Tag Archives: Information

How Trump’s “Secret Weapon” may have Bought the Election from Facebook for $100 Million Dollars and You just Updated your Facebook Status

Before you read this thesis watch the entire video that I share with you above. Watch it for the information about Facebook and social media, not because you dislike or like a politician, or for politically motivated reasons.

Observe this video from a marketing and social media engineering point of view. That is how the below thesis is posed.  This is in no way a political statement.  This is purely for observational purposes.

Thank you for reading in advance.  Also, you can donate to keep my blog current, and the information relevant.  Any amount helps, even a dollar.  Click the donate button.  You rock!

***

Parscale attributed the success of his vast social media presence to using the assistance offered by companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Google. He said that because the Trump campaign intended to spend $100 million on social media, companies in that area were prepared to assist the campaign in using that money effectively.[18]

“The campaign poured money into Facebook, sending thousands of versions of tweaked ads to maximize response. Then it won the presidency by a margin narrow enough that Parscale (and Facebook) can justifiably take credit.”[19]

— Philip Bump, The Washington Post”

Link: Brad Parscale

***

The contentious 2016 United States Presidential Election may have been won with a $100 million dollars, a “secret weapon”, and Facebook when used together.  Or it may have been won by any other boilerplate theory out there that can be backed by anyone, by any entity, with any statistics.

Either way, for all intents and purposes, the “secret weapon” in this theory is Brad Parscale, and his tool was/is Facebook.

Perhaps, I want to believe that the 2016 election was won honestly and fairly because I am a thoughtful American citizen and I have hope, but the more I look at the events, the more I see glaring inconsistencies in media stories of Russian Collusion and a general disbelief or ineffective attempt to look at the bigger picture objectively.  Social media played a HUGE role in this particular election, perhaps, as much so, or more, as any outside forces.

I aver, when looking at possibilities, generally we must look at everything, even information that has been overlooked from 10/08/2017 about Brad Parscale’s use of Facebook’s data/advertising tools to amass a successful, though debated, campaign–one which basically won the presidency, putting his candidate in the White House.

Moreover, to me,  the most concerning part of imagining, assessing, or thinking openly that Facebook et al. was used, with money, to command an election in such a way is that people still use the platform religiously every day without question as they cast blame/credit elsewhere.  Perhaps this is being oblivious, or willfully blind.  It can’t be Facebook, right?

Reality check: It definitely can be Facebook.  The reality is an inordinate amount of people are plugged into something (social media) that they wholly do not understand (I am in that boat), and marketers, salespeople, and data analysts are taking full advantage of that reality. (Beknownst, unbeknownst to all.) And how they do that advantageous venture is with huge, huge sums of purposed money.

Perhaps, purposed money and novel strategy, with a “secret weapon”, is what won the 2016 presidential election, along with a special tool of course: Facebook (when utilized by Brad Parscale).  Perhaps there are other entities pulling strings, but Parscale and his efforts warrant consideration, and notation.

Beyond Parscale and social media, the secondary key in this thesis is the $100 million dollars went to marketing–the unprecedentedly complex advertising itself, and the lack of the Clinton campaign to embed Facebook and other social media employees within their campaign offices, as the Trump campaign did.  And this may have swayed the election.  I consider this maneuver to be out of touch in the age of social media.  That’s glaringly foolish, in my opinion.

It’s like going to the World Series and leaving all your big hitters on the bench, extremely odd for a veteran politician…

Now, after these events, it sounds obvious to have key workers from these social media entities within your organization. Have one of the most influential and most recognized companies on your side in the most important race on the planet, possibly.  Don’t leave much to chance. That is not genius, that is obvious. It wasn’t to some, clearly.

Further, not having social media on your side on your account seems very out of touch with reality. Even if you despise Facebook and are not a member of the brand, you have to recognize that it is a powerful tool for connecting people everywhere. For example, I am not on Facebook anymore but I realize it’s marketing potential, (I also realize at Christmastime that my parents and in-laws like to connect with high school friends.  I don’t know why…  I use email).

