ReportWire

Tag: market research

  • Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    With four weeks until Election Day, congressional candidates are on track to break midterm fundraising records, having raised nearly $2.5 billion so far this cycle. That’s already 70% more than what was raised during the 2014 cycle and just $200 million shy of the total raised during the full 2018 cycle.

    This cycle has also seen record-shattering outside spending, topping $1 billion through the beginning of October, according to an OpenSecrets estimate.

    The increase in spending and fundraising is due in large part to the involvement of millionaire and billionaire megadonors who have sought to influence the outcome of an election in which both chambers of Congress are in play.

    “When megadonors pump millions of dollars into super PACs, they get to help call the shots,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonpartisan political reform organization. “Massive spending from a megadonor can influence what issues are talked about on the campaign trail and in Congress.”

    Super PACs are independent political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money but are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate or campaign. Due to contribution limits, such as those restricting individuals’ candidate contributions to $2,900 per election per candidate, most megadonor spending goes to super PACs.

    More context: These are the basics of campaign finance in 2020 — in two handy charts

    A MarketWatch analysis of Federal Election Commission data through the end of September shows that these 10 business moguls and philanthropists are the biggest federal-level donors this cycle.

    Read: These 3 races could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the Senate in 2023

    And see: If this seat flips red, Republicans will have ‘probably won a relatively comfortable House majority’

    Top federal-level megadonors this cycle
    Rank

    Contributor

    Total Contributions

    For Republicans

    For Democrats

    Nonpartisan/Bipartisan

    1

    George Soros

    $128,782,000

    $0

    $128,782,000

    $0

    2

    Ken Griffin

    $50,955,800

    $50,955,800

    $0

    $0

    3

    Richard Uihlein

    $49,117,000

    $49,117,000

    $0

    $0

    4

    Sam Bankman-Fried

    $39,931,000

    $201,000

    $37,725,000

    $2,005,000

    5

    Jeff Yass

    $32,754,000

    $32,754,000

    $0

    $0

    6

    Peter Thiel

    $30,189,000

    $30,189,000

    $0

    $0

    7

    Fred Eychaner

    $22,343,000

    $0

    $22,343,000

    $0

    8

    Stephen Schwarzman

    $21,870,000

    $21,865,000

    $0

    $5,000

    9

    Larry Ellison

    $21,003,000

    $21,003,000

    $0

    $0

    10

    Ryan Salame

    $18,932,000

    $17,432,000

    $0

    $1,500,000

    Totals:

    $415,877,000

    $223,517,000

    $188,850,000

    $3,510,000

    Source: MarketWatch analysis of FEC data as of Sept. 30, 2022
    Note: Partisan breakdown includes non-party affiliated PACs with over 95% of their spending benefitting one party, data has been rounded to the nearest thousand

    Big spending by itself doesn’t automatically mean winning. There have been notable instances of the financially strongest candidates losing (such as crypto-backed House candidate Carrick Flynn earlier this year and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s self-financed presidential bid) — but money can certainly help put a candidate on the right track.

    “Money alone doesn’t guarantee electoral success, but every candidate prefers to be the one with more money to spend,” Beckel said. He added: “Outside spending on behalf of a candidate isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to guarantee electoral success. But it goes a long way to boosting somebody’s name recognition, and to presenting them as a viable candidate — somebody who has the resources to run a competitive campaign.”

    Information about the spending by the top 10 donors this cycle has been compiled from MarketWatch’s analysis of FEC data and filings, super PAC websites and previously reported comments. Read on to find out who are the top 10 biggest donors this cycle.

    10. Ryan Salame — $19 million

    Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, a subsidiary of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, founded a hybrid PAC earlier this year called American Dream Federal Action. The vast majority ($15 million) of the $19 million Salame has spent this cycle has gone into bankrolling the PAC, which has spent $2.4 million in independent expenditures supporting Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis, $2 million supporting Republican Senate candidate Katie Britt from Alabama, and $1.2 million each supporting Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman and Brad Finstad, a GOP congressional candidate in Minnesota.

