Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Jane, I am confused by your preface to this very good Jared Kushner profile in Forbes. Your headline was honing in on the content of the Forbes article.Here's what I don't understand:"Orchestrated by Silicon Valley and Fox News . . . You notice Fox still isn't talking too much about all this, just making excuses for Trump's back pedaling."(And I won't spend a lot of time addressing this "Do you get the feeling these guys have a vendetta to settle with their perception of what all Christians stand for?"as it confuses me as to your intent. I will, however, remind you Kushner is from an old Jewish family with ancestors who died in concentration camps.)So I will address the Silicon Valley/Fox comments and then comment on the actual article, which by the way, was very enlightening and well written.Everything I've read to date on the Trump marketing miracle, including this profile, shows Silicon Valley didn't orchestrate anything. Yes, Kushner picked the brains of people he knew out there, who had worked for his RE firm in the past. But Kushner approached them and told them what he wanted, what he needed, and asked the right questions about data mining.Fox News was deemed "Mainstream Media" by Bannon and Kushner, and notice how Trump "played" them, and not the other way around. In a recent interview (I'll find it and post soon to P/A, Bannon blasted Fox News as being out to lunch.) Fox never saw this coming. And more than one Fox opinionator was anti-Trump after Ailes joined the Trump campaign.This kid, Kushner, along with Bannon and Brad Parscale, got down and dirty in the social medias and data mined like no one in the DNC or RNC had ever thought imaginable.There is another reason the mainstream media missed this story: Trump, Bannon and Kushner spent less on traditional media than any campaign in decades. It was a slap in the face of traditional media. The Trump campaign told anyone who wasn't listening, "We won't spend money in mass media unless we know in advance what message we wish to broadcast in that specific area of the country." Mass media took umbrage at Trump's Un-campaign in "broadcast" TV and radio (note the word signifies casting a wide net). Mass media delighted in making Trump and his slapped together ground team look like bumbling Luddhites, when behind the scenes, Trump's lean, mean social marketing machine was on fire with new concepts in marketing. They were a special forces marketing team vs. the staid, highly overpaid, grifters which the DNC and RNC had relied on for years.Through data mining on Twitter, and especially Facebook, the Trump campaign raised $250 million from small donors during the last four months of the campaign, while Hillary's tech savvy crew were still relying on big donors to spend money on big TV buys, big radio buys, big robo-calling buys.I admire Jared Kushner. He, Bannon and Pasquale outsmarted the beltway muckety mucks of Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and New York City. He is the new breed of campaigner. He doesn't play hardball political campaigning in the traditional sense. He plays "Moneyball" in the same sense of Michael Lewis's book:From your Forbes link:http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusi...For fundraising they turned to machine learning, installing digital marketing companies on a trading floor to make them compete for business. Ineffective ads were killed in minutes, while successful ones scaled. The campaign was sending more than 100,000 uniquely tweaked ads to targeted voters each day. In the end, the richest person ever elected president, whose fundraising effort was rightly ridiculed at the beginning of the year, raised more than $250 million in four months–mostly from small donors.As the election barreled toward its finale, Kushner’s system, with its high margins and up-to-the-minute voter data, provided both ample cash and the insight on where to spend it. When the campaign registered the fact that momentum in Michigan and Pennsylvania was turning Trump’s way, Kushner unleashed tailored TV ads, last-minute rallies and thousands of volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.And until the final days of the campaign, he did all this without anyone on the outside knowing about it. For those who can’t understand how Hillary Clinton could win the popular vote by at least 2 million yet lose handily in the electoral college, perhaps this provides some clarity. If the campaign’s overarching sentiment was fear and anger, the deciding factor at the end was data and entrepreneurship.Or as this guy, the CEO of a little company called Google points out:“Jared understood the online world in a way the traditional media folks didn’t. He managed to assemble a presidential campaign on a shoestring using new technology and won. That’s a big deal,” says Schmidt, the Google billionaire. “Remember all those articles about how they had no money, no people, organizational structure? Well, they won, and Jared ran it.”Think about it folks, Kushner, Bannon and Parscale (the guy who they hired to run things in the Austin digital mining bunker) outsmarted all the pundits, pollers, professional politicians, policy wonks, etc., inside the beltways. Part of this current anti-Trump vibe is due to all the "pros" being made to look like chumps.What Kushner et al have done is to drive a stake through the heart of the way campaigns have been run since the 50s. As an ex-copywriter, I understand now why Trump skunked Clinton in several must have states where polls said she led. Trump had the best social media team in the history of politics. End of story. No resources at the beginning, perhaps. Underfunded throughout, for sure. But by running the Trump campaign–notably, its secret data operation–like a Silicon Valley startup, Kushner eventually tipped the states that swung the election. And he did so in manner that will change the way future elections will be won and lost. President Obama had unprecedented success in targeting, organizing and motivating voters. But a lot has changed in eight years. Specifically social media. Clinton did borrow from Obama’s playbook but also leaned on traditional media. The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning. The traditional campaign is dead, another victim of the unfiltered democracy of the Web–and Kushner, more than anyone not named Donald Trump, killed it.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |