RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketing

Marcy:

Thanks for a generous and thoughtful reply. With my concerns having been understood, I don't think we have any substantial differences here.

On the point about appeals to self-interest being insulting: I think most of us would agree that a libertarian society was ultimately to everyone's self-interest, even those, like current government employees or aid recipients, who benefit materially from the current system. Most politicians focus on self-interest in a narrower, more short-term sense: How much money are you going to get from the government now? The latter pitch is implicitly insulting, I think, in implying that that's what most of us mainly care about; and it was that implication that I wanted to distance us from. But it was a minor point in any case, not worth defending.

You say that illegal drug users, nudists, and sex workers have already been identified as LP constituencies. It's true that both drug use and prostitution are mentioned in the platform, but I haven't ever seen any discussion in Party literature of nudism or government dress codes in general. That's one page I would volunteer to draft. If we end up with such a page on our website, I might well be able to call attention to it in a letter to the editor of _N_ magazine, the official organ of The Naturist Society, to which I belong. I would also be willing to draft a page on children.

Thanks again for the energy, optimism, fairness, and diplomacy you bring to the Chair.

Mike

Mike,

Sounds to me that I have succeeded in hooking you into a promise to
write a page for the website! If your piece on LGBT rights is any
indication, that page will be of extremely high quality. I would
love it if others came forward, as you have, to write an outreach
piece to the constituencies of their choice. Huuummm, I guess I
better get busy myself.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:

Marcy:

Thanks for a generous and thoughtful reply. With my concerns

having been understood, I don't think we have any substantial
differences here.

On the point about appeals to self-interest being insulting: I

think most of us would agree that a libertarian society was
ultimately to everyone's self-interest, even those, like current
government employees or aid recipients, who benefit materially from
the current system. Most politicians focus on self-interest in a
narrower, more short-term sense: How much money are you going to get
from the government now? The latter pitch is implicitly insulting, I
think, in implying that that's what most of us mainly care about; and
it was that implication that I wanted to distance us from. But it
was a minor point in any case, not worth defending.

You say that illegal drug users, nudists, and sex workers have

already been identified as LP constituencies. It's true that both
drug use and prostitution are mentioned in the platform, but I
haven't ever seen any discussion in Party literature of nudism or
government dress codes in general. That's one page I would volunteer
to draft. If we end up with such a page on our website, I might well
be able to call attention to it in a letter to the editor of _N_
magazine, the official organ of The Naturist Society, to which I
belong. I would also be willing to draft a page on children.

Thanks again for the energy, optimism, fairness, and diplomacy you

bring to the Chair.

Mike

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketing

Mike,

Thank you for your excellent analysis of CBM vs issues-based
marketing. Although one of the best pieces of writing I ever saw

was

your constituency-based brochure on LGBT rights, the majority of

LPSF

members seem to define the LP in terms of issues rather than
constituencies; which would be fine with me, except that given the
fact that we always receive such a low percentage of votes perhaps
some other definitions and approaches might be in order. It might
even be in order to start with the very basics, a definition
of "political party;" however, I will see if I can respond to your
concerns now, without the benefit of such a definition.

1. CBM does refer to the identification of one or a few target
constituencies. Republicans have identified conservatives and big
businesses. Democrats have identified liberals and workers (wage
earners, labor unions). Greens have identified proponents of big
government and of a managed environment. You suggest that the LPSF
consider identifying drug users, nudists, sex workers, and children
(i.e. individuals who, as you say, the other parties ignore at best
and maltreat at worst). I submit that we already have identified

the

first three; and if we choose to continue focusing on only those
constituencies, we will continue to be unknown to the general
population. I have no problem including those constituencies you
mention in an LPSF outreach program, but I am suggesting not

limiting

ourselves to them.

2. Mark Schreiber, as my handout indicates, is the author of the
paper to which I referred at the meeting. Yes, he is the "marketing
director" of LP who was hired to brand the LP. He apparently made

an

argument to choose small business as the (apparently only) target
constituency. In my opinion "branding" the LP is a poor choice of
words; which gives opponents of his plan a good platform from which
to shoot down his entire approach. Singling out only one group

seems

provincial at best. My suggestion was to simply identify a few
constituencies and tailor our outreach to each.

3. My handout of the Republican party website showed only one page
of the website. There were several other pages, many of which

dealt

with issues, such as the war in Iraq. My suggestion was to *add*
constituency as a strong approach to our outreach, not to discard
issues. In answer to your question of what would I want to see on

the

website of a party with which I was not familiar, I would say:

clear

indication on how the party stood on issues. HOWEVER, as most, I
would consciously or unconsciously be looking for issues that

effect

me (CONSTITUENCY) personally. I submit that we cannot possibly
design an effective website, or other outreach tool, without a

grasp

on the subject of constituency.

