC. Many Hightimes readers are very informed on the subject and will be turned off by the fact that the information is false.

I like the points of the first one, but it doesn't have good pictures. Try and get a combination of good info like the 1st one, and good pictures as in the 2nd one.

[krott5333]

On #2 the bullet points are Xes. Not a good idea, its like it's saying those statements are false. I like #1 better but I still think the changes should be made that I suggested in the other thread.

mmm, perhaps check marks would be better.

[defcreative]

On # 2 its says marijuana is a drug which is WRONG!

Marijuana is actually a plant, the drug in marijuana is called THC. Many Hightimes readers are very informed on the subject and will be turned off by the fact that the information is false.

I like the points of the first one, but it doesn't have good pictures. Try and get a combination of good info like the 1st one, and good pictures as in the 2nd one.

Yes, you are technically right. But, splitting hairs, the DEA has Marijuana Scheduled as schedule 1, as a drug. Legally, it is considered a drug. Go to court with possession and guess what they are going to say you were carrying? They will call it a drug.

If other people are bothered by that statement, I can always just change it to "These are both safe medicines".



EDIT: After thinking about it for a few minutes I think you might have a solid point, I'm going to update the image.

[defcreative]

Thanks to everyone this far who has offered their input, its really helped.

I have updated the ad again, and I think it is pretty much complete at this point.

Comments welcome! :)

[gb13]

The first ono is better.

I can just picture Faux News blowing up an image of the second one and doing a segment titled"Ron Paul Wants Your Child to Smoke Pot".

[tsetsefly]

if add 2 is going to win at least add that he is running as a republican so people knwo they have to register to vote and I would add that he voted against the patriot act because that can be tied into the war on drugs...

[defcreative]

if add 2 is going to win at least add that he is running as a republican so people knwo they have to register to vote and I would add that he voted against the patriot act because that can be tied into the war on drugs...

Okay, I'll add the republican part in.

In response to the two replies above, I would agree that for a normal publication the first ad would be more appropriate. However, we're publishing this in high times. You need to ask yourself which ad will better grab the reader's interest and actually get them to read the ad.

I targeted this ad for the demographic which we are trying to capture. I am only including relevant information that will immediately grasp the high times reader's interest. If there is too much information it will discourage these readers from reading it.

If this were in a normal magazine, I would have used a different advertising concept. Just my marketing 2 cents.

[AtomiC]

Wow the 2nd picture looks much better now. I vote the 2nd one all the way!!!

[devil21]

Wow the 2nd picture looks much better now. I vote the 2nd one all the way!!!

Definitely. Very nice ad and guaranteed to get the attention of readers. Ill chip in toward the ad if that is the image that gets run.

[WebFX]

There are serious problems with the #2 design (from defcreative). It's a cool design and all, but there are fundamental reasons why it's not the best, which I will explain; please try not to take it personally dc, I don't mean it that way.

First, is the big marijuana leaf in the centre of the page. The first rule, is do no harm. Don't you remember what happened with the Dennis Hof endorsement? The actions of 3rd party supporters, unaffiliated with the main campaign, were twisted by the news media with suggestive and misrepresentative headlines and reporting.

This could still happen even with a traditional-looking ad talking about Dr. Paul's stance on drug policy reform and the constitution, but you need to minimize their ability to do so. You don't want to allow Sean Hannity the ability to throw something up on the screen that looks like something out of High Times, you want it to look like it could have come from any old PAC. We are being stewards of his campaign here -- being aggressive by advertising in a 'counterculture' mag should be balanced by placing an ad that's conservative in nature. Advertising on behalf of Ron Paul by putting his face right up beside a big cannabis leaf, when in fact he may not personally be in favor of marijuana, is recklessly exposing the campaign's flank to this type of attack. (or maybe more appropriate for a general election when he has time to explain his opinion)

Second, the message of the ad (main graphic centerpiece and caption) needlessly excludes people in 2 separate ways right away; a) First, the ad implies that pharmaceutical drugs are a "Safe Medicine". Many people in the cannabis community do not believe this and I know I certainly do not. b) The message seems like it could be primarily targeting medical marijuana. A lot of people who are otherwise interested in legalization are not interested in the medical side of the cannabis issue at all. So far from grabbing their attention, we are sort of excluding the attention of people right away who would otherwise be open to the message.

