Re: recommendations for communications and media
Joe Dehn
So I see two major differences between these recommendations and what has been going on up until now. One relates to management in general, and the other to The Beacon.
You seem to be advocating a structured team approach, with a pre-defined workflow and various team members each contributing their part. It is not clear who is "in charge" of this process -- but perhaps that's the idea. A committee -- the CMC itself, or the EC on recommendation of the CMC -- establishes the process, and then it kind of manages itself. I see the attraction of that, and I think it could work, assuming the people involved each understand their roles.
It's hard for me to compare this to how things have been handled previously, either so far this term or in years past, because the CMC's operations always have seemed pretty opaque to me. Maybe that was my problem, not paying enough attention -- but the combination (for the newsletter, prior to this term) of having a paid "editor" and (for social media postings) anonymity always left me feeling that I had no idea who was actually doing what. (By contrast, now, for the newsletter, it's pretty clear to everybody. But for social media it's still opaque, at least to me.)
With respect to the newsletter, there seem to be two big differences. You are proposing that it be monthly, and you keep referencing specific tasks to be performed by a Content Editor -- with no mention of the more traditional "Editor" position.
"The Beacon" prior to the current EC term seemed to be aiming for a bimonthly schedule, though I'm not sure how well it achieved that. One problem is that the actual distribution was spotty, with many people including me often not receiving their copies. (This problem seems to have gone away, or at least be significantly reduced, since Pat took over, perhaps because he is using a different bulk e-mail service.) Now, under Pat's management, it has been coming out weekly -- at least eight times as often. This is a very big change.
I admit to some trepidation when I saw that. Partly I doubted that Pat could keep up that pace, because it's very hard to come up with interesting stuff for any newsletter, especially for an organization that is at the same time struggling to keep going in other respects -- it's not like there is a ready-made stream of "news" from which a newsletter editor has the luxury of selecting the most interesting. I have a lot of experience with this myself having been the editor of our county newsletter for most of the past ten years. I try to get people to submit things, but most issues end up consisting of material entirely written by me. And that's just once a month. (Which is as far as I can tell more than any other county is even trying to do -- most counties no longer have anything even resembling a newsletter anymore.) So I have been quite impressed by what Pat has been able to do with it, even though sometimes I have had issues with some of his specific choices of topic or presentation. At least the LPC now has something going on that every member can see is going on!
My other concern about that schedule was that it would be "too much" for some of our members -- that they would perceive it as a sort of spam, and unsubscribe, which would make it harder to reach them with other kinds of communication. I do not know to what extent that has been happening -- I presume there are ways to measure it, and perhaps somebody should do that and let us know what they find.
So now you are suggesting monthly, which is both a compromise between those two past models and traditional. I can see that working, but we would be losing something in terms of "immediacy" of reporting. And I expect that if we do reduce the frequency we will start feeling the need to send additional messages of other kinds by e-mail to pretty much the same set of addresses, for fundraising, promoting the convention, and so on, which means some people might still be getting more than they really want. So there is a tradeoff there, whether delivering lots of information (by email) ends up being more effective if packaged in a consistent regular format or in a variety of formats.
Whatever the schedule, it has to work for the people who are going to actually produce it. The only reason we have what we have now is that Pat wanted to do it and put the energy into it. Would he be happy cutting back to one issue per month? Would he want to be just the "Content Editor", selecting items to plug into pre-defined slots, or is part of the appeal for him to be able to craft the whole thing himself, varying the theme from week to week as events in the party and the world bring different topics to prominence, applying his own creativity to the creation of a complete product?
Of course Pat does not have to be the editor. But somebody has to do the work, somebody with the energy and enthusiasm to keep doing it issue after issue. In your suggested model, who will that be? It's fine for a committee to develop and vote for a process, and if that process divides the work then in theory it should easier to find people willing to do each part. But that's just the theory. There have to be actual people willing to do each thing, and I don't see anything in this proposal about that -- either who it will be or how they will be recruited. Until we have that, it could be a serious mistake to give up what we have.
I also have one other, more general, concern about the whole subject of "communications". In the abstract, this is one function, and putting everything about it under the control of one committee makes some sense. That facilitates some aspects that seem pretty important, including consistency of message and of style. However, by doing that we also risk losing out on some of the distinctive features of the various kinds of "media". A newsletter is not the same thing as "social media". A newsletter is not the same thing as a web site. And a web site (the main web site of an organization) is not the same thing as "social media", even if they both are accessed via a web browser or phone. (And none of these are the same thing as a radio or television station.) Even "social media" are not all the same. Of course they have things in common, and we can also force them to have more in common, in content, in style, and in how we manage them. But if we try too hard to make them the same, we may lose some of the distinctive benefits of each.