4. I am puzzled by your comment that "There is a hint of insult in
CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in the narrowest,
most short-term sense." I have no problem admitting that many of

my

actions are the result of self-interest, short term and long term.
Capitalism, which the LP espouses, is often described as a group
voluntarily interacting in individual self interest; nothing narrow
or short term about that.

5. I completely agree with you that the LP does not view

government

as a "bag of treats." There is a significant difference between
telling a group what the party can do for them (liberal approach),
and telling a group how a party can help them get government off
their backs so they can flourish (libertarian approach).

6. I would love it if you and other volunteers drafted some web
pages, as you have offered to do. I suggest we proceed in the

manner

that Phil Berg briefly described at the last meeting

(unfortunately,

we had to end the discussion because of the vote on the Iraq
Resolution): Volunteers pick a constituency (or constituencies)

they

want to address and design outreach material that would be of
interest to that particular constituency (or constituencies).

Mike, thanks again for your input. I would also welcome the input

of

others.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:
> I was persuaded during Saturday's meeting that the idea of
constituency-based marketing (CBM), properly implemented, may have
merit; but there are a couple of traps involved, so I wanted to lay
out the issues as I see them, partly for the benefit of members who
weren't at the meeting.
>
> It was natural for me to assume, in the first place, that CBM
referred to the identification of one or a few target

constituencies,

since the idea is most closely associated with the name of Mark
Schreiber, who was behind the recent proposal to "brand" the LP as
the party of small business. Small business owners are
unquestionably a very important constituency, in terms of both

their

numbers and their treatment by the major parties; but evidently

many

members besides me opposed the narrow identification of the LP with
any single such constituency, and I've heard no more about it. The
page Marcy circulated from the Republican Party website, on the

other

Marcy,

    More outreach pieces, especially if they're locally focused, can't hurt! In fact, I'll volunteer to write a piece about San Francisco history using some of the stuff that we dig up in connection with the walking tour project.

  But at the same time we consider which groups to reach out to, I'd like to see us focus with equal emphasis on what *types* of outreach we can do. Written material has long been our main form of outreach; i.e. we have put a lot of resources into appealing to people who like to read about political issues and political philosophy. Here are a few different groups, and some ideas for types of outreach that might be effective at appealing to each of them:

movie-goers, film students, film industry workers..............make videos, show films
theater lovers, theater students, industry workers.............do street theater skits
kids (& parents who tag along).............................................put on puppet shows, have story-telling, carnival-type games
art lovers, artists.......................................................................make visual art, use creativity in getting our message out
rebels, anti-authoritarians......................................................practice civil disobedience, protests, subversive activities (e.g. pirate radio, confronting politicians, etc.)
teens..........................................................................................use rap/hip-hop, video games, to deliver libertarian message
environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts.............................hold meetings & events outdoors, sponsor clean-ups
animal lovers............................................................................bring animals to events
djs, music lovers, musicians..................................................organize concerts & raves, offer opportunities to play or spin music or jam at LP events
teenagers, students.................................................................offer cool stickers, posters, temporary tattoos, peer counseling
history buffs, tourists................................................................offer walking tours
bicyclists....................................................................................offer bicycle tours (similar material as walking tours but more area covered)
athletes, active people............................................................play volleyball, go river rafting, have paintball games, etc.
people looking for friends.......................................................befriend people
people looking for fun things to do........................................organize more activities
people seeking spiritual growth.............................................go on retreats, have readings/meditation sessions
people wanting to learn...........................................................offer mini-classes, internal education
people who like to party..........................................................throw parties

  Note that some of this is as much about how we interact among ourselves as how we interact with the public. It is an ambitious list (though by no means an exhaustive one). I realize that we may lack the collective talents or inclination to do many of these things. On the other hand, if our group consisted mainly of musicians, or artists, or actors, or nature lovers, or basketball players, producing decent articles and pamphlets about political issues and philosophy might likewise be a project we were unable or reluctant to take on. And if a political group had to pick one thing to be good at, intelligent written communication would probably be near the top of the list. But the fact remains that a party which can and does use many different types of outreach will be stronger and more effective than one that doesn't. I see two possible solutions to this dilemma -- start going outside our comfort zones and trying new things, or attract new people into the party who are comfortable doing different things than we are and have different talents than we do. Unfortunately, the latter probably involves a little bit of the former.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - This may seem apropos of nothing, and on one level I find it a bit embarrassing, but one of our former national chairs once said something rather interesting to me. It was near the end of one of our national conventions and I was eating lunch with him and his family. We were talking about the culture of the party and such, and I think I had said something about the danger of trying to make our party bland and non-threatening in order to appeal to mainstream, "normal" people, when he remarked, non-jokingly, that he thought I was one of the few normal people in the Libertarian Party and that we needed more normal members. This was *after* having seen me dressed in drag, wearing butterfly wings and roller skates, and in numerous other unusual costumes at our conventions. Hmm...

