Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad: Here's why.

[Brian Bailey]

From Paulunteer.com (http://www.paulunteer.com).

Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad
December 11th, 2007 · 1 Comment

Speculation is running wild at RonPaulForums.com.

Is the official Ron Paul campaign planning something massive? Some people claiming insider information insist that it is, but they aren’t saying anything. These insiders could be sworn to secrecy, or they could just be inflating expectations for their own amusement.

I’m going to write about the first possibility.

Here is why a Ron Paul Super Bowl Ad would be awesome:

The Super Bowl this year is on February 3rd, just two days before Super Tuesday, February 5th, when 23 states will hold their nominating process.

A 30 second spot during the Super Bowl costs about $2 Million.

90 Million Americans watch the game.

Ron Paul is probably going to raise more money than any other Republican candidate this quarter. An expenditure such as this would announce this fact to everyone as emphatically as it can possibly be announced.

The viewership is a demographic that crosses all spectrums, but let’s face it, consists of a lot of people who are probably not very politically active. A Super Bowl Ad reaches all of them.

We will most likely raise between $6-10 Million on December 16th. Can you think of a better use for a paltry $2 Million of that huge sum?

The only sure way to win the election is with something huge like this.

I repeat: 90 Million Americans. Two days before 23 states hold their primary.

So, February 3rd a captive audience of 90 million people see the amazing ad that the campaign and grassroots put together. (Remember, people actively watch commercials during the Super Bowl.) February 4th everyone goes to work and talks about Ron Paul. February 5th everyone goes to the polls and votes for Ron Paul.

Result: We. Win.

[ReallyNow]

Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.

[Spike]

It makes sense to me. Plus, people are going to be talking about the ad before it even runs, so thats even more exposure.

If we can get celebrities endorsing Paul for the ad it would be even better.

It can be the grassroots making the ad, no HQ.

[kylejack]

No.

[Brian Bailey]

No.

Do you have a captive audience of 90 million people in your pocket that you're not telling us about? Cuz that would be cool...

[Dan D.]

If it's to be done, it should be a grassroots effort like the blimp, forget HQ. Hell, maybe see if we can contract Liberty Advertising to do it. I'm sure they won't mind diversifying into television from zepplins. We'll hold our own YouTube contest like HQ did for CNN, with roughly the same rules (though the 2nd format should be 1080i if commercials are going to be aired in HD this year), but with all entries public. Hell, even allow older 30-sec ads as entries.

The only question is: is raising 2 million between 12/16 and whenever the ad would have to be submitted possible?

[kylejack]

Do you have a captive audience of 90 million people in your pocket that you're not telling us about? Cuz that would be cool...
Yes, we have access to approximately 300 million people, many who are of voting age. Go pass out some slimjims.

[Jobarra]

I would say if he gets $10M+ on Sunday, that this might be a good strategy. I don't know of anywhere else where so many people are glued to the commercials. I usually watch the commercials instead of the game :D IF they can somehow put together a humorous commercial, I think it will be worth the money spent for those who would be new donors. Even if you only got a 1% response, you have hundreds of thousands of new supporters who are now also spreading the message. Think of all the watercooler talk as well. I think the commercial should focus on the war AND the economic situation/IRS.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

How fitting when the PATRIOTS win the Superbowl :-)

[Ron Paul FTW]

To run a 30 second commercial ONE time during the Super Bowl is going to cost millions. I think there is better ways of spending that money, but that is just me.

[Dan D.]

What about the show right after the Super Bowl? Those ad spots have to cost less, and we should still get plenty of viewers. Anyone have historical ratings?

[Brian Bailey]

Yes, we have access to approximately 300 million people, many who are of voting age. Go pass out some slimjims.

No reason to be nasty. You have no idea what I'm doing for this campaign.

I'm not sure you know what a captive audience is, either.

[AisA1787]

It would cost more than $2 million... This sort of thing needs to be professionally written and produced. If it's not, unless you get extraordinarily lucky, you've wasted your $2 million and on top of that the ad would most likely reflect poorly on the campaign. Besides, people generally aren't open to strong political messages during the Superbowl, especially when they're usually in loud, boisterous groups having a party. It would risk turning off lots of potential supporters. My opinion: too little time, not enough money, and even though it has a potentially large upside, the downside has no bottom.

[azminuteman]

Political ads aren't allowed for Superbowl commercials.
They tried it for Kerry/Bush and were declined.