On 2025-11-13 07:30, Wesley Martin wrote:
Hello Everyone,I almost did not submit these recommendations, but after speaking to Loren on Wednesday I have come to understand the importance of the ex-com "getting something" to help inform their decisions. It is extremely hard to come to consensus in the committee because everyone has such a wide array of backgrounds, experience levels, and expectations on how things should run.My experience comes from broadcast newsrooms, both online and streaming, as well as digital broadcast at KEET-TV the NorthCoasts local PBS affiliate. So I instinctively want things to run like a newsroom.That said, attached are my personal recommendations for how communications and media should be run moving forward. You will notice that many of these subjects are not new. This is a revised format based on how the beacon was created in 2019, along with some updated social standards that every entity should employ.thanks,Wesley
Joe Dehn
Your explanation of the differences in style resonate very strongly with what I said in my earlier message about "who is going to do the work". And your statistics about unsubscribe rates are comforting, relative to the concern I expressed about weekly being too much for some people.
Every communication vehicle/style represents a compromise. Different readers/listeners/viewers have different preferences for how they receive information, based on factors ranging from their personalities and educational backgrounds to their daily schedules. And different people are better suited to produce different kinds of communication products. We shouldn't expect to be able to reach every member/prospect with one vehicle, and we shouldn't expect everybody to be equally good at producing everything. We don't need everything to be the same, either in style, in timing, or in how it is managed.
With respect to management style and who is being managed, having a common structure with assigned roles may work well for many large commercial media operations -- even ones that deliver content in different formats. They can define formal positions and then go out and hire people to fill them. They can write job descriptions for a "Reporter 2" whose words are checked by a "Content Editor 1" and then fed to one "Media Technologist 2" who turns it into a video for YouTube while another turns it into a "meme", while a "Customer Engagement Specialist 1" deals with the feedback from happy/unhappy recipients. And one of the people who is supposed to be doing one of those jobs isn't good at it, they can move them to a different position, or fire them.
That's not what we have here. That's not who we are. We can certainly learn some things, possibly important things, from how other organizations do things but we have to deal with the reality of what we are.
We have a small organization "staffed" almost entirely with volunteers. That goes for every piece of every communication function we have, from writing to editing to graphic design to scheduling and every other aspect of management. And we have a very small pool of volunteers, many of whom are motivated by the "fun" of doing some particular thing or some combination of things, producing a product that satisfies their own need to feel like they are accomplishing something.
Of course we can't allow everybody total freedom to do everything they want their own way. We are not just a collection of individuals with a vaguely associated set of political ideas. We are a political party which strives for ideological consistency and we are an organization with organizational goals, specifically including growth. We need to sponsor / encourage / endorse activities that serve those purposes, vs. ones that are ineffective or counterproductive in those respects. (People who really want to do other things or do those things other ways of course can still do them as individuals or by forming other organizations.) And that does require some level of management, and various committees are the way we traditionally organize that.
But let's not get too strict, too rigid, too narrow in defining what is possible or useful, or we may fail both to effectively utilize our limited volunteer resources and to effectively reach many of the people we hope to attract to our cause.
lOn 2025-11-13 11:23, Pat Wright wrote:
Here are the Beacon email performance results since August 27. These are the numbers for each weekly send:
• Average deliverability: about 95%
• Average open rate: about 29%
• Average unsubscribes: between 0.2% and 0.6% per send (very low for a weekly political newsletter)
• Click-throughs: consistently strong, often in the hundreds
• No signs of email fatigue — engagement has remained stable or increasedWeek-by-week numbers:
Nov 12 — 10,430 sent / 8,836 delivered / 30.1% opens / 19 unsubs
Nov 5 — 10,489 sent / 8,895 delivered / 33.7% opens / 54 unsubs
Oct 29 — 10,527 sent / 9,967 delivered / 22.4% opens / 52 unsubs
Oct 22 — 10,607 sent / 10,068 delivered / 28.9% opens / 20 unsubs
Oct 15 — 10,686 sent / 10,156 delivered / 29.6% opens / 21 unsubs
Oct 14 — 10,739 sent / 10,203 delivered / 33.6% opens / 29 unsubs
Oct 11 — 10,811 sent / 10,272 delivered / 33.9% opens / 40 unsubs
Oct 8 — 10,881 sent / 10,342 delivered / 32.5% opens / 35 unsubs
Oct 1 — 10,948 sent / 10,414 delivered / 24.3% opens / 39 unsubs
Sep 24 — 11,040 sent / 10,498 delivered / 24.4% opens / 48 unsubs
Sep 17 — 11,219 sent / 10,665 delivered / 32.1% opens / 106 unsubs
Sep 10 — 11,323 sent / 10,792 delivered / 32.0% opens / 120 unsubs
Sep 3 — 11,464 sent / 10,930 delivered / 31.0% opens / 115 unsubs
Aug 27 — 11,592 sent / 11,056 delivered / 23.9% opens / 100 unsubsSummary:
Members are opening and engaging with the weekly Beacon at strong, stable rates. Unsubscribes remain low, and there is no indication that weekly emails are causing fatigue. The data shows weekly communication is working well for the party.Summary of the Two Communication Styles
There are two very different communication styles at play here, and both have value — but they naturally create tension because they operate on opposite principles.
