e-limbo, e-zine de informacion y analasis de modos de vida actual
22.01.2018 / Sesión no Iniciada 

 _enviar articulo

e-mail emisor
e-mail receptor
Ayúdanos a evitar contactos automáticos
Anti Spam

En estos tiempos de hipercomunicación bastaría la invitación de enviar a un amigo cualquiera de los textos que consideres interesantes algo redundante: demasiada comunicación, demasiados textos y , en general, demasiado de todo.
Es posible que estemos de acuerdo... pero cuando encuentras algo interesante en cualquier sitio, la red, la calle, tu casa, o un lugar escondido y remoto, compartirlo no sólo es un acto (acción, hecho) de amistad o altruismo, también es una manera de ahorrar tiempo a los demás (y de que te lo ahorren a ti (si eres afortunado) a costa del tiempo que tu has podido derrochar (emplear) y el gustazo de mostrar que estuviste ahí (o donde fuera ) un poco antes (el tiempo ya no es más el que era).
Comparte con tus conocidos aquello que encuentras, es evolución.
The greedy truth about media consultants
06-06-06 Seleccionado por: Ana Horillo 


By Walter Shapiro
Think you know where your campaign dollars go? Think again, sucker. Political image-makers skim off percentages that would make Exxon execs envious -- and the public never knows about it.

Psst! You with your checkbook in one hand and a political fundraising letter in the other. Are you sure you're being shrewd instead of being screwed when you send your money to this particular campaign?

OK, you've studied the issues so intently that you can recite from memory the candidate's nine-part plan for graduated, phased "victory with honor" withdrawal from Iraq. And you've crunched enough polling data to create a black hole and can prove through regression analysis that your candidate can knock off the incumbent merely by picking up 11 percentage points among male voters over the age of 37 who watch the Cooking Channel.

But have you scrutinized the financial arrangements and consultant contracts of this campaign the way you would skeptically analyze the balance sheet of your favorite charity? Would you feel ripped off if you discovered that about 15 percent of everything you donate goes right into the pockets of the media-consulting firm?

What we are talking about is one of the biggest secrets in politics, right up there with debate briefing books and sealed divorce decrees. In this fate-of-the-nation political year when more than $1 billion will be given to Senate and House candidates, there is just one certainty about the outcome -- the true winners in November will be the leading media consultants in both parties.

For more than a quarter-century, media consultants have been paid not in fixed dollar terms, but as a percentage of the campaign's television buy. The more often a candidate goes on television, the more the media consultant makes, even though the actual cookie-cutter commercials may have all the originality of a Harvard undergraduate's coming-of-age novel. Small wonder that in virtually every free-spending political race in both parties, the campaign manager (who is paid a salary, which is publicly disclosed) and the pollster (who is usually compensated by a flat rate per poll) start gazing enviously at the media consultant as they conclude, "We're in the wrong business." Remember, we're not dealing with chump change here like FedEx charges or gassing up the campaign van. We're talking about an off-the-top rake-off of campaign funds that might make Exxon executives envious. As Leslie Kerman, a Democratic campaign lawyer and a leading behind-the-scenes crusader against the inflated fees paid to media firms, puts it, "These same consultants love to run ads about out-of-control compensation for CEOs, but they don't think about their own compensation."

Democrats have the reputation as the party of gold-plated consultants largely because of Bob Shrum, the sharp-elbowed and avaricious image-maker for Al Gore and John Kerry. But in this campaign year, at least, there do not appear to be major differences between the two parties in terms of the vigorish paid to media consultants. Interviews with both Democratic and Republican campaign managers, pollsters and national party officials all produced similar descriptions of the current fee structure for ad makers. Given the reluctance of virtually everyone in politics to talk on-the-record about this taboo topic, I sometimes felt as if I would have to resort to meeting my sources in underground parking garages at 2 in morning.

These days, in a typical hotly contested House race, the media consulting firm will get between 10 percent and 15 percent of the total television ad buy, full reimbursement of production costs, maybe a post-election "victory bonus" and sometimes a $3,000-a-month consulting fee. To convey a sense of how perplexing this all is (especially to the campaign managers who negotiate the contracts), the consultant's percentage fee is calculated based on the TV stations' posted ad rates (the inflated gross) rather than the actual charges (the net). If the prior sentence confuses you, just think Hollywood sleight-of-hand bookkeeping.

