|
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. |
I would also take that graph with a lot of salt, since it comes from group called Unbiased America. I don’t know how much peer review of their data happens in the land with zero bias.
|
On February 19 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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). Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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 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:On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. 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.
So what you are saying is “Wake up sheeple!”?
|
as an employee of a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company we spent over one billion in marketing last year.
|
On February 19 2018 16:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Gun control in a venue where the president is going to be will not stop every bad guy from bringing guns into the venue. Therefore the more people at the venue with guns, the safer the venue will be. the breathtaking falsity of that statement is a great example of your dishonest, ridiculous posting, thanks. edit: maybe falsity is not quite the right word but the point remains
Can you say with certainty that a venue where the president is speaking is not made more safe by there being more good guys with guns inside? This is simply about the probability of safety. The Secret Service can’t achieve 100% coverage, so why does it not follow that having multiple gun carrying good guys in the immediate vicinity of any potential bad guy ensures that the bad guy will be stopped?
|
On February 19 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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). Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Source 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:On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. 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.
[Edited out since point already pass]. Easy. They spent $100k a month on digital ads. How do I know? They’re my client. The next thing is which you choose to still ignore let’s say the company chooses to follow that 2% marketing rule which hardly happens now a days, that 2% still boils down even more. You’re still choosing to ignore what I’m talking about to try and prove me wrong.
|
On February 19 2018 23:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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:On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Source 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:On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. 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. So what you are saying is “Wake up sheeple!”?
No I'm saying quit posting smartass remarks and engage with the substance or just stop talking about Russistaria like you/liberals aren't as or more influence by propaganda as the people you accuse of being manipulated by Russian propaganda.
It's really not that hard, a couple people gave you a clue.
|
On February 19 2018 23:47 brian wrote:
as an employee of a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company we spent over one billion in marketing last year.
Yea but out of that billion how much was spend between tv ads, magazine ads, billboards, radio ads, google ads, Facebook ads, SEO, website development, etc...
The point is, online spending isn’t hat high, the point of online spending isn’t to throw money and see what sticks, it’s to lower the costs while having high impact and relevancy.
|
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda?
|
On February 19 2018 23:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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:On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Source 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:On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. 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. EvilCorp*  . They spent $100k a month on digital ads. How do I know? They’re my client. The next thing is which you choose to still ignore let’s say the company chooses to follow that 2% marketing rule which hardly happens now a days, that 2% still boils down even more. You’re still choosing to ignore what I’m talking about to try and prove me wrong.
Which works out to roughly how much of their marketing budget and revenue?
|
If Google, Facebook, etc. got the full (or a big chunk) 10-11% of total company expense that marketing is, they'd be trillion dollar revenue companies. Fortune 500 companies generate about $11 trillion in revenue combined.
|
On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda?
You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it.
|
On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it.
So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning.
|
On February 19 2018 23:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:47 brian wrote:
as an employee of a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company we spent over one billion in marketing last year. Yea but out of that billion how much was spend between tv ads, magazine ads, billboards, radio ads, google ads, Facebook ads, SEO, website development, etc... The point is, online spending isn’t hat high, the point of online spending isn’t to throw money and see what sticks, it’s to lower the costs while having high impact and relevancy.
i’m not comfortable going into specifics here(i like my job here and well i’ve sacrificed some anonymity screen name wise ^^), but even at one percent of the budget we’re still looking at 10mm. but you’re the expert, so perhaps 1% is too high.
|
On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda?
Just try to engage with my argument without reflexively falling back on some dumbass russia joke and smartassery.
If all the "Bernie Bro Russian Bot" garbage was just some flash in the pan stuff it wouldn't be a big deal. But you guys have gone way past reasonable and are gobbling this stuff up so much that what you now admit is propaganda it is still going unchallenged by all the people that spread it that you don't think are propaganda sources.
You were so influenced by it you either lied to yourself or all of us about how you came up with the quote and why you sourced the article you did to back up the propaganda you were spreading.
|
On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning.
That's another example, you can proof with causation, you just need the right numbers. 
|
On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning.
It's funny to see you act like this, it's not your typical approach.