    On its website, the PAC describes itself as “organization dedicated to electing forward-looking candidates — those who want to protect America’s long term economic and national security by advancing smart policy decisions now.” A representative for Salame didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    9. Lawrence Ellison — $21 million

    The co-founder of Oracle
    ORCL,
    +0.26%

    has similarly bankrolled a PAC this election cycle — giving a total $20 million to Opportunity Matters Fund Inc. The super PAC has largely held onto its funds so far, recent FEC records show, having $17 million cash on hand as of the end of August. Of the independent expenditures it has made this cycle, it spent the most on Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker ($1.3 million), Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson ($1.3 million) and North Carolina Senate candidate and current Republican Rep. Ted Budd ($1.1 million). A representative for Ellison didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    8. Stephen Schwarzman — $22 million

    Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of private-equity giant Blackstone
    BX,
    -2.41%
    ,
    is the eighth biggest donor at the federal level this cycle. In March, Schwarzman gave $10 million to both the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, super PACs aimed at obtaining a Republican majority in the Senate and House, respectively. A representative for Schwarzman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    7. Fred Eychaner — $22 million

    Fred Eychaner has also contributed $22 million so far this cycle, but unlike most of the spending on this list, his has been directed toward Democratic causes. The chairman of Chicago-based Newsweb Corporation has given $9 million to the House Majority PAC and $8 million to the Senate Majority PAC, as well as just under $1.5 million to the Democratic National Committee and several hundred thousands to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A representative for Eychaner didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    6. Peter Thiel — $30 million

    Venture capitalist Peter Thiel was heavily involved in backing Ohio Republican J.D. Vance’s primary bid, giving $15 million in the spring to the Vance-aligned Protect Ohio Values PAC.

    The massive primary investment was “historic” and record-setting, according to Beckel, who added that Thiel’s involvement in the Ohio Senate primary could mark “a new chapter of how mega donors are choosing to play in politics.”

    “I think it’s become clear for a lot of megadonors that there are high stakes to a lot of primaries, and by spending in the primary, where there is typically lower turnout than in say, a statewide general election, they can get a lot of bang for their buck by investing in a primary election,” Beckel added.

    Thiel has indicated that he doesn’t intend to put any more money toward Vance’s bid as he reportedly believes the Ohio candidate is on track to win, and instead will focus his funding on Arizona Republican Blake Masters’ bid to oust Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly in the final weeks leading up to the midterm election.

    Thiel, known for his roles in PayPal
    PYPL,
    -1.69%
    ,
    Palantir
    PLTR,
    -0.25%

    and Facebook
    META,
    -3.92%
    ,
    has also given a total $15 million to the Masters-aligned PAC, Saving Arizona, with his most recent contribution in July. Both Vance and Masters are venture capitalists, but Masters has worked with Thiel. He served as chief operating officer of Thiel Capital and president of the Thiel Foundation, and he co-authored a book on startups with Thiel in 2014. A representative for Thiel didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    5. Jeff Yass — $33 million

    Options trader Jeff Yass, who founded trading firm Susquehanna International Group, has contributed about $33 million on a federal level this cycle. Yass has given $15 million to the School Freedom Fund, or the equivalent of 97% of the PAC’s total fundraising. The group focuses on the issue of school choice, and its website states that some bureaucrats “hindered the development and education of our youth through school closures, mask mandates, critical race theory, and more.”

    Aside from the School Freedom Fund, Yass’ other biggest contributions are to the conservative Club for Action ($6.5 million), Kentucky Freedom ($5 million), Protect Freedom ($2 million) and Crypto Freedom ($1.9 million). A representative for Yass didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    4. Sam Bankman-Fried — $40 million

    Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and CEO of FTX, is the main funder behind Protect Our Future PAC, giving it $27 million of the $28 million it raised this cycle. 

    The organization says on its website that it focuses on promoting Democratic candidates championing pandemic preparedness and prevention “so this is the last time in our lifetime, and our children’s lifetimes, that we will face the devastation that has gripped communities across the U.S. since 2020.”

    The group spent more than $10 million supporting Democrat Carrick Flynn’s House bid in Oregon. Flynn lost his primary in May by 18 points despite his massive outside spending advantage. In addition to Flynn, the group has made over $1 million in independent expenditures each supporting Democratic congressional candidates Lucy McBath, a current representative from Georgia; Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Adam Hollier of Michigan, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Shontel Brown, a current representative from Ohio.

