[Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media

[Ken Moellman]

Certainly, targeting and micro-targeting are indeed far more effective,
because you're speaking on specific issues that matter to the target
audience.  But we can also speak to a broader audience in a way that brings
people closer to us, so we can have that more specific conversation.

As to the "whose message" question, I would suggest that it is OUR message,
the LNC's message, based upon marketing and voting.  This is not dissimilar
to how APRC already operates, but extends that mechanism to the next
logical step.

Is there potential for abuse?  Of course there is.  There's always
potential for abuse in any system, and the check-and-balance on that is
conventions and membership. If the members don't like what's going on, then
the members can change it. If the leadership make it so that membership
can't change it, the membership will leave.  It's all voluntary association.




On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:00 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Ken,
>
>
>
> Your salient point about tailoring our message gets to the heart of the
> issue. The tailoring, i.e. watering down or beefing up, of our message
> content can be addressed from two perspectives:
>
>
>
>    - Tailoring whose message? Your message? My message? The message of
>    some non-breathing, non-living “group” that does not speak, have a voice,
>    act or exhibit any of the behaviors attributed to up personally? How can we
>    arrive at a consensus to pick from our wide range of messages without
>    ending up with a toothless message? Or are we better off just voicing our
>    individual messages? I have no interest in tinkering with your message and
>    vice versa. We both have valuable messages but the mangling merge of your
>    message and my message to fit some arbitrary consensus is representative of
>    neither, and, frankly may confuse but will not fool or convince our target
>    audience. It did not work well for Gary Johnson.
>
>
>
>    - Tailoring misses the mark on both internal and external messaging. I
>    prefer to challenge our core constituency with a bold message of where I am
>    coming from. However, the broader audience could care less about where I am
>    coming from. Tailoring my message represents a continued focus on where I
>    am at. Connecting with the broader audience requires focusing on where they
>    are at, not where I am at.
>
>
>
> It also requires connecting with them first at the emotional level by
> asking leading empathetic questions focused on them about how the status
> quo is working for them and what their approach is to change the status quo
> to work better for them. That begs the question of whether their attempts
> to change the status quo are getting them where they want to go. If not,
> that opens the door to empathetically planting a seed of doubt in their
> statist solutions. Then patiently wait for them to come back to you with
> questions on how Libertarian ideas (our individual message) could help them
> change the status quo to work better for them. if they come back to you
> with questions, that opens the door to work the Libertarian message into
> the discussion. Up to that point, they simply do not care where you are at
> and will not hear your message, tailoring or no tailoring.
>
>
>
> The fundamentals of this non-message-content-tailoring approach include
> empathy, focusing on where they are at not where you are at, connecting
> with them first at the emotional level, using questions instead of message
> statements to get at where they are at, ask how their current status is
> working for them, what they are doing to change it, whether what they are
> doing to change it is working for them, and then patiently waiting for them
> to get back to you with questions. Tailoring your message to the broader
> audience is neither appropriate nor effective. Targeting and testing your
> empathetic leading questions focused on where they are at is appropriate
> and effective.
>
>
>
> Yes, this non-message-tailoring technique strategy is hard work and
> requires thoughtful empathetic patience. However, the end-goal is worth the
> effort.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Ken Moellman
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:18 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage
> social media
>
>
>
> I didn't see that this motion had enough seconds for discussion, but I see
> discussion is happening, so I'll add my $0.02.
>
>
>
> This motion, standing alone, does not solve the core problem.  It is,
> perhaps, something between a band-aid and a tourniquet, and I'm okay with
> helping to stop the bleeding.  But no matter how many band-aids we apply,
> we still really need an overall marketing strategy.
>
>
>
> And I hope that is the finding of this social media committee.  We need a
> strategy that works and also has inherent checks-and-balances that keep us
> from getting burned.
>
>
>
> I do not want to "water down" our principles or our message.  Quite the
> opposite.  I am a (Big-L and Small-L) Libertarian, and I want to convince
> more people to be as well.  I want to tailor our messages to match the
> current political landscape and lexicon. I want to invite new people in,
> regardless of their previous or current (arguably horrible) decisions or
> beliefs. In short, I believe that we are right, and that the reason we
> don't have more people agreeing with us is simply the delivery; whether the
> problem is access, pre-existing biases, or packaging.  We must find a way
> to connect with people and bring them in.
>
>
>
> I want our leaders to voluntarily buy-in to this; I don't want litmus
> tests by anyone other than the delegates to decide who sits upon this
> board.  And since this ties in loosely with another topic, so I'll add that
> in here, too.  I opposed the censure of our candidates, and I believe that
> it is consistent to oppose censure of our leadership. Unless someone does
> something truly abhorrent, our members should be the ones to make such
> decisions.
>
>
>
> I understand the anger over the three significant "mistakes" (for lack of
> a better term at the moment):
>
>
>
> 1. Political dynasties are bad; yes. But being someone who lives in KY I
> see it as being stupid and petty to attack Rand Paul instead of the other
> 99 Senators. Let me tell you, the two guys who lost to Rand (in the R
> primary, and then the D in the general) sure as heck weren't a "Liberty"
> guys.  For crying out loud, my other Senator is McConnell, who only because
> he's politically brilliant did he get re-elected with a 60% disapproval
> rating!  Is Rand Paul the best libertarian in the whole wide world? No.  Is
> he better than Mitch McConnell or any of the other establishment pols in
> KY?  Oh heck yeah.
>
>
>
> 2. "Timing is everything", they say.  I do believe that this message would
> have went out no matter what, and I don't really "blame" anyone for it.  It
> was bad. It was really bad.  But I honestly wouldn't have thought of it
> being bad because I don't think like that.  A lot of us don't think like
> that.  A marketing person should be doing our marketing because they do
> think like that.  (And that's why I'd support this measure as a first-step,
> and hope that the committee finds this to be the case anyway).
>
>
>
> 3. Wording is critical.  Let's take a completely different example.  There
> are feminists who run around screaming angry things, like "mothers are the
> whores of the patriarchy".  Now, is that going to endear any existing
> mothers, or anyone who loves their mother, to join their cause?  Heck no.
> But if they say "the patriarchy tries to train you to be barefoot,
> pregnant, and silent" that's a pretty good rallying cry for those same
> people.  The message, in both examples, is the same: women who become
> mothers are playing into a stereotype created by a male-dominated society.
> But one is a rally cry, and one is hateful and angry. Even if it's not
> meant that way, it doesn't matter; perception is reality in the world of
> politics.
>
>
>
> Remember, Howard Dean was destroyed politically because his voice cracked
> while screaming "Yeah!" at a rally of supporters.  The supporters at the
> rally didn't care; they loved him.  But the rest of the country made fun of
> Dean and made him a political joke.  One innocent moment destroyed his
> entire political momentum.  And it happens to us, too, as we saw
> all-too-well in 2016.
>
>
>
> So please, let's try to avoid easily-avoided mistakes.  Let's do a better
> job of packaging our principles to help more people see the light.  We know
> in our hearts and in our minds that our way is the best way.  We need to
> help other people understand that, as well.
>
>
>
> ken
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alicia,
>
>
>
> ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to effectively
> be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a personal profile.==
>
>
>
> But can you please give specifics?  This apparently got missed by the APRC
> and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still baffled.
> Can you please give a few specifics?
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq" type
