Is it possible to fix the TRUMP Brand?

Please note: This is not a political debate on Clinton vs Trump, please dont start.

We know that Donald Trump is one of the most controversial candidates to ever run for President of the United States. His opinions, views and speeches have caused chaos all over the globe, he has made a lot of people angry during his rallies.

This seems to have caused a direct impact on the Trump branded Businesses, check out the 2 links below:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/04/trump-hotels-and-ca...
https://www.hipmunk.com/tailwind/are-trump-hotels-...
What are the likely impacts of a Trump Win or Loss on his Businesses in the Long Run & is it possible to fix the damaged Brand Image after all what happened?

Edit (12-OCT-2016): This thread was a PR/Marketing discussion for a Real Estate Brand and not a political debate. I even made sure to mention that in the beginning in order to avoid this. Thank you for ruining the opportunity to discuss an interesting topic.

Comments (44)

Oct 10, 2016

Who uses four square anymore? And the people who are most likely to use foursquare probably aren't dropping $400 a night of Trump Chicago.

His brand will take a little hit then go back to normal. Trumps had a bunch of bankruptcies, has been in the tabloids for years, it isn't like he was a Saint before all this.

Wish CNBC would do an analysis on Hillary and the Clinton Foundations legacy considering endless email leaks showing all kinds of back room dealings and the Clinton "Foundation" being shown to be anything but a tool for helping people.

Oct 10, 2016
TNA:

Who uses four square anymore?

Who even used four square in the first place?

    • 5
Oct 10, 2016
CRE:

TNA:Who uses four square anymore?

Who even used four square in the first place?

Years ago they had a feature that guys could use to see how many women checked into a bar. Got shut down fast. About the only good thing it was good for.

Side note, I though CNBC was a business news site. Measuring foot traffic using shitty apps and extrapolating it into an article slamming trump is garbage.

I 100% think his business has taken a hit because of his stances, but using foursquare is crap. Not covering the reputation damage the Clinton's have incurred is also unfair and biased.

Alas that is why no one watches or trusts the "news" anymore.

Oct 10, 2016
TNA:

the Clinton "Foundation" being shown to be anything but a tool for helping people.

keep spreading misinformation bro, here are facts:

The Clinton Development Initiative is helping farmers in Malawi grow and sell more crops and has built a warehouse where farmers can store their crops for sale. The foundation is doing something similar for coffee farmers in Haiti.

In 2013, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership launched the Acceso Centro de Formacion to provide job training for people in Cartagena, Colombia.

A lot of what the foundation does is have its employees help facilitate partnerships.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative, for instance, has gotten credit for providing access to lower-cost drugs for millions of people with HIV/AIDS. The foundation program consolidated both the supply of raw materials to make the drugs and the bidding to supply the finished product. The result was lower production costs and lower drug prices. Today, the initiative tracks the going price for a menu of treatments and posts them to help health departments around the world as they negotiate with drug companies.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity's performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.

The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation's charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation -- as Willis and Fiorina did -- is inaccurate.

She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on "charitable work," she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or "charity"), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

This took less than 10 seconds to search on Google, I am sure you believe in your heart that you're right though.

    • 10
    • 4
Oct 20, 2016

What no one even seems to notice is that the according to the IRS guidelines the Clinton Foundation is completely in violation of the law. According to their IRS form 990, the Clinton Foundation was established to manage donations for construction of the Clinton Presidential Library. Under subsection 990 of the IRS code a charity can only operate with in a very narrow scope of its charter. Other extremely shady actions aside, the entire foundation has been illegally raising money for over 15 years.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Oct 21, 2016

You cra cra

Oct 10, 2016

here are more facts for you to ignore: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/1...

    • 2
Oct 10, 2016
BobTheBaker:

here are more facts for you to ignore: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/1...

How about I quote the heritage Foundation as a source as well.

You're cherry picking liberal sites. It's cool, you fully support Clinton and her foundation. But a lot of people, including me, have deep concerns about the ethical aspects of Clinton and her fund.

Oct 10, 2016
BobTheBaker:

here are more facts for you to ignore: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/1...

How about you pull down the actual IRS filing s and take a look at how much is spent on salary, travel, conferences, etc. It's right in the notes. You have to dig in some and it takes a couple other documents, but you can clearly see how much is overhead and how little is charity.

You have to then look at where the little money that is actually spent goes and that's where you get the connections between spending for influence vs charitable best interest.

Indont care what vox or Fox say. Just look at the sources and decide yourself.

Oct 10, 2016

Thanks for correcting the record. Lol.

Glad you quoted a couple favorable posts you found from Google. Seems like you ignore the number of negative articles though. Intellectually honest, not so much.