    Most of the other $10 million Bankman-Fried spent this cycle has gone to the House Majority PAC ($6 million) and the crypto PAC GMI ($2 million).

    While the vast majority of his spending has supported Democratic candidates and causes, Bankman-Fried does not classify himself as an exclusively Democratic donor — for instance he gave $105,000 to the Alabama Conservatives Fund in June and $45,000 to the NRCC in July. 

    He told Politico in August that he is “legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel … because I think it both misses what I’m trying to do and makes it harder for me to act constructively.” A representative for the FTX boss didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    3. Richard Uihlein — $49 million

    Richard Uihlein is the founder of the shipping and business supply company Uline, and is a longtime conservative donor. This cycle has seen nearly $50 million in political spending by him, with just over half of it going to Club for Growth Action. Uihlein has also given about $14 million to Restoration PAC, an organization that says it is “dedicated to strengthening the foundations that made America the greatest nation in the world: God, family, education, and community.”

    Uihlein’s next largest contributions are to the conservative Team PAC ($2.5 million) and the Arkansas Patriots Fund ($2.2 million), which earlier this year made ad buys favoring Republican Sen. John Boozman’s primary opponent. A representative for Uihlein didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    2. Ken Griffin — $51 million

    With $51 million in federal-level political spending, Ken Griffin, CEO of hedge fund Citadel, is the second most prolific donor this cycle.

    The biggest beneficiaries are the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund with $18.5 million in contributions, the Senate Leadership Fund with $10 million and Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that backed Republican Dave McCormick’s Senate bid. McCormick lost in the primary to Mehmet Oz by less than a thousand votes. 

    While Griffin spent about $64 million during the last cycle, his $51 million figure this year marks by far the most he has spent during a midterm cycle. During the 2018 cycle, his contributions totaled less than $8 million.

    A spokesperson for Griffin told MarketWatch that Griffin “supports leaders who are committed to protecting the American Dream and pursuing policies that will create a better future for the United States.”

    “The right policies will focus on creating rewarding jobs, prioritizing public safety, and investing in a strong national defense,” his spokesperson said. “Preserving the American Dream will require that every child is well educated, can access great healthcare, and has the opportunity to succeed.”

    1. George Soros — $129 million

    Not one donor comes close to matching the sum that billionaire philanthropist George Soros has contributed this cycle: $129 million. However, much of that money hasn’t actually been put to work this cycle.

    The majority of those on this list have focused their funding on Republican causes, but Soros’ money has gone to Democratic groups — specifically Democracy PAC II, whose $125 million in contributions comprises 99% of its fundraising. The super PAC spent more than $80 million on Democratic groups and candidates during the 2020 election.

    A representative for Soros pointed MarketWatch to a Politico article from January, in which Soros said the $125 million is aimed at supporting pro-democracy “causes and candidates, regardless of political party” who are invested in “strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law” and called his contribution a “long-term investment” that will  support political work beyond this year.

    So far this cycle, Democracy PAC has spent very little and holds $113 million in available cash. Contributions the PAC has made this cycle include $5 million to the Senate Majority PAC, $2.5 million to One Georgia and $1 million to both Care in Action and House Majority PAC.

    Source link

  • Dow falls 500 points Friday as stocks book third straight quarterly loss, set new 2022 lows

    Dow falls 500 points Friday as stocks book third straight quarterly loss, set new 2022 lows

    U.S. stocks dropped sharply Friday, with major indexes posting their lowest finishes since 2020 and logging a third straight quarterly decline as investors grew more fearful that aggressive interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve will drive the economy into a downturn in an attempt to quell inflation.

    What’s happening
    • The Dow Jones Industrial Average
      DJIA,
      -1.71%

      dropped 500.10 points, or 1.7%, to close at 28,725.51.

    • The S&P 500
      SPX,
      -1.51%

      dropped 54.85 points, or 1.5%, to end at 3,585.61.

    • The Nasdaq Composite
      COMP,
      -0.43%

      shed 161.88 points, of 1.5%, finishing at 10,575.61.