[OKRonPaul]

I think it's a great idea. Especially if it's announced before IA/NH to generate some MSM buzz. Just announcing they were going to do this would be news worthy IMHO. Getting RP into the casual voters short list of viable candidates is a big deal, and the buzz would help.

[curtisag]

This is a horrible idea for many reasons.

1. Advertisements need repetition to become effective
2. 30 seconds isn't long enough to have a big enough impact
3. The money could be better spent by spreading it out

[radhruin]

I don't think this is a good idea at all, honestly. Perhaps it would fly if we were trying to win the general election, but we're not. We're trying to get the Republican party nomination, and that means we need to not just get people to say "Oh, hey, I know who Ron Paul is now" but also to say "I'm going to go vote for him in the primary". The call to action is the tough (impossible) part with a 30 second superbowl spot. You'll increase name recognition among the general population if the ad is done extremely well, but you won't get any more people out to the polls.

[Dan D.]

Political ads aren't allowed for Superbowl commercials.
They tried it for Kerry/Bush and were declined.
That kinda settles it then. :\

[trey4sports]

were not gonna win this election tip-toeing around. theres a time for calculated risks and what better time than in front of 90 million people? think of it, we've done pretty decent in the early states lets hypothetically say we are in a statistical 4th place finish coming into the super Tuesday and BOOM just like the Terry Tate commercial of yesteryear we have a great response whether the ad makes fun of other republicans or if its very positive. the chance of not only reaching 90 million viewers but also the possibility of having a very creative ad that has people saying "hey i like this guy and im not too happy with any other presidential candidate, why not vote for this guy"

[SeanEdwards]

Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.

Maybe the campaign should hire a pro ad firm to produce the commercial.

[Oliver]

From what I remember reading in here about the Super Bowl:

"Political Ad's are NOT ALLOWED!"

Was this a wrong statement?

[Cleaner44]

Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.

I agree. I have worked for a company that ran a superbowl ad and it was a HUGE waste of money. For Go Daddy, it works well, for many others, not so much.

[Johncjackson]

As I posted before ( weeks ago, I think) I read that all spots were sold long ago and there were a couple spots they were holding onto to give to preferred advertisers at $3.8 million.

I dont know where any of this speculation or assumptions about costs, etc comes from. maybe people should try talking to or reading actual advertising industry sources and not making up BS.

[leonster]

But just think of the size of the audience, ACTIVELY watching. If only 1% of people are not current Ron Paul supporters, but respond to the message--that's 900,000 new supporters. 2% is 1.8 million. And it's a popular message, as soon as we can get it out there. Remember--many states' primaries are won with low vote totals on low turnout... and it would also be covered in the news as (I believe?) the first Presidential commercial on the Superbowl? The first in a long time, anyways.

[Malum Prohibitum]

We dont have to spend $2M for a 30 second ad. We just have to have THE BLIMP in the sky over sundevil stadium. ....

[Drknows]

Superbowl ads need to be creative or funny to get really noticed. I don't see our current ad people (from the official campaign) pulling something like that off. No offense to them.

ARe you serious? i laugh now at them. the latest one with the CHA CHING cracked me up. that one is almost as good as the Hes catching on im telling ya.

[Kaptin K]

Pointless post whether it's funny or not, professionally produced or not, $2 million or not.. because...

wait for it..


POLITICAL ADS AREN'T ALLOWED IN THE SUPERBOWL

Thanks.

[noztnac]

We dont have to spend $2M for a 30 second ad. We just have to have THE BLIMP in the sky over sundevil stadium. ....


A much better idea. The blimp must be there.

[noztnac]

Pointless post whether it's funny or not, professionally produced or not, $2 million or not.. because...

wait for it..


POLITICAL ADS AREN'T ALLOWED IN THE SUPERBOWL

Thanks.


On what grounds would they not be allowed?

[noztnac]

I have found nothing that indicates Superbowl ads are not allowed. If someone has such information please post it.


http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=116409

[Mr. White]

On what grounds would they not be allowed?

Um, on the grounds that it's being aired on a private network that can air whatever the hell they want?

[kevinblack]

Political adds are acceptable in the Superbowl.

The cost of just running the add this year will be 2.6Million or maybe a bit higher.

If the campaign is not planning on something like this the grassroots should. If we get 100k donors on the 16th we should go for it.

[terryp]

We dont have to spend $2M for a 30 second ad. We just have to have THE BLIMP in the sky over sundevil stadium. ....

