Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. Now
Speaker 1: is the right time to pressure China on its trade
Speaker 1: policy because the US economy is strong enough to handle it.
Speaker 1: This according to President Trump's Kevin Hassett, he is the
Speaker 1: White House Council of Economic Advisor's chairman. Meanwhile, the price
Speaker 1: of soybeans falling to the lowest levels since at one
Speaker 1: point since now a lot of the tariffs that China
Speaker 1: is planning to impose on US goods will hit the
Speaker 1: farm belt. Joining me now to discuss this is Tom Halverson.
Speaker 1: He's chief executive of co Bank, which extends loans and
Speaker 1: other banking services to farms and other other wholesale and
Speaker 1: livestock producers. Thank you so much for joining me today, Tom, Um.
Speaker 1: I want to start with the price of soybeans falling
Speaker 1: and some of the other kind of market responses to
Speaker 1: China's tariffs. It seems like people are expecting the farm
Speaker 1: belt to get hit pretty hard. What are you hearing
Speaker 1: directly from the farmers who you work with, Yes, good morning, Lisa. Well,
Speaker 1: what we're hearing both from the level of production agriculture
Speaker 1: as well as their their cooperatives and other agribusiness who aggregate,
Speaker 1: process and sell their their products is meaningful amount of
Speaker 1: concern because the market is already starting to respond to this.
Speaker 1: As you indicate, the price of soybeans is falling as
Speaker 1: our other commodity products. And given that we export almost
Speaker 1: fifty all of the soybeans produced in the United States,
Speaker 1: we are particularly susceptible to changes in foreign demand for
Speaker 1: our products. Given that we export approximately of all US
Speaker 1: agricultural products, particularly susceptible. Can you talk about what you
Speaker 1: expect the financial consequences to be in real terms? Well,
Speaker 1: I would. I would contextualize that by saying, since the
Speaker 1: United States Department of Agricultures assessment of net farm income
Speaker 1: in the United States, it's off fifty since when it
Speaker 1: was at it's high. So while while the rest of
Speaker 1: the macro economy is generally doing quite favorably, the real economy,
Speaker 1: and generally agricultural economy in particular, is doing much less
Speaker 1: well right now as a result of commodity prices already
Speaker 1: having fallen significantly off the highs that they had three
Speaker 1: or four years ago. And so what we're anticipating is
Speaker 1: is the market is going to respond on hereby further
Speaker 1: falls potentially in in prices UH, and a lot of
Speaker 1: the product that that that is already an inventory or
Speaker 1: has now been planted for this year and this year's
Speaker 1: season UH is going to create new challenges from a
Speaker 1: pricing perspective as we have to find alternative markets potentially
Speaker 1: for these products. If these terroffts and these changes in
Speaker 1: market behavior and the underlying UH disagreements that we have
Speaker 1: with China and other important agricultural export market governments can't
Speaker 1: be resolved amicably and swiftly, do you think that there
Speaker 1: will be more defaults just from the financial perspective as
Speaker 1: the price falls of a lot of these commodities. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the pressure that's been building in in
Speaker 1: agricultural production in the United States over the last two,
Speaker 1: three or four years for the reasons I described, is
Speaker 1: likely to intensify. As I say, if these if these
Speaker 1: trade uh disagreements are not amicably and swiftly resolved, and
Speaker 1: and one consequence of that would of course be potentially,
Speaker 1: you know, more producers and other institutions involved in agricultural
Speaker 1: production and processing and the like falling into financial stress.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering whether people within the farming community view this
Speaker 1: as the US needing to capitulate or China needing to stop.
Speaker 1: I mean, are they viewing this in political terms or
Speaker 1: do they not really care? They just want the uncertainty
Speaker 1: to sort of end and allow things to get back
Speaker 1: to the way they used to be. Well, I think
Speaker 1: I think if you ask you know, ten or a
Speaker 1: hundred different people, you'll get ten or a hundred different opinions.
Speaker 1: All of them, I would suggest, would be very well informed.
