Stop Letting Consultants Siphon Off Millions

A few years back, "West Wing" took on Democratic consultants and didn't hit too far off the mark (my favorite line being a consultant saying, "We're excited about the media buy!" a little under a minute and a half into the clip).

Today The New York Times' Christopher Drew reports on efforts, which seem somewhat though not entirely successful, to rein in the exorbitant fees consultants are charging their Democratic clients.

As a result, the Democratic presidential hopefuls are seeking to impose more controls on the consultants. In doing so, they are moving more into line with their Republican counterparts, who by and large have kept tighter rein on how they handle their media teams, which shape the candidates' messages, produce their television ads and buy the air time.

The three leading Democrats -- Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards -- are all clamping down. They are following what has become an almost standard practice among Republican presidential nominees by paying their media advisers flat fees, or placing a cap on their payments, rather than making payments based on a percentage of the amount they pay television stations to broadcast their commercials.

[...]

In interviews, aides said Ms. Clinton, of New York, and Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, had negotiated flat fees with their top consultants. And Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has capped what his consultants can earn, which will convert their more traditional percentage deal into a flat fee once his ad spending passes a certain threshold, his aides say.

[...]

Over the years, the Democrats have tended to build their advertising teams around a few highly paid stars whose focus is politics, while the Republicans often spread their fees among a broad mix of political consultants and ad executives from Madison Avenue. Democrats have tended to pay slightly higher percentages of their advertising budgets in fees and commissions, but those small differences have often added up to millions of dollars in additional compensation.

In theory it's certainly a good idea for Democratic candidates -- and indeed for the progressive movement as a whole -- to slow spending towards the consultant class, particularly the "few highly paid stars" who take in much too large a share of the normal Democratic donor's dollar. Whether this goal is achieved in practice is another thing entirely, though.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the Obama campaign insists on maintaining the politics of the 1970s in this regard, particularly when it tries to position itself as an agent for change and innovation in politics. Where both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns have switched to flat fees, which have saved the Republicans millions of dollars in relation to the Democrats over the years, the Obama campaign for some reason will not make such a switch. What's more, because the campaign is being run by two consultants running much of the campaign's budget through their consulting firm, there remains the age old question of whether the campaign will be getting all of the bang for its buck or if the firm will just be milking every possible cent of profit. The campaign does say that because the percentage fee will eventually turn into a flat fee guards against this concern. Yet the fact that the campaign is entirely unwilling to be open, either about the percentage take of the firm or where the percentage is converted into a flat fee, leaves at least some questions unanswered.

It's worth noting, too, that the other campaigns aren't perfect, either, with for instance Clinton's consultants expected to make about the same amount as those of John Kerry in 2004 (though a somewhat smaller percentage of the overall haul of the campaign). However, the model for paying Joe Trippi in the Edwards campaign -- he and two associates contracted for $17,500 a month to make ads -- seems on its face to be closer to the type of deal campaigns should be making with their consultants (though, as with everything, the devil's in the details).

Anyway, here's to a New Year's wish that we can figure out a way for campaigns to stop consultants from siphoning off too much money.



Display:


Re: Stop Letting Consultants Ciphon Off Millions (2.00 / 2)

the anti-obama attitude around here even seems to be affecting people's ability to reason mathematically.

what if, and this is just a hypothetical, HRC and JRE's flat fee is larger than obama's cap is high?  then, guess what?  then he's paying his consultants less than they are, particularly if they never reach the cap.

but i guess blinding red hatred keeps one from seeing that.  so of course obama is still paying his consultants more in MyDD land.


by beyondo98 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 01:41:55 PM EST

Re: Stop Letting Consultants Ciphon Off Millions (none / 0)

It has very little to do with the dollar amount that changes hands.  Presumably, unless consultants had ridiculous profit margins under the old model, they're not prepared to negotiate for a drastic decrease in fees.

The point is to put the incentives in the right place.  You want to use advertising intelligently, which means not creating a compensation structure that rewards consultants for oversaturating the public with ads whether or not it's the right call.  You don't want a structure that encourages consultants to abandon ads that may be working great, because they won't get another fee unless they cut a new and untested ad.

This was a very important point made in Markos and Jerome's book, and it's great to see our campaigns taking it to heart.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 03:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack Obama will eat your children. (none / 0)

There's even graphic evidence. Don't you know?


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jonathan, why not make it a constructive (none / 0)

suggestion for improvement,  say going forward or in the GE (as possible, subject to contract terms), instead of jumping to frame it as a potshot at Obama with language like this? "it tries to position itself as an agent for change"

The treatment Obama has been getting in blogosphere is starkly unfair. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as benefit of the doubt or consideration before saying negative things (as in this case) or waging full frontal attacks on Obama.

It's quite similar to how Nader and Naderists demonized Al Gore in 2000 using faulty and flaky logic. We know what that got us.

Are we, partakers in a supposedly progressive movement, that fond of nominating one of the people that hawked the Iraq war, the worst blunder in generation or two?