The blimp could fly over the super bowl for how long for 2 mil. It would surely
get that in free air time during the game alone. Much less the week before
when the sports media is hyping it.
I don't know exactly what our best demographic is but men, gun owners,
the youtube crowd, and who knows how many sports pubs would show it.
If the game is at night the blimp could be fitted with those bad as lights.

That's where my 2 million would go ;)

[1913_to_2008]

If they did a super bowl ad, it would have to be one minute. 30 seconds is just not worth it.

[Todd]

Do you know how much 30 seconds of ad time costs during a superbowl? It was around 2.6 million last year. I bet it will be close to 3 mill this year.

[azminuteman]

Political adds are acceptable in the Superbowl.

The cost of just running the add this year will be 2.6Million or maybe a bit higher.

If the campaign is not planning on something like this the grassroots should. If we get 100k donors on the 16th we should go for it.

Not on broadcast television. Bush and Kerry were not allowed to run ads in 2004 even though they were produced. Even MoveOn had a commercial and CBS declined to use it.

[jrich4rpaul]

Maybe the campaign won't make the ad (if that's the plan)

It could be another YouTube contest, the winner gets their ad on the SuperBowl.

[Workguy23]

:pEveryone agrees...Superbowl commercials have to be funny, or appeal to emotion to be remembered(e.g. Budweiser commercial with the troops at the airport). I think a funny commerical would be:

A scene with a Rudy look-a-like sleeping in his bed. He is mumbling, tossing and turning. Softly and slowly, an audible chant grows louder and louder as visions of his "nightmare" pop on the screen. Real video of thousands of people chanting "RON PAUL, RON PAUL." As it chanting reaches peak volume, Rudy awakens in a cold sweat and screams "AAHHHHH" as an image of Thomas Jefferson appears in front him with the Constitution held out. Jefferson then rolls it up and smacks him with it. Rudy awakens again in a cold sweat. Then the words appear on the screen, "A nightmare for crooked politicians" then "A Revolution for Americans" ... "Ron Paul 2008"

Maybe something along those lines :p

[FreeTraveler]

:pEveryone agrees...Superbowl commercials have to be funny, or appeal to emotion to be remembered(e.g. Budweiser commercial with the troops at the airport). I think a funny commerical would be:

A scene with a Rudy look-a-like sleeping in his bed. He is mumbling, tossing and turning. Softly and slowly, an audible chant grows louder and louder as visions of his "nightmare" pop on the screen. Real video of thousands of people chanting "RON PAUL, RON PAUL." As it chanting reaches peak volume, Rudy awakens in a cold sweat and screams "AAHHHHH" as an image of Thomas Jefferson appears in front him with the Constitution held out. Jefferson then rolls it up and smacks him with it. Rudy awakens again in a cold sweat. Then the words appear on the screen, "A nightmare for crooked politicians" then "A Revolution for Americans" ... "Ron Paul 2008"

Maybe something along those lines :p

Oh, man, does anybody know a Rudy look-alike? This thing would go VIRAL in about 30 seconds flat, and it would get on the nightly news without spending a dime!

[MN Patriot]

One 30 second ad during the Superbowl wouldn't be enough. Or even one minute.

It would be better to have hundreds of ads, unique and memorable ads, running for weeks and months, instead of 1 ad during the Superbowl.

Unless those hundreds of ads aluded to some remarkable announcement during the Superbowl, so that people are actually LOOKING for it.

Most Superbowl ads are from established companies, beer, investments, etc. One unknown politician will be ignored. People will see it and and ask "what the hell was THAT about?", then take another swig of beer.

It is probably too late to buy a Superbowl ad anyway, they were sold months ago.

[Charles Wilson]

For 2.6 million dollars we could put a whole fleet of Ron Paul blimps in the air, over and around the Super Bowl. Seriously, we need at least two more Ron Paul blimps to cover the US, one in the midwest and one on the west coast -- if they are available. Any volunteers to head up a project to hire more blimps -- times is a wastin'?

[jmunjr]

Yes, we have access to approximately 300 million people, many who are of voting age. Go pass out some slimjims.

Then why do we need to advertise to 90 million?

[Revolution9]

Political ads aren't allowed for Superbowl commercials.
They tried it for Kerry/Bush and were declined.

Well thank the Lord Jesus for that. This idea was a horrible waste of money to aggrandize the armchair quarterback contingent. I do not think these couch potato jocks vote for the most part.

Best Regards
Randy

[Revolution9]

We dont have to spend $2M for a 30 second ad. We just have to have THE BLIMP in the sky over sundevil stadium. ....