Speaker 1: Because agricultural producers in the United States, being so significantly
Speaker 1: dependent on foreign export markets, are actually quite knowledgeable and
Speaker 1: sophisticated and understanding what's going on in places like China, Mexico,
Speaker 1: and Canada where a lot of their product is sold.
Speaker 1: And while they may have a thoughtful view about how
Speaker 1: best to resolve these issues, I think for the for
Speaker 1: the majority of people, what they want is for these
Speaker 1: issues to be resolved and for some certainty to come
Speaker 1: back into the marketplace, because they all know, as we do,
Speaker 1: that that this is not just an issue today. Over
Speaker 1: the next twenty years or twenty five years, we think
Speaker 1: there will be more than two billion more people on
Speaker 1: the earth, and of them will be in India, China,
Speaker 1: and Africa. And that is a substantial upside trade export
Speaker 1: opportunity for the United States, which has the world's most
Speaker 1: successful and efficient agricultural production complex uh and and for
Speaker 1: us to be able to capitalize on that opportunity over
Speaker 1: the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty years, we need certainty,
Speaker 1: and that certainty needs to be built on a foundation
Speaker 1: of access on a free, fair and equitable basis to
Speaker 1: foreign markets where people are going to need to buy
Speaker 1: our surpluses and they're gonna want to buy our surpluses
Speaker 1: because they're such high quality. Tom, just real quick here,
Speaker 1: we just have a better minute left. Which state do
Speaker 1: you think we'll get hit hardest by the tariffs? Uh?
Speaker 1: You know, it depends on how all of this plays out.
Speaker 1: And I can't tell you down to the down to
Speaker 1: the dime, but if you look at you know, you
Speaker 1: could answer that question almost specifically by commodity groups. So,
Speaker 1: for example, almost of the cotton produced the United States
Speaker 1: is is exported, right uh, Almost fifty of the soybeans
Speaker 1: are exported. A substantial portion of that goes to goes
Speaker 1: to China. While a lot of our soybeans come from
Speaker 1: the Midwest, including places like you know, Iowa, Illinois and
Speaker 1: other states. You know, it's the bread basket commodity producing
Speaker 1: states particularly that produce some of the highest volume products
Speaker 1: that may that may experience the most difficulties. Tom Haliverson,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining me today. Tom Halverson
Speaker 1: is President, chief executive officer of KO Bank, which extends
Speaker 1: loans and other banking services to farms and other agricultural
Speaker 1: producers across the US. It is hard to parse out
Speaker 1: the noise from what you really need to pay attention to.
Speaker 1: Right now, our next guest is going to talk about
Speaker 1: that process from an investment perspective. Aaron Kennon joins us now.
Speaker 1: He's co founder and chief executive officer of Clear Harbor
Speaker 1: Asset Management, which is based in New York. Aaron, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with me. And I just
Speaker 1: want to start with the idea that the top headlines
Speaker 1: today on this otherwise slow summer Monday has to do
Speaker 1: with children being taken from their families and immigrant Asian
Speaker 1: policy and who's to blame, and then you have a
Speaker 1: potential trade war with China and the US. This in
Speaker 1: the past few months has been noise for the markets
Speaker 1: that most people have tried to block out. What are
Speaker 1: you paying attention to right now? Well, thanks for having me, Lisa,
Speaker 1: And certainly we don't want to discount the importance of
Speaker 1: humanitarian concerns at the border, but we are keeping our
Speaker 1: eyes on the fundamentals of what's happening in the economy
Speaker 1: and trying to understand how that will impact various asset classes. So,
Speaker 1: for example, in the United States, we're we're still looking
Speaker 1: at a robust economic picture, both from the perspective of
Speaker 1: fundamental data like retail sales and consumption and sentiment, as
Speaker 1: well as frankly, that the underlying earnings, which as we
Speaker 1: know in Q one were really strong and we expect
Speaker 1: will be actually quite strong in Q two, based on
Speaker 1: a bunch of different data points that that we're looking at.
