[Lnc-business] Fundraising

Thu Feb 4 19:31:42 EST 2016

Thank you to Mr. Wiener and Mr. Ludlow for pointing this out, and pointing
out that these aren't new discoveries, respectively.  Thank you to Mr.
Goldstein for pointing out that NationBuilder's platform would better
execute what Mr. Wiener is describing, or at least make it easier.  Here's
my takeaway from those two facts:  we, as a board, do not know how best to
do fundraising.  Also, that's alright - the board of Microsoft is not
chosen for their skill at coding, and the Joint Chiefs aren't chosen for
their combat ability.  We are not put on the LNC in order to micro-manage
messaging, and when we choose to do so, we ignore the tasks we should be
doing, and often aren't the best at doing the jobs we've chosen for
ourselves instead.

I would suggest that messaging is an area where we can highlight this
distinction, and restructure the way we act to maximize effectiveness.  I
think, in this area, we can do this pretty easily.  Here are my suggestions:

1.  Stop doing what we shouldn't do.  Govern the party without
micro-managing staff.  Make an effort to not react to individual messages,
letters, emails, etc., and to not dictate the specifics of messaging.
2.  Instead, do what we should do.  Provide a comprehensive messaging
strategy or strategies.  Leave tactics to staff.  For instance:  what is
our Facebook strategy?  Are the posts there supposed to encourage
Libertarians to run/vote, encourage libertarians to become Libertarians,
encourage others to become l(L)ibertarians, or something else?  We've got
tactics - memes get made and shared, there are set times to display them,
we recruit volunteers to do so, and so on, but this board has not provided
an overall strategy.  The same can be said for all forms of messaging - we
haven't adopted comprehensive strategies.  Then there's horizontal strategy
questions:  overall, how should candidates be portrayed, for instance?
3.  With a strategy in place, empower the APRC to make decisions on the
basis of that strategy.  The APRC will sometimes worry if a specific
communication is a good idea, but that's not really a bylaws, platform, or
Policy Manual question, and it's subjective - and it's not clear what it
means.  What is a good idea?  Well, with an articulated comprehensive
strategy, a good idea is something that fits into that strategy.
4.  Trust staff to execute the strategy and choose tactics, and have the
LNC periodically review messages overall (not choose one urgent-gram and
get upset about it) and decide a)  if staff is effectively choosing
tactics, b)  if staff is effectively executing those tactics, c)  if our
chosen strategy is working.  If a, b, or c fails, there are various actions
we could take.  We might also consider the possibility that our staff
structure is not ideal when it comes to messaging, and think about either
changing that or outsourcing some of this work to PR firms or other
companies that specialize in this field.  Not everything has to be done by
libertarians, or by our employees.
5.  Use our messaging strategy as a guide to our needs in technology.  As
Mr. Goldstein points out, NB has a lot of this functionality out of the
box, and would make the use of these things easier.

Seriously - people who do this work regularly already know these things.
Let them do it.  Let the LNC provide leadership, governance, a strategic
vision, and accountability.  Judge the overall package - say, quarterly -
rather than each email.  Stop pretending we know the ideal frequency, or
what the subject lines should look like.