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Projection (none / 0)

beyondo nothing in Singer's post remotely rises to the level of 'blinding red hatred'. It is a criticism and the fact that given that Obama has raised a lot more money than Edward's and is within distance of HRC a fair one. Why not disclose the details?

Obama has oddly chosen to run an old fashion DLC like campaign. He seems to be surrounding himself with centrists (his economics team is a flat out disaster). Both his policies and his political tactics open him up to legitimate criticism from the Crashing the Gate crowd and he is getting it. The slogan for a 'change candidate' by definition cannot be 'same old, same old', what else is Obama offering us?
_____
Jonathan, not that it matters much but it is 'syphon'


by Bruce Webb on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 02:43:55 PM EST

Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

To call Axelrod and Plouffe consultants is an insult, they are the campaign.  Trippi wasn't with Edwards from the beginning nor in 2004.  Penn?, well let's just say he's a bit overshadowed by the best Democratic Party "consultant" of a generation.

The notion that Axelrod and Plouffe would try to use the campaign for financial gain is beyond ridiculous.  There's money and then there's history.  Obama trusts them and given that they have created from scratch an organization (Plouffe) that matches or exceeds any campaign and the best strategy, pacing and message (Axelrod) of any candidate this cycle, they've validated that trust.  Obama's judgment - again.

Hey, it's not your money, so why are you worried about it?  To me, it's the best $2,315.25 (per opensecrets.org) I ever spent.

 


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 03:31:20 PM EST

Re: Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

Typical clueless Obama Cult spew, pal....

Hey, it's not your money, so why are you worried about it?

Senator 'Hope' is running for the Presidency of the United States. You know, that office which assembles the nation's budget?

Can you connect the dots now.

Or has the Kool-Aide softened you brain too much?


by Pericles on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 05:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0)

The notion that Axelrod and Plouffe would try to use the campaign for financial gain is beyond ridiculous.


by andgarden on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 05:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

And Axelrod just happens to be an operative located in Chicago.  This is not trust; this is a cash cow for the Chicago political machine.


by truthteller2007 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 05:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

I know of many middle class folk who have donated to Obama. So please, spare me the "it's not your money, why do you care" spiel. This is the reason I have decided not to donate a single dollar to a major candidate. Why should I volunteer for a campaign when bloodsucking consultants get paid well for mediocre results?

Viral videos have been more creative than all the cliched crap churned out by the high priced consultants. You pay those guys churning out videos to use the market research available to these high priced consultants, and I dont doubt you will get better ads.

Death to the careers of Shrum and his type. I refuse to be a sucker for these kind of parasites.


by Pravin on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

In my opinion, you and andgarden do not understand the history and relationship of Axelrod and Obama.  It is way more than a typical candidate-consultant relationship.

I do not hear too many of the nearly 500,000 Obama donors complaining about how the campaign is spending its money.  


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod and Plouffe (none / 0)

I was addressing the claim that one should not complain just because it is not "our" money. I wasn't addresssing the Obama situation specifically. I personally do not have the time to do it so I kept quiet on that specific accusation.


by Pravin on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Letting Consultants Ciphon Off Millions (none / 0)

The Spelling Nazi works Christmas:  in the headline, "Siphon" for "Ciphon."   (No, not "syphon" either.)

"Ciphon" sounds like a Greek name, maybe for a centaur.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 03:42:18 PM EST

Re: Stop Letting Consultants Siphon Off Millions (none / 0)

'Spelling Nazi!'

WTF!

My momma raised me to believe that spelling correctly was the sign of an educated and intelligent citizen.

What did your momma say?

Or was she too busy watching TV/


by Pericles on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 05:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Letting Consultants Siphon Off Millions (2.00 / 1)

wow, somebody got coal for christmas. I "spelling nazi" was a self-deprecating joke.

In any event, how about we all refrain from insulting each other's mothers, at least for Christmas?


by desmoulins on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 06:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Letting Consultants Siphon Off Millions (none / 0)

Ease up, stud.  Many people on-line object to posts correcting spelling errors (or grammatical errors) and refer to those who point them out as Spelling (or Grammar) Nazis.  

Usually, I don't bother to make such corrections.  I make exceptions for front page articles by Jerome and Jonathan because MyDD is my favorite on-line political site and because I think it is a "serious" thing that goes toe to toe, or should, with the best of print journalism, and thus should be held to the same editorial standards with respect to spelling and grammar.

Now trot off and rehearse your funeral oration, why don't you?   [I think Obama's campaign may be needing one in (checks calendar) about two weeks or so.  Or not.  But no sense in not being prepared.]


by InigoMontoya on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As a small consultant (none / 0)

I just wish the big campaigns would stop giving all the work to the same consultants.  I do good work and have a very good winning record, but its still very hard to get a seat at the table.


by Marylander on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:35:05 PM EST

Re: As a small consultant (2.00 / 1)

haha, try doing "good work" and being a person of color?

The Democratic Party as a whole is very minority-based.  However, the consultant class almost 100% white.  They keep newcomers, upstarts, young people, and, MOST OF ALL, minorities, out.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a small consultant (2.00 / 1)

My business partner is African American, so I know very well of this problem.


by Marylander on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.