Third, there is hardly even a call to action. (if you wanted to you could call the website at the bottom a CTA.) Mine has 5-6!

You might not happen to notice these things unless you work with them every day, but they make a big difference to response rates.



In response to the two replies above, I would agree that for a normal publication the first ad would be more appropriate. However, we're publishing this in high times. You need to ask yourself which ad will better grab the reader's interest and actually get them to read the ad.


People who read High Times/Cannabis Culture etc typically read the entire magazine, cover to cover, multiple times. If we have prominent placement, it *will* get read.


That said, I don't think my ad is perfect either. For example, I agree with the suggestion of possibly switching around RP4prez and Help RP stop the drug war so that Help RP stop the drug war is on top. I'm also not trying to be brutal here, sorry defcreative, you made a nice looking thing -- just trying to be brutally honest from a professional standpoint and hopefully get the best possible ad for our goals)

interested in feedback from anyone.

WebFX

[Birdlady]

There are serious problems with the #2 design (from defcreative). It's a cool design and all, but there are fundamental reasons why it's not the best, which I will explain; please try not to take it personally dc, I don't mean it that way.

First, is the big marijuana leaf in the centre of the page. The first rule, is do no harm. Don't you remember what happened with the Dennis Hof endorsement? The actions of 3rd party supporters, unaffiliated with the main campaign, were twisted by the news media with suggestive and misrepresentative headlines and reporting.

This could still happen even with a traditional-looking ad talking about Dr. Paul's stance on drug policy reform and the constitution, but you need to minimize their ability to do so. You don't want to allow Sean Hannity the ability to throw something up on the screen that looks like something out of High Times, you want it to look like it could have come from any old PAC. We are being stewards of his campaign here -- being aggressive by advertising in a 'counterculture' mag should be balanced by placing an ad that's conservative in nature. Advertising on behalf of Ron Paul by putting his face right up beside a big cannabis leaf, when in fact he may not personally be in favor of marijuana, is recklessly exposing the campaign's flank to this type of attack. (or maybe more appropriate for a general election when he has time to explain his opinion)

Second, the message of the ad (main graphic centerpiece and caption) needlessly excludes people in 2 separate ways right away; a) First, the ad implies that pharmaceutical drugs are a "Safe Medicine". Many people in the cannabis community do not believe this and I know I certainly do not. b) The message seems like it could be primarily targeting medical marijuana. A lot of people who are otherwise interested in legalization are not interested in the medical side of the cannabis issue at all. So far from grabbing their attention, we are sort of excluding the attention of people right away who would otherwise be open to the message.

Third, there is hardly even a call to action. (if you wanted to you could call the website at the bottom a CTA.) Mine has 5-6!

You might not happen to notice these things unless you work with them every day, but they make a big difference to response rates.



People who read High Times/Cannabis Culture etc typically read the entire magazine, cover to cover, multiple times. If we have prominent placement, it *will* get read.


That said, I don't think my ad is perfect either. For example, I agree with the suggestion of possibly switching around RP4prez and Help RP stop the drug war so that Help RP stop the drug war is on top. I'm also not trying to be brutal here, sorry defcreative, you made a nice looking thing -- just trying to be brutally honest from a professional standpoint and hopefully get the best possible ad for our goals)

interested in feedback from anyone.

WebFX

I couldn't agree more.

Another poster on here (I think Goronpaul08?), had a marijuana leaf next to Ron's picture and people freaked out! They were saying that it looked like he was smoking a joint and all this craziness. Now on this ad people are loving it and I am not sure exactly why.

I also agree that pharmaceuticals are not safe medications whatsoever and this ad actually annoys me because it's towing this mainstream idea that they are. Like we need to be spreading more BS around.

Blah I have tried to give so much input on this ad, that I am drained from it all. =/

[devil21]

I couldn't agree more.

Another poster on here (I think Goronpaul08?), had a marijuana leaf next to Ron's picture and people freaked out! They were saying that it looked like he was smoking a joint and all this craziness. Now on this ad people are loving it and I am not sure exactly why.