The Clinton Foundation operates unlike almost any other charitable foundation. Some of the largest donors are foreign governments. The foundation also controls donations, allowing for influence. This is shown in their dealings with Haiti which have been abysmal.

Speaking fees and other expenses have wired relationships as well. So let's not pretend this is habitat for humanity or canned goods for the homeless.

Oct 10, 2016

dude these articles directly refute these negative articles you're referring to as bullshit that lacks fact, you said they were anything but a charity, that is pure misinformation. I also pulled this stuff up from PolitiFACT, I am sorry I deal in facts and not speculation based on the latest conservative conspiracy theory. At the end of the day, you'll disregard anything positive (facts or not) and champion anything negative (facts or not) regarding the Clintons because that's the way you personally WANT it to be. I deal in realities.

    • 1
    • 2
Oct 10, 2016
BobTheBaker:

dude these articles directly refute these negative articles you're referring to as bullshit that lacks fact, you said they were anything but a charity, that is pure misinformation. I also pulled this stuff up from PolitiFACT, I am sorry I deal in facts and not speculation based on the latest conservative conspiracy theory.

So if I post a handful of obviously conservative sites showing "proof" of the charity being bullshit you will accept them?

You Google it and posted a bunch of articles that support your view. I've read all of them before. I didn't formulate my opinion after reading nothing but Briebart.

Of all the pros and cons of the foundation I've read, I think and hold the opinion that the foundation is political influence first, charity, if any, distant second.

Oct 10, 2016

either way, hillary sucks. everyone knows this is just a slosh fund for the clintons and their friends. the charity does some good. thats great. but the real reason for it is to enrich the clinton family
the only reason she will get elected is cause the republican party was so incompetent that they let trump get the nomination.

    • 1
Oct 10, 2016

there are much easier ways for a former president to get rich than to start a charity foundation. Do you have any proof that "the real reason for it is to enrich the clinton family" or are you just throwing shit out? Citations would be welcome.

Oct 10, 2016

What citation style would you prefer? MLA? Chicago?
I think TNA in the post below made the correct statement. We can find valid sources from either side that support whatever argument we are trying to make.
The point of my post is Clinton sucks. She is garbage. If she was a decent candidate we would have never had Obama as president. She had all the funding and party backing and still couldn't beat him. Bernie Sanders wouldn't have done nearly as well against Joe Biden for example. The reason Bernie did well is clinton is awful. She just (this is my opinion) is not a a good person or really a good candidate.

    • 2
Oct 10, 2016

I would prefer you answer my fucking question rather than go on some random fucking rant. Notice how ANT didn't bother to respond to my post regarding INDEPENDENT charity watchdogs stating the foundation gives MORE than the average charity. He didn't respond because he has no response. Again I ask, what independent charity watchdog can you cite that refers to the Clinton Foundation as a corrupt money-making scheme? I'll wait for the non-response followed by the nonsensical rant.

    • 2
    • 2
Oct 10, 2016

I responded above that I pulled the tax returns and drew my own conclusions. I didn't just Google and copy paste the first 4 sites that supported my stance.

Quoted from above

"How about you pull down the actual IRS filing s and take a look at how much is spent on salary, travel, conferences, etc. It's right in the notes. You have to dig in some and it takes a couple other documents, but you can clearly see how much is overhead and how little is charity.

You have to then look at where the little money that is actually spent goes and that's where you get the connections between spending for influence vs charitable best interest.

Indont care what vox or Fox say. Just look at the sources and decide yourself."

Oct 10, 2016

wait. you're saying you examined the financial statements of a multinational charity and performed an audit, by yourself, and found definitive (or even not that definitive) evidence of fraudulent/ corrupt behavior? evidence that no media organization, charity watchdog, or expert in charitable organization accounting found? I find that hard to believe, extremely so. Do you have any expertise in how accounting for charities work (I don't so of course I am not even going to waste my time going through the statements, I trust the experts)? could you post your findings? They would be duly appreciated. Both Vox and Fox could write something that is data-driven and I'd listen, stop with the "media is biased" distraction, that isn't what we are talking about here.

Oct 10, 2016
BobTheBaker:

wait. you're saying you examined the financial statements of a multinational charity and performed an audit, by yourself, and found definitive (or even not that definitive) evidence of fraudulent/ corrupt behavior? evidence that no media organization, charity watchdog, or expert in charitable organization accounting found? I find that hard to believe, extremely so. Do you have any expertise in how accounting for charities work (I don't so of course I am not even going to waste my time going through the statements, I trust the experts)? could you post your findings? They would be duly appreciated. Both Vox and Fox could write something that is data-driven and I'd listen, stop with the "media is biased" distraction, that isn't what we are talking about here.