Starchild,

"People-based outreach"!?! OK, sounds good. Also, I absolutely loved
your story about your convention dinner companion.

Excellent list of prospective groups. After reading your list, I
would like clarify what I see as 1) writing interesting articles
directed at general groups such as the ones you mention in your e-
mail, VS. 2) communicating to a few *major* groups the "official" (in
quotations because of the cat-herding theory of libertarianism)
stance of the Libertarian Party on issues primarily affecting each
group. The paper we discussed at the last meeting talks about the
latter (Constituency Based Marketing is on the Files section of the
Activist List). However, the former is also good outreach. The trick
is to position each strategy effectively, and of course to get
volunteers to write articles. It would be great if an
outreach/communications committee would get together to formulate a
focused plan. But I would rejoice even if a focused plan could be
developed via our e-mail lists.

I have placed this subject on next meeting's agenda, primarily
regarding website material as we discussed at the last meeting,
although print material as you suggest can also be considered.

Marcy

Marcy,

    More outreach pieces, especially if they're locally focused,

can't

hurt! In fact, I'll volunteer to write a piece about San Francisco
history using some of the stuff that we dig up in connection with

the

walking tour project.

  But at the same time we consider which groups to reach out

to, I'd

like to see us focus with equal emphasis on what *types* of

outreach we

can do. Written material has long been our main form of outreach;

i.e.

we have put a lot of resources into appealing to people who like

to

read about political issues and political philosophy. Here are a

few

different groups, and some ideas for types of outreach that might

be

effective at appealing to each of them:

movie-goers, film students, film industry

workers..............make

videos, show films
theater lovers, theater students, industry workers.............do
street theater skits
kids (& parents who tag
along).............................................put on puppet

shows,

have story-telling, carnival-type games
art lovers,

artists...............................................................
..

......make visual art, use creativity in getting our message out
rebels,
anti-

authoritarians......................................................pr
ac

tice civil disobedience, protests, subversive activities (e.g.

pirate

radio, confronting politicians, etc.)

teens.................................................................
..

.......................use rap/hip-hop, video games, to deliver
libertarian message
environmentalists, outdoors
enthusiasts.............................hold meetings & events
outdoors, sponsor clean-ups
animal

lovers................................................................
..

..........bring animals to events
djs, music lovers,

musicians..................................................organize

concerts & raves, offer opportunities to play or spin music or jam

at

LP events
teenagers,

students..............................................................
..

.offer cool stickers, posters, temporary tattoos, peer counseling
history buffs,

tourists..............................................................
..

offer walking tours

bicyclists............................................................
..

......................offer bicycle tours (similar material as

walking

tours but more area covered)
athletes, active

people............................................................play
  

volleyball, go river rafting, have paintball games, etc.
people looking for

friends.......................................................befriend
  

people
people looking for fun things to
do........................................organize more activities
people seeking spiritual
growth.............................................go on retreats,

have

readings/meditation sessions
people wanting to

learn...........................................................offer

mini-classes, internal education
people who like to

party..........................................................throw

parties

  Note that some of this is as much about how we interact

among

ourselves as how we interact with the public. It is an ambitious

list

(though by no means an exhaustive one). I realize that we may lack

the

collective talents or inclination to do many of these things. On

the

other hand, if our group consisted mainly of musicians, or artists,

or

actors, or nature lovers, or basketball players, producing decent
articles and pamphlets about political issues and philosophy might
likewise be a project we were unable or reluctant to take on. And

if a

political group had to pick one thing to be good at, intelligent
written communication would probably be near the top of the list.

But

the fact remains that a party which can and does use many

different

types of outreach will be stronger and more effective than one

that

doesn't. I see two possible solutions to this dilemma -- start

going

outside our comfort zones and trying new things, or attract new

people

into the party who are comfortable doing different things than we

are

and have different talents than we do. Unfortunately, the latter
probably involves a little bit of the former.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - This may seem apropos of nothing, and on one level I find

it a

bit embarrassing, but one of our former national chairs once said
something rather interesting to me. It was near the end of one of

our

national conventions and I was eating lunch with him and his

family. We

were talking about the culture of the party and such, and I think I

had

said something about the danger of trying to make our party bland

and

non-threatening in order to appeal to mainstream, "normal" people,

when

he remarked, non-jokingly, that he thought I was one of the few

normal

people in the Libertarian Party and that we needed more normal

members.

This was *after* having seen me dressed in drag, wearing butterfly
wings and roller skates, and in numerous other unusual costumes at

our

conventions. Hmm...