What does all this mean to you as a campaign donor? If a congressional candidate budgets, say, $1.5 million for television, less than $1.3 million will be spent on airtime and production costs. The rest (imagine your money with little wings on it flying out the window) goes directly into what might be called the image-maker's beach-house fund.

When the White House or control of Congress is at stake, a political campaign should be more than an income-transfer program from contributors to consultants. But, in a sense, that is precisely what happened during the John Kerry campaign. As outlined in Joe Klein's new book, "Politics Lost," Shrum and his firm ended up receiving between between 4.5 percent and roughly 6 percent of the money Kerry spent on TV ads from the end of the primaries until Election Day. While precise figures are unavailable, it is a conservative guess that Shrum and his partners made more than $6 million (plus reimbursement for production costs) from the effort to oust George W. Bush from the White House.

Do you know what it takes to raise $6 million in politics? Picture a political gala in the largest hotel ballroom in the country -- an event so crammed with tables that there is risk of a fire hazard, with everyone in the room giving the maximum legal contribution ($2,000 in 2004). Now imagine the outrage if everyone at that dinner had been told that their money was not going to elect John Kerry president, but to pay the fees of his media consulting firm.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic National Committee, which independently spent about $100 million on TV ads in 2004, insisted that its media firms work for a flat fee rather than a percentage of the ad buy. According to Kerman, the lawyer who negotiated the contracts with consultants Steve Murphy and David Axelrod, each agreed to work for $525,000. Another $700,000 went to a time-buying firm to arrange to put the ads on the air. Unlike the Kerry campaign, the DNC paid a rock-bottom 1.7 percent of the TV buy for consulting services and ad placement.

Part of the difference was because Terry McAuliffe, the ebullient fundraiser who then headed the DNC, understood what every extra dollar meant to an out-of-power party. "You had someone in there who knew how hard it was to raise the money," McAuliffe told me in an interview. "I had a fiduciary responsibility to spend that money well."

McAuliffe -- who called the fees charged by leading Democratic firms "a racket" -- underscored the Election Day implications of running a party for the benefit of consultants. As he put it, "In 2000, the Democratic Party spent millions of dollars on consulting fees to Shrum and Co. That year, Al Gore had to pull out of Ohio six weeks before the election because he was broke. And then Gore only lost Ohio by 2 percent." In short, less Shrum would have meant more Ohio.

Why are consultants' fees such a hush-hush arena of politics? Part of the explanation is that such financial data is only available by anecdote. While the Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to laboriously detail every contribution of $200 or more, the government is far more cavalier about expenditures. The FEC acts as if the only possible corruption comes from the getting rather than the spending.

As a result, all television costs are lumped together on a campaign's FEC report making it impossible to decipher how much money goes to the TV stations for airtime and how much is retained by the media consulting firms. Media consultants are understandably secretive about their own cushy deals as the reigning creative geniuses of politics. Campaign managers are skittish about airing the topic because they do not want to make enemies in this incestuous industry or antagonize the people they are depending on to come up with quick-response attack ads in late October. Winning candidates are understandably grateful to their own overpriced consultants, while losers fear coming across as embittered by defeat.

Political reporters (myself included) tend to shy away from this topic because, frankly, consultants tend to be our best sources. They are the people we turn to for the larger political perspective and a level of hired-gun honesty that is often unavailable from campaign staffers. It seems journalistically self-destructive to aggressively quiz these invaluable political insiders about their personal income. Not surprisingly, the only newspaper reporter in recent years who examined in depth the financial dark side of campaigns (the Washington Post's Susan Glasser in 2000) immediately left the political beat to report from Moscow.

To be sure, there are tentative signs of change on the Democratic side. Leading figures in the party such as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Mark Warner have, with Kerman's assistance, championed flat-fee and reduced-fee arrangements with their consultants. But deals like these remain the exception in a greed-locked business in which ad makers have been known to demand victory bonuses not only for the general election, but for near-uncontested primary races as well.

If campaign reform is ever extended to the spending side of the equation, it will only be because donors finally wake up and start shouting, "I am not a schnook." There is no tactical reason why the details of a media consulting firm's contract should be secret from the contributors who are subsidizing its profit margin. Just as the Internet broadened the fundraising base of politics, so, in theory, can the Web be used to organize for full disclosure of the fee structure of politics.

