I Believe Marketing Strategy Killed the River Vote

[jackbristow]

Below is what I sent in an email to Mayor Taylor and Commissioner Miller.  Let me know what you think and if you think I should send it to anyone else.  Be nice please.  I don't need to be insulted if you disagree.


After keeping a close eye on how the River Vote was marketed and failed, I can't help but think there would be a better way to sell the public on this project.  

Tulsa wants an improved infrastrucure.  What I think was lost in the marketing efforts and information campaign about the recently defeated river proposal was that the tax was in fact FOR infrastructure.  It seemed that there was a lot of misunderstanding, conjecture and confusion regarding this among the voters.  

I can't help but think that a lot of that misunderstanding came from the overwhelming focus on the developments that were promised if the tax passed.  People thought they were voting for a fancy development and not simply the dams and infrastructure.  I think the details need to be presented as simply and straightforward as possible so that people can be confident of what they are voting for. That means sell the infrastructure. I can't help but think that if those in charge of marketing this proposal had just made it plain and simple (e.g. tax for dams and infrastructure = promised private money for development if infrastructure is there = more inevitable development (i.e. Tulsa Landing people) = larger tax base and more momentum for the entire area) this thing would have passed.

I hope in the coming year that you and others who want to see River development happen will put together another package that is simple to understand and promotes something we all want - better infrastructure for Tulsa.  Include a concise package for dams, bridges, roads and trails. Of course, this couldn't solve all road problems, but perhaps some key road/bridge concerns could be included that tie in with the core area and river package.

If there are others you think my thoughts would be good to share with, please let me know or just send this along.  

Thank you for your service to our community.  

[YoungTulsan]

They didn't have enough time to properly educate the public, nor did they use the best tactics to properly educate the public.

I imagine you'll get some generic form letter back from the Mayor saying she appreciates your input.

[Sangria]

It called for the building of pedestrian bridges. Tell me, how was that going to bennefit Broken Arrow,Glenpool, Collinsville or Skiatook?

Low water dams - I think it would make the river very pretty for the City of Tulsa - but, again, how would it bennefit the other communities?

I very nicely asked the Vote Yes Campagaine those questions and more. They could not be bothered to answer.

It was going to create hardship for towns not on the river. No one even took that into concideration.

[Renaissance]

Jack-
In hindsight I agree with you.  These are hard lessons but lessons learned, I hope.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

Below is what I sent in an email to Mayor Taylor and Commissioner Miller.  Let me know what you think and if you think I should send it to anyone else.  Be nice please.  I don't need to be insulted if you disagree.


After keeping a close eye on how the River Vote was marketed and failed, I can't help but think there would be a better way to sell the public on this project.  

Tulsa wants an improved infrastrucure.  What I think was lost in the marketing efforts and information campaign about the recently defeated river proposal was that the tax was in fact FOR infrastructure.  It seemed that there was a lot of misunderstanding, conjecture and confusion regarding this among the voters.  

I can't help but think that a lot of that misunderstanding came from the overwhelming focus on the developments that were promised if the tax passed.  People thought they were voting for a fancy development and not simply the dams and infrastructure.  I think the details need to be presented as simply and straightforward as possible so that people can be confident of what they are voting for. That means sell the infrastructure. I can't help but think that if those in charge of marketing this proposal had just made it plain and simple (e.g. tax for dams and infrastructure = promised private money for development if infrastructure is there = more inevitable development (i.e. Tulsa Landing people) = larger tax base and more momentum for the entire area) this thing would have passed.

I hope in the coming year that you and others who want to see River development happen will put together another package that is simple to understand and promotes something we all want - better infrastructure for Tulsa.  Include a concise package for dams, bridges, roads and trails. Of course, this couldn't solve all road problems, but perhaps some key road/bridge concerns could be included that tie in with the core area and river package.

If there are others you think my thoughts would be good to share with, please let me know or just send this along.  

Thank you for your service to our community.  

Just get Kenosha to sign off on it.... I've heard that is as good as placing it on her desk yourself....

That is.... for everything except "Gunboat Park".




[}:)]

[Steve]

This was an unnecessary, pig-in-a-poke proposal, railroaded through by a burdensome, regressive sales tax increase.  Thank god the citizens of Tulsa County could see through all the hype and voted down this folly.

The insipid TV commercials did nothing but to reinforce my opposition.

River development is fine, but should be paid for with the private funds of the developers.  Funds for land acquisition and for-profit development of the riverside property must come from private investors, not the tax-paying public.

[izmophonik]

Sangria sometimes I really wonder how far your head is actually stuck up your arse.  You can't see the forest for the trees mon amie.