Bang zoom. Out of the park..no extra moola.

Best Regards
Randy

[kylejack]

Then why do we need to advertise to 90 million?
We don't, at least not in this manner. Its a huge waste of money. Imagine...blowing half the November 5th money in 30 seconds.

[azminuteman]

I have found nothing that indicates Superbowl ads are not allowed. If someone has such information please post it.


http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=116409


John Kerry and Bush both produced Superbowl ads and CBS rejected them because they didn't want to have it turn into a political thing.
MoveOn produced an ad and submitted and was almost accepted but CBS rejected it as it would indicate that CBS was promoting a candidate.

POLITICAL ADS ARE NOT ALLOWED

[wisconsinite]

How fitting when the PATRIOTS win the Superbowl :-)

Naaaah, dude. It's gonna be more like a repeat of Superbowl XXXI :D:)

[kylejack]

Naaaah, dude. It's gonna be more like a repeat of Superbowl XXXI :D:)

I dunno, man....They've been stomping everyone....

[StumbleBum7]

i nominate that commercial that was shown during the debate

[Question_Authority]

How fitting when the PATRIOTS win the Superbowl :-)

Mmmm. I like your way of thinking.... :)

[Question_Authority]

I don't know if it is wise to do this. 30 seconds during the superbowl is not going to convince people to vote for a candidate.

Unless Ron Paul promised a new federal FREE BEER FOR ALL program.

[beobeli]

Just don't let the campaign make the ad. The creative grassroots needs to do it.

[PledgeForPaul]

It would cost about $20 million to send a 2 page pamphlet to every likely Republican caucus goer. Ron Paul can only win by contrasting his views with other candidates... not 30 second soundbytes. A superbowl ad is not a good use of money.

If the campaign wants to win, and not just 'get the idea out' here is what I think they should do:
1. Spend the bulk of their money on full sized mail. The mail needs to assume the reader is intelligent - RP isn't helped with postcards and soundbytes.
2. Get a celebrity that supports Paul to go on tour with him similar to Obama/Oprah. Mixing 5,000 people who want to see [x celebrity] with 1,000 die hard Paul fans is the best way to leverage his support. Since Obama/Oprah, Hillary has no chance in Iowa anymore - her 31% Iowa Intrade contracts are over priced.
3. Hire a couple speech guys to help Ron not be as fumbly. He also needs to remove dramatic statements that make the constitution sound like an infallible document from god. Saying the founders had merit in something is good, saying the Iraq mess happened solely because we 'disobeyed' the constitution is nutzo.
4. Reduce the price on everything in the RP2008 'store'. Add more inventory and consider donating Ron Paul branded hats/shirts/gloves/etc. $5,000 in Ron Paul winter caps to a couple Iowa shelters would get local news coverage. If I had a Ron Paul hoodie that I wore as my normal jacket I'm sure it would spur dozens of RP conversations with friends/etc.

[Charles Wilson]

Wheew, I'm glad that the Super Bowl Ad idea is winding down. Speaking of TV Ads, frankly I would like to see more money spent on professional quality Ads. The new official campaign radio ad is not bad but the the TV Ad is terrible. The official campaign folks need serious help in that department. As far as creating effective Ads is concerned, I don't have that kind of expertise but I do know a stinker when I see one. This is not the time to be frugal; we should spend whatever is necessary to produce quality Ads -- otherwise why bother?

[alien]

The only problem is most people in the general audience don't give a crap about politics and would not go out of their way to vote. It could work but how many are willing to go get on the internet and look it up? And then go register and vote? I don't suppose it would hurt to try though, other than the money spent.

In regard to the Super Bowl that is.

[alieas007]

We dont have to spend $2M for a 30 second ad. We just have to have THE BLIMP in the sky over sundevil stadium. ....

New stadium is in Glendale. University of Phoenix Stadium.

[kylejack]

Wheew, I'm glad that the Super Bowl Ad idea is winding down. Speaking of TV Ads, frankly I would like to see more money spent on professional quality Ads. The new official campaign radio ad is not bad but the the TV Ad is terrible. The official campaign folks need serious help in that department. As far as creating effective Ads is concerned, I don't have that kind of expertise but I do know a stinker when I see one. This is not the time to be frugal; we should spend whatever is necessary to produce quality Ads -- otherwise why bother?

Contribute to opnh.org.

[Arklatex]

To run a 30 second commercial ONE time during the Super Bowl is going to cost millions. I think there is better ways of spending that money, but that is just me.

