[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2015-09: Increase Branding Budget

Thu Oct 8 14:12:42 EDT 2015

I vote Yes on Increasing the Branding Budget.

Dan Wiener

P.S.  I think Wes is being unnecessarily harsh on himself.  Those items he
designed aren't half as ugly as he makes them out to be.  Not even a
quarter as ugly.  I could possibly go lower than that, but what's the point
of quantifying it?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chair.
>
> To be clear, I'm not opposed to spending money on branding - not at all.
> I simply find it imprudent for us to allocate such a large chunk of our
> budget all at once to something that won't actually benefit us in a
> measurable way.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> FYI, the cost of the logo did not end up being $5,000.  Wes Benedict
>> has the exact cost, but it was much less.
>>
>> The other issue is that we have to have a budgeted expense line for
>> the cost of the new materials and cost of fundraising for branding,
>> even if those things bring in more revenue than is spent on them.  The
>> polo shirt fundraiser was a success from a revenue perspective, but
>> the cost of the shirts goes on that branding line.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is a tricky vote for me.  I am of the mindset that this will likely
>> > pass, but I believe it should not.  I would like to voice that reasoning
>> > below.
>> >
>> > I felt extremely under-prepared when discussing these points at the
>> previous
>> > meeting as I had only been elected to the position 4 days prior.  That
>> said,
>> > my arguments against the logo were that there was seemingly no real
>> plan of
>> > attack for using it.  I feel that point has now been vindicated if not
>> at
>> > least illustrated.  I strongly favor change (seriously, I'm young and
>> > impetuous to a fault), but I also favor it to make business sense.  This
>> > went from a logo change, to a logo change + $5,000 to a logo change +
>> $5,000
>> > + $30,000.
>> >
>> > Yes we need to change the material, but this mentality of just doing it
>> all
>> > at once strikes me as a kid-in-a-candy-shop mentality.  This money isn't
>> > earned, it's donated for the goal of promoting a Libertarian agenda, for
>> > growing the party, etc.  There is simply no evidence - at all - that
>> > immediately changing our logo will accomplish this in any capacity.  I
>> > cannot imagine one of you would be willing to drop another $30,000 of
>> your
>> > own money (especially given our existing budgetary constraints) simply
>> to
>> > change your business branding on the fly.  I would certainly not for
>> any of
>> > my businesses.  We're willing to be hasty with this, in my opinion,
>> because
>> > it is not our money.
>> >
>> > Many large corporations phase in branding changes, sometimes over a few
>> > years even.  I strongly suggest that we do the same thing.  I do not
>> believe
>> > that the membership levels of commitment of donations to the LP are
>> going to
>> > change even a little bit whether we change our logo material today or
>> over
>> > the next year or two.  Blowing through this cash is a poor business
>> > decision.
>> >
>> > I vote NO.
>> >
>> > -Kevin Ludlow
>> > Region 7
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>> >>
>> >> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at
>> 11:59:59pm
>> >> Pacific time.
>> >>
>> >> Sponsor:  Sarwark
>> >>
>> >> Motion:  to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political
>> >> Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing
>> line
>> >> 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to
>> $35,000
>> >>
>> >> Alicia Mattson
>> >> LNC Secretary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Lnc-business mailing list
>> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ========================================================
>> > Kevin Ludlow
>> > 512-773-3968
>> > http://www.kevinludlow.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Lnc-business mailing list
>> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151008/e2c5cf61/attachment-0002.html>