The Libertarian National Committee meets in Phoenix, AZ, Saturday, February 20 and Sunday, February 21.
Location and hotel details:
http://www.lp.org/event/lnc-meeting-0220-21
Preliminary schedule (subject to change):
Saturday, February 20, 2016: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time) (12:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. EST)
Sunday, February 21, 2016: 9:00 a.m. till finished. (Mountain Standard Time) (12:00 p.m. EST)
Agendas are usually modified after the start of the meeting. The meetings usually end earlier than 6:00 p.m. Sunday, and often around noon.
The LNC will attempt to stream the meeting live on the Internet.
Broadcast channel #1 – video and audio:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1
Broadcast channel #2 – audio-only:
http://libertarian.caster.fm/
The proposed agenda and drafts of reports to be presented at the meeting can be viewed by clicking the file links below. More files will be posted as they become available.
Reports and agenda available at above link.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/libertarian-national-committee-meeting-streaming-now/
Chuck, I started a bit, but it will be sporadic.
I won’t be able to liveblog for another 3 hours, as I’m at the gym now. I hope someone else steps up.
Starting the meeting now, four minutes late. Mea culpa.
And yet another fashion police email comes across the LNC list. Zeus, this is what we elect them for?
But there was a very good suggestion. Fund-raise specifically for it. I can tell you I am not throwing into for $20K for a website. I am not entirely ignorant, that is ridiculous. But give the members the opportunity, that is a great idea.
Shane,
You write:
” it’s an easy WordPress job”
You’re probably right, but that’s not how the LNC works. WordPress is free and there are lots of developers for it who work at reasonable rates.
The LNC’s strategy is to throw AT LEAST six figures down a rathole every few years on proprietary site/CRM software that makes huge promises it will never deliver on. Ten years ago it was Raiser’s Edge, now it’s NationBuilder.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/thoughts-on-test-libertarian-party-site/
Wes, done and done 🙂
Can someone approve my two comments in the pending / spam system?
——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: [Lnc-business] new convention website using NationBuilder
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:09:29 -0500
From: Wes Benedict
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Unless I detect significant opposition soon from the LNC, I plan to have built a 2016 convention website using the NationBuilder platform.
I’ve already broached the topic with Nick Sarwark and Sam Goldstein.
I’m excited about the possibilities the NationBuilder technology offers, but not yet completely sold on the platform or the enormity of the conversion task.
Starting with a convention website will allow us to get our feet wet with the technology, and at the same time, to quickly roll out some of our new branding. And since this won’t involve a massive wholesale instantaneous changeover from our current website, LP.org on Drupal, and our current membership database, RaisersEdge, it’s something we can manage without the risk of destabilizing our entire organization at the start of a Presidential election year.
If you like the content of the 2013 Libertarian Party of Texas Annual Report:
http://www.lp.org/files/LPTX_2014_Annual_Report.pdf
then I think you’re going to like our upcoming branding efforts and convention website.
The makers of that annual report, including the events portrayed, the graphics, and I’ll add to that–most of the content of the current LPTexas website http://lptexas.org/ (joomla platform I think), will be building the 2016 convention website.
Separately, Andy Burns, our affiliate support specialist, has already implemented a couple NationBuilder sites at the state level. He won’t be the main driver of this project, but of course we’ll consult him for practical advice.
The convention theme, as voted on by members, will be #LegalizeFreedom
Starting with a convention website allows us to import a small portion of our database contacts, which keeps the pricing very low, but allows us to experiment with its interactivity capabilities with our best activists.
If things go well, I can see migrating other things, like perhaps http://lpstore.org/ to the NationBuilder site. Perhaps the site could eventually morph into the replacement for LP.org, but that’s something we can decide later.
Perhaps we will be able to get away from some of the additional payment portals we’ve had to rely on, like Piryx pages, and Authorize.net, and consolidate those functions into the NationBuilder system.
The 2014 convention website is here, https://lpcon2014.org/ and I suspect we’ll easily outdo that one.
Content for the 2016 convention is currently embedded in pages on our existing website: http://www.lp.org/convention/welcome
I see the new website as a combination of a convention project, an I.T. project, and a branding project. The costs will be relatively low. The risks will be relatively low. Our Treasurer and Audit Committee will have plenty of fun double-checking the cost allocations.
