[Lnc-business] Thoughts on Strategic Consultants

Thu Dec 15 13:29:31 EST 2016

Of course no one can select a slogan for us except us.  What I think was
meant was that, possibly, if we proceed with the project, there will be
recommendations in the report that we should consider before choosing a
slogan.

I think it's also important to remember just what the committee will be
doing - getting bids.  They won't be selected bids, they won't be making
choices, and presumably, what will be presented to the companies as the
scope of the project will be what we saw in the presentation.  Also, they
aren't empowered to negotiate a contract, so the scope will not be binding
until the LNC (or, if it chooses to delegate at that time, whoever it
delegates to) make that decision with the company selected.

This would, I think, be a bigger issue if it were likely that consulting
houses would take our request and build a proposal.  I think what's more
likely, though, is that they'll say "our basic service costs X."  Based on
their size, the scope of projects they undertake, and our size, I don't
think what we're asking will cause them to come up with a customized
proposal.  That means less fraud concerns, because we're really getting a
quotation, and less concern about the influence of the committee because
the details of what's in the request won't impact what we get all that
much.

Joshua A. Katz

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Thank you Larry for your thoughtful points which I will address in full
> this weekend.  I want to highlight a few ahead of time in case you want to
> provide fuller detail before then.
>
> YES, I think such a small committee and comprised solely of relatively new
> Party members (and again no insult there, I am new too-- way newer than you
> are) is a big issue (*and candidly multiple Party members have approached
> me about this*), and not committing to transparency, nor opening it up
> through cattle call to the membership.  Also a great concern raised over
> and over was over preserving our ideology, and I do think that several
> persons committed to making sure that isn't done (whether those persons are
> new members or not) would bring a lot of re-assurance.  I heard phrases
> several times this meeting that really concerned me deeply, and I felt I
> was being placated in others.  Whenever I hear that more Party member
> involvement, new or old, is a hindrance, my red flags go up.  The LNC tends
> to treat Party members (inadvertently I believe) as a nuisance.  We MUST
> stop this culture of holding things tight to our chest and open things up.
> I work with larger committees all the time.  Three is absurdly (and that
> word is not one I like but I am struggling to find a less "judgmental"
> one), and for an ideological party, not having a few (again new or old)
> that are ideological champions to at least assure people that our most
> precious treasure is guarded immediately loses support from me.  *You and
> Trent are fantastic representatives of perspectives we need!!!*, but more
> are needed.  Someone who has been through this before and knows the
> pitfalls and someone known for their commitment to the unique Libertarian
> identity.  At a minimum.  And there are plenty of qualified people who fall
> within these parameters (and perhaps the second is also a veteran allowing
> multiple veteran eyes - we have treasures in the members we have that have
> been here for decades yet we didn't think that absolutely necessary here?).
>
>
> But here is the bigger concern, and if you or Trent jumped up immediately
> to correct this statement, I would have been relieved, but it didn't happen
> and perhaps you just weren't as sensitive to the past LNC history of this
> as I am.  When we discussed the potential of adopting an official slogan,
> an LNC member said "Oh that would fall within this new committee."  *NO
> it absolutely would not, and I wish this almost immediately unvoted on
> expanse of power was challenged.  *The motion was to allow bids.  That is
> it.  This slippage horrifies members (and putting my member hat on, me).
>
> And of course, IF the budget goes as planned, we only have 49K left in
> reserves at years end.  I hope we do better, but I hope the enormity of
> that sinks in as responsible Party governors.  Ballot access and debt
> reduction are our primary responsibilities right now - to me.  I realize
> others disagree.  Various affiliates have no use for national and if they
> think we are just looking for ways to spend money and model ourselves after
> the old parties, they will have even less.  Unless Region 1 sees how any
> such thing directly and immediately benefits them, I will have some
> 'splaining to do.
>
> Thank you again and you know I love you to pieces - this concerns are a
> filling of my fiduciary duty to my Region and the Party which comes before
> all.
>
> Much respect,
>
> --
> *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/>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Larry Sharpe <lsharpe at neo-sage.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161215/36f62887/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/20161215/36f62887/attachment-0002.png>