Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2009, 05:09 AM   #851
2/325Falcon
Conehead
 
2/325Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,907
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Old people love to watch the news. TV ads ftw.
2/325Falcon is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:49 AM   #852
StavrosT
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 338
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Ti egene Taso? thanks for the explanation. I think I'm starting to understand it a lot better.
StavrosT is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 11:01 AM   #853
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer View Post
Though I know nothing about how effective targeting can be, my intuition is that direct mail isn't 10x as effective as any of the other methods.
It doesn't have to be, because the idea behind direct mail is to target it so you end up sending a small number of packages.
 
Old 02-25-2009, 11:21 AM   #854
NeBlis
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NeBlis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Just a little southeast of Nome
Posts: 12,039
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81 View Post

1. Cable TV. 1 cent/viewer on Keith Olbermann's show. It can be sort of targeted (I would prefer an older, female demographic)
Only partisan Dems can stomach this show and will vote for you because you have a D next to your name.

Quote:
2. Newspaper display advertising. 1.5-2.5 cents/subscriber. Cannot be targeted, but the demographic that reads local newspapers is probably likely to vote.
meh 1975aments. if this were belly bands or on the front of the boxes somehow maybe.

Quote:
3. Direct mail. 15-25 cents/recipient. Can be targeted well (I have a large database of voting histories), but is obviously more expensive.
file 13

Quote:
4. Robocalls. 1.5 cents/call. Can be targeted as well, but people find it annoying. Someone I spoke to here locally had a good experience using it. Keep in mind that you get answering machines the majority of the time anyway.
telemarketers need to burn alive IMO


Do an Obama and hire a bunch of people to canvas for you ... payment after you win is apparently optional.
NeBlis is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 11:22 AM   #855
snowden
veteran
 
snowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,527
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

most effective by far is find the neighborhoods where you are most likely to do well. Send out a flyer to every house saying "We're doing a study on voting rates for local elections, part of the study is going to be printing out who voted and distributing the names in a flyer like this after voting day." Boom giant turn out. (This is not just my random thoughts, but a friend of a friend's thesis that was a research paper with david gergen (sp?) a poly sci professor at yale. It's statistically the best way to turn out the vote by a massive margin (like 95% voting when they did it for local congressional elections)
snowden is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 12:17 PM   #856
ElliotR
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ElliotR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Contacting SoCal Approach on 127.3
Posts: 30,029
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Local Newspaper and direct mail imo. Cable sounds appealing but it is so transient you will have to run the ad a bunch of times to get an effect.
ElliotR is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 12:38 PM   #857
iron81
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
iron81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Resident Spork
Posts: 17,717
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis View Post
Only partisan Dems can stomach this show and will vote for you because you have a D next to your name.
That's what I was going for.

I think I was slightly mistaken about the costs. TV is more like 1.5-2 cents/viewer and direct mail might be slightly cheaper.

Going back to KO's show, one spot for my region would cost $20 and reach about 1400 people. I would have to split both roughly evenly with an adjoining township. If you don't like MSNBC, other networks I suspect would reach a good demographic would be HGTV and The Learning Channel. This site has good ratings information.

One other thing. It's my opinion that someone who pays attention to a TV ad is more likely to be persuaded than someone who pays attention to one of the other methods.

Last edited by iron81; 02-25-2009 at 12:58 PM.
iron81 is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 01:10 PM   #858
gobbomom
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gobbomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: gobboville
Posts: 7,263
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

but you don't need to persuade a KO viewer, they'll vote Dem anyway. Also, I wouldn't do direct mail- everyone just pitches them in the trash- complete waste of money. Seriously, canvassing, door-knob hangers has the best effect on me.
gobbomom is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 01:11 PM   #859
iron81
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
iron81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Resident Spork
Posts: 17,717
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taso View Post
I don't read newspapers (lolol, what is this ,1935?)
I would guess that a quarter to a third of the households in my hometown subscribe to a local paper which they actually pay for. You can't really say that for the other methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbomom View Post
but you don't need to persuade a KO viewer, they'll vote Dem anyway. Also, I wouldn't do direct mail- everyone just pitches them in the trash- complete waste of money. Seriously, canvassing, door-knob hangers has the best effect on me.
The first part is partially true. I would be targeting Dems to increase turnout, which will only be about 30%.