1. Wesley's Style: Procedural, Structured, Workflow-Driven
Wesley comes from a broadcast newsroom environment.
His instinct is to build:
formal workflows
approval chains
defined roles
standardized formats
deadlines and submission windows
repeatable processes
In his world, the process produces the product.
Structure = stability, consistency, and professionalism.This is a completely legitimate approach, especially for large staffed organizations.
2. My Style: Adaptive, Fast, Responsive, Production-First
My background is very different.
I have spent 20+ years producing weekly newsletters, including CLIFFNotes and Five Dollar Ferret Friday. I operate more like:
a rapid-response writer
an agile producer
a creative editor
someone who builds as they go
someone who publishes consistently regardless of committee output
In my world, the product produces the process.
Publishing regularly = the engine that drives relevance, engagement, and momentum.This model works exceptionally well when:
content needs to be timely
committees contribute irregularly
deadlines are tight
political news changes weekly
"waiting for input" means nothing gets done
This is a classic entrepreneurial workflow: execution first, refine later.
3. Why These Styles Clash (They're Almost Mirror Opposites)
Wesley's approach:
"Let's build a structured system, and content will flow through it."My approach:
"Let's consistently produce content, and structure will naturally develop around what works."
Both approaches can work — but they are antithetical to one another in practice
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:35 AM Pat Wright <vice...@ca.lp.org> wrote:I also want to share a bit of my own background, because I think it's relevant to the question of frequency. For more than 20 years, I've published weekly newsletters — both CLIFFNotes and the Five Dollar Ferret Friday fundraising email. Weekly communication has consistently proven more effective in building engagement, maintaining visibility, and keeping supporters informed and energized. It also dramatically improves deliverability and keeps momentum alive.
That's why I initially set The Beacon on a weekly schedule: it keeps us timely, relevant, and connected to members.
Weekly emails offer several benefits:
Political timeliness: Issues and opportunities can't wait 30 days.
Higher engagement: Frequent, shorter emails get better open rates.
Better visibility: Members feel like the party is active and present.
Consistent communication: Helps prevent information gaps.
Deliverability: Regular sending protects our reputation with email providers.
That said, I absolutely respect your desire to introduce more structure, workflow, and editorial oversight.
However, I do think we need to acknowledge the current situation honestly:
After five months, the Communications Committee hasn't produced any content.
That's not meant as criticism — just a factual observation. Because of that, I find myself wondering why such strong attention is now focused on altering The Beacon, which is being produced consistently and reliably.My only goal is to continue doing whatever is best for the party and its members.
To that end, there is a potential compromise:
A monthly "Formal Beacon" plus a weekly "Beacon Brief."
The monthly version could follow the committee's structure and workflow, while the weekly Brief would keep members informed of time-sensitive items.
I want to be transparent:
I don't personally think a Beacon Brief is necessary — the weekly Beacon already fills that role.
But if the committee truly prefers a monthly main issue, then the weekly Brief is a workable solution that avoids long gaps in communication.Ultimately, I'm flexible. Whatever serves the party and its members best is what I want to support. I'm happy to continue producing weekly content, adapt to a hybrid model, or help build the workflow you're envisioning — as long as the end result keeps us informative, timely, and relevant.
Let me know how you'd like to proceed, and I'm happy to collaborate.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:44 AM June Genis <june...@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for the feedback!
Virus-free.www.avast.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:28 AM Wesley Martin <wesma...@gmail.com> wrote:June and Everyone,So here comes what may be my most controversial suggestion. Social Media and Short Form Content have the very real ability of earning revenue for the party. As such I think the committee should be formed similarly to the Convention Committee. I think the Ex-Com should choose a Committee Chair and the Chair should appoint positions on the committee based on skill and experience. With the one goal in mind; to increase Market Reach and Earn Revenue.I have no claims as to what that content should look like. I'm not trying to promote my own flavor of libertarianism, when I first got to California I lived in the woods with hippies. I come from the social justice side of libertarianism. I personally think that the content should be tied to topics chosen by the program committee. Or centered around the National Platform as a way of promoting Libertarianism as a whole. I do, however, believe there should be 1 member of the Ex-Com assigned the task of administrative oversight of the tone and meaning behind the posts.The only financial consideration is the cost of the Social Content Calendar, Vista Social. It's $120 per month for a team of 6 members. The way I figure it, that would be the editor, 4 content creators, and 1 ex-com admin.-Wesley
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:14 AM June Genis <june...@gmail.com> wrote:Wesley, Given that you are the only committee member (so far) who has submitted a proposal, and the fact that you admit to differences of opinion among committee members, what are you suggesting that the Excom as a whole do at this point, if anything?June
Virus-free.www.avast.com
