The campaign spent $6 in stamps alone to send me an envelope

[Matt Collins]

It's fear-mongering and simpleton bs. You read one paragraph and then the next 2 paragraphs say the same thing worded differently.

Some people read it all the way through, but it is designed to be skimmed with the eye. The average person reads it for less than 10 seconds before either deciding to act or pitching it. Even if they pitch it, after 10 seconds of glancing at it they still get the message (and it might spur online donations or help grease the skids for other future donations).

[chronicaust]

I'm pretty sure Matt is right. Obviously they wouldn't do it if it wasn't paying off. I mean every campaign does this... Yeah it's not perfect but it obviously works.

[cindy25]

on line might bring a better return. money, for all candidates except Jeb and Trump, will become much tighter in the next few months. any candidacy needs to be bare bones, from saving on postage to flying economy, to using 3 star hotels. that $5.75 could have sent 20 brochures, bulk rate, in Iowa.

[timosman]

I'm pretty sure Matt is right. Obviously they wouldn't do it if it wasn't paying off. I mean every campaign does this... Yeah it's not perfect but it obviously works.

if we think this campaign can be run the way all political campaigns have always been run we can pack now and go home

[nayjevin]

I'm pretty sure Matt is right. Obviously they wouldn't do it if it wasn't paying off. I mean every campaign does this... Yeah it's not perfect but it obviously works.

Yeah but Bastiat's seen and unforseen.

Unforseen is the cost of treating supporters like idiots who can't read. I take it in stride, but I don't see it as a necessary evil. In my moments of weakness it probably affects my opinion of the organizations in general, even though I understand the problem and the reasons it's done.

[Matt Collins]

if we think this campaign can be run the way all political campaigns have always been run we can pack now and go home

Tactics and strategy are ideologically neutral.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah but Bastiat's seen and unforseen.

Unforseen is the cost of treating supporters like idiots who can't read.

No, it's called respecting their time. We know they are not going to spend a lot of time reading it, again usually less than 7 seconds for most people, so it has to be written in such a way that it can penetrate the noise floor.

[jllundqu]

I'd donate more money if they STOPPED sending me crap in the mail....

[timosman]

Tactics and strategy are ideologically neutral.

BS. Certain tactics are only available to ideologically approved candidates. Candidates using unapproved ideology need to come up with something else or will lose. If there was a single thing we should have learned from the failures of the last 8 years this should be it.

[nayjevin]

No, it's called respecting their time. We know they are not going to spend a lot of time reading it, again usually less than 7 seconds for most people, so it has to be written in such a way that it can penetrate the noise floor.

That seems like a rationalization for the status quo. I do understand it - and I believe you, that it isn't a philosophy of thinking readers are idiots that drives the tactic. But those emails do not give off the impression you are describing to everyone. It's about perception, you've said so yourself.

Just a few thoughts on the matter, there is some cost to doing the letters that way. I understand why, and I don't have a better way. But to ignore those costs is silly.

[nayjevin]

Another example:

I spend several minutes reading some of those emails, because I am interested in the language being used, it gives me insights into what the campaign thinks we think are important, and what Rand's messaging will be. I don't know the technological capabilities, but hypothetically, if the campaign had only data on which emails I read, and how long I spend reading them, it would have a false narrative of me as a donor. It would think I think things are important that I really don't. And it wouldn't know that I will never, ever donate as a result of an email. I will always donate as much as I can as soon as I can through the cheapest available method for the campaign.

[nayjevin]

It's called respecting their time.

It's called knowing your audience and messaging well enough to realize that starting a sentence with 'It's called ...' makes them want to dislike you.

[Matt Collins]

It's called knowing your audience and messaging well enough to realize that starting a sentence with 'It's called ...' makes them want to dislike you.

The amount of money that has been raised proves otherwise

[nayjevin]

The amount of money that has been raised proves otherwise

Retrofitting

[angelatc]

If I spend $10 to make $11, and later realize I could have made $11 by spending $5, that's the waste we're talking about.

I agree with Matt here. You're making the same mistake in logic that the anti-vaxxers make. The DM people know most people are not going to respond to that envelope, but they also have a pretty good idea about how many of them will respond to that envelope. What they don't know is exactly which people will respond to that envelope. (Although data collection makes that more of a known than ever before.)

Even though you didn't, and Mad Cow didn't....some third person sent them $100 in response, providing an overall net gain.

[nayjevin]

I agree with Matt here. You're making the same mistake in logic that the anti-vaxxers make. The DM people know most people are not going to respond to that envelope, but they also have a pretty good idea about how many of them will respond to that envelope. What they don't know is exactly which people will respond to that envelope. (Although data collection makes that more of a known than ever before.)

Even though you didn't, and Mad Cow didn't....some third person sent them $100 in response, providing an overall net gain.

I don't think any of that was in question. I'm not sure what I might have said to lead you to believe I don't understand what you're saying here. It's as though you think I've been arguing that the direct mail campaigns are not profitable.

I don't understand the resistance to the idea that the campaign could get the same amount of donations, but incur less expense with a few minor modifications.

I understand that a non-libertarian direct mail campaign would not respect donors enough to trust them to manage their own donating habits, even if given enough information to be informed of the ramifications. I understand the hubris of the typical marketing expert that results in seeing donors/targets as so stupid that, no matter what that donor's beliefs, he can and will be sold on something if exposed to enough of the marketing expert's genius. I don't assume that happens here, but the way the emails are written and the OP's experience (telling someone don't send me anything, but getting an envelope anyway) does nothing to allay any fears that may exist.