Speaker 1: I think that the story though on like two thousand
Speaker 1: and seventeen, Lisa, where we saw this sort of synchronized
Speaker 1: global growth story is that the Eurozone and even China
Speaker 1: to a great extent, they're hitting some speed bombs, and
Speaker 1: I think it's um It's it's not the tale of
Speaker 1: two stories because growth is still positive, but certainly UH
Speaker 1: there's much more to pass through at the moment. President
Speaker 1: Trump's UH top economic advisor today said that this is
Speaker 1: the time to start a trade skirmish with China because
Speaker 1: the US economy is strong enough to withstand any potential setback,
Speaker 1: even short term, given the fact that it's full speed
Speaker 1: ahead right now. Do you agree? I don't. I think
Speaker 1: the trade skirmishes are things that tend to happen in public,
Speaker 1: and I think very important policy matters, even with countries
Speaker 1: that are not our allies, but particularly countries that are
Speaker 1: and I'm not referring now to China, but countries like
Speaker 1: Canada and countries within the euro Zone. You deal with
Speaker 1: a lot of disagreements in private, because when you come
Speaker 1: to a conclusion, the other side is able to save
Speaker 1: face and move forward, and that has huge political benefits.
Speaker 1: So as much as I agree with some of the
Speaker 1: concerns that the current administration has with China and maybe
Speaker 1: even with some of our allies and reviewing things like NAFTA,
Speaker 1: I think the approach is somewhat flawed and that it's
Speaker 1: not allowing for them to achieve their own set objectives.
Speaker 1: So are you changing any of your trading strategies or
Speaker 1: your portfolios in response to some of these trade concerns
Speaker 1: or is that sort of all hypothetical at this point? Well, so,
Speaker 1: the real question on the trade war side is are
Speaker 1: we actually going to enter a trade war or is
Speaker 1: someone going to blank will be the US in the
Speaker 1: case of the U S and China? What could it
Speaker 1: be China. We don't know the outcome of that for sure,
Speaker 1: as it pertains to how we're thinking about clients and
Speaker 1: their portfolios. I mean, certainly one trend that's worth looking
Speaker 1: at that isn't specific to to trade wars, but its
Speaker 1: effect to a trend over the last six months is
Speaker 1: inflation versus growth. Inflation was a real concern as we
Speaker 1: sort of moved through the first quarter of this year.
Speaker 1: It seems to have subsided. The data suggests that that's
Speaker 1: warranted for it to be subsided um and now what
Speaker 1: we're seeing is a concern around growth, and so for
Speaker 1: the fixed income asset class. That's actually a bit of
Speaker 1: a positive thing, right, So if inflation were to go up,
Speaker 1: yields would probably trend higher, whereas if if growth were
Speaker 1: to slow down, yields were to trend lower. So that's
Speaker 1: sort of a roundabout wave me saying I don't mind
Speaker 1: nudging sort of fixed income average maturity or average duration
Speaker 1: towards a benchmark here, whereas the beginning of the year
Speaker 1: I had a tendency to be a little shorter duration.
Speaker 1: So we are making adjustments based on the economic fundamentals
Speaker 1: that are that are occurring before us, UM, but we
Speaker 1: were certainly not making predictions as to the likelihood of
Speaker 1: an all out trade war. So you've been lengthening the
Speaker 1: duration of your fixed income portfolio, Is that correct? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we we've We've been willing to to to move it
Speaker 1: modestly outward as tenure treasuries have risen call it, fifty
Speaker 1: basis points uh this year, and as the paradigm has
Speaker 1: shifted from inflation to growth concerns. UM, we think that
Speaker 1: it's a prudent thing for for us to do to
Speaker 1: not make a huge bet by being a short duration
Speaker 1: here at the moment as it pertains to equities. You
Speaker 1: know what's interesting is earnings growth has been very robust
Speaker 1: li so, but multiples forward multiples have come down, so
Speaker 1: the markets cheaper even as corporate earnings have proven uh stronger.