I also agree that pharmaceuticals are not safe medications whatsoever and this ad actually annoys me because it's towing this mainstream idea that they are. Like we need to be spreading more BS around.

Blah I have tried to give so much input on this ad, that I am drained from it all. =/

No offense but this ad isn't meant to appeal to you or WebFX or anyone else on this forum. It is meant to get the attention of people in the cannabis community and it will do a fine job of it. Ron Paul has already gone public with wanting to end the war on drugs and medical cannabis legalisation so what could they possibly attack him on? Sure, if this was an ad for Parenthood magazine then I would agree with you but its NOT. It is an ad targeted to a very particular readership. Are you and WebFX part of the cannabis community? If the answer is no, then leave this ad to people that are....<glances over at 2 HT mags next to the TV>

[Libertarian]

2 looks better...but I really like that the first one tells people to register republican so they can vote in the primary. This is CRUCIAL.

[defcreative]

2 looks better...but I really like that the first one tells people to register republican so they can vote in the primary. This is CRUCIAL.

Yes, I updated the ad, you can check it out now. I was planning on doing it earlier but I was a little busy.

If anyone wants to see the higher resolution version, click on this link. (http://www.global-netventures.com/defcreativepaulad50.jpg)




No offense but this ad isn't meant to appeal to you or WebFX or anyone else on this forum. It is meant to get the attention of people in the cannabis community and it will do a fine job of it. Ron Paul has already gone public with wanting to end the war on drugs and medical cannabis legalisation so what could they possibly attack him on? Sure, if this was an ad for Parenthood magazine then I would agree with you but its NOT. It is an ad targeted to a very particular readership. Are you and WebFX part of the cannabis community? If the answer is no, then leave this ad to people that are....<glances over at 2 HT mags next to the TV>


Thanks devil, that is the point I was trying to make earlier. I am really surprised to come back to check this thread and find WebFX attacking my ad. Very unprofessional. I don't have time to respond right now but I will later.

And for the record, by my count my ad has 3 calls to action. That should be plenty.

[WebFX]

No offense but this ad isn't meant to appeal to you or WebFX or anyone else on this forum. It is meant to get the attention of people in the cannabis community and it will do a fine job of it. Ron Paul has already gone public with wanting to end the war on drugs and medical cannabis legalisation so what could they possibly attack him on? Sure, if this was an ad for Parenthood magazine then I would agree with you but its NOT. It is an ad targeted to a very particular readership. Are you and WebFX part of the cannabis community? If the answer is no, then leave this ad to people that are....<glances over at 2 HT mags next to the TV>

Yes, actually. I've done the branding and design for many of the most successful and large scale cannabis events in the world (2003: Marc Emery's Summer of Legalization Tour -- >50 MSM articles generated, local and national, 2004: Fill The Hill -- Canada's largest drug policy reform rally ever, 2005: Smoke Out America/Global Free Marc Emery Protests -- innumerable international MSM articles and over 50 cities participating from New York to London, Hong Kong, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Moscow, 2006: Logo and videos for Global Marijuana March/Million Marijuana March, Hamilton, ON's Up In Smoke Cafe Free Pot Smokeout, over 1lb of pot given away to hundreds of attendees in view of news media and police, press releases, focus groups, media teams, I could go on and on. I haven't gotten into my resume and why I know what I'm talking about, because I'm not looking for a pissing contest, I just wanted to use my experience (and time taken away from my day job) to do this thing right, get it all down on pixels quickly, and avoid the forseeable problems.

It comes down to the fact that I have a proven track record in appealing to stoners' political sides. For that reason, I humbly ask that you take my critique above seriously, and support the ad that I put forward.

[trey4sports]

let me just tell you right now, number one just wont catch the casual readers eye the same way #2 will

[WebFX]

Thanks devil, that is the point I was trying to make earlier. I am really surprised to come back to check this thread and find WebFX attacking my ad. Very unprofessional. I don't have time to respond right now but I will later.


Sorry you feel that way. I am trying to be as professional as possible. I am attacking it because it is currently leading in the poll and I feel there are significant problems with it and it is not right for the campaign. I don't have a bone to pick with you personally.

[romeshomey]

Entry 2

[WebFX]

$661 / 10 contributors!!