God damn man. I read the audit, I didn't perform an audit.

I went through the 40 pg audit and clearly saw how much is being spent on non charity salaries and other fluff. I've gone through the audit, along with other reports and saw how spending is more based on influence than charity.

You act like charities can't be bullshit. Plenty pay out little and just enrich people.

Furthermore, you're entire stance of defending the charity is because you outsourced your diligence. Roll up the sleeves and actually see what they spend their money on.

Keep letting other people do the thinking for you.

Oct 10, 2016

yes, I'm intelligent enough to let the experts be the experts. I have no idea how accounting for a charity works but I do believe charitywatch is independent and are the experts. Their entire organization is based on accurately evaluating charities.... I don't act like charities can't be bullshit, my statement is this one isn't (as evidenced by, again, they pay more out than the average charity, I literally feel like I am going in a circle here)

    • 1
Best Response
Oct 10, 2016
BobTheBaker:

yes, I'm intelligent enough to let the experts be the experts. I have no idea how accounting for a charity works but I do believe charitywatch is independent and are the experts. Their entire organization is based on accurately evaluating charities.... I don't act like charities can't be bullshit, my statement is this one isn't (as evidenced by, again, they pay more out than the average charity, I literally feel like I am going in a circle here)

It's because you're lazy.

Charity watch gives an A-F depending on the % of charitable costs are made up of salary and fundraising expenses.

They report Clinton Foundation as 12% salary and cost. That's an A.

I used the red cross as a test case. You pull up their audit and compare it to charity watch and they are at 10%.

The red cross is pretty clean. 2014 they had $3.1MM in expenses, of which $300k was support services. This matches charity watch.

Clinton Foundation had $249MM of costs and $21.4MM of management and general plus $9.1mm of fundraising costs. That's how charity watch gets their 12%.

But that's bullshit.

If you go to page 18 of the audit you can clearly see a line item of their functional expenses. Salaries across all their programs account for $95MM. When you add that, plus professional and consulting fees, plus travel, plus conference and events, you get $148.1MM in expenses.

Or 60% of costs being bullshit.

Real simple, real clean. Just as easy as reading the notes on a 10k/q.

So that is why I disagree with your source. Why I think their charity is shit and how I formed my opinion.

Aka by doing some work and not reading the first fucking thing I found on Google.

Edit - and yes. I realize that charity isn't just handouts. Per reports that have around 2k people on the payroll. My point is to illustrate that the Clinton Foundation is a lot more than collecting money and donating it for good.

Additionally, they can control who gets hired to do these good works. This allows for corruption and influence buying.

You won't see this just reading an article, from either side of the isle.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Oct 10, 2016

I think it takes doing more than minimal charity for an organization to be called a real charity. Plenty of other bullshit charities I call bullshit on as well.

I reiterate, I can post a bunch of obviously conservative sites that disagree with your liberal sites. I'm not going to do it because they are biased and shit just like huffpo and vox.

Oct 10, 2016

stop focusing on Vox. What about the quote from the president of CharityWatch? How about CharityNavigator (the charity watchdog people falsely attributed that 6% of Foundation money goes to charity)? They are both quoted in my initial post.... Their rate of giving, according to those experts (which I am not so I defer to them), is higher than the average charity. Do you have any comments on that or are you going to focus on the Vox article that also contained facts but you write off as "liberal media" (I didn't know facts had a political bias)?

    • 2
Oct 10, 2016

It's my opinion that Trump's brand has not suffered at all. Now, 4square does foot traffic surveys... people on the street. I can see that opinion being affected short term by the election.
However, who are the customers to Trump projects: rich elites who can afford them.
They go to Trump properties for the uber hotel experience, not a political debate with Trump.

Oct 10, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4xOtQwVytE
Mark Cuban mentions in this video that if Trump loses the election he will go bankrupt in 7 years. I definitely don't always agree with what Cuban says, but it is interesting to hear one billionaire's opinion about another billionaire.

    • 2
Oct 20, 2016
HopefulMogul:

Mark Cuban to Fox's Bolling: I Liked Trump Until I Realized He Has No Interest in Learning

Mark Cuban mentions in this video that if Trump loses the election he will go bankrupt in 7 years. I definitely don't always agree with what Cuban says, but it is interesting to hear one billionaire's opinion about another billionaire.

Politics aside, Mark Cuban's need to be on TV after every debate to criticize another billionaire's attempt to gain even more power than Cuban has is probably one of the most feminine displays of jealously I've seen outside of Taylor Swift and Katy Perry beef.