Speaker 1: So again we're we're not super bullish per se because
Speaker 1: we've had a hugeage point running the United States, but
Speaker 1: but we're still constructive. And I would also say that
Speaker 1: when you look at the duration of this expansion since
Speaker 1: the bottom of the Great Recession, or since the last
Speaker 1: expansion every peak in the fall of two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: the cumulative GDP that has occurred since that period is
Speaker 1: only about fifteen since so it's a very shallow expansion
Speaker 1: that we've had. Now some could view that as a negative.
Speaker 1: We view it as a positive, meaning that inventories haven't
Speaker 1: been able to overshoot and that the expansion may have
Speaker 1: many more months, many more quarters of legs here, unlike
Speaker 1: some of the other expansionary periods of the last hundred years.
Speaker 1: How concerned are you about the fact that non financial
Speaker 1: companies are increasingly levering up right now, especially given the
Speaker 1: fact that A. T and T and Comcast are poised
Speaker 1: to buy Time Warner and possibly the Fox assets and
Speaker 1: would end up with three hundred and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: of bonds and loans on their books. That's according to
Speaker 1: a study that was highlighted in the Wall Street Journal today.
Speaker 1: Does that worry you, I think on on in isolation,
Speaker 1: it doesn't worry us, or I should say in isolation,
Speaker 1: it could worry us. But when when when we look
Speaker 1: at the reality of where we are in the interst
Speaker 1: rate complex, where monetary authorities are around the world, it's
Speaker 1: just still a very easy money environment um with a
Speaker 1: lack of inflation, with the ECB still at the zero bound,
Speaker 1: and very devilish last week with Corona in Japan, very devish.
Speaker 1: And yes, the United States is a sort of ahead
Speaker 1: of the curve on on normalizing policy. We think that
Speaker 1: if global growth truly does decelerate meaningfully, they're going to
Speaker 1: hit the pause button. That's not our base case right now.
Speaker 1: We still think that one or two rate hikes this year,
Speaker 1: perhaps even two is possible. But M and A activity
Speaker 1: has been robust. The cost of money relative to historicals
Speaker 1: is still relatively inexpensive, so we're not particularly concerned about
Speaker 1: that at the moment. Thank you so much for being
Speaker 1: with me. Aaron Kennon is co founder and chief executive
Speaker 1: officer of Clear Harbor Asset Management, based in New York.
Speaker 1: Really interesting to hear this sort of on one hand
Speaker 1: and on the other we are getting to, uh, sort
Speaker 1: of the final innings, people say, although they've been saying
Speaker 1: that for years of a credit cycle. Yet earnings do
Speaker 1: look solid and expectations look solid going forward. We've entered
Speaker 1: an escalatory cycle of tit for tat trade dispute. UH.
Speaker 1: This is the conclusion to analysts led by Michael jesus
Speaker 1: over at Morgan Stanley, chief US public Policy and municipal
Speaker 1: strategist UH and Michael joins us. Now, Michael, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with me. So just let's start there.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that we're entering this cycle? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: so basically, I think the pattern of behavior now has
Speaker 1: made it pretty clear that this isn't just a negotiation. UM,
Speaker 1: that the US and its allies have some irustrating partners
Speaker 1: to demonstrates some fundamentally different views of the payoffs of trade.
Speaker 1: So what do I mean by that? Is at um
Speaker 1: and when the US acts and the U responds, the
Speaker 1: you or and or China responds, you know, the US
Speaker 1: is acting in a way where it thinks it's leveling
Speaker 1: the playing field. Trading partners are responding in the way
Speaker 1: they think is leveling the playing field, and by definition
Speaker 1: that means that they view the playing field differently, and
Speaker 1: you continue to escalate. That's problem one, and then problem
Speaker 1: too is um both sides kind of disagree on how
Speaker 1: to kind of break the circuit right, and so negotiations
Speaker 1: would be one obvious way, and it would seem, for example,
Speaker 1: that the negotiations between the US and China, we're going
Speaker 1: to or or thwart the initiation of the tariffs that
Speaker 1: were announced on Friday. But that didn't necessarily happen. And
Speaker 1: I think we got some insight into why that didn't
Speaker 1: happen when wilb Ross told our European allies that he
Speaker 1: didn't think that we couldn't negotiate um even after we've
Speaker 1: instituted tariffs there, so that the institution of tariff shouldn't
Speaker 1: they get um the possibility of negotiations. So in the
Speaker 1: European Allies, Beer clear view it differently, so you don't
Speaker 1: have an obvious circuit breaker, and you've got a dynamic
Speaker 1: which is escalatory and so therefore we think markets are
Speaker 1: going now going to have to think a couple of
Speaker 1: steps ahead. It's not just about pricing what the Section
Speaker 1: three or one tariffs are going to do the g
Speaker 1: d P. You have to think about what the retaliation
Speaker 1: and then the re retaliation means and when it accumulates together.