Joshua Katz

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm on a bunch of mailing lists for various candidates, mostly Republicans
> but also organizations like MoveOn.org and Bernie Sanders.  (Even for me,
> the Hillary email list is a bridge too far.)   I've been getting an average
> of two Ted Cruz emails a day, sometimes spiking up to half a dozen.  I
> think we have much to learn from all their fundraising pitches, especially
> from Cruz who has run an extremely effective and organized campaign and
> raised huge amounts of money.
>
> Among those lessons are to *greatly increase* the frequency of our
> solicitations; to segment and micro-target potential contributors (i.e.,
> I'm pretty sure that the Cruz campaign uses different pitches tuned to
> different interests and subcategories); to use attention-grabbing subject
> lines which at first may appear counter-intuitive; to always give some
> excuse for extreme urgency; to use gimmicks such as triple-your-donation
> (see example in the email below); and to have large links (often giant red
> buttons) for different contribution levels.
>
> Here are some examples of attention grabbing subject lines from Cruz (in
> just the past two weeks):
>
> *Re: huge phone call* - Ted has been trying to reach you.
> *Can't wait to tell you* - Friend, I can't wait to tell you about the
> phone call I received
> *Tonight* - BREAKING: WE WON!
> *I have to ask* - I need to ask you for a personal favor
> *this is incredibly hard*
> 📎* See Attached, Friend*
>
> *THE ESTABLISHMENT: "Anyone but Cruz"*
> *Fantastic news for Ted Cruz*
> *My Friend Donald Trump* - This is the email I didn't want to have to
> write.
> *[1] Message Unread*
>
>
> Also noteworthy is that I'll sometimes get two or three almost-identical
> versions of the same fundraising pitch, but with one word different in the
> subject line.  Or even something as subtle as using square brackets around
> a number in one case and parentheses in another case, or single quotation
> marks versus double quotation marks.  Obviously they are doing extensive
> A/B testing to optimize their response rate.
>
> To raise more money for the LP, we should pay attention to what others are
> succesfully doing.  Frequent repetition obviously works, and it gains far
> more than the annoyance it causes.  As another example, MoveOn.org sends
> out an average of about one email a day.  As long as each one has a
> different, interesting subject line and message, it doesn't become
> counterproductive.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ted at tedcruz.org <ted at tedcruz.org>
> Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:12 AM
> Subject: help
> To: Friend <wiener at bidslash.com>
>
>
> I'm praying this email reaches you immediately because I really do need
> your help before the clock runs out...let me explain.
> [image: Cruz For President]
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
> Friend,
>
> I'm praying this email reaches you immediately because I really do need
> your help before the clock runs out...let me explain.
>
> We received great news when a few very generous donors stepped up after we
> won Iowa and agreed to match all online donations -- one for one -- for 48
> hours, BUT that has expired.
>
> However, today I have even BETTER NEWS!
>
> *For the next 24 hours, several donors have stepped forward to DOUBLE the
> match of all donations made through the links in this email. *
>
> *LIMITED 24 HOUR DOUBLE MATCH EXTENSION: click here to donate >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> This means our matching program has been extended for a limited 24 more
> hours.
>
> Please let me share how special this is: your contribution of $25 will be
> matched two-fold to become $75, $50 will be worth $150, and $500 will
> become $1500.
>
> Your donation will be worth triple the original amount you gave.
>
> Here is the best part -- even if you have already given a matched donation
> this still applies to you.
>
> You can see how this is the most important message I've sent you.
>
> *24 HOUR DOUBLE MATCH EXTENSION: Stop what you are doing and click here to
> donate >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> Please, can I count on you to respond right away?
>
> Any amount helps, and with just days before the New Hampshire primary -- I
> need every last bit of support I can get.
>
> If you've already donated, thank you. I wish I didn't have to ask...but *as
> one of my most trusted supporters, can I count on you* to make the most
> of this opportunity and donate again?
>
> Friend, the next 24 hours are critical. Your action today will give me the
> momentum I need leading into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and beyond.
>
> *Donate $10, see it matched to become $30 >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> *Donate $25, have it double-matched to become $75 >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> *Donate $50, see it double-matched to become $150 >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> *Donate $100, it will be matched two-fold to become $300 >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> *Donate $500, it will triple to become $1,500 >>*
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332484:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
> This is good for only 24 hours.
>
> *Friend, this is our time. *
>
> Our win in Iowa was key -- with your support, it can happen again.
>
> For liberty,
>
> Ted Cruz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PAID FOR BY CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT
> www.tedcruz.org
>
> Copyright © 2016 All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/33332485:WGX7HQCN8:m:1:847663864:88B419050AE825FBC70E4886A19AF2C4:r>
>
>
> This message was intended for: wiener at bidslash.com
> You were added to the system April 8, 2015.
> For more information click here
> <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/iWGX7HQCN8>. Update your
> preferences <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/oWGX7HQCN8>
> Unsubscribe <http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/oWGX7HQCN8> | Unsubscribe
> via email
> <unsub-32295917873-echo3-6BF420D798A6637C6FA0EFAB5F045915 at emailsendr.net?Subject=Unsubscribe&body=Please%20remove%20me%20from%20further%20mailings>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *"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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160204/da173566/attachment-0002.html>