[waterboy]

You may be right Jack. But, I think you can see by the replies that they didn't really care about that type of infrastructure. They wanted roads, parks, groceries without taxes, in their own neighborhoods and with someone elses money, not a sales tax.

No amount of marketing cures that ill.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

This was an unnecessary, pig-in-a-poke proposal, railroaded through by a burdensome, regressive sales tax increase.  Thank god the citizens of Tulsa County could see through all the hype and voted down this folly.

The insipid TV commercials did nothing but to reinforce my opposition.

River development is fine, but should be paid for with the private funds of the developers.  Funds for land acquisition and for-profit development of the riverside property must come from private investors, not the tax-paying public.

I don't think you even read my post.  You obviously are one of those who thought the tax was for the developments.  It was for INFRASTRUCTURE!!!  The developments you saw pictures of were all based on private money that was promised or expected.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

quote:Originally posted by Steve

This was an unnecessary, pig-in-a-poke proposal, railroaded through by a burdensome, regressive sales tax increase.  Thank god the citizens of Tulsa County could see through all the hype and voted down this folly.

The insipid TV commercials did nothing but to reinforce my opposition.

River development is fine, but should be paid for with the private funds of the developers.  Funds for land acquisition and for-profit development of the riverside property must come from private investors, not the tax-paying public.

I don't think you even read my post.  You obviously are one of those who thought the tax was for the developments.  It was for INFRASTRUCTURE!!!  The developments you saw pictures of were all based on private money that was promised or expected.

Land acquisition funds were included.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

It called for the building of pedestrian bridges. Tell me, how was that going to bennefit Broken Arrow,Glenpool, Collinsville or Skiatook?

Low water dams - I think it would make the river very pretty for the City of Tulsa - but, again, how would it bennefit the other communities?

I very nicely asked the Vote Yes Campagaine those questions and more. They could not be bothered to answer.

It was going to create hardship for towns not on the river. No one even took that into concideration.

Here we go again.  You fail to see how it would provide growth for the entire region.  If you can't understand why something benefitting Tulsa would benefit Broken Arrow, I don't think you can be convinced.  It's not rocket science.  It's simple logic.  Tulsa is BA's way of life.  BA wouldn't exist on the scale it does without Tulsa and the jobs everyone in BA has that are in Tulsa and the money they spend in Tulsa.  A nicer Tulsa would be more attractive and bring in more people for all kinds of reasons.  Inevitably, these people would also make their way out to BA or through BA.  

Again, poor education and communication through the bad marketing effort.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle
Land acquisition funds were included.

So that the county would have ownership rights to sell or lease to developers.  This would give us some control over who and what is developed.  

Face it.  Progress for Tulsa was killed here.  I can only hope we get another chance before too long.

[Tony]

This is What killed the River Vote and I agree wholeheartedly with this comment "



Cry me a river.


Wait! Maybe THAT'S the new plan!!!!


So, why did I vote no? Well...


(1) Randi Miller endorsed it - Any "plan" she favors has GOT to be a disaster in the making. After she reamed Robbie Bell and family, the least I could do is try to return the favor ... and she is up for re-election soon! Oh boy, oh-boy-o-boy-o-boy (I can't wait)!

(2) Our current sales tax rate is already too high. I'll only consider voting for an increase in our total tax liability for a critical necessity, and this boondoggle was the antithesis of a necessity.

(3) An insulting and demeaning ad campaign. "Do it for the children!" Oh, puh-leeze! Gag me.

(4) Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated forecasts. $3.5 billion! 10,000 jobs! The Chamber of Commerce has no credibility with me and many other Tulsans and needs to consider buying a new forecasting dart board.

(5) Cart before the horse. Where was the environmental impact study results? Where was the Corps of Engineer feasibility study and/or approval?

(6) Little accountability. Where were the guarantees that the money was going to be spent as proposed? We know all too well how trustworthy any politician is with our money.

(7) Who wants to spend time in or around a body of water that isn't safe to swim in because of sewage and past pollution? Thanks, but I'll pass on that terrific opportunity.

( Priorities. Streets, more and better paid Police, better paid Firemen, all pools open in the summer, better paid teachers. THESE and other real investments in our infrastructure will bring in new businesses & jobs, more so than this hastily cobbled-together excuse for a "plan".

(9) The fiscal irresponsibility of Tulsa's alleged leadership. Since we don't have enough money to keep our pools open in the summer or keep our streets from crumbling, where did Herronner the Mayor get the idea that buying the Borg cube to serve as the new City Hall was a smart idea? Ay-yi-yi!

(10) Features of the river "Plan" that were contrary to the approved Regional Master Plan. Oh, that makes good sense!