Speaker 1: Our concern is that we think we are kind of
Speaker 1: very close to unit offsetting all of the economic boost
Speaker 1: that was created this year by ciscal policy, both the
Speaker 1: tax cuts and the spending increases that were implemented. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's go down the rabbit hole. Okay, what comes
Speaker 1: next after the largely farm focused tariffs that China has
Speaker 1: already announced. So those tariffs are if if the US
Speaker 1: kind of follows what it's already said it would do
Speaker 1: there in the middle of investigating and UM its news
Speaker 1: is to be believed close to announcing, so perhaps sometime
Speaker 1: in the next few weeks and intention to teariff another
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars worth of UM Chinese imports, and
Speaker 1: if China holds true to what it's stated it would do,
Speaker 1: it would respond in kind, which would require another round
Speaker 1: of tariffs on inside. Now, one of the interesting things
Speaker 1: here is that UM China only imports about a hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty billion dollars worth of good so UM how
Speaker 1: it responds is a little bit murky, which is to say,
Speaker 1: perhaps it's gonna have to just further increase its tariffs
Speaker 1: to equate the economic damage, or well have to take
Speaker 1: some other retaliatory actions. But that's kind of the next
Speaker 1: level we think you have to count for there. And
Speaker 1: then in terms of UM Europe, the response on the
Speaker 1: steel aluminum tariffs, the US is flag that UM tariffing
Speaker 1: foreign imports of autos is probably the next step there
Speaker 1: that we have to account for. So those are the
Speaker 1: two things we're watching out for now. Hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: on tariffs, hundred billion tariffs dre billion dollars with the
Speaker 1: Chinese imports, and then foreign auto tariffs. Do you think
Speaker 1: that the market is taking this seriously, this risk of
Speaker 1: sort of a t for tat escalation. Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1: I think it's very hard to price in exactly how
Speaker 1: far this cycle goes before cooler heads prevail. So I
Speaker 1: think what you've seen in you know, the equity markets,
Speaker 1: for example, is I think it kind of healthy respect
Speaker 1: for the unknown of this dynamic, it kind of sinks
Speaker 1: with the view of our US equity strategy team, which
Speaker 1: is that we're gonna be kind of range bound for
Speaker 1: the balance of the year fifty price target and the
Speaker 1: SMP with a range between twenty and twenty nine because
Speaker 1: you know, ultimately we priced in at the end of
Speaker 1: last year all the sort of benefits of the U. S.
Speaker 1: Public policy agenda, i e. The fiscal impulse that we
Speaker 1: got and you know, pe multiples peaked basically the day
Speaker 1: that Senate the Senate passed UH tax reform, and now
Speaker 1: we're in the middle of frightening in kind of the uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the the less desirable parts of the U S.
Speaker 1: Public policy agenda, and that means that we uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we of a road the benefits that were priced in
Speaker 1: at the end of the last year. So having kind
Speaker 1: of a range bound, choppy and ultimately you know, kind
Speaker 1: of a flattish market for the year makes sense to us.
