I have an on/off switch along with a channel changer and use them regularly particularly with Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews. That is how I exercise my disgust with their antics.
Here, I'll do you one better. I'll show you some very simple ways as to why Beck won't survive for long and prove how there is absolutely no way that Beck hasn't lost serious ad revenue:
He's being put as a headliner with other prominent figures of FOX.
Howard Kurtz - The Beck Factor at Fox: Staffers say comments taint their work - washingtonpost.com
When you have one program losing viewers and another which is going strong, networks usually try to remedy the situation by putting a weak show behind a popular one so as not to lose potential sponsors. That's pretty sound business logic only that the problem in not Beck losing viewers. It's Beck losing major sponsors. When you start losing Apple, Progressive, Best Buy etc. it's safe to say that it's the result of 3 possible issues:
A) Companies don't want to be associated with you
B) Your message is too extreme
C) You're boring.
Right off the bat we can scratch C. Beck isn't boring. If he were, he wouldn't have 2-3 million viewers. So what is the issue? Well what company wants to be associated with the guy who calls the President a racist? What company wants to be associated with a guy who has predicted the end of the world? You ever wonder why people like Ron Paul have trouble getting corporations to support him even though he's probably the most free market representative of congress? Is because nobody wants to be associated with the guy who wants to remove the US from the UN. It's not the few parts he gets right. It's how extreme he is.
Now, as far as Beck losing revenue is concerned, I'll show you how:
Glenn Beck Is Losing Money For Fox | Manolith
What a network can charge for ads is not dictated by the actual number of viewers but by the demographics of the people in the audience. If Beck's demographic is made up primarily of people in between the 18-49 groups, he would be able to charge more per ad than somebody who has their audience divided amongst different demographics. Don't get me wrong, a loss of 1/3rd of your viewers is clearly a problem but it's not as big a problem as losing 200 sponsors. Corporations tend to look at each other for where to spend their ad ressource. When you have not one but dozens of car companies, insurance companies and electronics retailers pulling their money out of your show, that sends a strong signal for others to do the same.
So how is Beck losing revenue? Well it's simple, the fact that he now has to sell ad space to people who can't afford the rates you'd charge people like Walmart or Coca-Cola means a giant loss in revenue. As it's impossible to tell just how much one can only say that it's substantial. There's no way that it can't be. Beck can't charge them the same rates he would to transnational corporations and he's losing new sponsors with every ridiculous comment and assertion he makes. He's essentially paying them to stay on.
Then you shouldn't have any problem proving that Fox News is losing money on the Glenn Beck show?
http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/glenn-beck-revenue-halved-by-ad-boycott/2994
Advertising revenue on Glenn Beck’s Fox News Channel show has dropped by half, from about $1 million to $492,000 a week, according to the group that organized the boycott of his show. Here’s a chart of his revenue cliff:
At one time, the boycott seemed irrelevant because Beck had such a massive audience for his daytime show, 3 million people. Now he has only about 1.4 million, according to Nielsen. (Most recent numbers: 1.5 million.) So the show’s financial troubles are compounded: In addition to not selling enough full-price inventory to fill out the show, each individual slot is worth less because it delivers fewer ratings points.
Why does News persist? Although Beck still gets nearly triple the viewers of his competitors, it is not likely that Fox is standing behind him for business reasons. It would be much more lucrative for CEO Rupert Murdoch to demand that Beck apologize and move on. Then Nestle et al. could come back and everything would return to normal. Rather, this is as another case in which News is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Murdoch believes Beck is “right,” and he seems to be insisting that he’s not going to let liberal boycotts or his sympathetic clients push him around.
2.6 million
Nightly viewership of Beck's Fox News show, which is co-produced by Mercury Radio Arts
200+
Advertisers — including UPS, Sprint and GEICO — that have decided to boycott Beck's TV show based on his controversial comments (most notably the assertion that President Obama has "a deep-seeded hatred for white people")
I too use my off/on switch for both on air personalities. I make sure MSNBC is on for both shows. Schultz is paticularly outstanding and his work on the Wisconsin struggle has been among the best in the nation.
