[Lnc-business] Thoughts on Strategic Consultants

Thu Dec 15 11:36:57 EST 2016

Hi Arvin and Caryn,

It was good seeing you both recently. Because it is so hard to sense the
tone of email let me set it here: I love and respect you both and only want
what I think will work, even if that means scrapping this idea. With that
in mind, I do think this idea has some merit.

I think there are many assumptions being made that may not be true:

Are there no "rogue" consultants out there that can do this or that want to
be Libertarian or that are unhappy with the duopoly? Maybe and maybe not. A
search will answer that question.

Are there no consultants who will do a piece at a time to show results?
Maybe and maybe not? A search will answer that question.

Can Trent and I lead this without consultants and be unbiased, covering all
the required bases? Maybe and maybe not. But when we see the proposals, we
can figure that out.

Will we not have enough money to spend on this? Maybe and maybe not. When
we get the proposals we can see the pricing, look at our budget and decide
then.

Is this "fraud", as Caryn mentioned? I really hope not. When Dr. Lark
brought up the idea of Trent and I just doing this on our own, I was very
specific on why we did NOT want to do it without the LNC. Because we feel
that would be unethical and fraud. I am going into this with an
understanding that IF a proposal makes sense to us and they have good ideas
and pricing, then we are willing to pay for the services (a la carte or in
total) that we need. That, in my eyes, is normal business SOP and not
fraud. If that is not the case, then I misunderstood.

As for "outsiders", they may or may not be bad. I am often an outsider with
companies I work with and they usually think I perform magic. :)  We will
look at consultants and judge them appropriately, because sometimes they
can be very valuable with amazing perspectives.

Can we look to our volunteers? Sure. Why not let them know what we are
looking for and if they have a better volunteer plan, that would be great.
>From my experience with non-profits, I rarely see that actually happen, but
I am totally open to the idea.

Should we have more than 3 committee members or multiple committees? In my
view, this will make selection, planning and execution more difficult
whether we use a consultant, us alone, or a combination.  If there is a
fear or trust issue (with Trent and I being new LNC members) then perhaps
the LNC can adjust our committee to add the appropriate seasoning. :)

So, it it still my opinion that the bids are a good idea. If they show us
that the right consultants are out there, great. If they show us that we
need to supplement them, great. If they get our volunteers to step up,
great. If they do none of those and we need to come up with a plan and
execution ourselves, still great.

There is, in my eyes, no downside. Trent and I will be piking our third
member soon.

