[Lnc-business] Fundraising

Sun Feb 7 14:16:03 EST 2016

Norm,

My apologies.  I did read the message exactly the opposite way.

Regarding the frequency of messages argument in itself, I would still
disagree a bit.  There does exist a level whereby it becomes to ones
detriment, but a significant increase in the frequency of communication is
generally a positive thing.

Sales people might be annoying to many on this board, but they do what they
do because the repetition of their pitch is proven beyond a doubt to
increase their closing rate.  Libertarians are not impervious to this
statistic.

-Kevin

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Norm Olsen <region1rep at donedad.com> wrote:

> Hello Kevin . . .
>
>
>
> It is clear that my writing conveyed a message just the opposite of my
> intent.
>
>
>
> I am in full agreement with using digital media for communications, and
> the increased use of digital media tools such as NationBuilder and other
> social media techniques.
>
>
>
> My intent was to suggest that increased frequency of communication in and
> of itself is not an effective alternative to quality communications.  I am
> now aware that I obscured my intended message with a lot of extraneous
> stuff which was not necessary and, as a result, ended up doing exactly what
> I was suggesting we should avoid doing.  An obvious weakness in my
> communication skills.
>
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region 1
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>
> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>
> 303-263-4995
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Kevin Ludlow
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:16 AM
> *To:* Norman.Olsen at lp.org; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Fundraising
>
>
>
> Mr. Olsen,
>
> While I appreciate the sincerity of your email here, I would caution that
> you're speaking purely out of anecdotal evidence at best.
>
> As I have stated in emails, at LNC meetings, and as I have shared content
> with all of this group before, there is absolutely NO mechanism that can
> produce a better ROI for us than digital media.
>
> You might say something to the effect of, "well if we use digital media
> then we're going to see a substantially lower open rate". That is true.  It
> is undoubtedly true.  But sending to 100% of our members would also cost
> just a few dollars -- literally a few dollars.  I cannot stress the need to
> consider this third dimension of ROI enough.  The ratio of mails sent to
> mails read is irrelevant.  It's the ratio of mails sent to mails read per
> cost of mail sent that is relevant.  3 dimensions, not 2, is what allows us
> to create a metric across all mediums.
>
> If we took the same amount of money that we spent on current techniques
> and modernized it, every marketing report in the world suggests that we
> would be doing much better.  We cannot approach this topic anecdotally.
> There is real-world data behind the results digital marketing can/will/does
> produce per cost.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Norm Olsen <region1rep at donedad.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have to disagree, Dan & Kevin . . .
>
>
>
> “Doing more of what works!” is a well established truism.  “Doing what
> works for others!” is not necessarily so.
>
>
>
> Do you get daily e-mails from the Cato Institute?  The Heritage
> Foundation?  How about the Heartland Institute?  Why not?  Surely it is not
> because they already have enough money, and not because they do not have
> your e-mail address.
>
>
>
> The context in which campaigns like the Ted Cruz campaigns operate is
> totally different.  For example,  Mr Cruz is getting hours of national
> media exposure every day.  He also has an awesome brain trust managing many
> huge lists, tailoring their use according to well devised dynamic
> strategies.  New polls are issued almost hourly.  New lists are acquired
> routinely.
>
>
>
> As advised by my marketing brain trust, my wife, a successful fundraising
> effort must be based on three universal concepts:  Achievement, Audience,
> and Motivation.  One follows from the other and all three must be present
> to be successful.  Not integrating all three can often produce negative
> results.
>
>
>
> Achievement.  A solicitation is, essentially, asking the recipient to join
> the solicitor in achieving something.  We do not have a clear definition of
> what we are trying to achieve.  As I have written before, we have an *implied
> goal *of 50+ state ballot access for our national candidate.  However,
> this goal is not among the 6 goals we established in September 2014.  It
> was not among the four goals established in November 2012.  It was not
> among the goals established in November 2010.  I suggest that this is
> because we as a committee are not really, truly, committed to it.  We
> ourselves lack confidence in our ability to achieve it.
>
>
>
> Audience. The recipients of our message must be those who would be
> interested in achieving the chosen achievement.  That is, solicitations
> need to be delivered to folks who would consider the achievement as
> something in which they would very much want to be a part of.  It is here
> that facilities like NationBuilder, with its integration with social media,
> can be essential to the success of the campaign.  Sending solicitations to
> folks who do not consider the achievement worthwhile risks getting put on