I did. Loss in major transnational sponsors is loss in revenue. Are you asking for actual numbers to what is a fact of free market economics in the media world? More proof that your work in the business world wasn't above bagging somebody's vegetables.
So either more PG13 viewers bought things than PG-MA viewers do, if your ratings facts are correct. That could indicate better marketing / targeting of product and services for the audience viewers or, it identifies a better match between viewers and products/services being advertised.
So either more PG13 viewers bought things than PG-MA viewers do, if your ratings facts are correct. That could indicate better marketing / targeting of product and services for the audience viewers or, it identifies a better match between viewers and products/services being advertised.
I did. Loss in major transnational sponsors is loss in revenue. Are you asking for actual numbers to what is a fact of free market economics in the media world? More proof that your work in the business world wasn't above bagging somebody's vegetables. Here, so that you'll quit your lame trolling:
Why don't you take your services to News Corp and tell them how to run a business. The TV has an off/on and channel button. use them. You don't like Beck, fine but it isn't your decision whether or not he stays on the air. His ratings are still tops in the time slot and beats his competitors by three times.
No, actually you just showed that he has different sponsors now. You presented no proof that he is charging his new sponsors less or that his revenue has dropped.
You sure seem to have a lot invested in driving Beck off the air and the question is why? As stated, it isn't your decision ot make and since Fox doesn't post data on their financials all you do is speculate. Fox profits continue to set records as do their ratings.
Here is Beck outlining just one of the people behind the "boycott"
Van Jones creates anti-police school curriculum – Glenn Beck
Nice guy that Van Jones
j-mac
Well, you are sorta right, but mostly wrong. There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't think a TV personality should have a job. If you can get enough people, and more importantly advertisers, to agree with you, you might even get your way. This too is part of that capitalism thing. It has nothing to do with telling any one how to run their business, that is pure nonsense.
His ratings relative to his competitors though as we have shown you repeatedly is only partially relevant. His ratings compared to the ratings FOX thinks they can get in the timeslot, and the number and quality of advertisers they can get with or without Beck is the real issue.
I did. Loss in major transnational sponsors is loss in revenue. Are you asking for actual numbers to what is a fact of free market economics in the media world? More proof that your work in the business world wasn't above bagging somebody's vegetables. Here, so that you'll quit your lame trolling:
Glenn Beck Cost Fox Millions and Lost Half His Audience, but News Corp. Stands Behind Him | BNET
Glenn Beck's empire: By the numbers - The Week
Honestly.
Explaining to you the free market is not trying to drive Beck off the air, no more than the people who bitch and moan about every move Olbermann makes where trying to drive him off the air. Less even.
Capitalism is about satisfying the customer and making revenue for the country. Beck's ratings top his time slot and triple his competitors and Fox News has record profits therefore IMO they aren't overly concerned about speculation here about whether or not Beck is losing business since no one here knows for sure. A lot here want Beck off the air for their own partisan reasons. Doubt that News Corp is paying a lot of attention.
I don't recall an organized boycott to drive Olbermann off the air.
I too use my off/on switch for both on air personalities. I make sure MSNBC is on for both shows. Schultz is paticularly outstanding and his work on the Wisconsin struggle has been among the best in the nation.
Capitalism is about supply and demand. If the demand for ad space drops, revenue drops. Econ 101.
I just posted it Beck's weekly loss in revenue. Quit being such a dishonest little boy.
You know, it does not mention Beck at all. Funny that.
Why does it have to mention Beck? Beck is part of News Corp and no one here knows whether or not he is losing money for Fox. We shall see shortly as his contract is up in December
Well, let's see. Let's imagine that O'Rielly pulls in 2 million a week profit, and Beck loses a half million a week. Is FOX making money? So just posting that News Corp is making money has exactly jack **** to do with whether Beck is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?