Thanks and enjoy the coming weekend.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I echo very much of what Arvin says - he focused very clearly.
>
> And I will point out the obvious.  We don't have the money.  That is the
> cold equation (to borrow a title from that classic sci work).
>
> I think in-house we can do a great deal - and we have people with
> expertise and insights willing to jump in who are not on the LNC. I
> disagree with Arvin in one respect- and while this may sound critical - the
> criticism would apply equally to me (less so to Larry - but putting this so
> entirely in the hands first of so few people (three person committee!!!!!)
> and of persons with so little time in the time compared to others with
> decades of long-term experience is not wise.    (I am also one of those new
> people) We need more Party veterans to mix with with the wonderful fresh
> new talented energy (like the current make-up of the LNC) but we are not
> being responsible in not openly soliticiting the vast resources we have in
> people who have a longer depth and range of LP-specific knowledge.
>
> Arvin is right -old party expertise does not translate - and we have LP
> and alternative expertise in our Party just waiting to be asked in addition
> to the millennial perspective.
>
> I was troubled by the dismissal of concerns of people who have seen this
> before.  I agree that past "failures" (I hate that word) should not stop us
> but we can't dismiss it either.  We are a governing board.
>
> This seems like it requires several active committees with mixtures of
> experience levels and ideas.
>
> I was also troubled by something else that was said- all we approved was a
> committee to solicit bids- yet not two motions later it was said that a
> potential slogan would be the work of this committee. This is NOT what was
> passed in its creation.  The LNC engages in this kind of slippage often and
> the current website woes is a recent example.
>
> I remain opposed to getting bids because the reality is that there isn't
> money, and I personally don't think it will inspire donors if it appears we
> are spending unnecessarily and speculatively. I also find it a violation of
> the SoP to ask firms to spend time to produce an outline for us when there
> is absolutely no chance of our being able to afford them unless we are
> upfront with that. I am highly in favour of an approach like Arvin outlined
> - with several committees that are not just insular LNC appointees of its
> own plus one without any commitment to transparency, solicitations for
> party applications, or a desire to have more breadth of party veterans.
>
> I really like the underlying idea and highly advocate Arvin's mindset with
> a much more diverse Committe (more than one actually)  that is larger and
> open to Party members.
>
> Our fresh new volunteers can revitalize and harness the experience of
> those members.  We need both perspectives here.
>
> Rather than pie in the sky, I want to focus on what can do - and
> internally we can do a great deal and get resources to the affiliates for
> their upcoming races to get some Libertarians elected in the winnable races.
>
> PS: there might be some new innovative consultant out there however, that
> is hungry and creative (and lean and affordable) that we might find if we
> think way outside the box.
>
>
> On Sunday, December 11, 2016, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a few thoughts on the strategic plan proposal. Normally, I don't
>> discuss strategy on public lists, but the importance of this necessitates
>> it. I think we have major opportunities right now; however, I have
>> reservations about the approach of using a political consulting company.
>>
>> *Strategies vs. Implementation*
>>
>> Many of our current issues are implementation issues, not strategic ones.
>> In other words: we know what do do. We just need to do it.
>>
>> We don't need outside consultants to tell us that marketing should use
>> relevant benefits for an audience, not features that appeal only to
>> insiders. This weekend, Larry Sharpe, Aaron Starr, Carla Howell, and others
>> specifically highlighted that fact. Imagine if all LP candidates were
>> skilled at that! That's not a new strategy; it's implementing common sense.
>> We have at least 2-3 great training programs that focus on that to varying
>> extent. Growing them is an implementation, not a strategic issue. Taking
>> resources away from implementation and putting them into strategic research
>> may not be advisable.
>>
>> Similarly, having a platitudinous presidential campaign slogan is
>> obviously a bad idea. Having a vice presidential candidate indicate
>> preference between old party candidates is obviously a bad idea. That's not
>> a strategic insight. It's basic sense that needs to be implemented. For
>> example, before 2020, I intend to encourage each presidential candidate to
>> record a clear, unambiguous, and total rejection of all old party
>> candidates, for the LNC to use if/when appropriate.
>>
>> Similarly, having people register Libertarian is an obvious strategy. The
>> brilliance of Mr. Somes's Re-Register campaign was not in the idea of
>> registration, but rather in the effective implementation.
>>
>> *The Relevance of Long Term Strategy in Quickly Changing Markets*
>>
>> Looking at opportunities strategically (with long term planning) rather
>> than tactically (with high situational awareness) is less relevant in a
>> very quickly changing marketplace.
>>
>> For example: in 2014, most political strategy organizations would have
>> told us that focusing on withdrawing from NATO would be politically
>> preposterous. Now it's completely fair game, thanks to Trump's campaign.
>> Messaging rules are changing very quickly, and any strategy may have a very
>> short shelf life.
>>
>>
>> *Market Research and Messaging Research*
>>
>> As any business owner knows, demographic market research is highly