Speaker 1: We think these things are perhaps less than the price
Speaker 1: if you look at the credit markets, which are still
Speaker 1: hovering around all time tights, and I think the rates
Speaker 1: markets over the course that you're going to show this
Speaker 1: more through even flatter curves and ultimately a lower tenure
Speaker 1: yield by the end of the year. Michael Jesus, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with me. Your report was
Speaker 1: fascinating and really illuminating, a really interesting way to look
Speaker 1: at the fact that there isn't really a circuit breaker,
Speaker 1: in your words, to change this cycle of the US
Speaker 1: threatening tariffs, imposing them, and then the European Union in
Speaker 1: China retaliating in kind. Michael Jesus is chief US Public
Speaker 1: Policy and municipal strategist for Morgan Stanley in New York.
Speaker 1: The new era of advertising is really interesting because it's
Speaker 1: hard to know how companies should really be measuring the
Speaker 1: efficacy of their advertisements on platforms such as Twitter and
Speaker 1: Instagram and Facebook. Well. Jamie Gilpin focuses on this in
Speaker 1: part as her role as chief marketing officer at Sprout Social.
Speaker 1: She joins us, Now, Jamie, uh, your company just put
Speaker 1: out a fascinating study taking a look at just how
Speaker 1: companies are using social media, the fact that Facebook is
Speaker 1: still the key the key social media platform that they use,
Speaker 1: and the efficacy of some of these ads. Can we
Speaker 1: just start with Facebook? Why does Facebook have such sticking
Speaker 1: power as the influencer sure, and thanks for having me
Speaker 1: really excited to talk about this. UM. There's so much
Speaker 1: data in this report, UM, and you're right, we really
Speaker 1: did focus on UM or actually the day to have
Speaker 1: really brought to light UM the focus on our o
Speaker 1: I and how marketers UM, all of us are thinking
Speaker 1: differently about the social channels and and ultimately the value
Speaker 1: they provide UM to our overall business strategy, not just marketing. UM.
Speaker 1: And so you asked about Facebook, UM. You know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: We talked about this a lot internally. You know, Facebook
Speaker 1: was in a lot of ways sort of the first
Speaker 1: social UM, the first social channel or platform or network,
Speaker 1: and so it's still because of that, you know, the
Speaker 1: Kleenex if you will, UM, it's still has you know,
Speaker 1: the the lion share of both usage from a consumer perspective, UM.
Speaker 1: You've seen the report, it's it's upward of consumers use Facebook. UM.
Speaker 1: But also on the marketer side, so marketers using UM
Speaker 1: Facebook as one of their their major platforms. But what
Speaker 1: I asked those thought was really interesting, UM, because the
Speaker 1: data also shows the usage and so while it's still
Speaker 1: one of the most popular networks from both a consumer
Speaker 1: and from a marketer's point, of view. UM. Consumers are
Speaker 1: starting to tell us that we're they're using Facebook, lass
Speaker 1: and they're starting to use Instagram more right, they're starting
Speaker 1: to use UM, YouTube, some of these other platforms more
Speaker 1: UM than than perhaps the Facebook and some of the
Speaker 1: early entrance. So just let's take a step back for
Speaker 1: a second, and when a company decides how to engage
Speaker 1: on social media with potential customers, how do they determine
Speaker 1: whether their messages getting across effectively? Sure, and a lot
Speaker 1: of this comes back to UM sort of the traditional
Speaker 1: use cases of UM of listening or analytics UM. You know,
Speaker 1: they've been around for a while. Actually, most organizations have
Speaker 1: have been invested or investing in in these types of
Speaker 1: UM sort of tools to help them here just actually
Speaker 1: get insight into your exact question, UM, are we the
Speaker 1: messages that we're putting out there, are they resonating with
Speaker 1: our target audience? Because we we also hear a lot
Speaker 1: of from brands UM, you know, just meeting with several
Speaker 1: over the last few weeks, UM around. You know, the
Speaker 1: audience on my social channels are for sure the kid
Speaker 1: maybe of the parents who are making the decisions UM
Speaker 1: to to buy certain products. UM. But how do we
Speaker 1: really understand you know, the power or the influence of
Speaker 1: those of that audience that we're reaching out to UM
Speaker 1: and then more importantly, how do we ensure that we're
Speaker 1: actually getting the audience that we need? And that really
Speaker 1: comes back to again, a lot of these listening in
Speaker 1: analytics tools UM that that that many brands are invested.