    The drop left the Dow and S&P 500 at their lowest since November 2020, while the Nasdaq posted its lowest close since July 29, 2020. The Dow dropped 8.8% in September, while the S&P 500 tumbled 9.3% and the Nasdaq lost 10.5%.

    For the quarter, the Dow dropped 6.7%, the S&P 500 declined 5.3% and the Nasdaq gave up 4.1%.

    What’s driving the market

    In keeping with the historical pattern, U.S. stocks suffered during the month of September as an assertive Federal Reserve helped push Treasury yields and the dollar higher, which in turn undermined equity valuations.

    See: It’s the worst September for stocks since 2008. What that means for October.

    Investors on Friday digested a reading from the personal consumption expenditure inflation index for August, which showed that core consumer prices climbed by 0.6% last month, more than Wall Street’s forecast of 0.5%. The core inflation measure excludes volatile food and energy prices.

    See: Cheaper gas holds down inflation, PCE shows, but the cost of everything else is still going up fast

    “That means the Fed will remain hell-bent on killing inflation. And the best way to do that is to increase rates, kill the housing market, and get rental costs down. The PCE doesn’t have housing and rents as a big component as the CPI does, so the fact that it is rising is a warning sign,” said Louis Navellier, founder of Navellier & Associates, in emailed comments.

    Read: Will October be another stock-market ‘bear killer’? Why investors need to tread carefully around seasonal trends.

    The reading largely confirmed similar data from the consumer-price index, another closely watched inflation barometer, which sent stocks lower earlier this month. Since that report was released just over two weeks ago, the S&P 500 has fallen more than 10%.

    Helping to underscore this point, data out of the eurozone showed inflation accelerated at a record pace last month.

    See: Eurozone Inflation posts new record high of 10% in September

    In other news, investors also heard from Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard, who reiterated that the central bank would keep interest rates elevated to combat inflation, even if it harms the economy.

    See: Fed won’t pull back from rate hikes prematurely, Brainard says

    Since it will take time for high interest rates to bring inflation down, Brainard said the Fed is “committed to avoiding pulling back prematurely.”

    Investors were also keeping an eye on megacap tech stocks. Apple Inc. AAPL fell 3% on Friday after leading markets lower a day earlier following a downgrade by Bank of America.

    Need to know: Here’s why investors should start betting on Apple and the stock market now

    A final reading on the University of Michigan consumer-sentiment index for September showed consumers’ view of the economy improved somewhat during the month due to falling gas prices, even as their outlook remained broadly pessimistic.

    Investors are now facing “what may be one of the most important earning seasons in a very long time, with a major rally in the cards if earnings don’t disappoint, and if the bears are right, lead to a further leg down if earnings disappoint and 4th quarter estimates are cut,” Navellier said.

    See: U.S. consumers remain pessimistic about economy even as inflation fears wane

    Stocks in focus

    — Steve Goldstein and Barbara Kollmeyer contributed to this article

    Source link

  • The Insights Association and AAPOR File FCC Petition Seeking Legal Differentiation for Marketing and Research

    The Insights Association and AAPOR File FCC Petition Seeking Legal Differentiation for Marketing and Research

    Press Release



    updated: Oct 30, 2017

    Seeking to clarify the regulatory distinction between the intent to market and sell to individuals and the dissimilar intent to understand market needs, the Insights Association and AAPOR have filed a petition with the FCC to secure “greater clarity” that will be “critical to restoring a measure of sanity to TCPA litigation.”

    “Courts and trial lawyers are conflating marketing research with marketing to the detriment of survey, opinion and marketing research companies,” said David W. Almy, CEO of the Insights Association. According to a petition filed today at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency needs to clarify that marketing research is separate and distinct from marketing for purposes of compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). “Research has a fundamentally different purpose than sales and marketing. That researchers have paid millions to settle an epidemic of TCPA lawsuits is unnecessary, unwarranted and very often absurd,” Almy added.

    With researchers already preyed upon by trial lawyers thanks to the FCC’s 2015 TCPA rules, … [the FCC] can take these simple steps to limit class actions based on misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the raison d’etre of marketing research.