> Mike,
>
> Sounds to me that I have succeeded in hooking you into a promise

to

> write a page for the website! If your piece on LGBT rights is any
> indication, that page will be of extremely high quality. I would
> love it if others came forward, as you have, to write an outreach
> piece to the constituencies of their choice. Huuummm, I guess I
> better get busy myself.
>
> Marcy
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"

<acreem@o...>

> wrote:
>> Marcy:
>>
>> Thanks for a generous and thoughtful reply. With my concerns
> having been understood, I don't think we have any substantial
> differences here.
>>
>> On the point about appeals to self-interest being insulting: I
> think most of us would agree that a libertarian society was
> ultimately to everyone's self-interest, even those, like current
> government employees or aid recipients, who benefit materially

from

> the current system. Most politicians focus on self-interest in a
> narrower, more short-term sense: How much money are you going to

get

> from the government now? The latter pitch is implicitly

insulting, I

> think, in implying that that's what most of us mainly care about;

and

> it was that implication that I wanted to distance us from. But it
> was a minor point in any case, not worth defending.
>>
>> You say that illegal drug users, nudists, and sex workers have
> already been identified as LP constituencies. It's true that both
> drug use and prostitution are mentioned in the platform, but I
> haven't ever seen any discussion in Party literature of nudism or
> government dress codes in general. That's one page I would

volunteer

> to draft. If we end up with such a page on our website, I might

well

> be able to call attention to it in a letter to the editor of _N_
> magazine, the official organ of The Naturist Society, to which I
> belong. I would also be willing to draft a page on children.
>>
>> Thanks again for the energy, optimism, fairness, and diplomacy

you

> bring to the Chair.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketing
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Thank you for your excellent analysis of CBM vs issues-based
>> marketing. Although one of the best pieces of writing I ever saw
> was
>> your constituency-based brochure on LGBT rights, the majority of
> LPSF
>> members seem to define the LP in terms of issues rather than
>> constituencies; which would be fine with me, except that given

the

>> fact that we always receive such a low percentage of votes

perhaps

>> some other definitions and approaches might be in order. It might
>> even be in order to start with the very basics, a definition
>> of "political party;" however, I will see if I can respond to

your

>> concerns now, without the benefit of such a definition.
>>
>> 1. CBM does refer to the identification of one or a few target
>> constituencies. Republicans have identified conservatives and

big

>> businesses. Democrats have identified liberals and workers (wage
>> earners, labor unions). Greens have identified proponents of big
>> government and of a managed environment. You suggest that the

LPSF

>> consider identifying drug users, nudists, sex workers, and

children

>> (i.e. individuals who, as you say, the other parties ignore at

best

>> and maltreat at worst). I submit that we already have identified
> the
>> first three; and if we choose to continue focusing on only those
>> constituencies, we will continue to be unknown to the general
>> population. I have no problem including those constituencies you
>> mention in an LPSF outreach program, but I am suggesting not
> limiting
>> ourselves to them.
>>
>> 2. Mark Schreiber, as my handout indicates, is the author of the
>> paper to which I referred at the meeting. Yes, he is

the "marketing

>> director" of LP who was hired to brand the LP. He apparently

made

> an
>> argument to choose small business as the (apparently only) target
>> constituency. In my opinion "branding" the LP is a poor choice

of

>> words; which gives opponents of his plan a good platform from

which

>> to shoot down his entire approach. Singling out only one group
> seems
>> provincial at best. My suggestion was to simply identify a few
>> constituencies and tailor our outreach to each.
>>
>> 3. My handout of the Republican party website showed only one

page

>> of the website. There were several other pages, many of which
> dealt
>> with issues, such as the war in Iraq. My suggestion was to *add*
>> constituency as a strong approach to our outreach, not to discard
>> issues. In answer to your question of what would I want to see on
> the
>> website of a party with which I was not familiar, I would say:
> clear
>> indication on how the party stood on issues. HOWEVER, as most, I
>> would consciously or unconsciously be looking for issues that
> effect
>> me (CONSTITUENCY) personally. I submit that we cannot possibly
>> design an effective website, or other outreach tool, without a
> grasp
>> on the subject of constituency.
>>
>> 4. I am puzzled by your comment that "There is a hint of insult

in

>> CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in the

narrowest,

>> most short-term sense." I have no problem admitting that many

of

> my
>> actions are the result of self-interest, short term and long

term.

>> Capitalism, which the LP espouses, is often described as a group
>> voluntarily interacting in individual self interest; nothing

narrow

>> or short term about that.
>>
>> 5. I completely agree with you that the LP does not view
> government
>> as a "bag of treats." There is a significant difference between
>> telling a group what the party can do for them (liberal

approach),

>> and telling a group how a party can help them get government off
>> their backs so they can flourish (libertarian approach).
>>
>> 6. I would love it if you and other volunteers drafted some web
>> pages, as you have offered to do. I suggest we proceed in the
> manner
>> that Phil Berg briefly described at the last meeting
> (unfortunately,
>> we had to end the discussion because of the vote on the Iraq
>> Resolution): Volunteers pick a constituency (or constituencies)
> they
>> want to address and design outreach material that would be of
>> interest to that particular constituency (or constituencies).
>>
>> Mike, thanks again for your input. I would also welcome the

input

> of
>> others.
>>
>> Marcy
>>
>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"