(11) The inherent unfairness of a sales tax. A sales tax is regressive ... it impacts low-income earners the hardest. A person that earns $20K/year and pays $400/year in sales tax gets clocked for 2% of their income just for the sales tax. A person that earns $80K/year and pays the same $400/year in sales tax get ding'd for only 1/2% of their yearly income. That's fair, isn't it? Then, by trying to appease voters via the offering of yearly sales tax rebates to seniors and possibly others, this shows precisely how regressive and unfair it is.

(11) Absurd arguments. Mr. Lorton's bizarre equivocating in last Sunday's edition; Comparing the past building of critical infrastructure such as our water supply line from Spavinaw as the same as the proposed building of Randi's Folley. This was incredulous to say the least. You would think an educated person such as Mr. Lorton could formulate an argument "holds water" (sorry - I couldn't help myself).

(12) De facto "bribes" to developers. I, for one, am fed up with giving developers millions of tax $$$ just so they can build some whiz-bang project and rake in MORE millions of $$$. That's just wrong.

(12) Biased news coverage. Every controversial issue has at least two sides. Strange how the news coverage showed us primarily only one, isn't it? Psst! News Outlets ! Just keep coddling the robber barons living at taxpayer expense ... as your cluelessness and arrogance grows and your ad revenue and subscriber base shrinks (Hmmm-any possible correlation?), maybe they'll reward you with some of it -- I suspect there is now $117 million available to help keep you afloat (a little river humor, there) for a while longer.

Arrogance was a big factor in a lot of folks mind, the sales tatics were HILARIOUS, not to mention for some reason many feel it is ok to TAKE from one group of TAXPAYING citizens then turn around and give that TAX to enrich a small group of developers, thus BETTING there will be a Casino like payback. Many just don't want to take those bets. (this is STILL a conservative county) -- again it was just a BAD PROPOSAL with a 117 million dollar gun pointed at Tulsa County taxpayers --

Were it a real "gift" from the Philantropher, it would STILL be on the table -- so now we move on to round two.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

Below is what I sent in an email to Mayor Taylor and Commissioner Miller.  Let me know what you think and if you think I should send it to anyone else.  Be nice please.  I don't need to be insulted if you disagree.


After keeping a close eye on how the River Vote was marketed and failed, I can't help but think there would be a better way to sell the public on this project.  

Tulsa wants an improved infrastrucure.  What I think was lost in the marketing efforts and information campaign about the recently defeated river proposal was that the tax was in fact FOR infrastructure.  It seemed that there was a lot of misunderstanding, conjecture and confusion regarding this among the voters.  

I can't help but think that a lot of that misunderstanding came from the overwhelming focus on the developments that were promised if the tax passed.  People thought they were voting for a fancy development and not simply the dams and infrastructure.  I think the details need to be presented as simply and straightforward as possible so that people can be confident of what they are voting for. That means sell the infrastructure. I can't help but think that if those in charge of marketing this proposal had just made it plain and simple (e.g. tax for dams and infrastructure = promised private money for development if infrastructure is there = more inevitable development (i.e. Tulsa Landing people) = larger tax base and more momentum for the entire area) this thing would have passed.I hope in the coming year that you and others who want to see River development happen will put together another package that is simple to understand and promotes something we all want - better infrastructure for Tulsa.  Include a concise package for dams, bridges, roads and trails. Of course, this couldn't solve all road problems, but perhaps some key road/bridge concerns could be included that tie in with the core area and river package.

If there are others you think my thoughts would be good to share with, please let me know or just send this along.  

Thank you for your service to our community.  

Jack, personally I wish they would have left out the sales pitch based on all the economic development numbers generated by the MTCC.  Each of us is capable of drawing our own conclusions that there is some form of economic gain when we improve an asset.

I'm trying to disseminate from the part of your post I put in bold type how what they did was much different than what you are suggesting they should have done.  Personally I just think they should have left out the theatrics (kiddie ads, $5bln in eco impact).

By focusing only on improvements like low water dams, I think they knew there was going to be an objection and a "calling on the carpet" on LWD funding from V-2025.  That in itself turned into a ****-storm and not just by Michael Bates.  A lot of people raised that question/concern.  

There also was not a whole lot of definition of the living river which was included, nor the connectors.  Those are items which were very very vague to the voters and I think they should have spent more time defining what those improvements were and how they would equate to QOL improvements for the average Tulsan and future Tulsans.

Those might have been two compelling infrastructure issues, that better defined might have gotten more people to see something in it for them.  You still can't get around the "what's in it for me" mentality of the suburbs and north/east Tulsa.  But if there would have been another 8000 people on board in the city of Tulsa, those people's opinions would have been moot.