I'm sure they'd air the commercial outside the superbowl also.

[bgoldwater]

BIG waste of money. For 2 million we can get thousands of ads. Mosts adds need to be seen multiple times before they are effective.

[shepburn]

A superbowl Ad is the best idea yet. This will be bigger than the blimp!

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

where are all the graphics and animation people????? this is a call to you to step up and make it happen like so many others have already! don't wait for "someone else" to do it.

[Dan D.]

Once again,

THEY DO NOT ALLOW POLITICAL ADS ON THE SUPERBOWL
That is all.

[Revolutn]

With respects.

Although I generally do like the idea because the audience is so wide and diverse...I mean hell even people who pay not one iota of attention to NFL football watch the SuperBowl largely for the ad's themselves and or the Half-Time Snoreganza....err I mean Extravaganza!

Some of you need to slow down and read a thread...it's been pointed out at least once on now 6 and counting pages of this thread that

POLITICAL ADS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

So some have said, show me the proof.

And it was shown.

Kerry and Bush and moveon.org all couldn't get airtime purchased.

No it's not because of some law, it's simply that the networks refuse to politicize the telecast overtly, even though at some level they do with all the rah rah rah America's great support our troops kind of pomp and circumstance injected into NFL broadcasts...but still...the network has a policy of NOT SELLING air time for POLITICAL COMMERCIALS.


I'm amazed this thread continues to grow......as a child my best friends mother used to admonish us : "Engage brain before opening mouth."

While a novel idea, it has no legs or basis in reality.

Rev

P.S. I'm all for having the blimp in the area, although you realize it probably wouldn't really get TV coverage...first game inside a dome, second....the network would probably avoid showing it because it's for a political candidate.

NEWS coverage of the blimp being there....yes, game coverage of the blimp, bet it all on NO WAY jose they won't show it.

[Highstreet]

This is a horrible idea for many reasons.

1. Advertisements need repetition to become effective
2. 30 seconds isn't long enough to have a big enough impact
3. The money could be better spent by spreading it out

I agree.

We would be better off spending it on National Ads in the Weeks leading up to and during the Primaries in January.

I also think he needs to start talking about how he is the New Direction Americans are looking for. And he needs to start talking about a Vision for America. We need to create the Shining City on the Hill vision as Ron Paul's America.

Maybe he should have an "I Have A Dream" speech (not exactly, but you get my drift) at a Stadium in a large city, as some others suggested.

[EvilEngineer]

Some ways to get RP noticed at the superbowl.

1. Huge tailgate party for RP before and after the game.
2. Fly the blimp over the superbowl.... it will be noticed by everyone there, and it WILL be covered by the media.
3. Stand outside the gates and hand out slimjims.

[vadimg]

what you think guys?

http://donate2008.org/supermoneybomb

[kevinblack]

With respects.

Although I generally do like the idea because the audience is so wide and diverse...I mean hell even people who pay not one iota of attention to NFL football watch the SuperBowl largely for the ad's themselves and or the Half-Time Snoreganza....err I mean Extravaganza!

Some of you need to slow down and read a thread...it's been pointed out at least once on now 6 and counting pages of this thread that

POLITICAL ADS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

So some have said, show me the proof.

And it was shown.

Kerry and Bush and moveon.org all couldn't get airtime purchased.

No it's not because of some law, it's simply that the networks refuse to politicize the telecast overtly, even though at some level they do with all the rah rah rah America's great support our troops kind of pomp and circumstance injected into NFL broadcasts...but still...the network has a policy of NOT SELLING air time for POLITICAL COMMERCIALS.


Moveon.org wanted to show a very controversial add. In any case this year the superbowl is being shown by a different network.

It is very possible that the network will decide not to show political adds, but here are some links that indicate that people are thinking about this as possible:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041200337.html
"Political Ads May Invade Super Bowl"

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6364507&nav=menu36_3
"Political ads during Super Bowl?"


A superbowl ad is not a thirty second deal. Here is what you need to do to make it work:

" Remember to support this really expensive placement so it is not instantly forgotten before consumers get out their pocketbook. Support the super bowl ad with a well diversified campaign offline, online and everywhere else. This means everything from TV commericals for weeks afterwards, search ads, social networking if possible, blogs if possible, a microsite or at least a mention of the ad on your home page and make it available to view online, print ads if you still do that, emails linking to microsite and coordinating online display ads too."
http://theprotagonist5.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/super-bowl-sunday-2008-almost-sold-out/