EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9940
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 19 2018 22:30 ShoCkeyy wrote: 11 million is a lot of marketing money. Typically big Fortune 500 spend from $100k to $500k in marketing a mo/year. The reach that 11 million has if you target specific groups is absurd. Especially more effective online than big tv/radio media spend that you’re thinking of... The most disturbing part, assuming the graph is accurate, is the staggering volume of money spent on the election and no one noticed the 11 million in targeted ads were spent by a foreign government on it. That isn’t going to get better the next time around without reforms. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10927 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 19 2018 22:30 ShoCkeyy wrote: 11 million is a lot of marketing money. Typically big Fortune 500 spend from $100k to $500k in marketing a mo/year. The reach that 11 million has if you target specific groups is absurd. Especially more effective online than big tv/radio media spend that you’re thinking of... That doesn't sound right or I'm not reading right. Marketing is usually a minimum of ~2% of revenue including bot nets and obscure spending strategies (like stuff that actually goes viral without massive help from corporate media) and stuff Russian advertisers couldn't even imagine. You have a source on that? On February 19 2018 22:39 Gahlo wrote: Not to mention they're primarily using social media which is free to post stuff on instead of things like billboards, loads of fliers, and tv commercials. Let's not pretend Russia's money was spent in the same methods and proportions as everybody else. Any remotely major marketing department with half a brain uses social media and I don't mean an intern with a twitter account. Did you forget the CTR troll army ran by upstanding citizen David Brock? On February 19 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote: The most disturbing part, assuming the graph is accurate, is the staggering volume of money spent on the election and no one noticed the 11 million in targeted ads were spent by a foreign government on it. That isn’t going to get better the next time around without reforms. Really you should sit down on all things Russia until you can come clean with yourself and the rest of us on The Elephant™ To all of you, REALLY? REALLY? He compares me saying that people like P6 (quoting and spreading admitted US propaganda) and others like hunts have greatly overestimated the influence of russian ads and posts to someone saying the influence of slavery or the drug war impact on black people is greatly exaggerated and you go with defending the Russistaria?! Y'all are something else. On February 19 2018 23:05 Velr wrote: Why is "Media Coverage" even in that Graph? Some people may think the billions of dollars in unearned media and constant bombardment of Trump on TV might have had an impact on voters. His empty podium got more airtime than some major stories during the cycle. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10927 Posts
It would also be interesting how exactly they arrived at that number... | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:13 Velr wrote: I get that, but by that logic your media is also spending money on promoting North Koreas Nuclear Program or ISIS by reporting on it. It would also be interesting how exactly they arrived at that number... I don't know about that specific number but it's generally agreed upon that Trump got billions in unearned media coverage. Meaning he wasn't actually making news but they were making him news. They could have chosen to cover/talk about any candidate/story a number of times and chose Trump (or his empty podium) for the ratings not the newsworthiness (like N Korea or ISIS when legitimate and not fearmongering). On February 19 2018 23:15 ShoCkeyy wrote: I am the source, I’ve worked with big Fortune 500 for the past ten years in marketing and optimizing their marketing dollars. The spend is whatever the client chooses. Oh good, now I KNOW it's complete bullshit. ![[image loading]](http://deloitte.wsj.com/cmo/files/2017/01/Marketing-Budget-1-GRAPHIC.png) Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: <snip> To all of you, REALLY? REALLY? He compares me saying that people like P6 (quoting and spreading admitted US propaganda) and others like hunts have greatly overestimated the influence of russian ads and posts to someone saying the influence of slavery or the drug war impact on black people is greatly exaggerated and you go with defending the Russistaria?! Y'all are something else. I believe the comparison was a bit more subtle than that. He made the analogy between 1) Russia vs other countries' spending on unduly influencing US elections 2) Black slavery vs slavery of other peoples (such as Irish or even native Americans) You tried to make this about a problem of money, whereas he sees this as a problem of Russian money. He thus equated it to making it a problem of "slavery" (something xDaunt has often tried to do in this thread, if memory serves me) whereas you very clearly see it as a problem of Black slavery. Or, to put it more colloquially: sure, all slavery was a problem, but none caused the systemic real problems that Black slavery caused. Is it hyperbole? Yes, it is, but it is also quite an apt way of getting his point across if you weren't this outraged all the time. