[Lnc-business] Thoughts on Strategic Consultants

Mon Dec 19 14:45:51 EST 2016

Okay as promised to interact with Larry a bit.

==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.==

Agreed though a search of in-house people can accomplish quite a bit too.

==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.==

Yes.  But see above.  And if we follow our budget to the letter, we have
only $49K left.  Let that sink in to us and to all members reading.  I do
not think members will be inspired to give us more money if they think we
are so eager to spend it on things that have not succeeded in the past
without trying to pool our tremendous internal talent.

==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.==

Ahhh after there are proposals, that might be invisible--- and the
committee creep from others that has happened already is beyond alarming.
I love and respect you and Trent to pieces, you know that, but we have
people with decades of experience in this Party that have insight here.  I
am very pleased David was brought on board, but this is not enough.  We new
people sometimes act like if only the party had had us for the past forty
years things would be different and poo-poo the experience of others.  I
also object to the insular way the LNC does things.  Open this up to
members.  There was no open call for volunteers and no commitment to
transparency.

==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. ==

No, this is where reality sets in. IF we follow our budget to the letter we
have only 49K left.  There is literally no money for this.  If you want my
support, how about going out and fundraising for it?  Show some member
support in cold hard cash?  Why must the LNC do this?  THAT is a major
problem in this party.  If people have a good idea, go out, get the bids,
get the support, and THEN come to the LNC.  I am intending upon doing this
in part with a historical project. If I can’t get the support, then I have
to make the argument that it is an issue the LNC must handle on its own.
But none of that was done here.  The LNC was the first resort.  We need to
cultivate less reliance on central top-management and more on grassroots.

==Is this "fraud", as Caryn mentioned? I really hope not.==

A nit-pick, but please, I prefer Caryn Ann (I can’t even get my husband to
follow that, so it is a losing battle, but I am still trying)

I said this due to a comment made during the presentation that we could get
an outline of things that need to be done and just take those outlines and
do it on our own.  Maybe that was carelessly said, but it was said, and if
that is in fact our intent, when we know we cannot afford this, that is in
fact, in my view, fraud, and a violation of the Statement of Principles.
We can say “Oh but we might hire someone.”  But is that based in reality?
We might find some rogue agency looking to do it for next to nothing.  But
we also might get a bequest of a billion dollars.  Neither is likely, but
perhaps.  But I wish to be clear that going and getting an outline and
using it when we knew we could never hire a particular company is not the
way I think the LP should be doing business.  It is akin to “for sale by
owner” home sellers getting a realtor to do a price evaluation when they
know they will not be hiring that realtor no matter what (or likely any
realtor).

== 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.==

I think perhaps what was said in the meeting was worded badly, but I can
get the exact quote from the video if needed, and what was said, IF taken
literally, was using people’s time and expertise to get a road map and then
running with that road map.  That is what was said.  If that is not what
was meant, okay, we all say things poorly.  Lord knows I do.

==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.==

We have vast untapped talent in our member base that we didn’t even try to
tap first.

==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. ==

Then why isn’t that being pursued first?  Why are we not modeling a
Libertarian voluntary society and looking to our own FIRST?

===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. :) ==

I recommend that highly, and please don’t take offense at that.  I believe
the LNC should consider appointing a couple trusted Party veterans.

Thank for the mature and frank discussion.  We are all friends here but we
are also fiduciaries of this Party, and that is my only motivation.

-- 
*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 11:56 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> ==Of course no one can select a slogan for us except us.==
>
> After seeing what the past LNC did with the website (not rehashing that
> here because we are still working on it), I no longer say "of course" to
> anything.  "Of course" the old website committee wasn't going to hoist an
> ideological rebranding on us.  Yet, that is what they (more specifically
> one former LNC member) did.  And after the fact we have not yet proven we
> will do a thing about it.
>
> And I note that we have trademarked that phrase as a slogan.  Like the
> adoption of the Statement of Principles, it is our slogan (maybe not the
> only one) whether some people don't think so or not.  But that is another
> issue.
>
>
> ==  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 like to go by what was actually said and not guess on what was "meant"
> and I highly object to any of this even if that what was meant.  I know
> what I am getting sold, and I am not caring for it one bit.  First a
> website slips in unvoted for ideological rebranding basically controlled by
> one person.  I am not going to be quiet about what I see as the beginnings
> of another such issue - even though unintentional.  This is not a criticism
> about the committee.  I believe Kevin did have an agenda and accomplished
> it (though I like Kevin very much - I did not like what was done there -
> none of this is personal).  I don't believe that here but things happen,
> and I see it coming, and I will fight it coming.  Small committees and
> already talk of ideological control being shifted is not something I will
> support.  A lot of objections should have come from the LNC when that
> statement was made and none were but those who were called on.
>
> ==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, ==
>
> I was told this about the website re-design back from the former LNC.
> Trust once lost is very difficult to rebuild.
>
> ==and presumably, what will be presented to the companies as the scope of
> the project will be what we saw in the presentation.==
>
> I view "presumably" with the same jaundiced eye that I view "of course."
>  I can't trust - my fiduciary duty is to question, and I will do my duty.
>
> ==  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.  ==
>
> Andd.... I was told that the former website designers weren't empowered to
> ideologically rebrand at all.
>
> A small committee, of mostly new members, with no clear ideological
> directive, with no transparency procedures in place, and with no cattle
> call for additional members out of the larger Party members is pretty much
> everything I oppose and promised to oppose to my constituents.  This is not
> a criticism of the committee *for whom I give the utmost kudoes for
> stepping up and presenting new ideas which we need desparately- WE NEED GO
> GETTERS!!! * but it is of us, as a committee, who so quickly dismissed
> these concerns.
>
> --
> *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 11:29 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161219/c96544ad/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/20161219/c96544ad/attachment-0002.png>