    • 4
Oct 10, 2016

I am not sure about how I feel about Cuban. But I would like to know whether he was approached or he did the approaching. If I felt strongly about a certain candidate, was a billionaire, and was approached... I would probably give my opinion.

In addition, Cuban originally liked Trump until he didn't "learn" about the issues.

Oct 11, 2016

Trump is a marketing genius.

Now that I said that, he's a snake oil salesman. He owns a 'brand' and happens to own real estate on the side, which is mostly entirely supported by his brand. He's a bigot, a racist, and a childish brat. He's brought so much negative attention onto himself, he's going to be hit with so many lawsuits over sexual assault, stiffing creditors, etc. His brand is going to absolutely collapse in a year or two. I'm surpised Cuban gave him 7 years before his brand goes up in flames.

Clinton is up by 9 points on Oct. 11. That's crazy. More stuff is going to come out before the election. He's going to be absolutely crushed in a landslide and he's going to be shown as a total loser (as he is). The only year we know about his true income (1995 due to the leak), his $916MM lose accounted for 2% of the entire country's tax loss. In Trump language "what a total loser, such a bad businessman."

    • 4
    • 3
Oct 11, 2016

The average person doesn't remember who lost the 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. elections. Once Trump is no longer a "threat" to his ideological opponents (i.e. after Clinton wins) nobody will care about the negative aspects of Trump anymore. Our society has a ridiculously short memory.

Oct 11, 2016

My ridiculously short memory would love to forget that this thread exists...

    • 2
Oct 10, 2016
Count_Chocula:

My ridiculously short memory would love to forget that this thread exists...

Or that there are so many Trump die-hards on WSO

    • 5
Oct 11, 2016
Virginia Tech 4ever:

The average person doesn't remember who lost the 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. elections. Once Trump is no longer a "threat" to his ideological opponents (i.e. after Clinton wins) nobody will care about the negative aspects of Trump anymore. Our society has a ridiculously short memory.

I don't think his problems are going away. Here's a timeline of things to come for him.

Oct. 15 - Trump Foundation audit of financial records due to NY Attorney General - Trump Foundation subject to subpeanas and court.

Nov 28 - Trump University trial for fraud and racketeering

Dec 16 - Hearing scheduled in NY for child rape accusations from

He's going to be in the spotlight for a very long time. Especially if he creates his own news network and slams other moderate GOPers and democrats.

Oct 11, 2016

Once the election is over, the media will stop covering Trump incessantly unless Trump goes out of his way to get coverage (i.e. he wants it). Giant organizations are constantly in the process of some form of litigation, audit, etc. That really isn't as newsworthy as one might think. Losing a presidential election pretty much destroys your reputation for a good while and largely results in a media blackout since nobody cares about the person who almost became the most powerful person in the world. Given enough time, some people have been able to get their political careers back on track (i.e. Kerry and Nixon), but generally presidential election losers fade into history.

Oct 20, 2016

This shit is hilarious, the parts about his charity and trump university. Those are charges that literally could be leveled against Bill and Hillary any random day of the week, only aren't because they still wield political power.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 21, 2016

We agree!

Oct 20, 2016

I think Trump's brand is an interesting concept. I would say that most of the people on WSO are pretty smart and successful, they think for themselves, and can perform their own research... somewhat.

What makes Trump interesting to me is that he never really focused his "product line" on people like WSO users. HE goes for the exact opposite. People who are easily influenced and don't think ideas through all the way. There is a reason he has thousands of people show up for his BS repeated campaign talks with borderline zero content. This leads me to believe that the Trump brand won't actually get hurt as much as we think it should. BUT what you will see is that his children will probably lose out on some growth. The Donald will be hanging out in the penthouse playing with Melania and the other girls he wants to grab by the pussy :P

...

    • 3
Oct 20, 2016

Lol, OP did you honestly think this wasn't going to turn into a debate?

Oct 11, 2016

This is getting to the level of the "What car should a senior associate drive?" thread. Just more low brow.

Oct 21, 2016

Politics aside - I think Trump has always been a polarizing figure and brand. The people that are anti-trump were likely never really his customers. So while his "brand" may be getting bad press, I'm of the opinion that it won't really hurt him because much back lash is coming from non-customers. He brand never was some ubiquitous thing used by all - say Hilton - where the damage would likely be huge if a Hilton had a similar campaign. So while there might be some minor negative drag initially, I'm not sure there will be real long term repercussions, on the customer side. That said - I can see a potential for people that never liked dealing with Trump using it as an excuse to not do future deals with him. Ultimately people see green though so if the deal makes sense it will get done.

    • 1
Oct 21, 2016