<acreem@o...>

>> wrote:
>>> I was persuaded during Saturday's meeting that the idea of
>> constituency-based marketing (CBM), properly implemented, may

have

>> merit; but there are a couple of traps involved, so I wanted to

lay

>> out the issues as I see them, partly for the benefit of members

who

>> weren't at the meeting.
>>>
>>> It was natural for me to assume, in the first place, that CBM
>> referred to the identification of one or a few target
> constituencies,
>> since the idea is most closely associated with the name of Mark
>> Schreiber, who was behind the recent proposal to "brand" the LP

as

>> the party of small business. Small business owners are
>> unquestionably a very important constituency, in terms of both
> their
>> numbers and their treatment by the major parties; but evidently
> many
>> members besides me opposed the narrow identification of the LP

with

>> any single such constituency, and I've heard no more about it.

The

>> page Marcy circulated from the Republican Party website, on the
> other
>> hand, consisted of links for a large number (95?) of

constituencies-

> -
>> Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, evangelicals, and so on.
>>>
>>> I agree that a similar construction might be useful on an LP
>> website--with this caveat: It strongly evokes the now-

traditional

>> idea of a political party as Santa Claus, with something to offer
>> everybody. We obviously don't have anything to offer except the
>> promise to help get government out of people's lives, which they
> may
>> perceive as a benefit or not. Our identity as "The Party of
>> Principle" really fits much better with an issue-oriented

approach

>> than with a constituency-oriented approach. There is also a hint
> of
>> insult in CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in

the

>> narrowest, most short-term sense. If you were browsing the

website

>> of an unfamiliar party, would you want to know (a) where it

stood,

>> for example, on the war in Iraq or Social Security, or (b) what

it

>> had to offer, say, Brazilian Americans or labor unions?
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, there are many constituencies for whom getting
>> government out of their lives would be a benefit--perhaps greater
>> than they realize. Our most natural constituencies are all those
>> groups--some large and some small--who are victims of victimless
>> crime laws--who are not only neglected but actually persecuted by
> the
>> major parties. Probably the largest and most obvious of these is
>> illegal drug users and their friends and families. That doesn't
>> count all the people who would want to use those drugs if they
>> weren't illegal. There are many other groups--e.g., nudists, sex
>> workers--who may be comparatively small in themselves, but who

add

> up
>> to significant numbers. An even larger group than drug users is
>> children. They are totally neglected by the major parties just
>> because they have the status of slaves--of property; they can't
>> vote. But, even under the present regime, they will be potential
>> voters in the near future. These are all groups who won't find
>> themselves on the constituency lists of any major party. Ralph
> Raico
>> did a tremendous service to the Party with his gay rights

pamphlet

>> for the MacBride campaign in 1976--spelling out the implications

of

>> the LP platform on issues like cross-dressing and gay marriage

for

>> people who would never have bothered to read through the whole
>> platform, or who might have doubted the implications of what they
>> read. The CBM approach on a website can perhaps offer a similar
>> benefit to people who define themselves in such terms, and I

would

Starchild,

"People-based outreach"!?! OK, sounds good. Also, I absolutely loved
your story about your convention dinner companion.

  Thanks! Though I meant to say I found it embarrassing on *at least* one level.

Excellent list of prospective groups. After reading your list, I
would like clarify what I see as 1) writing interesting articles
directed at general groups such as the ones you mention in your e-
mail, VS. 2) communicating to a few *major* groups the "official" (in
quotations because of the cat-herding theory of libertarianism)
stance of the Libertarian Party on issues primarily affecting each
group. The paper we discussed at the last meeting talks about the
latter (Constituency Based Marketing is on the Files section of the
Activist List). However, the former is also good outreach. The trick
is to position each strategy effectively, and of course to get
volunteers to write articles. It would be great if an
outreach/communications committee would get together to formulate a
focused plan. But I would rejoice even if a focused plan could be
developed via our e-mail lists.

  The point of listing those groups and the types of outreach that might appeal to them was to illustrate possible *alternatives* to writing articles.

I have placed this subject on next meeting's agenda, primarily
regarding website material as we discussed at the last meeting,
although print material as you suggest can also be considered.

  "Print material as (I) suggest?" I thought the point of my message was to suggest more or less the opposite!

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Starchild,

I will rephrase my comment: "and pros and cons of print
material...", which is what I meant.

Marcy

> Starchild,
>
> "People-based outreach"!?! OK, sounds good. Also, I absolutely

loved

> your story about your convention dinner companion.

  Thanks! Though I meant to say I found it embarrassing on *at

least*

one level.