No, obviously not you can't just say that someone is weaponizing propaganda to kill any discussion of propaganda. You need a situation where the propaganda is indeed being weaponized.
|
On February 20 2018 00:02 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:47 brian wrote:
as an employee of a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company we spent over one billion in marketing last year. Yea but out of that billion how much was spend between tv ads, magazine ads, billboards, radio ads, google ads, Facebook ads, SEO, website development, etc... The point is, online spending isn’t hat high, the point of online spending isn’t to throw money and see what sticks, it’s to lower the costs while having high impact and relevancy. i’m not comfortable going into specifics here(i like my job here and well i’ve sacrificed some anonymity screen name wise ^^), but even at one percent of the budget we’re still looking at 10mm. but you’re the expert, so perhaps 1% is too high.
Ok now with that type of spend, what is your reach? I’m just trying to prove that 11million of online ads is a lot of money that can have large effects.
|
On February 20 2018 00:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning. It's funny to see you act like this, it's not your typical approach. No, obviously not you can't just say that someone is weaponizing propaganda to kill any discussion of propaganda. You need a situation where the propaganda is indeed being weaponized.
But that requires the intent to weaponize it, correct? Because the propaganda’s intent is to deceive, we need to know if someone is truly propagating it with full knowledge the information is false.
|
On February 19 2018 23:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 23:45 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote: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:On February 19 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Source 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:On February 19 2018 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. 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. So what you are saying is “Wake up sheeple!”? No I'm saying quit posting smartass remarks and engage with the substance or just stop talking about Russistaria like you/liberals aren't as or more influence by propaganda as the people you accuse of being manipulated by Russian propaganda. It's really not that hard, a couple people gave you a clue.
Who are you saying the source of propaganda is? Who are the people trying to manipulate us into believing intelligence agencies?
|
On February 20 2018 00:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 00:02 brian wrote:On February 19 2018 23:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 19 2018 23:47 brian wrote:
as an employee of a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company we spent over one billion in marketing last year. Yea but out of that billion how much was spend between tv ads, magazine ads, billboards, radio ads, google ads, Facebook ads, SEO, website development, etc... The point is, online spending isn’t hat high, the point of online spending isn’t to throw money and see what sticks, it’s to lower the costs while having high impact and relevancy. i’m not comfortable going into specifics here(i like my job here and well i’ve sacrificed some anonymity screen name wise ^^), but even at one percent of the budget we’re still looking at 10mm. but you’re the expert, so perhaps 1% is too high. Ok now with that type of spend, what is your reach? I’m just trying to prove that 11million of online ads is a lot of money that can have large effects.
I don't have a problem with that. If you said that we'd be fine.
Though I can't help but notice we all got caught up in the propaganda again...
Don't believe me? They didn't buy $11 million in ads.
Read for yourself:
+ Show Spoiler +The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it called ?information
warfare against the United States of America? through ?ctitious U.S. personas on
social media platforms and other Internet-based media.
By in or around April 2014, the ORGANIZATION formed a department that went
by various names but was at times referred to as the ?translator project.? This
project focused on the US. population and conducted operations on social media
platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. By approximately
July 2016, more than eighty ORGANIZATION employees were assigned to the
translator project.
By in or around May 2014, the strategy included interfering
with the 2016 US. presidential election, with the stated goal of ?spread[ing] distrust
towards the candidates and the political system in general.?
Defendants CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC
Koucammir) and CONCORD CATERING are related Russian entities with
various Russian government contracts. CONCORD was the primary source
of funding for its interference operations. CONCORD controlled funding, recommended
personnel, and oversaw ORGANIZATION activities through reporting and interaction with
ORGANIZATION management.
CONCORD funded the ORGANIZATION as part of a larger
interference operation that it referred to as ?Project Lakhta.? Project Lakhta had
multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian
Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including
the United States.
By in or around September 2016, the budget for
Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over
1,250,000 US. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus
payments.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-indictment-13-russian-nationals/index.html
The most current (though reasonably untrustworthy reports of how much they ACTUALLY spent) number from facebook and twitter is closer to like $200k each* total in ads.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html
Found another article with twitter saying more: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-how-much-money-russians-spent-twitter-facebook-ads-20170928-htmlstory.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/84hQMiU.gif)