> of motion. This would:
>
>
>
> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any topic
> on personal social media.
>
>
>
> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were
> directly authorized by the chair.
>
>
>
> However, this would have the effect of:
>
>
>
> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and Matt
> Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.
>
>
>
> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking at
> the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions.
> Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing
> outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo,
> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method
> makes no sense.
>
>
>
> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are
> specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I
> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to
> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider
> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups
> that have already rejected establishment norms and values.
>
>
>
> In Liberty,
>
>
>
> Arvin
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in the
> past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably
> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office.  Examples
> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in
> Pittsburgh.  What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that
> sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one
> thing is often about something else.  It is such when a partner gets really
> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues.  But it isn’t
> really about the toilet seat.
>
> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in
> critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said
> volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully).  There no
> intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even
> a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were
> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about
> volunteers and I think everyone knows that.  I don’t think all is fair in
> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot.  I doubt it is news
> to anyone here that I am not perfect.  If it is, consider yourself
> informed.  Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.
>
> I would also add there iIS review process.  The APRC who is aware of the
> policies noted above.  Now obviously there was a hole  in the process that
> allowed that other post to go through.  It was a perfect storm in which
> circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option.  And there
> are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will recommend I
> am quite confident.   And they may in fact recommend this course.  We don’t
> know.  This option was rejected at our last meeting in favour of the
> committee.
>
> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious and I
> believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul of
> that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to
> bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place.  And
> judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is
> completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here.  I
> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to
> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate?  I
> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify
> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion
> of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
> convention."
>
>
>
> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of individuals? And
> are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign fodder to promote
> said individual for internal office? In looking at the next 24 scheduled FB
> posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything that fits such a
> description, but I will certainly be on alert for such things.
>
>
>
> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything in
> advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just my
> responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB queue,
> but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are supporting
> that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being addressed.
>
>
>
> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by 'leaders'
> in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly oppose such
> actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our Chairman. I
> also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven out, are
> back in business, and making things happen in there :).
>
>
>
> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time.
>
>
>
> Whitney Bilyeu
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy Manual
> Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
>
> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators of, serve
> as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media accounts.
> Volunteer content creators may submit content for approval.
>
>
>
> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to both do
> the above and also to create a committee to review our social media
> processes.  I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to
> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first?
> Just fix it.  I thought there was majority support for the other motion to
> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff.  Turns out that
> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to
> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion
> failed.  Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority
> support didn't pass.
>
> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go back and
> re-visit turning control back over to our staff.
>
> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit material.  It
> does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute.
>
>
>
> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh, with
> two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time.
>
> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster.  Granted it was not
> on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to, the
> person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we took
> a lot of damage from it.  The Convention Oversight Committee lost two very
> valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a lot
> of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans.  Gone.
>
>
>
> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB.  One
> person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and
> objects, it goes public.  We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't
> always have time to review everything in advance.  Though the group has an
> informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes
> do it anyway.  The comments about the military could easily have been
> posted on our page.
>
> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was driven to
> quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that we post
> more positive material and less negative material.  I don't want to hear
> that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting the
> work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute was
> so summarily disrespected.
>
> We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers have
> even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable for
> following policies in the same way that our staff is.
>
> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6:
>
> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for
> any candidate for party office unless:
>
>    - such information or services are available and announced on an equal
>       basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that office,
>       or
>       - such information or services are generally available and
>       announced to all party member
>
> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page.  Not all
> candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post on our
> Facebook page.
>
> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal promotion
> of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
> convention.
>
> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try to
> manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted
> "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc.  I don't believe
> there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media.
> Some candidates have already declared.  The closer we get to a national
> convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that
> unfairly isn't available to their opponents.
>
> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final decision
> power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our policies, and
> who are accountable to the LNC.  The volunteer groups can continue to
> generate material just like they do now, but staff would schedule the
> actual posts.
>
> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with
> suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this
> policy.
>
>
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170526/28227801/attachment-0002.html>