We are 18% of the way there!!

[devil21]

Yes, actually. I've done the branding and design for many of the most successful and large scale cannabis events in the world (2003: Marc Emery's Summer of Legalization Tour -- >50 MSM articles generated, local and national, 2004: Fill The Hill -- Canada's largest drug policy reform rally ever, 2005: Smoke Out America/Global Free Marc Emery Protests -- innumerable international MSM articles and over 50 cities participating from New York to London, Hong Kong, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Moscow, 2006: Logo and videos for Global Marijuana March/Million Marijuana March, Hamilton, ON's Up In Smoke Cafe Free Pot Smokeout, over 1lb of pot given away to hundreds of attendees in view of news media and police, press releases, focus groups, media teams, I could go on and on. I haven't gotten into my resume and why I know what I'm talking about, because I'm not looking for a pissing contest, I just wanted to use my experience (and time taken away from my day job) to do this thing right, get it all down on pixels quickly, and avoid the forseeable problems.

It comes down to the fact that I have a proven track record in appealing to stoners' political sides. For that reason, I humbly ask that you take my critique above seriously, and support the ad that I put forward.

Thats funny if you don't think that displaying an ad in HT with a (gasp1!1!!!1) pot leaf in it is the right idea. Ironically, none of the things you mentioned as your resume jive with anything remotely connected to the cannabis community of 2007/2008. Don't get me started on Emery. This isn't the forum for that.

Anyway, nice graphic Web but things arent like they were in 2003. If it were then Bush wouldnt have been re-elected in 2004.
I hope you aren't trying to push personal agenda over RP's candidacy FX.

[vinwal]

I like them both:cool:

[Oliver]

Even if I'm sick and tired to hear that Ron Paul supporters
are Nuts and Crackpots - and you guys are actually confirming
that as good as possible, the first Ad is more serious and at
least reminds me somewhat to Ron himself. The second one
is a cheap Crackpot-Message - literally.

Let's just hope we don't see this ad on an O'Reilly Talking Memo.

Good luck.

[defcreative]

There are serious problems with the #2 design (from defcreative). It's a cool design and all, but there are fundamental reasons why it's not the best, which I will explain; please try not to take it personally dc, I don't mean it that way.


WebFX, first of all I need to let out a "whoops" about saying that you were attacking my ad.

To be honest I am very busy with other projects and like you I put away some time from my other jobs to work on this project for the Ron Paul campaign. When I originally looked over your comments I had the misfortune of skimming down and immediately locking on the line "You might not happen to notice these things unless you work with them every day, but they make a big difference to response rates." This lead me to get the idea that you had a "Holier than thou" ideology towards me, which when actually present is very disrespectful and is why I said what your behavior was unprofessional. Also it may be because instead of taking time from my "work hours" to work up the draft, I took time from my sleep hours. :o ;) So my mistake.




First, is the big marijuana leaf in the centre of the page. The first rule, is do no harm. Don't you remember what happened with the Dennis Hof endorsement? The actions of 3rd party supporters, unaffiliated with the main campaign, were twisted by the news media with suggestive and misrepresentative headlines and reporting.

This could still happen even with a traditional-looking ad talking about Dr. Paul's stance on drug policy reform and the constitution, but you need to minimize their ability to do so. You don't want to allow Sean Hannity the ability to throw something up on the screen that looks like something out of High Times, you want it to look like it could have come from any old PAC. We are being stewards of his campaign here -- being aggressive by advertising in a 'counterculture' mag should be balanced by placing an ad that's conservative in nature. Advertising on behalf of Ron Paul by putting his face right up beside a big cannabis leaf, when in fact he may not personally be in favor of marijuana, is recklessly exposing the campaign's flank to this type of attack. (or maybe more appropriate for a general election when he has time to explain his opinion)


I genuinely understand where your concerns are coming from towards the ad, and like me you want what is best for the Ron Paul campaign. After all both of us have the same goal, which is to see Dr. Paul take his place in the White House.

With that said, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the risks that my ad entails for the campaign. The risks as far as I see them are only to which way the media may misrepresent the ads. Either way we will be posting an ad in a "counterculture" magazine for our politician.