    Howard Fienberg, Director of Government Affairs

    The petition, filed by the Insights Association, the leading trade association for the market research and data analytics industry, and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), which promotes the sound and ethical conduct and use of public opinion research, requested a declaratory ruling from the FCC that:

    1. communications should not be presumed to be advertising or marketing under the TCPA simply because they are sent by a for-profit company, or might ultimately be used at some future date to improve sales or customer relations;
    2. the presence in a communication, ancillary document or webpage revealing the identity of an organization conducting research – a level of transparency required by professional ethical codes – that can be mischaracterized as “advertising” does not make the communication “dual-purpose”;
    3. the FCC’s “vicarious liability” regime applies only to telemarketing and debt collection, not to survey, opinion, and market research firms; and
    4. survey, opinion, and marketing research studies are not goods or services provided to a research respondent, even if the studies involve an incentive for participation.

    “Selling under the guise of research, or sugging, is a practice condemned by AAPOR,” said Tim Johnson, AAPOR President. “It is incumbent on the FCC to differentiate between marketing research and marketing.”

    The petitioners noted some disturbing court decisions mistakenly “premised on the notion that businesses do not communicate with consumers except for the purpose of turning a profit,” and urged the FCC to recognize that, like all for-profit businesses, market research companies advertise and market their services only to research sponsors – “the clients on whose behalf the research is conducted” – and not to research respondents.

    Meanwhile, “the plaintiffs’ bar and some courts have begun using a loose interpretation of” FCC guidance to find hidden sales and marketing purposes inside marketing research phone calls and faxes.

    The petitioners regularly combat sales under the guise of research, a deceptive practice known as “sugging” in the research industry, which would constitute “pretext” for sales or marketing under the FCC’s guidance. By contrast, the Insights Association and AAPOR called upon the FCC to clarify that an instance as simple as a survey mentioning a corporate client in a survey question, or a research company discussing its own services in a privacy policy or website separate from a research study, does not prove the existence of any “dual purpose” – the communications would still constitute research, not marketing.

    Vicarious liability means that someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. The FCC has ruled before that calls placed by a telemarketer’s or debt collector’s agent should be treated as if the telemarketer or debt collector made the calls himself. The agency “could have simply stated that vicarious liability applies to all principal-agent relationships, but it did not do so,” asserted the petitioners. A recent class action court decision applied that same vicarious liability regime to a research company and the petitioners asked the FCC to clarify that such liability only applies to telemarketing and debt collection.

    The FCC has repeatedly said that marketing research is not telemarketing under the TCPA because research communications, in the words of the TCPA text, do not “[encourage] the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.” Similarly, the Insights Association and AAPOR asked the FCC to clarify that research studies themselves don’t “constitute property, goods, or services vis-à-vis the persons taking the surveys. These studies (and their results) are services provided to research clients, not consumers [who take surveys].” Although researchers often offer incentives for research participants in cash or prizes, “this is done only to ensure robust participation” in research studies.

    “With researchers already preyed upon by trial lawyers thanks to the FCC’s 2015 TCPA rules,” commented Howard Fienberg, director of government affairs for the Insights Association, the FCC “can take these simple steps to limit class actions based on misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the raison d’etre of marketing research.”

    ————

    The Insights Association is the leading trade association for the market research and data analytics industry. Inspired by the 2017 merger of CASRO and MRA, all Insights Association proceeds are invested in advocacy, education and other initiatives to directly support the marketing research and analytics community. Visit www.insightsassociation.org for more information.

    The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) is the leading professional organization of public opinion and survey research professionals in the U.S., with members from academia, media, government, the nonprofit sector and private industry. AAPOR promotes the sound and ethical conduct and use of public opinion research. Visit www.aapor.org for more information.

