Illustration: Simon Letch
This morning, Australian time, the US President, Barack Obama, is due to attend a fund-raising dinner party at the New York home of movie stars Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick. Co-hosted by the editor-in-chief of Vogue, Anna Wintour, the price of a ticket was a reported $80,000 a head. Not a good look for the President in the week the US Federal Reserve reported that average American wealth had plummeted to $77,300 in 2010 - down from $126,400 in 2007.
As the US economy is underperforming, unemployment is officially 8.2 per cent and confidence is, at best, wavering, this would not seem to be the time to be hanging out with high-wattage wealthy celebrities. But the President needs the money.
Obama and the now certain-to-be-anointed Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, have opted to not accept public financing for the 2012 presidential election campaign. Previously, candidates would raise money to boost their electoral fortunes before the party conventions, but after that would accept the benefits - and constraints - of public funding.
Now, after a Supreme Court decision that effectively deregulated campaign financing (undoing all those decades of hard work to reform what had arguably been a pretty corrupt system), the bar has been raised significantly.
More money is going to be needed. And there are now virtually no limits on how it is raised or spent.
This presidential election is, according to Obama's senior campaign strategist, David Axelrod, going ''to test the limits of what money can do in politics, because there's gonna be so much of it concentrated in so few states'', as he told New York magazine's John Heilemann earlier this month.
And Obama is now falling behind in the fund-raising stakes. Although at the end of March, when he had raised about US$197 million, he was way ahead of the then-frontrunner Republican contender Romney, who had just $87.5 million, the other Republicans have since coalesced behind Romney - and so have their donors.
Just this week, billionaire Nevada casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who had been backing Newt Gingrich, kicked in $10 million to Romney's Restore Our Future super-PAC (political action committee) and Forbes magazine reports he may well follow that with the $100 million he had promised Gingrich.
Last month, Romney raised $76.8 million to Obama's $60 million, and he is pulling ahead with the very wealthy.
Wall Street has spurned Obama, so far giving Romney $37.1 million and Obama only $4.8 million. Ominously, these sums include donations from 19 people who gave to Obama in 2008 but not this time. Forbes says 32 billionaires, or 8 per cent of their 400 rich list, have donated to Romney and more will follow.
So while Obama continues to pursue the grassroots online fund-raising that was so successful in 2008, for the really big bucks he is being forced to take his begging bowl to three different and potentially risky sources of funds: Hollywood, Silicon Valley and rich gays. No one in the know doubts that the President's decision to support gay marriage was made with an eye to the pink dollar. A few days after the decision, a Hollywood fund-raiser hosted by George Clooney and including high profile gay supporters, raised $15 million.
This strategy is risky because it requires Obama to be hanging out with the mega-rich at a time when his political message is directed to economically distressed Americans, who are striving to return to being middle class. It could easily backfire on him.
The now pretty much united Republicans are trying to portray Obama as more focused on fund-raising than on governing. Given he has done 160 events so far (compared with George Bush's 74 at this time in the 2004 race), including six in just six hours in Maryland last Tuesday, this will not be a hard case to make.
A few weeks ago it was unimaginable that America's first black president may be in danger of not winning a second term but that prospect is now causing apprehension and even panic among Democrats.
The failed recall of the Republican governor Scott Walker in the highly unionised and overwhelmingly Democratic state of Wisconsin is being seen as a huge wake-up call that the party cannot assume that it will win in the presidential election in November.
Consolidated polling is showing just a two-point difference between Obama and Romney. Even among the three key demographics Obama felt confident of holding - women, young people and Latinos - the numbers are starting to close.
If Romney chooses Latino Florida senator Marco Rubio as his running mate, as a straw poll among party conservatives advocated this week, they could be a formidable team able to make significant inroads into the much-needed Latino vote in states such as Florida and Arizona.
Obama shows no signs of improving his ticket would he ditch the Vice-President, Joe Biden, although refreshing his team would seem to be a no-brainer in a tight electoral race. If this is not the time to place the extremely popular Hillary Clinton on the ticket, when is?