I plan to tell our team to get started on this next week, and to have it live before the end of the year, unless you guys want to stop this before then, which I can live with. There are many viable paths around the roadblocks of progress.
—
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [email protected]
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
We all know LP.org is unattractive and ineffective for our current needs. Could you all put up a separate thread to debate http://libertarian.nationbuilder.com/
I’ll try to post more comments in a second (which a bunch of links though, so it may get blocked).
“Shane
February 18, 2016 at 17:17
Andy, better than a popup (which would have very poor conversion rates as people would have to go through a second transaction), an API to a state’s email database (easy to setup if states can choose one common mailer), would trigger a welcome series from the state party.
LPHQ could write template copy (I think I’ve done this before) and states can customize with their local issues.
Anyway, there’s a lot that can be done, it’s just a matter of doing it rather than talking about it.”
Well, whatever it takes to direct online donors at the lp.org website to also kick some donations to the state party from where they are located. A lot of LP donors, particularly those who are new to the party, do not even know that there is a state party affiliate and that they ought to donate money to it. This is one of the reasons as to why so many state parties have so little money.
Telling the state’s to use one common mailer is another issue altogether… though the value of what you said is huge.
And I realize I am not typical (but then again, libertarians are atypical), but a pretty site would have not have done anything for me. I love pretty sites, but we must have meat. I am one of the people that literally read the site (particularly a few articles and the platform) and switched my party affiliation on the spot. It took me less than a half hour on an ugly site. So yes prettify it but that content must be there.
Thanks Chuck.. that is unclear, and worded very awkwardly.
I looked at those links, that theatre site is very attractive, but that is a theatre company… meaning it is meant to visually engage at the level of art (and I share the love of art here, but sites were very enjoyable to peruse)… that is not the same kind of needs as a political party. We must have CONTENT. The pretty dash and flash only goes so far.
Andy, better than a popup (which would have very poor conversion rates as people would have to go through a second transaction), an API to a state’s email database (easy to setup if states can choose one common mailer), would trigger a welcome series from the state party.
LPHQ could write template copy (I think I’ve done this before) and states can customize with their local issues.
Anyway, there’s a lot that can be done, it’s just a matter of doing it rather than talking about it.
Does the LP have a marketing committee?
Chuck, good explanation. I checked out Ludlow’s long email and resume and he’s a top notch geek. But he’s a top notch geek. Measurable goals need to be established and while I understand his point on pricing, it’s an easy WordPress job. No need for custom programming aside from a few tweaks.
On the newsletter, I added a reply envelope many years ago and it covered the cost of printing and mailing if I recall correctly. In my opinion, LP News is the one guarantee people pay for each year with their membership. It should be published monthly.
Now, it’s a pain to compile for sure and I always hated doing it. I’m sure current LPHQ staff feels the same way . . . but it is an obligation regardless of the benefit to the org.
E-version is fine but if you want people to read it and not be faced with information overload, it needs to be printed. This also sets people up to be responsive with direct mail packages which are still the breadwinner for the LP.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Unclear.
Kevin Ludlow wrote:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2016/004226.html
In other emails he has suggested removing the list of presidential candidates though. So maybe that? Maybe much more? He hasn’t been explicit.
My big worry is that the list of things to be buried is not knowable ex ante. It will be decided behind closed doors during the transition process from the current website to a new website — and the people making those decisions may not be representative of the party as a whole or accountable to anyone.
“Chuck Moulton
February 18, 2016 at 17:02
Solid advice from Shane.”
There also ought to be a pop up (or something similar) that asks people who contribute to LP national to also donate to the state party from which they reside. I know somebody in the party who researched this, and found that it is legal to do this, and I know that this has been suggested to the LNC several times, yet nobody has bothered to implement it.
Chuck,
What was Kevin suggesting be buried?