Speaker 1: Hold on a second. When you say listening in analytics,
Speaker 1: it's it's things like people clicking on an AD or
Speaker 1: people you know, just going and shopping on that on
Speaker 1: a website after visiting Facebook, which they could probably get
Speaker 1: some insight into based on the cookies. Is that the
Speaker 1: kind of okay exactly, I started to take a step back.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'm so far into this UM that that I
Speaker 1: realized that that others don't have the sort of the context.
Speaker 1: So so yeah, I think of that exactly like listening
Speaker 1: at a broad scale. But there are tools that can
Speaker 1: aggregate all of those different touchpoints that you just went
Speaker 1: through UM to to give you insight into what's happening
Speaker 1: at a broader So you're saying that you are starting
Speaker 1: to notice that people are spending a little bit less
Speaker 1: time on Facebook and going to YouTube or Twitter, Instagram instead.
Speaker 1: Our companies are marketers responding to that by advertising less
Speaker 1: or putting less of a focus on Facebook than perhaps
Speaker 1: they have uh in the recent past. No, and the
Speaker 1: main reason is just because consumers are saying they're using
Speaker 1: it less. Um. They're still using it quite a bit,
Speaker 1: I mean parts of twelve hours a week, right, but
Speaker 1: consumers are spending on Facebook. So it is still a
Speaker 1: very powerful networking platform for both consumers and and brands
Speaker 1: and quite frankly for that connection between the two. Um.
Speaker 1: But you are starting to see, and this is what
Speaker 1: the data UM shows in the study, UM, that that
Speaker 1: markers are starting to take a more serious look UM
Speaker 1: at Instagram and Twitter in particular. UM. Still trying to
Speaker 1: figure out Pinterest, UM, still trying to figure out YouTube. UM.
Speaker 1: You know some of the definitely Snapchat, Um not quite
Speaker 1: uh you know, to the level of of some of
Speaker 1: the other new entrants. But but again, you know, we're
Speaker 1: dipping our toes and we're trying to figure out how
Speaker 1: we use these networks to make that ultimate connection that
Speaker 1: we're trying to drive. Just real quick here, I'd love
Speaker 1: to get your take on whether social media budgets in
Speaker 1: general have been increasing by marketers and just the scope
Speaker 1: of of just how much more uh, they're putting towards
Speaker 1: social media. Sure, yeah, I found this actually really interesting. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, we talked you know at the very beginning
Speaker 1: of this conversation around r o I return on investment. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: return on investment and really turn honestly return on effort UM,
Speaker 1: because this is more than just UM, it's more than
Speaker 1: just budgets, is also people as well, and so um,
Speaker 1: while marketers are are having a challenge really um applying
Speaker 1: a direct return on investment from their social efforts, they
Speaker 1: are still absolutely making an investment here. But what's interesting
Speaker 1: is they're making it with their budget. So of marketers
Speaker 1: are saying they're going to allocate more budget to social
Speaker 1: marketing and that um that comes by ads, that comes
Speaker 1: by by tools. Right, there's lots that goes into that.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting on that is only said that they're
Speaker 1: going to hire more staff. So while you know, and
Speaker 1: that's where that sort of that lever was, we think
Speaker 1: about marketers, the staff is a longer term investment and
Speaker 1: so UM, while I see, while I know and I
Speaker 1: have confident in this platform and networks as a as
Speaker 1: a huge opportunity to communicate and more importantly, connect with
Speaker 1: my customer and consumer base. UM. I'm willing to put
Speaker 1: more budget there, but I'm still trying to figure out
Speaker 1: the staff side. UM, and so I think there's a
Speaker 1: really interesting nuance there in the data. Jamie Calvin, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining me today. Jamie Gilpin is
Speaker 1: chief marketing officer for Sprout Social. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm Pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Pam Fox. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo wits one.
Speaker 1: Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio