<div dir="ltr">I vote Yes on Increasing the Branding Budget.<div><br></div><div>Dan Wiener</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. I think Wes is being unnecessarily harsh on himself. Those items he designed aren't half as ugly as he makes them out to be. Not even a quarter as ugly. I could possibly go lower than that, but what's the point of quantifying it?</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Ludlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ludlow@gmail.com" target="_blank">ludlow@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chair.<br><br></div>To be clear, I'm not opposed to spending money on branding - not at all. I simply find it imprudent for us to allocate such a large chunk of our budget all at once to something that won't actually benefit us in a measurable way.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-Kevin<br></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">FYI, the cost of the logo did not end up being $5,000. Wes Benedict<br>
has the exact cost, but it was much less.<br>
<br>
The other issue is that we have to have a budgeted expense line for<br>
the cost of the new materials and cost of fundraising for branding,<br>
even if those things bring in more revenue than is spent on them. The<br>
polo shirt fundraiser was a success from a revenue perspective, but<br>
the cost of the shirts goes on that branding line.<br>
<br>
-Nick<br>
<div><div><br>
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Ludlow <<a href="mailto:ludlow@gmail.com" target="_blank">ludlow@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> This is a tricky vote for me. I am of the mindset that this will likely<br>
> pass, but I believe it should not. I would like to voice that reasoning<br>
> below.<br>
><br>
> I felt extremely under-prepared when discussing these points at the previous<br>
> meeting as I had only been elected to the position 4 days prior. That said,<br>
> my arguments against the logo were that there was seemingly no real plan of<br>
> attack for using it. I feel that point has now been vindicated if not at<br>
> least illustrated. I strongly favor change (seriously, I'm young and<br>
> impetuous to a fault), but I also favor it to make business sense. This<br>
> went from a logo change, to a logo change + $5,000 to a logo change + $5,000<br>
> + $30,000.<br>
><br>
> Yes we need to change the material, but this mentality of just doing it all<br>
> at once strikes me as a kid-in-a-candy-shop mentality. This money isn't<br>
> earned, it's donated for the goal of promoting a Libertarian agenda, for<br>
> growing the party, etc. There is simply no evidence - at all - that<br>
> immediately changing our logo will accomplish this in any capacity. I<br>
> cannot imagine one of you would be willing to drop another $30,000 of your<br>
> own money (especially given our existing budgetary constraints) simply to<br>
> change your business branding on the fly. I would certainly not for any of<br>
> my businesses. We're willing to be hasty with this, in my opinion, because<br>
> it is not our money.<br>
><br>
> Many large corporations phase in branding changes, sometimes over a few<br>
> years even. I strongly suggest that we do the same thing. I do not believe<br>
> that the membership levels of commitment of donations to the LP are going to<br>
> change even a little bit whether we change our logo material today or over<br>
> the next year or two. Blowing through this cash is a poor business<br>
> decision.<br>
><br>
> I vote NO.<br>
><br>
> -Kevin Ludlow<br>
> Region 7<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Alicia Mattson <<a href="mailto:agmattson@gmail.com" target="_blank">agmattson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.<br>
>><br>
>> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 14, 2015 at 11:59:59pm<br>
>> Pacific time.<br>
>><br>
>> Sponsor: Sarwark<br>
>><br>
>> Motion: to amend the budget by increasing line 26 Branding/Political<br>
>> Materials Revenue by $15,000 from $20,200 to $35,200 and by increasing line<br>
>> 55 Branding/Political Materials Expense by $15,000 from $20,000 to $35,000<br>
>><br>
>> Alicia Mattson<br>
>> LNC Secretary<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ========================================================<br>
> Kevin Ludlow<br>
> <a href="tel:512-773-3968" value="+15127733968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>========================================================<br>Kevin Ludlow<br><a href="tel:512-773-3968" value="+15127733968" target="_blank">512-773-3968</a><br></div><div><a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><i>"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.<font size="2"><b> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.</b></font> It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”</i> -- Richard Feynman</font> <font size="1">(<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps</a>)</font><br></div></div>
</div>