After a nearly incomprehensible delay of over 2 1/2 months, the LNC and Johnson campaign have apparently exchanged their lists of names and landmails.
The following landmailed letter was received by this reporter on 1 August 2012.
I have no reasonable explanation to offer for the 85 or so day time period between the Gary Johnson nomination, and the successful mailing of this letter, except to say I am certain there was a stated desire to have mailed it much earlier on the part of the campaign. However, I have no explanation or insight to offer as to the cause of the delays.
I received the letter and am very glad that the campaign sent it.
While I too would think that a mailer should have come sooner, later is much better than never.
I think the Gary Johnson campaign has come a long way in a very positive sense. I don’t recall any earlier LP presidential campaign that had the ability to establish a functional network in each state independent of the national campaign itself.
This mailer is just part of the long beginning of some very positive long term changes.
JT@11, Paulie@14,
My point of reference for typos increasing response rates is not political fundraising letters — it’s Internet advertising of the “business opportunity” variety.
To the extent that a splash page for something of that type gets better response with typos than without (a claim I’ve heard from a number of marketers), I have two theories as to why that might be the case:
1) The eye is drawn to typos, and this kind of advertising is the kind that tends to take many impressions to get an eyeball on it. So it just may be a function of “the typos mean we only have to show the ad 100 times before someone looks at it instead of 200 times.”
2) To some mindsets, a typo or two may indicate that they are dealing with an individual rather than a slick, faceless corporate operation. Some people tend to distrust the latter and trust the former.
My guess is that neither of these would apply to political direct mail.
Would they bring in as much money, more or less?
@14 The Johnson camaign should use a volunteer to write its fundraising letters – there are plenty of experienced individudals who will do it for free.
When a campaign is short of funds, they need to stretch what they have by utilizing volunteers. The LP is wasting scarce resources by paying too many people too much money to do too little.
I heard Michael Cloud say that in person recently.
He also has said that he would be doing some contract fundraising letter writing for the Johnson campaign.
FWIW.
The claim that the party mailing list is not difficult to get is, in my opinion, incorrect.
Also, the LNC had the legitimate interest in making sure — insuring or ensuring being now a regional usage — that it received a legally-usable list of Johnson donors.
They never did get a list of donors from the Barr campaign.
“After a nearly incomprehensible delay of over 2 1/2 months, the LNC and Johnson campaign have apparently exchanged their lists of names and landmails.”
Knapp: “So maybe the typos were intentional.
But I doubt it.”
I’m pretty sure they aren’t. I’m not even talking about the inconsistent capitalization. I don’t see how, as examples, writing “insure” instead of “ensure” and “enough Americas” instead of “enough Americans” could cause a higher response rate. I’ve written fundraising letters & proposals before, but I’ve never heard that appearing sloppy works better than not.
Reed: “Did you read the above article?”
The letter? Yeah, every word. It doesn’t say anything about the LNC in it.
Reed: “The LNC and Johnson campaign took weeks to exchange info?”
What info? And what does that have to do with this letter? The fact that it’s recent doesn’t mean that the LNC had anything to do with it. Johnson has his own team.
Reed: “I know its been an issue in the past with the LNC not passing on information in a timely manner.”
What information is relevant here? There’s no information in the letter that the Johnson team would need to write this. The party’s mailing list? That’s not difficult to get.
I know that some Libertarians chomp at the bit to criticize the LNC, but this is a new one.
@7 Did you read the above article? The LNC and Johnson campaign took weeks to exchange info? I know its been an issue in the past with the LNC not passing on information in a timely manner.
JT@8,
They may be real mistakes.
Or not.
Some marketing types will tell you that pieces with obvious typos, misspellings, etc. actually get better response than perfect pieces do. I don’t know if there’s any data on that with respect to political mailings in particular.
So maybe the typos were intentional.
But I doubt it.
Also, who proofread this letter?! It’s only 3 pages long but there are several mistakes in it! That’s embarrassing.
Reed & Austin, what does this have to do with the LNC?
There had to be a contract signed, but that happened a considerable time ago.
Having run for our party’s Presidential nomination, I can say that I intended to send out a fundraising letter, at least to delegates and former delegates, within a week or so of getting the nomination.
I meant why did the LNC take so long to turn over the list?
I don’t think the LNC sent this out.
Did Bob Barr ever do anything like this? I like the tone of the letter. It’s a shame it took the LNC so long, but better late then never.
Why did the LNC take so long?
My apologies for the poor placement and relatively poor quality of the photos above. Best I could manage from my cell phone. If another reporter has scanned copies, please revise this post, or email them to me at [email protected]