> Excellent list of prospective groups. After reading your list, I
> would like clarify what I see as 1) writing interesting articles
> directed at general groups such as the ones you mention in your e-
> mail, VS. 2) communicating to a few *major* groups the "official"

(in

> quotations because of the cat-herding theory of libertarianism)
> stance of the Libertarian Party on issues primarily affecting each
> group. The paper we discussed at the last meeting talks about the
> latter (Constituency Based Marketing is on the Files section of

the

> Activist List). However, the former is also good outreach. The

trick

> is to position each strategy effectively, and of course to get
> volunteers to write articles. It would be great if an
> outreach/communications committee would get together to formulate

a

> focused plan. But I would rejoice even if a focused plan could be
> developed via our e-mail lists.

  The point of listing those groups and the types of outreach

that might

appeal to them was to illustrate possible *alternatives* to writing
articles.

> I have placed this subject on next meeting's agenda, primarily
> regarding website material as we discussed at the last meeting,
> although print material as you suggest can also be considered.

  "Print material as (I) suggest?" I thought the point of my

message was

to suggest more or less the opposite!

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> Marcy
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

>> Marcy,
>>
>> More outreach pieces, especially if they're locally focused,
> can't
>> hurt! In fact, I'll volunteer to write a piece about San

Francisco

>> history using some of the stuff that we dig up in connection with
> the
>> walking tour project.
>>
>> But at the same time we consider which groups to reach out
> to, I'd
>> like to see us focus with equal emphasis on what *types* of
> outreach we
>> can do. Written material has long been our main form of outreach;
> i.e.
>> we have put a lot of resources into appealing to people who like
> to
>> read about political issues and political philosophy. Here are a
> few
>> different groups, and some ideas for types of outreach that might
> be
>> effective at appealing to each of them:
>>
>> movie-goers, film students, film industry
> workers..............make
>> videos, show films
>> theater lovers, theater students, industry workers.............do
>> street theater skits
>> kids (& parents who tag
>> along).............................................put on puppet
> shows,
>> have story-telling, carnival-type games
>> art lovers,
>>
>

artists...............................................................

> ..
>> ......make visual art, use creativity in getting our message out
>> rebels,
>> anti-
>>
>

authoritarians......................................................pr

> ac
>> tice civil disobedience, protests, subversive activities (e.g.
> pirate
>> radio, confronting politicians, etc.)
>>
>

teens.................................................................

> ..
>> .......................use rap/hip-hop, video games, to deliver
>> libertarian message
>> environmentalists, outdoors
>> enthusiasts.............................hold meetings & events
>> outdoors, sponsor clean-ups
>> animal
>>
>

lovers................................................................

> ..
>> ..........bring animals to events
>> djs, music lovers,
>>
>

musicians..................................................organize

>> concerts & raves, offer opportunities to play or spin music or

jam

> at
>> LP events
>> teenagers,
>>
>

students..............................................................

> ..
>> .offer cool stickers, posters, temporary tattoos, peer counseling
>> history buffs,
>>
>

tourists..............................................................

> ..
>> offer walking tours
>>
>

bicyclists............................................................

> ..
>> ......................offer bicycle tours (similar material as
> walking
>> tours but more area covered)
>> athletes, active
>>
>

people............................................................play

>
>> volleyball, go river rafting, have paintball games, etc.
>> people looking for
>>
>

friends.......................................................befriend

>
>> people
>> people looking for fun things to
>> do........................................organize more

activities

>> people seeking spiritual
>> growth.............................................go on

retreats,

> have
>> readings/meditation sessions
>> people wanting to
>>
>

learn...........................................................offer

>
>> mini-classes, internal education
>> people who like to
>>
>

party..........................................................throw

>> parties
>>
>> Note that some of this is as much about how we interact
> among
>> ourselves as how we interact with the public. It is an ambitious
> list
>> (though by no means an exhaustive one). I realize that we may

lack

> the
>> collective talents or inclination to do many of these things. On
> the
>> other hand, if our group consisted mainly of musicians, or

artists,

> or
>> actors, or nature lovers, or basketball players, producing decent
>> articles and pamphlets about political issues and philosophy

might

>> likewise be a project we were unable or reluctant to take on. And
> if a
>> political group had to pick one thing to be good at, intelligent
>> written communication would probably be near the top of the list.
> But
>> the fact remains that a party which can and does use many
> different
>> types of outreach will be stronger and more effective than one
> that
>> doesn't. I see two possible solutions to this dilemma -- start
> going
>> outside our comfort zones and trying new things, or attract new
> people
>> into the party who are comfortable doing different things than we
> are
>> and have different talents than we do. Unfortunately, the latter
>> probably involves a little bit of the former.
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>> P.S. - This may seem apropos of nothing, and on one level I find
> it a
>> bit embarrassing, but one of our former national chairs once said
>> something rather interesting to me. It was near the end of one of
> our
>> national conventions and I was eating lunch with him and his
> family. We
>> were talking about the culture of the party and such, and I

think I

> had
>> said something about the danger of trying to make our party bland
> and
>> non-threatening in order to appeal to mainstream, "normal"