Its not just that. I know I am irrelevant (yes this is tongue in cheek but I think people need to hear about how people are reacting) because I am older and of no use to the millennials who are going to fix this Party, but I am extraordinarily wired in. I have kept pace with the shifting technology and am more adept than normal. Yet, I see the value in the print newsletter. I keep it around, I refer back to it and if there is an action item, it more likely gets done if I have the print copy rather than a simple delete of an email. It is tangible. It can be given out at events. It can be left in waiting rooms. I do think we are woefully behind the times in the e-media area but this either/or (which is what I get accused of a lot) is foolish. And the sweeping away and irrelevantization (made that word up) of the more… ahem… mature members is disheartening and IMHO patronizing. And every generation thinks they have the One Thing. And none of them do.
and don’t even get me started on the fashion policing and this odd yuppy-ism idea…
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others apparently. Particularly young hip animals. Who wear socially approved layers of textiles. Brought to you by the LNC… and a disapproving stare.
Solid advice from Shane.
We need to do our website stuff better — whether that’s through a new website or our existing website. We don’t have a tech guy on staff anymore now that Eric Dixon is gone, and even he didn’t have the digital marketing focus that Shane alludes to.
It seems to me that there are three different areas important for a website:
1) content
2) style / design
3) smart functioning under the hood (unique visitor to donor/member/volunteer/candidate conversion; analytics to measure, analyze, and improve processes; database integration, etc.)
Kevin Ludlow seems obsessed with #2, mentions #3 in passing sometimes, and wants to throw #1 overboard. Shane rightly points out that are biggest problem is #3, even though #2 and #1 admittedly suck and could use a lot of improvement.
In my opinion the LP really ought to have a full time staff member or contractor with expertise in #3.
I’ve very worried about throwing away #1 to get #2 — especially since #3 is what we really need most and almost no one seems to be talking about that.
Reading George’s report, I’d be nervous if I were Wes. I’ve been there with the LP — with no cash on hand, no line of credit, just debt and the ability to raise money. It was not fun but we got through it, erased the debt and built a nice reserve.
Convention revenues can’t be trusted. Especially if a third party is managing sponsorships. That’s always been sketchy and there has been a complete lack of accounting in previous conventions to account for where that money went.
As for the site, forget a redesign without an understanding of conversion funnels and the confidence to know that if they drop money on a redesign, they’ll recoup costs with increased donor/member conversions within X.
If the LP released it’s Google Analytics reports, it would be easy to determine.
The LP does get traffic (I have sites at the same Alexa rank) so they should be able to give metrics on the number of new email addresses acquired each week/month, number of new versus returning and the number of new visitors converted to a lead/donor/member.
Just making an educated guess, 40% of visitors are new to the site and they’re getting about 5k uniques a day. So that’s about 60,000 new visitors a month. If you can convert 1% to members/donors with an average gift of $29, that’s $17k in added revenue a month. But we know that the LP isn’t gaining 600 members or donors per month so this conservative estimate is way off.
So before dropping $20k on a site (which is too high), they should add in “on new visit” call to action that’s a simple lightbox. Collect email there and get them into a conversion funnel with a welcome series of four to five emails. If that shows progress, you’re on the right path and can tweak from there.
On the donation pages, they need to remove the nav and side bars and that alone will lift conversion rates by 20%. Also, they need a clear “join” call to action. It took me several seconds to find the text link which isn’t good.
Free advice from a guy who has raised over $50 million exclusively online . . . and I stopped counting a few years ago.
The irony is that the question is not even between print and computer, most Millennials read things on their phones.
My personal preference is more channels, not less.
I should also mention I am Ludlow’s target demographic. I’m a techie. I double majored in computer science and mathematics. I’m not sure how many programming languages I’ve coded in off the top of my head, but it’s well over 10. I prefer reading things electronically. I check my mail roughly every 2 months, then add it to a pile that gets read roughly every 3-5 years.
I have not opted out of the printed newsletter. Why? Because I want to keep a record of LP News issues for myself. Even though LP News is available online, I don’t trust the LNC not to remove back issues later. In theory I could download PDFs every month, but realistically I won’t remember to do that at times. I don’t trust the LNC because of people like Kevin Ludlow, who keep talking about a shiny new website writing pages and pages about style, while the only thing ever mentioned about content was an off-handed comment that some things on the website now ought to be buried. That engenders zero trust. My preferred document retention policy is to hold records until hell freezes over… if I can’t trust the organization to do that, I have to take matters into my own hands.