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:18 Plansix wrote: I’ve really enjoyed the last week of GH coming in there and telling us all that the thing we are discussing isn’t important and we should care about are the things he cares about. The best part has been the snarky tone, dismissive responses and demands that some of us seek forgiveness and redemption at his feet. Its been a good time all around. You spreading propaganda while you and several others accuse me (without evidence even a fraction as dead to rights as I provided about you or Mohdoo) of being unduly influenced by propaganda is kinda a big deal. Neb explained it pretty succinctly. On February 19 2018 23:18 Acrofales wrote: I believe the comparison was a bit more subtle than that. He made the analogy between 1) Russia vs other countries' spending on unduly influencing US elections 2) Black slavery vs slavery of other peoples (such as Irish or even native Americans) You tried to make this about a problem of money, whereas he sees this as a problem of Russian money. He thus equated it to making it a problem of "slavery" (something xDaunt has often tried to do in this thread, if memory serves me) whereas you very clearly see it as a problem of Black slavery. Or, to put it more colloquially: sure, all slavery was a problem, but none caused the systemic real problems that Black slavery caused. Is it hyperbole? Yes, it is, but it is also quite an apt way of getting his point across if you weren't this outraged all the time. I missed that part, but still not even remotely comparable. The US campaign finance system, and media ratings chase, and so on are all vastly more significant than if Russia multiplied it's efforts 10 fold. That's why corporate media spends exponentially more time blaming shit like Jill Stein voters over their piss poor performance all around. Including things like letting propaganda swirl around for months so that it ends up being posted here as evidence of the truth of the propaganda cited. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't know about that specific number but it's generally agreed upon that Trump got billions in unearned media coverage. Meaning he wasn't actually making news but they were making him news. They could have chosen to cover/talk about any candidate/story a number of times and chose Trump (or his empty podium) for the ratings not the newsworthiness (like N Korea or ISIS when legitimate and not fearmongering). Oh good, now I KNOW it's complete bullshit. Source That’s a % based figure and doesn’t represent a factual amount. Marketing dollars get broken down even more like this: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/84hQMiU.gif) I specially work to optimize marketing dollars meaning help you spend less while getting more for your return. So yes between $100k - $500k/mo is an average digital marketing spend online these days. Good job on reading one page and trying to counter claim me on something you have no idea about. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: Any remotely major marketing department with half a brain uses social media and I don't mean an intern with a twitter account. Did you forget the CTR troll army ran by upstanding citizen David Brock? When did I say they didn't? Russian influence and Hillary being a shit candidate aren't mutually exclusive. You've really been on edge for a while. Honestly, take a break dude. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: That’s a % based figure and doesn’t represent a factual amount. Marketing dollars get broken down even more like this: + Show Spoiler + I specially work to optimize marketing dollars meaning help you spend less while getting more for your return. So yes between $100k - $500k/mo is an average digital marketing spend online these days. Your work means pretty much nothing here so you can stop the failed appeals to authority. You said: On February 19 2018 22:30 ShoCkeyy wrote: 11 million is a lot of marketing money. Typically big Fortune 500 spend from $100k to $500k in marketing a mo/year. The reach that 11 million has if you target specific groups is absurd. Especially more effective online than big tv/radio media spend that you’re thinking of... What you're saying now is a remarkably different argument. But rather than get bogged down in that, that still doesn't math out to what you're suggesting. On February 19 2018 23:31 Gahlo wrote: When did I say they didn't? Russian influence and Hillary being a shit candidate aren't mutually exclusive. You've really been on edge for a while. Honestly, take a break dude. They spent a fraction of what the involved parties spent JUST on the type of stuff your saying "not to mention". Notice things were just fine without Russistaria being brought up. I'm not going to just watch people talk about how crazy influential Russia was without acknowledging they (or at minimum their political allies) are CURRENTLY falling for propaganda we exposed right here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It is pretty clear why you don’t like the Russian investigation. Their intent was to sow distrust in the political parties and election system, while pumping on candidates from outside those parties. And you would prefer that the distrust of the democrats had happened without any outside influence. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Going to be some bitter feelings out of this, I think. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Your work means pretty much nothing here so you can stop the failed appeals to authority. You said: What you're saying now is a remarkably different argument. But rather than get bogged down in that, that still doesn't math out to what you're suggesting. They spent a fraction of what the involved parties spent JUST on the type of stuff your saying "not to mention". Notice things were just fine without Russistaria being brought up. I'm not going to just watch people talk about how crazy influential Russia was without acknowledging they (or at minimum their political allies) are CURRENTLY falling for propaganda we exposed right here. I’m only talking about online marketing and both of my responses say online. And I was specially talking about targeted ads. You posted a picture that includeds all marketing budgets. If you choose to ignore my statement of online dollars, then that’s your problem. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:35 Plansix wrote: I completely mucked up the facts of a report about the protests set up by the Russians during the election because I read it 7 months ago. I admitted this several times. But you keep bringing it up over and over like this talisman that will discredit everything I say going forward. You are even going so far as to claim that I am lying and knew my facts were wrong and said them anyways. That you're lying to yourself about how you made this "mistake" or all of us is one reason among several I won't just drop it because you give a half assed admission of your fault but neglect the actual point that the HEADLINE is your "mix up" and even if you know now that it was a mistake, how in the world could The Hill STILL not know and let that story continue to get spread. Ironically now by Republicans because it never made sense as part of the Russistaria narrative anyway (neglecting it's wrongness) That liberals are RIGHT NOW being influenced by that propaganda that none of you have shown any inkling of finding problematic (leo and jock excluded). On February 19 2018 23:40 ShoCkeyy wrote: I’m only talking about online marketing and both of my responses say online. And I was specially talking about targeted ads. You posted a picture that includeds all marketing budgets. If you choose to ignore my statement of online dollars, then that’s your problem. Which fortune 500 companies can you demonstrate some napkin maths on those percentages working out like you said? let's say it's a 2% (lowest budget mentioned) then online is only 5% of that 2% is online. 2% of many fortune 500's is in the billions. Shit just don't add up. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On February 19 2018 21:14 GoTuNk! wrote: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9MAabKh.jpg) + Show Spoiler + The media has been characterizing the Russian plot to disrupt the 2016 election as a mammoth scheme that undermined our democracy and may have even changed the outcome of our presidential race. It’s a ridiculous, irresponsible narrative. Consider all the other influences that shaped the election. CANDIDATE AND PARTY SPENDING: $1,500.1 million • Trump: $531.0 million • Clinton: $969.1 million SUPER-PACs: • Trump: $85.5 million • Clinton: $215.1 million VALUE OF MEDIA COVERAGE: $8,200 million • Trump: $4,960 million • Clinton: $3,240 million TOTAL: $10,000.7 million • Trump: $5,576.5 million • Clinton: $4,424.2 million Now compare that to the Russian efforts. According to the recently released indictment, starting on 2/10/16, Russia spent $1.25 million per month to promote the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Total amount spent? Approximately $11.2 million, or 0.1% of total campaign spending and media coverage. Which do you think influenced the race outcome more, the $10 billion of campaign spending and media coverage, or $11 million worth of Russian troll posting? To combat school shootings left wingers need to stop shouting "MORE GUN REGULATIONS (for law abiding citizens)" and right wingers should stop shouting "MENTAL HEALTH". The solutions probably lies somewhere between a mix of better gun smuggling control (border security!) and gang related violence, stricter gun laws or at least registry, and better security in schools. The odds of democrats and republicans coming to terms for something like this is 0,001%. Well that is something....and by something I mean, has the person responsible for this nonsense even the slightest idea how to apply statistics correctly?! Of course this was done by some slightly right leaning online blogger, but still. The correlation between those groups and how they've spent that money is important! This graph gives 0 information about that. I'm pretty sure the person responsible for that nonsense chart, has no knowledge about statistics. Because nobody who took a class on statistics in college would have come up with anything like that. If you cannot derive a logical relation between your variables, the only thing your work will show is that you're absolutely clueless. Edit: If my rant didn't explain well enough why this is nonsense... here's a link: What is a Statistical Relationship? and another one Correlation vs. Causation | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Your work means pretty much nothing here so you can stop the failed appeals to authority. You said: What you're saying now is a remarkably different argument. But rather than get bogged down in that, that still doesn't math out to what you're suggesting. They spent a fraction of what the involved parties spent JUST on the type of stuff your saying "not to mention". Notice things were just fine without Russistaria being brought up. I'm not going to just watch people talk about how crazy influential Russia was without acknowledging they (or at minimum their political allies) are CURRENTLY falling for propaganda we exposed right here. Bro, that's not an appeal to authority. He hit you with facts. The relevant comparison is digital marketing spend. It's not like Russia was having people go door to door handing out printed Benghazi and Killary memes (edit: on second thought, maybe that's not the best example). | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
| ||