> the “virtual ignore” list.
>
>
>
> Motivation. A solicitation must motivate the selected audience to
> participate.  This is the magic behind matching funds, the magic behind
> “selling the benefits.”  This is the magic of the “goal posts”, the percent
> complete thermometer.  This is why it is much easier to raise funds for a
> specific project as opposed to funds to replace the carpets in the office.
>
>
>
> Repetition is indeed a basic, and valid, tenet of advertising.  This works
> in media venues where exposure results from other attractions such as in
> TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines.  It is only during the Super Bowl
> that folks actually tune in to watch the commercials.  In the mail
> environment, whether postal or electronic, ignoring a message is easier
> than absorbing it.  In such environments, sending the same message time and
> time again simply puts the sender on a “virtual ignore” list whether that
> list be the trash can, the delete button, or the unsubscribe link.  Note
> that in the electronic mail environment, we use techniques to count the
> percentage of actual opens and often consider 10% to be wildly successful.
>
>
>
> Once you get on the “virtual ignore” list, it is very difficult to get off
> it as your carefully crafted, targeted, and motivating  message is never
> actually seen regardless of how many times it is sent.  Quantity is not
> always a good substitute for quality.  Doing something simply because it
> works for someone  else is not an easy ticket to success; and if not used
> wisely can actually be detrimental.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region 1
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>
> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>
> 303-263-4995
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Kevin Ludlow
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:03 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Fundraising
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> Thank you for pointing this out.  It's unfortunate to think this might
> actually be a discovery for us.
>
> *>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.*
>
> Yes. A thousand times yes.  Wes, I definitely appreciate all of the new
> projects that we've got in the pipeline and have no doubt that they will
> all help us to some positive degree.  But to Mr. Wiener's point, we really
> shouldn't wait to have everything in place.  We have lists.  Email is
> ostensibly free.  We should be blasting the shit out of those in order to
> constantly be raising more funds and circulating more communication.
>
> The evidence that it works is that you keep getting it.  People wouldn't
> spend the time to do it if it didn't have a significant return.  And it
> does have a return.  So again to Mr. Wiener, I agree with you
> wholeheartedly that this needs to change ASAP.
>
> While I truly, fully support NationBuilder, it is NOT some kind of magical
> lead generator.  Save for perhaps the single worst website in the
> poli-sphere, we already have everything we need to run these kind of email
> campaigns; we just don't run them for reasons that remain entirely unknown
> to me.
>
>
>
> I will support any motions aimed at significantly increasing our digital
> communication and calls to action through digital mechanisms.
>
> Thank you for creating the talking point.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
> We can do it with NationBuilder or our current systems, or any systems.
>
> Here are some of the big projects that have taken a lot of staff time that
> prevent getting the fundraising emails out:
>
> Audit Committee request, and unnecessarily overly complicated bookkeeping
> procedures.
> The new membership plan adopted by the LNC and implemented in the summer
> of 2014, which rearranged and complicated things.
> A new logo and branding. I like it, but rolling it out takes a lot of time.
> Emails deciding where to have the next LNC meeting, changing minds,
> getting more quotes, spending time communicating with the service we hired
> to make all this go faster, etc.
>
> We have a new NationBuilder site up an running:
> http://libertarian.nationbuilder.com/
>
> It doesn't drive itself.
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>
> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
> On 2/4/2016 5:31 PM, goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com wrote:
>
> we could have done a lot of this with nationbuilder.
>
>
>
> sam goldstein
>
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> *Sent:* ‎Thursday‎, ‎February‎ ‎4‎, ‎2016 ‎5‎:‎16‎ ‎PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> 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>* <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,
>
> [image: http://www.csimgs.com/tcruz/tc-sig-b.jpg]
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ========================================================
> 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
>
>

-- 
========================================================
Kevin Ludlow
512-773-3968
http://www.kevinludlow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160207/e0cc38d9/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3785 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160207/e0cc38d9/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5011 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160207/e0cc38d9/attachment-0005.jpg>