Bringing it home, the video above is not only astonishing to me, because I am just learning about Brad Parscale, and because of the information it gives on the key marketing tactics used within social media to win an election and manipulate a demographic of people is vast and accurate, but this technology seems potentially dangerous. The scary part in any situation is that money seems to make that happen. If money wanted you to be a modern zombie or a group think solider it would already be happening.  And maybe you wouldn’t know.  You’d just go with it and update your status.  Probably not though, you are smart. 🙂

Accordingly, maybe someday we can better predict the future of everything, that is my prediction for the future.

For what it’s worth, with much of the media linking Parscale to Russia and basically making him look like a Sith lord in  article photos, I think he could certainly be a critical part of understanding the 2016 presidential election, and definitely to harnessing momentum in future elections.  At least his methods are very straightforward, in appearance, and no-nonsense.  Definitely they are of interest.

His use of social media tools to reach an audience with a campaign message has never been done before at such a level, and he has worked on “zero” elections before.

In general, that utilization of resources–if that is what it truly was, is progressive and inspiring to me.  He has been overlooked; and he is right there in front of us.  As is the power of social media, but we have other excuses.  Russia is scary and influenced the election. Trump may have cheated, etc. Any narrative is believable. But look at how many people around you are on Facebook clicking around, social media, exposing themselves to it all.  Marketing is more common than the other alleged threats.  I hope you like this post.

What influence.  What money and focused ideas can buy.

Advertisements

Minnesota Legislature: allow individuals to sell their private information rather than the internet service providers they employ

Why does the Minnesota legislative think that it is acceptable to allow large corporation service providers to use individual citizen’s private information without a say, all while turning a profit? Why, when they could allow me as an individual to make money off of the product that is my own unique private information? I think I could best provide my information to the highest bid.

The idea of giving internet service providers, who charge customers for service, the right to the customer’s private information, as a product, and the right to sell it to grain profits, makes no sense. Why is the individual cut out of the loop in terms of selling a product they create. Our information has value, it is a unique commodity sold to companies looking to attract your unique demographic without your say or your benefit. That information is out product.

Oddly enough, you can’t sell a unique product you create because the internet service provider already claims this exclusive right. I grow the tomatoes, I just can eat the tomatoes. Every thoughtful search, every poignant post, every site you visit is specifically you, and used by corporations to specifically target you in order to buy their products. Again, oddly enough, internet service providers know this and make gains off of this information, your information.

Further, as adjunct to my initial idea, I posit questions: why does the Minnesota legislature stand with corporations in ways that don’t allow private individuals to protect, create, gain, and attain a sense of ownership of their information in whatever capacity they choose. Why is there no safeguard for this information? And why do large corporations, with a hold on the market get the upperhand?

We all have a true value, data unique to us, and have a vested and integral interest in our personal private matters, partialities, and quirks, it is our personal commodity alone, and allowed to be sold unbeknownst to those it is linked to for financial motivations. We all have stake in this matter, and internet service providers understand the value monetarily.

Not only is an individual citizen’s personal privacy, in relation to data and information and the ability to possess ownership of that data and information, important in ways that protect and individual from the maladies of corporate and marketing entities, but it is important in ways that could create income for those not making income on their unique product.

With information there is money to be made, but who by? Now is the time to empower the people and give them the capital they are owed for the commodity that they make, create, and provide, which is their–the product that is stolen and sold by massive corporations who hold a potential monopoly on the internet industry. Now is the time for the Minnesota legislature to stand up for individuals citizens over lobbyists and profits by capitalistic agencies.

Contested: 2000 Presidential Election

 

al_gore_vice_president_of_the_united_states_official_portrait_1994

Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States. Wikipedia.

“On November 26, the state canvassing board certified Bush the winner of Florida’s electors by 537 votes. Gore formally contested the certified results.”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Language: Vocal Fry

Christopher Hitchens – Mother Teresa: Hell’s Angel

A very Interesting Video on: “Beef”