There are very good reasons to look at back issues of LP News years later. It could be for an article on an issue of interest. It could be something a rival for an internal office wrote years ago (like Rutherford glowingly praising Root). It could be for the entire LP donor list, which George Phillies has noted the LP has seen fit to disclose to anyone who cares (free of any FEC restrictions on data use) at the end of LP News every month and in the pledge newsletter. Were I ever to run for President, I would certainly be taking advantage of that information to build a support base.
For the record I was at a local meeting a few weeks ago where there were 13 people attending and a few of these younger people indicated that they did not have access to a computer when they wished or didn’t have access to the web. I guess not all of the millennials feel they need a computer or maybe they can’t afford one. Then we have a lot of young veterans who are living cheaply.
Scott Lieberman’s emails always show up as attachments on the LNC discuss list because his email program adds a ton of HTML garbage that makes them unreadable. Is this just a coincidence, or a passive aggressive shot at the list he opposed being made public?
Btw, here is the craziest part of the LP News debate: we can already have it both ways. In the past it was possible (and probably still is) to opt out of receiving a paper newsletter. So there is no need for a poll… rather than asking that no one get a printed LP News, those who want electronic can just opt to get theirs electronic only.
Why point to poll numbers rather than the actual numbers of people who have opted out of the printed LP News? If Kevin thinks more people should opt-out, he should be permitted to make an email pitch encouraging more people to opt-out. But why in the world would he take away the printed issues from people who want them?
Put a prominent “electronic delivery only — save us money” on the membership form (maybe it’s already there… I’m not at my regular computer). But for heaven’s sake, why should the whole party roll the dice on a silver bullet idea from a LNC member who has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn’t understand any demographic other than millennials and doesn’t understand the many benefits of a newsletter beyond the directly measurable?
I am sitting here with our credit card ready to renew my wife’s membership now that we have some of our medical bills paid down from my accident. If the news letter gets cancelled she does not wish to renew. While she reads a book every couple of days she doesn’t like to sit in front of a computer to do much reading. If she decides not to renew when my membership comes up I will decline to renew. As someone who has spent a lot of time in sales and customer services cancelling the print version would be foolish. Maybe in the future when other things in life have changed but not now. And as someone who has thrown more than one bitch fit over the lack of material to hand with low results you can count me out as well.
Perhaps it should be made clear to those who would terminate the print edition of LP news that many folks read it in the “library”. Digital toilet paper won’t work either! (I know, I know… kindle, iPad etc but it just isn’t the same!)
I am savoring the moment of being in such utter agreement with Chuck that I am scaring myself.
There is a definite feeing of “get out old people!” to the discussions. I said this before in the LNC votes FB group. I am not claiming that is anyone’s intentions. I am saying that is how many people feel, and how it is perceived by older activists as well.
Intentions are well and good… but one has to care about perception and effect as well. We need all of our members… whether they were born before a certain arbitrary date or not.
“LP News is about the only indicator that we’re actually doing things. If all people receive are donation requests, expect donations to plummet.”
I belong to several organizations which have converted their newsletter to electronic. I used to read the entire printed newsletters…at my leisure over several days. Now I frequently don’t even open the electronic newsletter or, if I do, skim it especially any thing that isn’t in the “calendar” section. While there may be much improvement needed to LP News, getting rid of print editions is not one of them.
The LP News discussion is nuts!!
Ludlow is apparently completely ignorant of the generational divide on printed media and wants to throw away all our older donors / activists.
LP News is about the only indicator that we’re actually doing things. If all people receive are donation requests, expect donations to plummet.
The “I’m completely ignorant of the LP’s institutional history, but try my silver bullet idea” caucus is trying to generate another disaster. This is the same ignorant economics that led us to increase dues to $50, cut them to $0, and lose half our donors. The criminal accounting used yo justify that disaster pointed out more money comes in from contributions than memberships — without pointing out most of those contributions were “additional donation”s from people renewing their memberships. Predictably those all disappeared with zero dues and the LP suffered a dire financial crisis. Similarly, focusing on LP News itself completely ignore the side benefits of information and increased enthusiasm that comes from the newsletter, which will predictably disappear if the print version of LP News is scrapped.
It would be nice if Kevin Ludlow stopped talking for a couple minutes so he could listen. I’ve seen his type before though… wedded to a silver bullet unwilling to learn about the institutional memory and likely costs/benefits.
