If Ron Paul was a product, would it sell to Joe Public?

[Alabama Supporter]

The Public likes to buy shiny new toys. These products are packaged, branded, and marketed effectively.

This is the key question that should be asked of Ron Paul's marketing team:

Is Ron Paul being marketed effectively?

I think the clear answer is no.

For the "revolution" to continue, there must be a serious re-evaluation of how Ron Paul is being sold in terms of image , emotion, and simplicity.

[rob-NC]

I think the product is wrapped and advertised perfectly. You can buy that shiny new toy, but when it breaks in a month you will wish you had spent a little more for the "tried and proven" product that lasts through abuse and stands up to its name.

[Paulitical Correctness]

If RP was a product, he'd be selling like yak baks in 1995.

[Rob]

I think the product is wrapped and advertised perfectly. You can buy that shiny new toy, but when it breaks in a month you will wish you had spent a little more for the "tried and proven" product that lasts through abuse and stands up to its name.

Who is "you" is it you or me, who clearly are not representative of the average public?

Everyone needs to start thinking in terms of the uninformed and often idiotic voter, we will never win without their vote. It doesn't matter how intelligently we present Paul's message, we need mass market appeal, or we're going to lose.

[rob-NC]

start thinking in terms of the uninformed and often idiotic voter,


Good point

[PimpBlimp]

I have been saying for months we need to get a large brewery to make a Ron Paul beer

[rob-NC]

I have been saying for months we need to get a large brewery to make a Ron Paul beer

Im surprised Sam Adams hasnt endorsed :D

[Dave Wood]

I have been saying this same thing forever.....no ones listening. Campaigning is selling. You are trying to convince people to "buy" your candidate and his ideas. If you dont target markets that want to buy your candidate or that market is too small, you wont win. The product has to be packaged in a way that appeals to the broadest possible section of voters.

[Redcard]

There are two questions here.

The first is,

Is our product a good product?

The second,

Is our product being marketed correctly?

I think the answer to both is "could be better."

[beobeli]

Ron Paul is a paradigm-shifting product, an innovation. As with any product of that nature there is going to be 5-15% of early adopters, but the early majority (the next ~35% of the market) will wait to see who is buying and how the product performs before they will buy. The early adopters are used as a trusted reference by the early majority.

Marketing is important, but in the low-trust world of today, you cannot tell people what they want and what they should buy. The marketing works (when it works) by having people discover a product. Rubbing it into people's noses is counterproductive; people go "hmm, what's the catch here?".

In any market there are about 5-15% of brave risk-takers, visionary, early adopters who are willing to explore and give a new thing a chance. The remainder of the market is a bit more cautious and need time to absorb an new idea/product.

[fj45lvr]

Paul knows his stuff and has the intellect his downfall is that he is not the polished snakeoil salesmen type with the delivery of that content and is coming off as a "whiny" complainer IMHO which psychologically doesn't have the appeal to the masses that are not already aware that things really are awry in camelot.

[McDermit]

.... Exactly why HQ needs oldhead campaign advisors. The people at HQ don't know how to brand RP. They're clueless.

Why has Huck been able to steal most of RP's platform and actually sell it? The delivery and packaging. He knows how to sell it to the people... RP needs someone who can help him do the same. The message stays the sane, it just needs to be tailored to the audience.

[Dave Wood]

Ron Paul is a paradigm-shifting product, an innovation. As with any product of that nature there is going to be 5-15% of early adopters, but the early majority (the next ~35% of the market) will wait to see who is buying and how the product performs before they will buy. The early adopters are used as a trusted reference by the early majority.

Marketing is important, but in the low-trust world of today, you cannot tell people what they want and what they should buy. The marketing works (when it works) by having people discover a product. Rubbing it into people's noses is counterproductive; people go "hmm, what's the catch here?".

In any market there are about 5-15% of brave risk-takers, visionary, early adopters who are willing to explore and give a new thing a chance. The remainder of the market is a bit more cautious and need time to absorb an new idea/product.

Very interesting. I have heard that formula and the reasoning behind it before and it just may apply here.

Problem is, how are we going to break into the next section of voters with this media blockade?

[beobeli]

Ron Paul is a paradigm-shifting product, an innovation. As with any product of that nature there is going to be 5-15% of early adopters, but the early majority (the next ~35% of the market) will wait to see who is buying and how the product performs before they will buy. The early adopters are used as a trusted reference by the early majority.

Marketing is important, but in the low-trust world of today, you cannot tell people what they want and what they should buy. The marketing works (when it works) by having people discover a product. Rubbing it into people's noses is counterproductive; people go "HM, what's the catch here?".

In any market there are about 5-15% of brave risk-takers, visionary, early adopters who are willing to explore and give a new thing a chance. The remainder of the market is a bit more cautious and need time to absorb an new idea/product.


Very interesting. I have heard that formula and the reasoning behind it before and it just may apply here.

Problem is, how are we going to break into the next section of voters with this media blockade?

Innovative products, especially cool and useful ones, have a chance to spread virally. That is what happened to Ron Paul. The success of the product, it's survival and opportunity to transition to the mainstream ultimately hinges on its perceived value -- how compelling is the need to buy. In respect to RP the key is IMO for people to understand how grave our country's situation is right now. The compelling "need to buy" would follow. So a possible approach would be two pronged:

1) Ron Paul needs to communicate better for the general masses. (Not only for people who already understand the economic, political and social background and mechanisms of the issues.)

2) The masses will need to be informed about the realities of today. The MS propaganda will not allow this, but there are alternative sources that at this point not to many people are using. The only, and the best way is marketing by THE WORD OF MOUTH. Talk to you neighbors/friends/colleagues about your concern for your future, your family future. At the end mention that you are looking into Ron Paul as the only candidate "who gets it". But don't push Ron Paul. Your audience needs to go and do their own work. They'll come back to you with questions, or you may check with them in a week: "Did you check Ron Paul out?". Many people will and many will not, Again that goes back to early adopter kind vs. middle of the road kind of minds.

There is no perfect or sure approach here. But not having top notch strategic campaign team that understands modern marketing and issues relating to an innovation adaption is usually detrimental.

[Alabama Supporter]

Innovative products, especially cool and useful ones, have a chance to spread virally. That is what happened to Ron Paul. The success of the product, it's survival and opportunity to transition to the mainstream ultimately hinges on its perceived value -- how compelling is the need to buy. In respect to RP the key is IMO for people to understand how grave our country's situation is right now. The compelling "need to buy" would follow. So a possible approach would be two pronged:

1) Ron Paul needs to communicate better for the general masses. (Not only for people who already understand the economic, political and social background and mechanisms of the issues.)

2) The masses will need to be informed about the realities of today. The MS propaganda will not allow this, but there are alternative sources that at this point not to many people are using. The only, and the best way is marketing by THE WORD OF MOUTH. Talk to you neighbors/friends/colleagues about your concern for your future, your family future. At the end mention that you are looking into Ron Paul as the only candidate "who gets it". But don't push Ron Paul. Your audience needs to go and do their own work. They'll come back to you with questions, or you may check with them in a week: "Did you check Ron Paul out?". Many people will and many will not, Again that goes back to early adopter kind vs. middle of the road kind of minds.

There is no perfect or sure approach here. But not having top notch strategic campaign team that understands modern marketing and issues relating to an innovation adaption is usually detrimental.

I think you have nailed it. They are not communicating a clear message to Joe Public, and Joe Public doesn't understand the stakes of not electing Ron Paul.