[nayjevin]

Some people read it all the way through, but it is designed to be skimmed with the eye. The average person reads it for less than 10 seconds before either deciding to act or pitching it. Even if they pitch it, after 10 seconds of glancing at it they still get the message (and it might spur online donations or help grease the skids for other future donations).

See, I understand this, but I would think libertarians would have a greater than average chance to recognize the folly of tailoring a strategy to the 'average person.'

[nayjevin]

Voter issue identification. What issues are important to nayjevin? Getting high content emails that inform me of the information that the campaign is at an advantage in curating. Rand's past and upcoming appearances. Youtube videos. Latest media attack buzzwords. Campaign appointments/hirings. Rand's legislation. Donation statistics. It's just taking the existing process and taking it further with more analysis. I just hope it isn't resisted as a result of a philosophy that I can't be trusted to know what I want in an email. The incentive of the direct mail contract is likely at odds with these innovations, and I don't expect implementation. But I write this here because I think of it.

[BUTSRSLY]

But I write this here because I think of it.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING YOU WILL STOP DOING. I READ YOUR WORDS AND AM SURE THAT I'D RATHER HAVE NO ARMS AND NO LEGS AND BE TIED TO A POLE IN THE CENTER OF AN ASTROTURF FOOTBALL FIELD.

[BUTSRSLY]

AND I'D BE BLIND.

[BUTSRSLY]

AND THERE'S ZOMBIES.

[anaconda]

Well I know they must have some data that shows the return on this is high enough to do it, but it just seems like a big waste of money.

Some back story: a few weeks ago someone from the campaign called me to donate, and I said I would donate again in the near future, but not right now. He asked if I wanted to receive an envelope with a form to fill out. I said don't worry about it, don't waste the mailing expense, I'll do it online anyway.

Today I got a cardboard envelope with a $5.75 stamp on it, and another cardboard envelope inside to send back. It must have cost them almost $10 to send this to me.

Did anyone else receive this?

Every one of my Rand Paul envelopes, small or large, goes directly into the recycling without being opened. If I do take a look at the content it's super cheesy messaging with unappealing fonts.

[Matt Collins]

See, I understand this, but I would think libertarians would have a greater than average chance to recognize the folly of tailoring a strategy to the 'average person.'

Except that human behavior is mostly the same.... I see people around here have emotional and irrational knee-jerk reactions to lots of different things, the same way the rest of the voters too for example. I once thought that people who are like-minded for liberty were slightly more above that, but we really aren't apparently. Humans are humans.

[Matt Collins]

Voter issue identification. What issues are important to nayjevin? Getting high content emails that inform me of the information that the campaign is at an advantage in curating. Rand's past and upcoming appearances. Youtube videos. Latest media attack buzzwords. Campaign appointments/hirings. Rand's legislation. Donation statistics. It's just taking the existing process and taking it further with more analysis. I just hope it isn't resisted as a result of a philosophy that I can't be trusted to know what I want in an email. The incentive of the direct mail contract is likely at odds with these innovations, and I don't expect implementation. But I write this here because I think of it.

Most people don't care about that sort of thing. Only a very small % of Ron and/or Rand's supporters even have an account here, much less lurk or post here. Those of us who do are abnormal in the data set. So no, most of the liberty supporters don't think like you and I do.

[EBounding]

I think it's weird that they spend that much to mail you the message, but then ask you to put your own stamp on the return envelope.

[devil21]

It's not wasted, they make a return. It's called marketing 101 - you have to spend money to make it.

How much did the direct mail marketing company (Saber right?) charge the campaign for Jeremy's mailer?

[Matt Collins]

How much did the direct mail marketing company (Saber right?) charge the campaign for Jeremy's mailer?

No idea... go look up the FEC reports when they come out

[presence]

A $5 donor that works out to be a $1 net loss in campaign contributions is also a newly committed voter, with a dog in the fight, bought for $1.

[angelatc]

I don't think any of that was in question. I'm not sure what I might have said to lead you to believe I don't understand what you're saying here. It's as though you think I've been arguing that the direct mail campaigns are not profitable.

I don't understand the resistance to the idea that the campaign could get the same amount of donations, but incur less expense with a few minor modifications.

.

Well, you might be right. But one of the biggest reasons to hire a DM company as opposed to, say, having volunteers just stuff envelopes is that they are experts in the field, and know how to maximize return for minimal costs.

Benton isn't running this campaign, so I am more inclined to trust that they are indeed being run competently, and that the firm that is handling their DM campaign does indeed know what triggers will get the most responses.

[nayjevin]

A $5 donor that works out to be a $1 net loss in campaign contributions is also a newly committed voter, with a dog in the fight, bought for $1.

That's a really good point, and it's not like the campaign owes it to me to explain all the little things like that I don't see.

Well, you might be right. But one of the biggest reasons to hire a DM company as opposed to, say, having volunteers just stuff envelopes is that they are experts in the field, and know how to maximize return for minimal costs.

True, and I'm sure it's working well from that standpoint. I am a bit concerned that there doesn't seem to be a way to keep a $5 stamp from going out to someone who specifically tells them it will be a waste. Again I suspect there is no incentive for the DM side to take anyone off the list. But wouldn't it be refreshing to be able to shop a company that did operate that way?