The LNC does not have the money.
As I wrote on the open thread:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/02/open-thread-for-february-2016/#comment-1319646
Norm Olsen had some great points about the website, which should provide information rather than just a big donate button.
On the other hand, Olsen seems to be proposing a dress code. For what? The convention? I strongly oppose this… especially given this venue in Florida, where people are bound to want to go outside during breaks. I’ll probably wear a suit myself, but I hate mandates.
In theory early convention package sales (for the 2016 convention now and for the 2018 convention on site at the 2016 location) could alleviate some temporary cash flow problems. Or it could allow the LNC to spend itself deep in debt, then scramble at convention time when there is no money to cover bills. Depends whether the LNC acts like adults or children.
Andy, my estimate agrees with yours. In 2012 there was extra money around. That does not seem to be readily the case this year. George
George, the ballot access expense estimate is almost certainly too low. It is likely based on outdated data from 15 or 20 years ago, and wishful thinking.
Note that in 2012 the LNC grossly underestimated ballot access expenses, and it led to a bunch of problems, such as the Gary Johnson campaign having to kick in a bunch of money for ballot access.
On the bright side, we should pass a resolution endorsing the Apple position on the FBI warrant, which is not a request for material they have but a demand that Apple perform labor. Out of this we might get support from Silicon Valley. Curiously, we had this issue locally when various Fire Departments tried summoning people in the WPI Fire Protection Department as witnesses, not actual witnesses, but as expert witnesses; they eventually were smacked down legally.
Having said that:
Let me amplify on my comments on our national party’s financial situation. I am primarily listing numbers from the financial report for Saturday’s LNC meeting, which can be found here
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lnc-meeting-february-20-21-2016-in-phoenix-az Page references are to that report.
From page 3 of that report, for January 2016, Income was $75,000 (I am rounding), fundraising costs were $10,000, and hence $65,000 was available for everything else. We actually spent $86,000. Part of the problem is that the LNC income was not the budgeted $110,000, but instead $35,000 less.
The Treasurer reported (page 3, line entries in the bottom graph) that $44,000 of that amount was for the building, payroll, and governance, leaving only $21,000 of that amount for everything else. The $44,000 does not include office supplies, telephone and data services, equipment leases, and IT costs, without which we would not function, for about $9000, leaving $12,000 in surplus. Readers perusing the LNC budget may note other items that it would be challenging to forego.
From page 9 of that report, we have $105,000 cash on hand, but of that $71,000 is restricted funds, mostly for the convention (money received, big bill coming in June), leaving only $34,000 cash on hand. If we had not drawn down the bequest by its legal limit ($34,400) we would have approximately no cash on hand.
We therefore have $34,000 cash on hand, plus $12,000 a month, less any other expenses we can’t skip such as the FEC consultant.
However, the estimated ballot access cost is $272,500. That’s form the Ballto Access Committee report. In my experience, that estimated number is sometimes too low, e.g., Oklahoma, not to mention that the number happens to match exactly the current budget. However, those expenses must be paid over the next six months or so.
Add it up. At our current fundraising levels, over the next six months we will have $34,000+ $12,000 x 6 = $106,000 to cover that $272,500 in ballot access charges, and anything else the LNC might want to do, such as $20,000 for a new web site.
If we actually made budget on raising money, we would have $34,000 + 47,000 x 6 = $316,000 available over the next six months, barely adequate to cover ballot access expenses, with a very thin safety margin for ballot access cost overruns and any other costs beyond the building, payroll, and governance. Donations targeting paying off the mortgage will of course be most appreciated by the LNC.
Historically, we had a larger income, not to mention that in prior years the LNC set aside funds to cover ballot access expenses when it mattered.
The situation is unsatisfactory.
We need to strengthen the LSLA, if for no other reason than to cover the contingency that at some point in the too-far future the LSLA will be the only functioning national Libertarian Party organization.
George Phillies
That should read “I’ll ask a question…” I obviously need a new keyboard and keyboard operator.
Since I won’t be attending the meeting I ask a question now in hopes of someone bringing it up for public comment. How is the LP doing at updating the literature? Thank you.
Here though is the link to the Chair’s proposed Agenda
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160220_LNC_Meeting_Proposed_Agenda.pdf