That brings about one of my larger concerns with the traditional style ad. I am afraid that the ad will appear "awkward" in the midst of the other advertisements in the magazine, and that will immediately give the reader a feeling that it "does not belong", which in turn will subconsciously affect the reader's views on Ron Paul. First impressions are always important, and we are trying to target new individuals for exposure to the Ron Paul campaign. As a steward of his campaign I want to make sure that the first exposure is a positive and memorable one, the latter of which can be sacrificed by conservative design.

I designed my ad to fit to the magazine and reader demographic's style, which I think it does well. More importantly though, I also wanted to establish a "concept" section in the ad, and a "Ron Paul" section. The two sections are clearly divided to prevent the idea that Ron Paul's face was being planted up next to a huge Marijuana leaf. It should be apparent that the Marijuana leaf and the prescription bottle with pills are just part of the legalization concept.

Had I done something ludacris like photomanipulate a joint into Ron Paul's hands, I could see an objection. I think its pretty safe to have a Marijuana leaf on the ad, after all it is about legalization and you have multiple Marijuana leaf watermarks on your ad as well. I don't really see the difference, except that yours is done in a more passive way. The leafs still jumped out at my when I first saw your ad though.





Second, the message of the ad (main graphic centerpiece and caption) needlessly excludes people in 2 separate ways right away; a) First, the ad implies that pharmaceutical drugs are a "Safe Medicine". Many people in the cannabis community do not believe this and I know I certainly do not. b) The message seems like it could be primarily targeting medical marijuana. A lot of people who are otherwise interested in legalization are not interested in the medical side of the cannabis issue at all. So far from grabbing their attention, we are sort of excluding the attention of people right away who would otherwise be open to the message.



I am decently competent in neurochemistry and pharmacology so I would agree with you that the pharmaceutical drug industry has a hell of a lot of unsafe drugs. I was trying to capture the fact that the legal world considers THOSE drugs "safe", while countless studies and people's experience back up the fact that Marijuana is equally if not more safe, yet illegal. That fact is ridiculous. The intention is to rouse annoyance toward that fact in the reader's mind, then instantly offer the solution to the problem: Vote for Ron Paul! (which is one call to action, the title)

I wasn't totally pleased myself with the wording, so I went ahead and changed the text to "These are both considered 'safe medicines'" Why is one illegal? That leaves the interpretation of "safety" to the reader, preventing any upsets like you described above.

The concept is only meant to rouse annoyance to the fact that other more dangerous drugs are legal while Marijuana remains illegal. However, as you noticed it does imply Medical Marijuana. This was meant to be placed in the mix, simply because if the media does try to stir up some bad press over this ad on interviews, he can simply say that he feels that patients using Marijuana to relieve their illnesses should not have to worry about prosecution from the Federal Government over them trying to treat themselves.

This gives the campaign an open way to spin any negative press since the majority of americans do support medical marijuana.

AND, down below in the ad in the "Ron Paul information section" it clearly says that he supports the freedom of people to make their own choices, and if they want to smoke Marijuana it is their right to do so. Next to that it states that he fully supports legalization. That will prevent any miscommunication about this being for only Medical Marijuana benefits.



Third, there is hardly even a call to action. (if you wanted to you could call the website at the bottom a CTA.) Mine has 5-6!


Mine does not have 5-6, but it has 4 strong ones.

1) The first is the centerpiece which calls upon the reader to think about why Marijuana is illegal, which self generates interest for the reader to read the rest of the ad.

2) Next is the top title, which asks the reader to help Ron Paul end the war on drugs by voting for him.

3) In the Ron Paul information box there is another "sub box" which clearly tells the reader to "REGISTER NOW" to vote in their state's republican primary.

4) The bottom of the ad tells the reader to "Visit RonPaul2008.com"

Sounds good to me. ;)





People who read High Times/Cannabis Culture etc typically read the entire magazine, cover to cover, multiple times. If we have prominent placement, it *will* get read...

...I'm also not trying to be brutal here, sorry defcreative, you made a nice looking thing -- just trying to be brutally honest from a professional standpoint and hopefully get the best possible ad for our goals)

interested in feedback from anyone.