people,

> when
>> he remarked, non-jokingly, that he thought I was one of the few
> normal
>> people in the Libertarian Party and that we needed more normal
> members.
>> This was *after* having seen me dressed in drag, wearing

butterfly

>> wings and roller skates, and in numerous other unusual costumes

at

> our
>> conventions. Hmm...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Sounds to me that I have succeeded in hooking you into a promise
> to
>>> write a page for the website! If your piece on LGBT rights is

any

>>> indication, that page will be of extremely high quality. I

would

>>> love it if others came forward, as you have, to write an

outreach

>>> piece to the constituencies of their choice. Huuummm, I guess I
>>> better get busy myself.
>>>
>>> Marcy
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"
> <acreem@o...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Marcy:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for a generous and thoughtful reply. With my concerns
>>> having been understood, I don't think we have any substantial
>>> differences here.
>>>>
>>>> On the point about appeals to self-interest being insulting: I
>>> think most of us would agree that a libertarian society was
>>> ultimately to everyone's self-interest, even those, like current
>>> government employees or aid recipients, who benefit materially
> from
>>> the current system. Most politicians focus on self-interest in

a

>>> narrower, more short-term sense: How much money are you going

to

> get
>>> from the government now? The latter pitch is implicitly
> insulting, I
>>> think, in implying that that's what most of us mainly care

about;

> and
>>> it was that implication that I wanted to distance us from. But

it

>>> was a minor point in any case, not worth defending.
>>>>
>>>> You say that illegal drug users, nudists, and sex workers have
>>> already been identified as LP constituencies. It's true that

both

>>> drug use and prostitution are mentioned in the platform, but I
>>> haven't ever seen any discussion in Party literature of nudism

or

>>> government dress codes in general. That's one page I would
> volunteer
>>> to draft. If we end up with such a page on our website, I might
> well
>>> be able to call attention to it in a letter to the editor of _N_
>>> magazine, the official organ of The Naturist Society, to which I
>>> belong. I would also be willing to draft a page on children.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for the energy, optimism, fairness, and diplomacy
> you
>>> bring to the Chair.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>>> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amarcy D.

Berry

>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your excellent analysis of CBM vs issues-based
>>>> marketing. Although one of the best pieces of writing I ever

saw

>>> was
>>>> your constituency-based brochure on LGBT rights, the majority

of

>>> LPSF
>>>> members seem to define the LP in terms of issues rather than
>>>> constituencies; which would be fine with me, except that given
> the
>>>> fact that we always receive such a low percentage of votes
> perhaps
>>>> some other definitions and approaches might be in order. It

might

>>>> even be in order to start with the very basics, a definition
>>>> of "political party;" however, I will see if I can respond to
> your
>>>> concerns now, without the benefit of such a definition.
>>>>
>>>> 1. CBM does refer to the identification of one or a few target
>>>> constituencies. Republicans have identified conservatives and
> big
>>>> businesses. Democrats have identified liberals and workers

(wage

>>>> earners, labor unions). Greens have identified proponents of

big

>>>> government and of a managed environment. You suggest that the
> LPSF
>>>> consider identifying drug users, nudists, sex workers, and
> children
>>>> (i.e. individuals who, as you say, the other parties ignore at
> best
>>>> and maltreat at worst). I submit that we already have

identified

>>> the
>>>> first three; and if we choose to continue focusing on only

those

>>>> constituencies, we will continue to be unknown to the general
>>>> population. I have no problem including those constituencies

you

>>>> mention in an LPSF outreach program, but I am suggesting not
>>> limiting
>>>> ourselves to them.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Mark Schreiber, as my handout indicates, is the author of

the

>>>> paper to which I referred at the meeting. Yes, he is
> the "marketing
>>>> director" of LP who was hired to brand the LP. He apparently
> made
>>> an
>>>> argument to choose small business as the (apparently only)

target

>>>> constituency. In my opinion "branding" the LP is a poor choice
> of
>>>> words; which gives opponents of his plan a good platform from
> which
>>>> to shoot down his entire approach. Singling out only one group
>>> seems
>>>> provincial at best. My suggestion was to simply identify a few
>>>> constituencies and tailor our outreach to each.
>>>>
>>>> 3. My handout of the Republican party website showed only one
> page
>>>> of the website. There were several other pages, many of which
>>> dealt
>>>> with issues, such as the war in Iraq. My suggestion was to