So here is a small suggestion for would-be political donors: Before you write your next check, try asking the campaign how much of its TV buy is going to the ad maker. For it seems unfair that passionately committed middle-class donors should be the only ones making a true financial sacrifice to elect their favorite candidates. Isn't it time for the consultants to start giving at the office?

Publicado originalmente en www.salon.com


Rating: 4 - 1 voto(s).

No existen comentarios.
Comentario / Comment:
  atención: para realizar comentarios tienes que ser usuario registrado.


15-01-12_ "Recapitalizar a los bancos por tener deuda de su país es absurdo"
24-01-11_ Sociedad Estatal de Demoliciones Culturales
18-09-09_ LA comercialización de la cultura
26-10-08_ Solbes: «2009 va a ser peor, no cabe la menor duda»
02-01-09_ The Story of Stuff
05-10-08_ SOROS * entrevista
21-05-08_ Why People Don't Trust Free Markets
02-05-08_ Zimbabue compra por Internet para sortear una inflación del 100.000%
24-03-08_ IDEIA DEKOT * Manual de supervivencia para montártelo por tu cuenta
04-02-08_ ¿'CRACK' 2008?
24-03-08_ Copia privada, ese derecho virtual
24-03-08_ The Pirate's Dilemma: A Review
23-12-07_ Así en la SGAE como en la Iglesia
17-12-07_ Dos asociaciones denuncian que la SGAE financia al poder judicial
16-12-07_ RECIPE: Five Great Lunchbox Favs
25-11-07_ Invitation to the OpenBusiness Community
15-11-07_ Trade-offs of offering content for free
16-11-07_ Climate change * from issue to magnifier
22-10-07_ SGAE: la punta del iceberg de un entramado societario...
02-11-07_ La JUSTICIA y el P2P ( ¡! )
14-09-07_ Executive Compensation: Is This the Beginning of a New Era?
06-07-07_ Collapse: How the U.S. Is Choosing to Fail
26-06-07_ The market function of piracy
24-05-07_ Seven gay wonders of the world
29-08-07_ Designig for Humans Not Users
31-05-07_ Introducing... the starving artist
31-05-07_ Martín Patino liberará su Filmografía.
31-05-07_ People Inside Web 2.0: An Interview with Tim O'Reilly
29-05-07_ Rutas para la innovación abierta: costes, aceleración y creatividad
26-03-07_ WEB 2.0 según TechCrunch
24-03-07_ Arcadi Espada y el Canon
17-03-07_ Ni se le ocurra tatarear a Mozart
15-03-07_ ¿Cómo hacer un blog de economía?
13-03-07_ El brujo de Menlo Park
03-03-07_ Mobile the 7th Mass Media is to internet like TV is to radio
23-02-07_ Hacia el fin del COPYRIGHT
18-02-07_  Shit Help Bad Hot Army Boom Kill!!! 
07-02-07_ Pensamientos sobre la música * Steve Jobs
04-02-07_ MOD Films
03-02-07_ Si no te conectas es por que no quieres...
30-01-07_ Emerging Art Markets
27-01-07_ The "special interests" destroying China's environment
17-01-07_ La SGAE vista desde dentro...
16-01-07_ Interview * Michael Bauwens
10-01-07_ Pero plagiar es otra cosa
04-01-07_ Amenazas a la información