No offense taken here, we both have the same goals, just two different opinions on how it is best accomplished. I always like to have another professionals opinion.

I'm not so sure about that, but it is a possibility that a majority may read the magazine from front to back a few times, lets hope so. That, however, is not my main concern.

I am concerned with:

A) The ad being Memorable

B) The ad standing out to the reader, so that it is actually read.

B) The ad creating the greatest amount of emotion, driving the reader to action.


Most will probably agree that an aggressive advertisement is going to win hands down.

It seems to me here that we are at a point where it is either: Try to make the ad as "safe" as possible while sacrificing some of it's effectiveness, or just go for the most that it can be.

Just remember, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

I am trying to take the liberty to make this ad the best it can be. ;)

[defcreative]

Even if I'm sick and tired to hear that Ron Paul supporters
are Nuts and Crackpots - and you guys are actually confirming
that as good as possible, the first Ad is more serious and at
least reminds me somewhat to Ron himself. The second one
is a cheap Crackpot-Message - literally.

Questioning why pharmaceutical drugs that have been proven dangerous are still legal, while Marijuana which has been proven very safe, is illegal is somehow a crackpot message?

Please elaborate.

I did not expect to be labeled a "crackpot" for donating some of my professional time to help out the campaign.

[Oliver]

Questioning why pharmaceutical drugs that have been proven dangerous are still legal, while Marijuana which has been proven very safe, is illegal is somehow a crackpot message?

Please elaborate.

My point was that this Ad is playing with fire - I wasn't
kidding about the "Talking Points Memo". I'm merely
referring to the audience and the way the message is
presented.

Now even if I agree that the point is actually true - no
Candidate wants to be thrown into one category with
"Crackpots". And the reason I say "Crackpots" is that
this would be the Term someone like O'Reilly would
use.

Anyway: It's not my thing - I just think Paul wouldn't
support the latter ad, maybe not even the first one.
Drugs aren't his strongest point - so the money would
be better invested in a Soldiers-Magazine with a
"just come home"-Message.

Never mind - we surely can agree that we have the
same goal: Ron's presidency. Just let us not endanger
this goal.

Cheers,
Oliver

[synthetic]

Entry #2 is perfect for Hightimes. Great ad, nice work.

[robert4rp08]

Can't go wrong with either, but I prefer #2.

[robert4rp08]

My point was that this Ad is playing with fire - I wasn't
kidding about the "Talking Points Memo". I'm merely
referring to the audience and the way the message is
presented.

Now even if I agree that the point is actually true - no
Candidate wants to be thrown into one category with
"Crackpots". And the reason I say "Crackpots" is that
this would be the Term someone like O'Reilly would
use.

Anyway: It's not my thing - I just think Paul wouldn't
support the latter ad, maybe not even the first one.
Drugs aren't his strongest point - so the money would
be better invested in a Soldiers-Magazine with a
"just come home"-Message.

Never mind - we surely can agree that we have the
same goal: Ron's presidency. Just let us not endanger
this goal.

Cheers,
Oliver

His strongest point is FREEDOM OF CHOICE and the CONSTITUTION. Drugs are part of that.

[Oliver]

His strongest point is FREEDOM OF CHOICE and the CONSTITUTION. Drugs are part of that.


The majority "supports the Troops".
The majority is sick and tired of the war.

I agree with you in peace-times - but this isn't the case
right now. Drugs are a very minor point in the current
race. But a major attacking point for the Ron Paul opposition.

Just keep that in mind - no matter how much you or others
might eager to get legal drugs. It could heavily damage his
campaign, couldn't it?

[synthetic]

The majority "supports the Troops".
The majority is sick and tired of the war.

I agree with you in peace-times - but this isn't the case
right now. Drugs are a very minor point in the current
race. But a major attacking point for the Ron Paul opposition.

Just keep that in mind - no matter how much you or others
might eager to get legal drugs. It could heavily damage his
campaign, couldn't it?

Ron was asked about the drug war during a debate. He didn't back down and got loud applause for his position. He isn't backing down and neither should we.

[Oliver]

Ron was asked about the drug war during a debate. He didn't back down and got loud applause for his position. He isn't backing down and neither should we.