>> useful. However, much of that takes place through trial and error. We have
>> very quick and easy way to do trial and error market research using social
>> media. We can target ads to very specific demographics and quickly measure
>> response rates. Much of this has already been done. We can base direct mail
>> campaigns off of these rates. A/B campaigns can help further refine
>> messaging. For example, our data tell us that legalizing marijuana does
>> well in social media advertising. We can follow that up with direct mail on
>> that topic, and test if a serious "End the War on Drugs" or a sarcastic
>> "Continue the War on Drugs" gets a higher response rate. This can be done
>> for a few thousand dollars right now. Even after talking to a political
>> consulting firm, that kind of testing would still cost a few thousand
>> dollars.
>>
>> *Goals*
>>
>> Strategies depend on goals. Our goal is to cut government to advance
>> individual freedom. Political consulting companies whose focus is election
>> victories will not have the right experience for that.
>>
>> For example, right now we can focus on pressuring the GOP to eliminate
>> the Department of Education, withdraw from NATO, etc. Victory there
>> massively advances our goal. That goal may be enhanced by electoral
>> successes, but is not inherently contingent on them. There may be
>> consulting companies with expertise in that area, but they may not be the
>> same as those with a purely electoral focus.
>>
>> *Using the Most Expensive Solution is not Always the Best*
>>
>> Digital advertising, direct mail, etc. allow very precise demographic
>> targeting and experimentation at comparatively low financial risk. We can
>> see what messaging works with Hispanic women between ages 23 and 24 in
>> chicago with incomes between 50k and 51k a year. My own business does heavy
>> demographic experimentation like that. It's low risk, but when you find
>> something that works, the returns can be massive. Small test mailings can
>> easily be ramped up to nationwide campaigns.
>>
>> *Old Party Expertise Does not Usually Translate*
>>
>> Gary Johnson's campaign leadership had experience winning within the
>> duopoly. that experience was extremely useful in getting media coverage,
>> and other areas of overlap.
>>
>> But it also lead to an overly timid campaign. Old party politics is often
>> personality politics; new party politics does not have that option due to
>> lower media coverage. Advertising like Governor Johnson's original ads
>> decades ago in NM (if you vote for me, you'll have more money) may have
>> been more effective than the campaigns more timid personality approach.
>>
>>
>> *Conflicts of Interest*
>>
>> As some of you know, my personal business often focuses on getting people
>> to dominate their high schools and get into Ivy League colleges. If I have
>> a new student who wants to become the valedictorian in a school in which
>> one of my long term clients expects to be the valedictorian, he's going to
>> have to pay me a hell of a lot. It's not that I can't do it. It's that the
>> new client paying me $X is just not going to be a priority over the old
>> client who has paid me $1000X, and intends to pay me another $1000X.
>>
>> I have no doubt that there are political consulting companies who know
>> specific strategic weaknesses in the GOP or Dem party. I doubt that they
>> would alienate those groups by telling us them. At most, they may bring up
>> strategic weaknesses that everyone knows. Realistically, they may be
>> legally unable to give the kind of insider knowledge that could be more
>> useful.
>>
>> *Consultants Who Can Help*
>>
>> I imagine that there are almost certainly consultants in the world who
>> may have insights that could be highly relevant. But they will almost
>> certainly not be found among regular political consulting firms.
>>
>> My guess is that the strategic team we have, if we set our focus on
>> messaging strategy and experimentation, will outperform consulting firms
>> with primarily old party experience.
>>
>> *Alternative Mechanisms*
>>
>> I think that having a small group of volunteers from the LNC and state
>> leadership work on messaging experimentation right now, using direct mail,
>> online ads, etc. would be be faster and more responsive.
>>
>> *Things to Look for if We Decide to Go with Consultants*
>>
>> Any consultant we work for should be able to prove ability and ROI with a
>> small project. A firm that demands a huge up-front investment as the only
>> option should not be taken seriously. We're looking for a company that can
>> help do what others consider impossible. They should be able to prove
>> ability and ROI on something small first.
>>
>> And before anyone says "McKinsey has a huge minimum....", I recommend
>> speaking with those who have actually hired them. What I've heard is a
>> tendency to arrogantly state the obvious and to be unaware of critical
>> nuances. This is exactly what we do not need.
>>
>> I appreciate the work of Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Somes, and strongly respect
>> their insights so far. I would honestly much rather have them run this
>> directly, as both have a proven and relevant track record at this point.
>>
>> In Liberty,
>>
>> Arvin Vohra
>> Vice Chair
>> Libertarian National Committee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Arvin Vohra
>>
>> www.VoteVohra.com
>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> (301) 320-3634
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 

Larry

*Larry Sharpe*

*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*

http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage

http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage

*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*

*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
  *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161215/b580b380/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161215/b580b380/attachment-0002.png>