    Media Contact: 
    Howard Fienberg
    Phone: 202.800.2545 
    Email: howard.fienberg@insightsassociation.org

    Source: The Insights Association and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)

    Source link

  • Global Market for Outsourced Translation and Interpreting Services and Technology to Surpass US$43.08 Billion in 2017

    Global Market for Outsourced Translation and Interpreting Services and Technology to Surpass US$43.08 Billion in 2017

    Common Sense Advisory’s 13th annual independent study of the language industry shows growth continues due to global mobile, the internet of things, and on-demand offerings to support live chats, texts, and tweets

    Press Release



    updated: Jul 6, 2017

    The global market for outsourced language services and technology will reach US$43.08 billion in 2017, according to an independent study by market research firm Common Sense Advisory (CSA Research). CSA Research surveyed providers from every continent to collect actual reported revenue for 2015, 2016 and expected revenue for 2017. The firm found that the demand for language services and supporting technologies continues and is growing at an annual rate of 6.97%, representing an increase over last year’s rate of 5.52%. In its 13th annual global industry report, “The Language Services Market: 2017,” the firm details the findings of its comprehensive study.

    “The sheer number of countries, people, and languages – many of them in markets experiencing tremendous economic growth – assures that demand for language services will only increase over time. As our research conclusively demonstrates, people are much more likely to purchase products in their own language. In addition, localization reduces customer care costs and increases brand loyalty,” explains Don DePalma, CSA Research’s founder and Chief Strategy Officer.

    “The sheer number of countries, people, and languages – many of them in markets experiencing tremendous economic growth – assures that demand for language services will only increase over time. As our research conclusively demonstrates, people are much more likely to purchase products in their own language. In addition, localization reduces customer care costs and increases brand loyalty.”

    Don DePalma, Founder and Chief Strategy Officer, CSA Research

    As organizations both large and small make their products and services available in more languages, the firm predicts that the language services industry will continue to grow and that the market will increase to US$47.46 billion by 2021. Factors driving this demand include mobile, wearables, and the Internet of things (IOT); on-demand offerings to support live chat, texts, tweets, and other short-shelf content bits; and legislation requiring access to language services.

    Included in “The Language Services Market: 2017” are the largest language providers globally, as well as by region. The five highest-ranked companies on the list of the largest 100 commercially-focused language services companies, listed according to 2016 revenues, are Lionbridge Technologies (U.S.), TransPerfect (U.S.), LanguageLine Solutions (U.S.), HPE ACG (France), and SDL (UK).

    Primary data and insight in CSA Research’s 2017 independent study of the language services industry:

    • Current market size estimates for the language services industry along with a detailed description of the research methodology
    • Projected growth rates for the industry through 2021, including region-specific breakdowns
    • Rankings and revenues of the largest language services providers in the world
    • Critical benchmarks for LSP financial performance, including average revenue per employee and average revenue per salesperson
    • Regional rankings of the largest translation and interpreting companies in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Oceania, North America, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Western Europe
    • Trends in automation and spoken language technologies
    • Distribution of non-language-related revenue by service
    • Breakdown of the market with estimates by service for on-site interpreting, translation technology, machine translation post-editing, video remote interpreting, mobile and game localization, and other services
    • Breakdown of the market for technology sold by LSPs and technology providers with estimates for translation management, translation memory, terminology, machine translation, interpreting management, and other software

    “Embracing technology and diversification are key to continued growth for LSPs. Those that can successfully adopt machine translation and other technologies will find themselves able to grow quickly, but those that cannot find that their earnings stagnate,” comments DePalma. “Further, we see LSP handling more sophisticated content-centric tasks, morphing into global content service providers (GCSPs). As content is recognized as a top asset for corporations, GCSPs will develop specialized consulting skills and contribute to the industry’s continued growth.”

    About Common Sense Advisory

    Common Sense Advisory is an independent market research company helping companies profitably grow their international businesses and gain access to new markets and new customers. It provides primary data and insight to assist companies with planning, brand strategy, innovation, competitive positioning, and a better understanding of global markets. CSA Research helps clients to operationalize, benchmark, optimize, and innovate industry best practices in translation, localization, interpreting, globalization, and internationalization. For more information, visit: http://www.commonsenseadvisory.com or www.twitter.com/CSA_Research.

    Tweet: Global market for language services and technology will surpass US$43 billion in 2017 http://ow.ly/fBn830dg5ax via @CSA_Research #t9n #L10

    CSA Research contact: media@commonsenseadvisory.com

    Source: Common Sense Advisory

    Source link