*add*

>>>> constituency as a strong approach to our outreach, not to

discard

>>>> issues. In answer to your question of what would I want to see

on

>>> the
>>>> website of a party with which I was not familiar, I would say:
>>> clear
>>>> indication on how the party stood on issues. HOWEVER, as

most, I

>>>> would consciously or unconsciously be looking for issues that
>>> effect
>>>> me (CONSTITUENCY) personally. I submit that we cannot possibly
>>>> design an effective website, or other outreach tool, without a
>>> grasp
>>>> on the subject of constituency.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I am puzzled by your comment that "There is a hint of

insult

> in
>>>> CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in the
> narrowest,
>>>> most short-term sense." I have no problem admitting that many
> of
>>> my
>>>> actions are the result of self-interest, short term and long
> term.
>>>> Capitalism, which the LP espouses, is often described as a

group

>>>> voluntarily interacting in individual self interest; nothing
> narrow
>>>> or short term about that.
>>>>
>>>> 5. I completely agree with you that the LP does not view
>>> government
>>>> as a "bag of treats." There is a significant difference between
>>>> telling a group what the party can do for them (liberal
> approach),
>>>> and telling a group how a party can help them get government

off

>>>> their backs so they can flourish (libertarian approach).
>>>>
>>>> 6. I would love it if you and other volunteers drafted some

web

>>>> pages, as you have offered to do. I suggest we proceed in the
>>> manner
>>>> that Phil Berg briefly described at the last meeting
>>> (unfortunately,
>>>> we had to end the discussion because of the vote on the Iraq
>>>> Resolution): Volunteers pick a constituency (or constituencies)
>>> they
>>>> want to address and design outreach material that would be of
>>>> interest to that particular constituency (or constituencies).
>>>>
>>>> Mike, thanks again for your input. I would also welcome the
> input
>>> of
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> Marcy
>>>>
>>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"
> <acreem@o...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I was persuaded during Saturday's meeting that the idea of
>>>> constituency-based marketing (CBM), properly implemented, may
> have
>>>> merit; but there are a couple of traps involved, so I wanted to
> lay
>>>> out the issues as I see them, partly for the benefit of members
> who
>>>> weren't at the meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was natural for me to assume, in the first place, that CBM
>>>> referred to the identification of one or a few target
>>> constituencies,
>>>> since the idea is most closely associated with the name of Mark
>>>> Schreiber, who was behind the recent proposal to "brand" the LP
> as
>>>> the party of small business. Small business owners are
>>>> unquestionably a very important constituency, in terms of both
>>> their
>>>> numbers and their treatment by the major parties; but evidently
>>> many
>>>> members besides me opposed the narrow identification of the LP
> with
>>>> any single such constituency, and I've heard no more about it.
> The
>>>> page Marcy circulated from the Republican Party website, on the
>>> other
>>>> hand, consisted of links for a large number (95?) of
> constituencies-
>>> -
>>>> Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, evangelicals, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that a similar construction might be useful on an LP
>>>> website--with this caveat: It strongly evokes the now-
> traditional
>>>> idea of a political party as Santa Claus, with something to

offer

>>>> everybody. We obviously don't have anything to offer except

the

>>>> promise to help get government out of people's lives, which

they

>>> may
>>>> perceive as a benefit or not. Our identity as "The Party of
>>>> Principle" really fits much better with an issue-oriented
> approach
>>>> than with a constituency-oriented approach. There is also a

hint

>>> of
>>>> insult in CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in
> the
>>>> narrowest, most short-term sense. If you were browsing the
> website
>>>> of an unfamiliar party, would you want to know (a) where it
> stood,
>>>> for example, on the war in Iraq or Social Security, or (b) what
> it
>>>> had to offer, say, Brazilian Americans or labor unions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, there are many constituencies for whom getting
>>>> government out of their lives would be a benefit--perhaps

greater

>>>> than they realize. Our most natural constituencies are all

those

>>>> groups--some large and some small--who are victims of

victimless

>>>> crime laws--who are not only neglected but actually persecuted

by

>>> the
>>>> major parties. Probably the largest and most obvious of these

is

>>>> illegal drug users and their friends and families. That

doesn't

>>>> count all the people who would want to use those drugs if they
>>>> weren't illegal. There are many other groups--e.g., nudists,

sex

>>>> workers--who may be comparatively small in themselves, but who
> add
>>> up
>>>> to significant numbers. An even larger group than drug users

is

>>>> children. They are totally neglected by the major parties just
>>>> because they have the status of slaves--of property; they can't
>>>> vote. But, even under the present regime, they will be

potential

>>>> voters in the near future. These are all groups who won't find
>>>> themselves on the constituency lists of any major party. Ralph
>>> Raico
>>>> did a tremendous service to the Party with his gay rights
> pamphlet
>>>> for the MacBride campaign in 1976--spelling out the

implications

> of
>>>> the LP platform on issues like cross-dressing and gay marriage
> for
>>>> people who would never have bothered to read through the whole
>>>> platform, or who might have doubted the implications of what

they

>>>> read. The CBM approach on a website can perhaps offer a

similar

>>>> benefit to people who define themselves in such terms, and I
> would
>>> be
>>>> happy to help draft some of these pages. But we might want to
>>>> consider a general disclaimer, about how we distinguish

ourselves

>>>> from other parties in not viewing government as a bag of

treats.