The last part is a given, we'll be doing that anyway.
iron81 is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 01:14 PM   #860
gobbomom
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gobbomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: gobboville
Posts: 7,263
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

p.s. I think newspaper ads are good. Iron, do you have a website? (Hopefully yes). Plaster your website address EVERYWHERE: newspapers, door hangers, signs, etc. People will google you.
gobbomom is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 01:45 PM   #861
RollinHand
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RollinHand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,382
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Wall Street Fighter 4

Very cheesy but sonicblomberg was pretty lol.
RollinHand is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 02:33 PM   #863
vulturesrow
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
vulturesrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Missing Omnibot
Posts: 11,101
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog View Post
The Looming Crisis at the Pentagon

Not that vr will be able to read it; I'm told the Pentagon blocks LRC. Surprise!
You are at least half wrong. Im using the base civilian provider here, who is still subject to DoD guidelines and restrictions and I was able to read the article. Also, Im also near positive Ive read Lew Rockwell articles from work before but I'll check once all my official accounts get set up here. I hope you have something more than this article to offer because as far as the tactical feasibility of the F-22 is concerned it is a joke. As I said, Im not a huge fan of the F-22. My major issue is that Im a believer in specialized weapons platforms. If the F-22 was built as a pure air-to-air platform, Id be much happier. Anyhow, I'll pull out some stuff from the quoted section Boro provided. Im going to ignore the railing against the government stuff and criticisms of the procurement process. Im pretty much in agreement with the fact that the Pentagon procurement process is pretty broken. If you want to read a good book about that, try "The Pentagon Wars".





Quote:
The F-22 has several strikingly expensive characteristics which actually limit its usefulness. It is allegedly a stealth fighter – that is, an airplane with a shape that reduces its visibility on radar – but there is no such thing as an airplane completely invisible to all radar. In any case, once it turns on its own fire-control radar, which it must do in combat, it becomes fully visible to an enemy.
Laugh worthy. It is exactly as quoted above, reduced visibility to radar. No one made the claim that the aircraft is completely invisible on radar. Its a strawman argument and the statement that it must turn on its radar once in combat is well off the mark as well. Not to mention that once it is theoretically detected through its radar emissions it has a serious advantage in the fight.

Quote:
The F-22 is able to maneuver at very high altitudes, but this is of limited value since there are no other airplanes in service anywhere that can engage in combat at such heights. It can cruise at twice the speed of sound in level flight without the use of its afterburners (which consume fuel at an accelerated rate), but there are no potential adversaries for which these capabilities are relevant.
Higher altitude isnt for the ability to combat other aircraft that can climb that high, its to gain an altitude advantage over other aircraft. And supercruise is an advantage for a variety of reasons. These are throwaway statements that have no basis in reality.

Quote:
The plane is obviously blindingly irrelevant to "fourth-generation wars" like that with the Taliban in Afghanistan – the sorts of conflicts for which American strategists inside the Pentagon and out believe the United States should be preparing.
Actually, many people would disagree with that statement. Ive seen several professional articles lately and heard people speak that pretty much the opposite is true. China is on a lot of people's minds for one.

Quote:
It is a non-starter for close-air-support missions because it is too fast for a pilot to be able to spot tactical targets. It is too delicate and potentially flammable to be able to withstand ground fire. If built, it will end up as the most expensive defense contract in history without offering a serious replacement for any of the fighters or fighter-bombers currently in service.
[/indent]
The above I believe is referring to the F-35. I actually laughed out loud when I read the "too fast for a pilot to spot tactical targets". Much like a car, an airplane can fly at various speeds and an aircraft with advanced flight controls can fly pretty damn slow if required. But right now jets that fly CAS fly pretty darn fast and do just fine. Thats why CAS involves a ground controller to help get the pilots on target. The withstanding ground fire statement is pretty vague but frankly not many aircraft are particularly good in this regard, the A-10 being the lone exception.

For the most part I cant speak much to the F-35. But I've flown in an exercise with F-22s and they decimated the red air guys utterly. In 10.5 years of flying Ive never seen red air utterly destroyed the way the F-22s did.

Anyhow sorry everyone for all the content in the no-content thread. On a low content note, I visited al-Faw palace today and took the obligatory picture of myself in the chair that Arafat gifted to Saddam.
vulturesrow is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 03:14 PM   #864
NeBlis
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NeBlis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Just a little southeast of Nome
Posts: 12,039
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturesrow View Post
I visited al-Faw palace today and took the obligatory picture of myself in the chair that Arafat gifted to Saddam.
Pics or it didnt happen IMO
NeBlis is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 03:17 PM   #865
TomVeil
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
TomVeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere, Man
Posts: 19,374
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81 View Post
This was my opinion as well, but the only other person who has a firm opinion has her heart set on direct mail. However, I was not armed with this pricing info at the time.

OTOH, of the methods listed, I'm probably most likely to pay attention to direct mail. I would be curious to hear which methods you guys pay attention to the most.
Direct mail gets thrown out with all the other junk mail, imo.

There's nothing better than getting boots on the ground with door hangers and canvassers imo. After that I'd do TV ads (not on olberman!).
TomVeil is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 04:33 PM   #866
MuresanForMVP
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MuresanForMVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Verizon Center
Posts: 22,064
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

this Octomom lady is such an annoying dumbass
MuresanForMVP is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 04:49 PM   #867
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuresanForMVP View Post
this Octomom lady is such an annoying dumbass
There's a good thread in the lounge ripping her to shreds.
 
Old 02-25-2009, 04:58 PM   #868
NeBlis
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NeBlis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Just a little southeast of Nome
Posts: 12,039
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

my studiomate is working on an ice cream campaign. we have 2 chest freezers full of high end gellato and sorbet
NeBlis is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 05:54 PM   #869
The 13th 4postle
banned
 
The 13th 4postle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wookie can't handle the truth!!
Posts: 11,244
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Out of the options I would say TV, but I would rather put $1000 into making an awesome website that looks good and actually has content.

Make some good youtube videos also.
The 13th 4postle is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 06:36 PM   #870
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

put it all on 13 on the roulette table obv.
 
Old 02-25-2009, 07:38 PM   #871
Borodog
Enemy of the State
 
Borodog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: I Didn't Vote, Bitch
Posts: 25,491
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturesrow View Post
You are at least half wrong. Im using the base civilian provider here, who is still subject to DoD guidelines and restrictions and I was able to read the article. Also, Im also near positive Ive read Lew Rockwell articles from work before but I'll check once all my official accounts get set up here. I hope you have something more than this article to offer because as far as the tactical feasibility of the F-22 is concerned it is a joke. As I said, Im not a huge fan of the F-22. My major issue is that Im a believer in specialized weapons platforms. If the F-22 was built as a pure air-to-air platform, Id be much happier. Anyhow, I'll pull out some stuff from the quoted section Boro provided. Im going to ignore the railing against the government stuff and criticisms of the procurement process. Im pretty much in agreement with the fact that the Pentagon procurement process is pretty broken. If you want to read a good book about that, try "The Pentagon Wars".
Well let's take a look.

Quote:
Laugh worthy. It is exactly as quoted above, reduced visibility to radar. No one made the claim that the aircraft is completely invisible on radar. Its a strawman argument and the statement that it must turn on its radar once in combat is well off the mark as well. Not to mention that once it is theoretically detected through its radar emissions it has a serious advantage in the fight.
You say that it is laughworthy, and then claim that it is exactly as quoted? "Well off the mark"? Does it have to turn on it's radar to target enemy aircraft or not? Did he claim that it wasn't a superior fighter plane to anything else built? Uh, no? Does that affect the conclusions of the article in the slightest? Also no.

Quote:

Higher altitude isnt for the ability to combat other aircraft that can climb that high, its to gain an altitude advantage over other aircraft. And supercruise is an advantage for a variety of reasons. These are throwaway statements that have no basis in reality.
Read again. Your reading comprehension has no basis in reality. He said it can maneuver at altitude, which is useless, because there is no other plane that can. Do you see why?

Quote:

Actually, many people would disagree with that statement. Ive seen several professional articles lately and heard people speak that pretty much the opposite is true. China is on a lot of people's minds for one.
If you want to actually provide an argument for why a Mach 2 stealth fighter plane that costs a third of a billion dollars a pop, plus god knows how much to equip and maintain, is relavent to fighting sandle wearing beggers with RPGs and IEDs in the narrow streets of third world nations whose GDP is less than the Pentagon's budget, be my guest. Until then, I am unimpressed with your handwaving.

China might be on a lot of people's minds, but that doesn't have anything to do with using F22s to fight 4G battles.

Quote:

The above I believe is referring to the F-35. I actually laughed out loud when I read the "too fast for a pilot to spot tactical targets". Much like a car, an airplane can fly at various speeds and an aircraft with advanced flight controls can fly pretty damn slow if required. But right now jets that fly CAS fly pretty darn fast and do just fine. Thats why CAS involves a ground controller to help get the pilots on target. The withstanding ground fire statement is pretty vague but frankly not many aircraft are particularly good in this regard, the A-10 being the lone exception.
No coincidentally, the A10 is also much better at actually hitting targets, as was mentioned in the article. That was, in fact, the point. In other words, the third-billion-dollar fighter does not replace the pocket change A10 for these kinds of jobs.

Quote:
For the most part I cant speak much to the F-35. But I've flown in an exercise with F-22s and they decimated the red air guys utterly. In 10.5 years of flying Ive never seen red air utterly destroyed the way the F-22s did.
So what? Did you even read the article? This is completely irrelevant to the point. All I see is you agreeing with the article, reinforcing what it says, yet ignoring the point and sneeringly calling it "a joke", "laughworthy", "not based in reality", "you laughed out loud" (I find it interesting when people admit that they laughed out loud at something they failed to comprehend).

By the way, your tone here is exactly why I have no interest in being nice with you.
Borodog is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:23 PM   #872
govman6767
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
govman6767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Former rightfull king of politards
Posts: 7,549
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

LOL at the mods deleting my soviet obama avatar.........

I guess the crackdown censorship is starting now huh Long live freedom
govman6767 is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:32 PM   #873
MuresanForMVP
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MuresanForMVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Verizon Center
Posts: 22,064
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by govman6767 View Post
LOL at the mods deleting my soviet obama avatar.........

I guess the crackdown censorship is starting now huh Long live freedom
wtf, why?
MuresanForMVP is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:48 PM   #874
iron81
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
iron81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Resident Spork
Posts: 17,717
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuresanForMVP View Post
wtf, why?
IIRC, the rule for avatars is: if anyone complains about an avatar as being "offensive" with some sort of logical reason why, it has to come down. Whoever (not necessarily Elliott) who had it taken down didn't have a lot of discretion.
iron81 is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:54 PM   #875
sightless
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 15,988
Re: ***February Low Content Thread***

Quote:
Originally Posted by govman6767 View Post
LOL at the mods deleting my soviet obama avatar.........

I guess the crackdown censorship is starting now huh Long live freedom
wtf
pics of avatar?
sightless is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive