Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Trump's Advantage In Free Media Exposure...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Some interesting bits of information.

... Mr. Trump is hardly absent from the airwaves. Like all candidates, he benefits from what is known as earned media: news and commentary about his campaign on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Earned media typically dwarfs paid media in a campaign. The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media.

No one knows this better than mediaQuant, a firm that tracks media coverage of each candidate and computes a dollar value based on advertising rates. The mentions are weighted by the reach of the media source, meaning how many people were likely to see it. The calculation also includes traditional media of all types, print, broadcast or otherwise, as well as online-only sources like Facebook, Twitter or Reddit.

Its numbers are not quite an apples-to-apples comparison to paid advertising. But they do make one thing clear: Mr. Trump is not just a little better at earning media. He is way better than any of the other candidates.

Click here to see bar graphs with all candidates

Mr. Trump earned $400 million worth of free media last month, about what John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign. Paul Senatori, mediaQuant’s chief analytics officer, says that Mr. Trump “has no weakness in any of the media segments” — in other words, he is strong in every type of earned media, from television to Twitter.

Over the course of the campaign, he has earned close to $2 billion worth of media attention, about twice the all-in price of the most expensive presidential campaigns in history. It is also twice the estimated $746 million that Hillary Clinton, the next best at earning media, took in. Senator Bernie Sanders has earned more media than any of the Republicans except Mr. Trump.

Somehow there just seems to be something wrong or unethical with this picture. Like maybe the candidate that generates the most revenue for the networks receives the most "earned media",  regardless of whatever substance or value they may or may not have.

Full story at TheUpshot.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Despite his constant media clowning, it may not be all that helpful.
    From Public Policy Polling:
    "-Americans have so little faith in Donald Trump to make a decision of this magnitude that they would prefer a celebrity do it. By a 47/35 spread they would prefer Tom Hanks make the Supreme Court choice, and 45/35 they’d prefer Peyton Manning do it. The news isn’t all bad for Trump on that front though- he does manage to tie Taylor Swift 40/40 on the question of who’s more qualified to put forward a Supreme Court nominee, and he even edges out Mickey Mouse by a narrow 43/39 spread. It may not be much, but it’s a lot better than his 9 to 13 point deficit against Hillary Clinton in this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal and ABC/Washington Post polls."

  2. Previously you said "it is important to make money because there is cost associated with running a business. No business, unless it has the luxury of getting cost plus from the government, can survive unless the business can cover cost and overhead while making at least a moderate profit".

    So now it's "unethical" for the media to be giving Trump all this free air Time? They're only doing it because it's drawing eyeballs and thus generating profit for them. They're just trying to survive. Is that unethical?

  3. No Dervish, it is not unethical for a private news network to make a profit. So it is fine to give Trump some "earned" media. My point is, the American people need to understand and be exposed to all candidates if they are to make an informed choice. So in my view a responsible (and principled) media would give candidates reasonably equal amount of time. if doing so would cause them to go broke, well, they shouldn't be in the business.

    Frankly, the entire process needs scraping, rebuilding, and launched anew. Perhaps one day I'll share my thoughts on that. When I'm ready.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.