04-01-07_ Los Múltiples retos de la innovación
28-12-06_ Comprando Burgos, La ciudad...
25-12-06_ The inexplicable inexistence of Real Madrid
11-12-06_ Openstudio * Experimento en creatividad, colaboración y capitalismo.
03-12-06_ Open Business re-crea la comunidad
27-11-06_ Cafuné breaking the limits for Open Business models
23-11-06_  Business Model Template Hacking
18-11-06_ O.J. Simpson, News Corp, and Milton Friedman
13-11-06_ Stray Cinema
01-11-06_Del Elitismo de la Web 1.0 a la Burbuja 2.0
01-11-06_How Non-Commercial Licenses make Business
26-10-06_He vuelto de Ikea y mi único deseo es matar (I)
25-10-06_A new idea about Opening Business
19-10-06_Revver - Openbusiness New Sponsor
08-10-06_Is Your Personality the Ticket to Financial Freedom?
30-09-06_The Wrong Gallery * The greatest little gallery on earth
22-09-06_el sin-sentido de las patentes
21-09-06_Open Business Meets Filmaking
16-09-06_IndieKarma * a new way to get paid for blogging
09-09-06_Revolution at our fingertips
08-09-06_La 'wikimanía' se extiende por la Red
01-09-06_Copyright Criminals: This is a Sampling Sport
31-08-06_Man From Google Joins Apple’s Board
18-08-06_Patents for profit: dystopian visions of the new economy
13-08-06_The cluetrain manifesto
10-08-06_Depositos finacieros, vivienda y deducción fiscal
07-08-06_YOU TUBE * me watch
05-08-06_Reunión mundial de piratas informáticos en Las Vegas
04-08-06_Lo que les preocupa a los poderosos
13-03-07_ Ya hay más de 500.000 firmas contra el canon digital
23-07-06_Con la moral por delante
22-07-06_Gateway to Nowhere?
21-07-06_Industria musical y cultura libre: hoy en el CCCB
30-06-06_People Power
15-06-06_El futuro del libro: líquido o en la Red
13-06-06_Casas que están vivas
05-06-06_The fall and rise of Kate Moss
24-05-06_Primera Gran Guerra por el control de la Red
23-05-06_The sunset stalker: Bono
06-06-06_The greedy truth about media consultants
07-06-06_Making meaning from our own stories (Selflore) in the age of discontinuity
22-04-06_La crítica en la era del capitalismo cultural electrónico
05-04-06_La SGAE bate su propio récord de ingresos... y +++
29-03-06_How Copyright Law Changed Hip Hop
03-05-06_China acapara ya el 19% de las reservas internacionales de divisas
25-03-06_Intellectual Property roundup
24-03-06_De Gutenberg a Amazon: cómo convertirse en autor de verdad, sin salir de casa
19-03-06_La mala política energética de Bush
17-03-06_Los estudiantes franceses vuelven a la calle
16-03-06_Brent Hoberman:
06-03-06_Los ‘sukuk’, o cómo invertir sin ofender los mandamientos del profeta
06-03-06_More power to you
18-02-06_I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do
02-03-06_Trabajo afectivo
13-02-06_El parlamento de las cosas
19-03-06_Entrevista: Sabine Breitwieser
07-02-06_El dividendo del arte
03-02-06_Adieu Alan, Bonjour Ben, Welcome Transparency
30-01-06_ Prescribing Drugs a Healthy Future
20-01-06_Vers la décroissance: Écofascisme ou écodémocratie
27-01-06_The New Market Bubble Theory
16-01-06_We need a new drug (system)
13-01-06_Garçon! Un Coca-Cola, S'il Vous Plaît
09-01-06_Weather Has Become Bogeyman, News Staple
07-01-06_La inmigración en España / Una obsesión desbordada
04-01-06_Novel Thinking as a Survival Tactic
27-12-05_África, un desacuerdo navideño con Bono
23-12-05_America's most-hated companies
21-12-05_¡Tu Mismo!
03-12-05_El bajo perfil de España en Estados Unidos
29-09-05_Infinita Avaricia
22-06-05_Por ahí
09-06-05_¡Tu Mismo!



Regístrate y disfruta de utilidades de administración y gestión de los contenidos de e-limbo*
Recibe las novedades en tu correo electronico.
El futuro está escrito en las estrellas... Horóscopo creado por J.G. Ballard y dedicado a todos vosotros.
Aplicaciones y herramientas necesarias para navegar y utilizar los contenidos del limbo electrónico e internet (www).
Artículos de e-limbo* en formato PDF preparados para viajar y aportar información allá donde estés. (y seguir salvando árboles)

_e-limbo * apoya



Mais uma edição do podcast Música Livre para o Archivo Vivo, do Centro Cultural da Espanha/AECID. ...
Ante preguntas de oyentes y amigos, puedo responder ahora que Vía Límite continuará en Radio ...
SORPRESA¡!¡! An unreleased version of Talking Heads' "Psycho Killer" with Arthur Russell on cello
Optimizado: Firefox, Safari, Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Explorer. Resolución óptima: 1024x768
ISSN: 1885-5229    Aviso Legal e-limbo.org*