[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-07: Increase Branding Budget 2

[Joshua Katz]

I vote no.

If we're going to spend $30,000 on advertising (I think we should take a
$20,000 loss), I don't know that this is the most effective way to do it.
I'm not worried about the floating number from a fiscal point of view, but
as I think about what it means, I get worried about it strategically.  The
reason we want to float it is simple - we don't know how much we'll sell,
and we don't really have a target - we sell as much as we can at the prices
we set.  That makes perfect sense.  What doesn't make sense is to then say
that we should spend an extra $30,000 in order to lower prices and boost
sales.  If we don't have a sales target, how can we make sense of this
figure?  We can't really say how much exposure we get for $30,000.  I'd
rather spend it on something where we can determine what it will get us.
The fact that we can't say "this is how much we anticipate selling" means
we also can't determine how much more penetration we get from selling more.


I do support, of course, a large increase to both lines.

Thank you for all the discussion on this topic tonight, which I found
informative.

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

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 25, 2016 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.*
> *Sponsor:*  Sarwark
>
> *Motion:*  The budget for 55-Brand Political Materials Expense shall be
> $50,000 higher than actual revenue for 26-Brand Political Materials.
>
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160925/1b01894e/attachment-0002.html>