It's not about backing back in any way - I'm talking about
strategical thinking -aka- "What is a good move on the
political chess-board and what could be used AGAINST us?"

Drugs can be used against us. Is this so hard to grasp?
Should we start a "Free choice of prostitution"-ad as well?
You're basically arguing this way - "Who cares about Blowbacks?".

[defcreative]

It could heavily damage his
campaign, couldn't it?

No, I don't think so. There are already plenty of videos on YouTube where he says himself that he supports the legalization of Marijuana. I think that if the main stream media wanted to attack him they would use public domain video footage versus some ad that was printed in high times magazine, and an independent advertisement at that.

Besides, the ad states on the very bottom "Paid for by Americans United for Liberty, www.unitedforliberty.com, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

I think some caution is always healthy, but saying it will "heavily damage" him is an exponential overstatement of the actual situation at hand.

[Myerz]

#1

[Oliver]

No, I don't think so. There are already plenty of videos on YouTube where he says himself that he supports the legalization of Marijuana. I think that if the main stream media wanted to attack him they would use public domain video footage versus some ad that was printed in high times magazine, and an independent advertisement at that.

Besides, the ad states on the very bottom "Paid for by Americans United for Liberty, www.unitedforliberty.com (http://www.unitedforliberty.com), and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

I think some caution is always healthy, but saying it will "heavily damage" him is an exponential overstatement of the actual situation at hand.


I'll take your word for it - and hope the best. Even if I think
it's an unnecessarily risky move. And deep inside you know
what I'm pointing at.

[defcreative]

I'll take your word for it - and hope the best. Even if I think
it's an unnecessarily risky move. And deep inside you know
what I'm pointing at.

I think it isn't a bad idea at all, I mean with over 200,000 prints to be in circulation it will be a great way to get a hold of a lot of people for a very reasonable price.


The scare around this whole ad reminds me a lot of the scare that happened on the Nov 30th money bomb. Everyone was panicking saying that the media was going to post bad press since we didn't make the overinflated 2.5 million goal. After it was all said and done, we "only" collected a little over half a million and I never saw any negative press come from it.

That example right there was a far better chance for the main stream media to try to deflate the Ron Paul campaign then some ad in High Times printed by independent supporters. I greatly respect your opinion, but I think people tend to be way oversensitive to this sort of thing.

[tsetsefly]

bump, this is a good effort to get supporters,the opposition already knows Paul is for ending the prohibition, they could already attack him on that. I am sure many anti-prohibition people dont even know who Paul is, we can get some of their votes...

[CelestialRender]

Entry 2 looks better for the demographic. Looks less stereotypical prez ad.

[WebFX]

Thats funny if you don't think that displaying an ad in HT with a (gasp1!1!!!1) pot leaf in it is the right idea. Ironically, none of the things you mentioned as your resume jive with anything remotely connected to the cannabis community of 2007/2008. Don't get me started on Emery. This isn't the forum for that.

Anyway, nice graphic Web but things arent like they were in 2003. If it were then Bush wouldnt have been re-elected in 2004.
I hope you aren't trying to push personal agenda over RP's candidacy FX.

whatever this means

[WebFX]

WebFX, first of all I need to let out a "whoops" about saying that you were attacking my ad.

To be honest I am very busy with other projects and like you I put away some time from my other jobs to work on this project for the Ron Paul campaign. When I originally looked over your comments I had the misfortune of skimming down and immediately locking on the line "You might not happen to notice these things unless you work with them every day, but they make a big difference to response rates." This lead me to get the idea that you had a "Holier than thou" ideology towards me, which when actually present is very disrespectful and is why I said what your behavior was unprofessional. Also it may be because instead of taking time from my "work hours" to work up the draft, I took time from my sleep hours. :o ;) So my mistake.


Cheers, I sincerely appreciate your reply.

It seems like not enough people are concerned about the things I mentioned (needlessly exposing Ron's flank to cheap attacks right before a Republican primary), and I don't have any more time to try to convince you all, so I am just going to shut up. I am frustrated though because the reason I designed the ad in the first place was to design OUT the pot leaf from the previous winning entry and give the ad more of a conservative look.

I just really hope this doesn't get any negative media attention, it would not please me at all for my fears to be confirmed.