Wall Street, famous for its Bull markets (that go up) is experiencing a bit of a Bear market.

A “Bear Market” is what they call a pessimistic market. The expression, ironically, has nothing to do with JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s contraversial bailout for the sinking investment firm, Bear Stearns. Bear Sterns (used to) provide lines of credit to subprime lenders in the US. This explains why Bear Sterns is now seeking (and receiving, to the consternation of some analysts) a two-pronged nudge from two of the Bulls still active on Wall Street.

The idea is to stave off the “ripple effect” of another firm flailing in the turbulent tides of the current economy. Combined with the Bush “trickle down” economic policies, it’s obvious the United States is trying to steady a very shaky financial float. European and Asian financial and political leaders are also sending out aids and advice, responding to the American SOS before the rough waters spread.

But online, people are still trading–stock that is, not economic mishaps. Online trading sans the professional broker is catching on, and sites like Zecco and thinkorswim are earning reputations for low cost and accessibility. Sentiment seems to suggest that if the big guys can play, why can’t we?

As blogs and columns proliferate the financial pages of the Internet offering advice and suggestions about what to buy, when and where, there is no lack of data for use (or misuse) by curious Internet users. A funny thing about a bad economy, losing is so ubiquitous that it becomes less of an issue–its winning that counts. So while the Bears and Bulls on Wall Street may be holding their breath, this as yet tiny online trend suggests that not everyone is submerged in doubt.

Attentio is tracking the United States Democratic primaries in two separate projects.

Project one tracks the overall popularity of the Democratic candidates in social media.

While Hillary Clinton and Obama have about equal coverage in the news, Barack Obama is one of the most popular personas in the blog-o-sphere, outstriping Clinton (and McCain) in several social media sources.

Project two follows issues and then candidates. The project links issues that are important to the American people with the names of the candidates. In this project, Clinton (that is, Hil) consistently rates higher than Obama in relation to the issue.

Hillary ranks higher in correlation to Iraq, to health care, and to the economy. Clinton even outranks Obama in relation to one of his pet policies, education. Clinton outstrips Obama here in both English and that language of increasing importance in the USA, Spanish.

The US and the world are smitten with Obama, it’s true. He’s good-looking, idealistic, and popular enough to win the couer of the people if not the Democratic candidacy. Clinton complains she’s become the damned in the media, while they darling Obama. Clinton claims that her policies are more practical and her politics more tested. But does that matter if Obama can win the heart of the people?

Barack might be fit enough for the media, but is he fit to lead the country? Buzz suggests possibly not, as he’s not well-connected to the issues that the US citizens hold dear. But in the modern culture of cult celebrity, one need not be connected to anything to sell clothes, magazines, or, well, anything really. In such a climate, is it really necessary that Obama push his abilities and policies, or is he safe enough to simply sit back and watch his general popularity grow?

What wins an election, word of mouth (WOM) or experience?

(Oscar) Prestige does not a profit make.

The Oscar wins came out at the end of February, and social media is still abuzz discussing (some of) the results. But how does this extra attention from the mysterious Academy translate into profits?

The Oscars aren’t the only awards in the modern market, and the movies that make it to the Oscar roster top the lists at several international film shows. Many are former independents, like Juno, that first reached audiences at what has become the draft lottery of future studio releases, the Sundance Film Festival. These are the award films, those moving pictures made to move the motivated audience. More and more, these are the films that make it to the ceremonies, the Pulitzers in the ever-expanding world of motion pictures.

What about the crowd-pleasers, the gems of popular genre? The Fool’s Gold of our modern cinematic landscape, movies made to sell dvds following a mediocre theater run. These (relatively) cheap and charming money-makers are the bread and butter of the movie industry. Then there are the action-filled spectacles-films designed to attract an audience to the big screen, as with the colourful and grimly vibrant (punny, aren’t I) Sweeney Todd.

Tracking movies online separates the one-hit-wonders and the fluff from the cult classics. Some movies are designed to sustain long term sales, not only of the film itself but the cultural icons, the books, scripts, the “making of”, photos, posters, T-shirts, newspapers, back-packs, pins, journals, re-packaged “special” dvds…These are the movies that today make an actor or a director a deity in the pop culture parthenon. Movies that make it into this category attract not just long-term attention, but permanent adulation.

And the film this year with top billing in the Buzz is…

It’s no secret that the British are royally PO-ed about their ailing public health system. Understaffed and underfunded, hospitals are unable to respond to demand. Media accuses clinical beds of breeding superbugs. Patients criticise doctors for hit and run diagnoses that fail to satisfy. Treatments are increasingly compared online as being inconsistent and worse, ineffective.

Not surprisingly, political Buzz has turned to public health. How to create and condition a more healthy, happy population? Politicians do the usual teetering between sympathising with and “constructively criticising” their health care constituents. But really, it’s the Buzz online that is connecting the health care consumer.

Parents trade local treatment regimens and the different Brand names of generic antibiotics. Patients compare doctors and prescriptions. (We may not be that far from a rate-a-doc, like the rate-a-prof created by US university students). Patients of chronic conditions are given the de facto status of experts in experience online, and they dispense support and advice with more speed (and more consideration, according to their networks) than the educated, expensive experts that haven’t got the time to listen.

What the patients say, why they say it, and to whom promises to radically alter the business of medicine. Pharmaceuticals, health officials, and local and national health care policies are all being actively reviewed online. Already, patients can order medication from online pharmacies in different countries. What they buy, where they buy it, and what they think about both choices makes for an interesting study already underway at Attentio.

Anders has set up buzztrend.eu that looks at mainly political buzz arising from blogs and forums. Its a nice site especially as he is using our data. Some good stuff there on the US elections and how EU commissioners compare. He’ll also be following the US elections through 2008 and next Spanish vote.