Obama's team foolishly set the bar high by leaking their expectation that their guy would be the first in presidential election history to raise $US1 billion and that Priorities USA Action, his super-PAC, would rake in another $100 million. Instead, Obama is struggling to reach the revised target of $750 million and his PAC, according to New York magazine, has just an embarrassing $10 million.
So we will be seeing a lot more of Obama with movie stars and the super-rich in coming months. The only question is whether the money raised will be at the expense of his political credibility - and his electoral prospects.
Twitter: @SummersAnne
Can You Make Money by Buying From Facebook's IPO? - huffingtonpost.co.uk
The answer is simple. Only if they can turn their organically grown database into a revenue stream channel the $100 billion valuation makes sense and one can make money out of it. If you think this is a good answer, think again?
This answer fails to understand the influential power social connections can have long-term. By thinking you can't make money since users aren't clicking on ads you are missing the whole point. In the online world we are all used to measuring everything from click through rates to sales in real time, however with social sites like Facebook one must have a holistic approach in order to reap the benefits which lie underneath the surface. It's a bit like saying we shouldn't invest in customer service because it doesn't produce returns; while you may not be able to track the return on investment on your customer service initiatives like you can with your marketing campaigns, that's not to say that investing in customer service won't yield positive returns.
A new report by internet marketing research company Comscore suggests that social media marketing can show a positive return on investment by directly influencing sales, but it has to be measured in a different way to conventional online marketing since it's not ads that are driving sales, building brands and creating customer loyalty. It's the very act of being social and engaging with your customers. That means understanding the link between Facebook's various ad units with what Comscore calls free earned media, which is essentially the posts and other actions by brand and consumers on the social network.
The Comscore report cited examples of how advertising on Facebook could be traced to sales increases. For example, by tracking consumers who were Starbucks fans on Facebook against a control group of shoppers who weren't exposed to those messages, Comscore found that over a four-week period, 2.12% of the brand's fans and their friends made a purchase at the coffee shop. That's 0.58 percentage points higher than the 1.54% for the control group. That suggests that fans and their friends made 37.7% more purchases than those not exposed to the brand's earned media.
So all in all, can we buy Facebook shares at the current price and still make money. While the answer seems positive, you may want to wait as the current scepticism around Facebook's potential to deliver a return on investment may result in share prices dropping short-term, only to start seeing an upward movement medium to long term but we will most probably have to wait several years to witness this change. I guess the question is, if social media advertising is still in its infancy, where is the social media stock market? You can't expect for investors to understand now what most marketers still don't.
Social media will create a revolution in how we behave ourselves and eventually will start the next bull market, but not for at least three to five years. Social media gives the ability for everybody to be in instant communication with everyone else, and that's very powerful. We must not forget that Facebook is the pioneer of the social media generation, and remains as the most powerful social media network in the planet.
Follow Vashi Dominguez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VashiDominguez
MPs attack Money Advice Service over lack of direction - Citywire.co.uk
MPs have attacked the Money Advice Service (MAS), arguing it has a lack of direction and is replicating services that were already available.
During a Treasury Select Committee evidence session as part of an inquiry into the MAS, Labour MP Andy Love (pictured) said that the service was brought in to help consumers manage debt advice and it seemed instead to be replicating other services already provided.
‘I would understand as a coordinator in that sense at least a minimum bringing together some of these services and having them understand to interact with each other,' he said.
'Do they recognise that this is a complex landscape? And that MAS has been asked to coordinate?’
Labour MP George Mudie attacked the service’s lack of direction and said: ‘Does anyone at the table know what their role is?
‘They have not just arrived, they came from the body that was under the Financial Services Authority—I didn’t hear screams then— this body has been set up with this money and it seems to be they’re scrambling around to find a role at a very sensitive time.’
On the panel was chair of the Financial Services Practitioner Panel, Joe Garner, who said it was ‘absolutely appropriate’ for the financial services sector to be funding the MAS but that it should be pulling its weight.
‘I don’t think there’s an issue over the price tag, I think it’s over the value for money. If it were a business it would be more closely co-ordinated.
‘There’s a big savings gap and pensions gap in this country and between us we can’t do enough in this area and the industry thinks [the MAS] should be at least contributing its fair share.’
Adam Phillips, chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel agreed, arguing the MAS needed to do more than simply sign-posting or replicating other websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment