Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Murphy Putnam Likely to Handle Richardson Media

According to The Fix, Democratic media firm Murphy Putnam is likely to be handling the bulk of media work for Governor Richardson's presidential campaign.
Speaking of Democratic media firms, one of the largest -- Murphy Putnam Shorr -- is splitting up. Saul Shorr, who joined Steve Murphy and Mark Putnam in July 2004, has decided to go out on his own again. Murphy and Putnam have been partners since 1996 and will remain so following Shorr's departure. Murphy Putnam is expected to be the lead media consultant for the likely presidential bid of Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.)
If you run a Google search under Murphy Putnam Schorr (the firm's former name since partner Saul Schorr is striking out on his own), you can go see their website.

I don't know about you, but I'm completely unimpressed with the "access denied" message I'm getting from the Murphy Putnam website. I hope this isn't a sign that they don't get the online medium. Hopefully, it's a website redesign or something along those lines.

I'll revisit the website in the next few days and see if it's back up and running.

1/4/07 - Update: Murphy Putnam's website is up and running, click on the link above.

5 Comments:

At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Lilith said...

I'm equally unimpressed with their track record. According to CPI, for '03-'04, out of 26 candidates and more than $17 mil, their only wins were incumbents and one open seat. For all of the remaining open seats, their candidates lose, and every single challenger lost.


See http://www.public-i.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=109515

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous Mark Putnam said...

Lilith,

You shouldn't believe everything you read online.

1) In 2004, we produced the media for challenger John Barrow's upset win over Rep. Max Burns in Georgia's 12th District, one of only two Democratic upsets in 2004. John Barrow, for whatever reason, does not appear on the Public-I list of our clients, which is an indicator of the site's reliability.

There were five Democratic incumbents defeated that year, mostly in Texas thanks to Tom DeLay's redistricting plan. 2004 was not a good year for Democratic congressional candidates across the country. After 2006, it's easy to think that Republican incumbents are easily defeated, but that was not the case in 2004. You can go to this CNN website to see for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/house/full.list/

2) There are many errors and misrepresentations in the Public-I website that you source, not the least of which is that John Barrow is left off the list of our clients. By using the word "received," the Public-I website leaves the impression that our firm's compensation was over $17 million in 2003-2004, which is laughable. Ask Rep. Carson if he paid us over $4 million. He didn't pay us anything even remotely in that universe. Those dollar amounts include media buys and production expenses (at no markup, by the way) that were channeled through our firm.

3) Of the losing challenger races you refer to in your post, some of them never got on the air in any serious fashion or were facing steep uphill battles from the outset. Again, it was a difficult year for Democrats to defeat incumbent Republicans -- only two succeeded, one of which was our client.

4) In 2004, we won an open seat special election in one of the most Republican states in the country -- South Dakota -- with Rep. Herseth's two-point victory over Larry Diedrich. Her "incumbent" victory cited on the Public-I website was a few months later, when she faced Diedrich again and widened her margin of victory.

In fact, I'd put our "red state" winning record up against anyone, including winning two gubernatorial campaigns in 2002 (TN and OK), another year in which Republicans dominated. One of which, Governor Henry, was a long-shot when he began the campaign. He defeated Steve Largent in what the New York Times called one of 2004's biggest upsets.

So Lilith, before you cast aspersions, you should really research the whole record.

With regards,

- Mark Putnam

 
At 10:15 PM, Blogger Ken Camp said...

Mark,

Thanks for your comment. My question to you is, though I've been able to view your company's website with the link I posted, I've received e-mail saying others could not. Do you or your tech staff know what is going on? Are you doing a re-design that keeps your website frm being active from time to time?

 
At 6:31 AM, Anonymous M. Putnam said...

Ken,

With the changes in our firm, we're making some changes to the website. I'm not sure when it will be back up, but hopefully soon.

- Mark

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger Ken Camp said...

That's understandable, thanks for the info Mark.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home