Thread: The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

Originally Posted by danarhea

As of now, 98 sponsors have pulled their ads from the Glenn Beck Show, and a few of them have pulled their advertising from FOX News entirely. This amounts to about 50% of the ad revenue for Glenn Beck's show. In it's place, FOX News has begun running ads for The Foundation for a Better Life, a non-profit which does not pay for advertising, in order to fill up unsold ad slots for the show.



Note that the graph reflects only up to the end of the third quarter of 2009, but the data has gotten even worse for Fox News since then.

There are 2 aspects to this, that is causing the money drain from the Glenn Beck show:

1) The direct loss of revenue, due to advertisers pulling out.

2) The price per minute of advertising for this time slot also decreases, not necessarily as a result of fewer viewers, which would normally set the price, but due to the effort required to refill those slots, which means offering special deals to companies to advertise. Actually, here is where FOX was able to get a couple of advertisers to break the boycott, and advertise again. However, this still translates into money lost from this slot.

Running extremist programming has its advantages, in capturing a segment of the market, but also has its downside, as witnessed here. Of course, FOX News has the right to run whatever programs it wishes. At the same time, if you adhere to free market principles, advertisers have the right to advertise wherever they wish.

The activists that got the advertisers to pull their advertising from Glenn Beck and Fox News did it without making threats. All they did was point the advertisers to the content of the Glenn Beck Show, and the advertisers did the rest. It is a fact that companies want their products' advertising to be invested in shows which best reflect their values, both personal and corporate. If advertisers are leaving the Glenn Beck Show in droves, then perhaps it is not the fault of the advertisers, or even that of the activists, but in the "core" ethics and values contained in the show that is losing the revenue.

Have you called News Corp and told them that their financial release showing numbers through Sept. 2009 are false and that the leftwing blogs have a better picture of their financial performance? You probably should call the SEC as well since obviously News Corp is cooking the books and lying to shareholders.

News Corp website has their Sept. 30, 2009 financial statement that shows record profits and the highest revenue in their history. Wonder where they got their numbers as apparently they forgot to give you a call.

And Conservative attempts a poisoning the wells.

And thanks for showing you still can't read. It's not about Fox's as a single entity profit. It's about a single show.

Apparently you can't figure out there's a difference between the Beck Show and Fox as a single corporation.

More fail train tickets on the way!!!!

Originally Posted by obvious Child

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-m...post1058482686 (The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money)

See post #1.

Nice fail there Gill.
You too Conservative.

I hear by dub you two the "Homosexual Fail Kings of DP"

I like how you made such comments without realizing the first post had all of the necessary information.

I do oh so love blowhards bashing others without realizing that the evidence was right there from the start. It is amusing how none of you have the intellectual capacity to even attempt to take me on one and one.

So the chart and the 50% equation was not proven, but an estimate based on the assumption that the advertisers pulled their business from Fox. We know that's not the case, as the advertisers asked their ads not be shown on Beck's show - therefore the advertising dollars were not lost.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up on current events but that's not evidence. Lastly, the initial part of that post has been not only denied by Fox but the financials have yet to be provided to anyone. The one thing we do know for certain, is that Beck's show is based ratings - which are through the roof. Advertisers are still advertising - as you can plainly see each and every weekday by simply tuning in.

Your rather pompous attitude and confidence are way misplaced. And while you might want to continue trying to convince the more dull-witted sheep of your faux facts about faux - one simply has to do a cursory amount of reading to know, your basis and opinion are bull****. But hey, good for you carrying on the war of misinformation. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Ockham

So the chart and the 50% equation was not proven, but an estimate based on the assumption that the advertisers pulled their business from Fox.

Generally it helps to read the links within the links. Clearly you did not take the time to do that.

We know that's not the case, as the advertisers asked their ads not be shown on Beck's show - therefore the advertising dollars were not lost.

That makes no sense. And it appears you don't understand it either. This isn't about Fox as a whole entity losing money. It's about Beck's show no longer making a profit. Why none of you can see that glaringly obvious fact is beyond me. Perhaps if you bothered to actually read my posts, you'd notice I was never arguing Fox as an entity lost money. Only that Beck's show is no longer profitable. Hence why all of my jokes on Gill and Conservative are about subsidization as a good thing.

lol. It is amusing watching you go off on me about something I never argued.

Did I say that Fox lost money? No. Did I cite my own statements saying Fox didn't lose money? Yes. Did you read any of them? No.

And that makes me pompous how? How does your inherent laziness and inability to understand the written English language equate to me being pompous?

The capacity to read and understand the written English Language eludes many here

Originally Posted by Ockham

So the chart and the 50% equation was not proven, but an estimate based on the assumption that the advertisers pulled their business from Fox. We know that's not the case, as the advertisers asked their ads not be shown on Beck's show - therefore the advertising dollars were not lost.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up on current events but that's not evidence. Lastly, the initial part of that post has been not only denied by Fox but the financials have yet to be provided to anyone. The one thing we do know for certain, is that Beck's show is based ratings - which are through the roof. Advertisers are still advertising - as you can plainly see each and every weekday by simply tuning in.

Your rather pompous attitude and confidence are way misplaced. And while you might want to continue trying to convince the more dull-witted sheep of your faux facts about faux - one simply has to do a cursory amount of reading to know, your basis and opinion are bull****. But hey, good for you carrying on the war of misinformation. Carry on.

Ockham, we are dealing with someone out of touch with reality and I have dealt with book smart street stupid individuals for decades now.

The financials of Fox are on the company website and show profits and increasing ad revenue. Beck ratings are about 2.5 million a night, the highest on the cable networks for that time slot. Where individuals get the information that Beck's show is losing money is beyond me and not one can site a credible source to prove those claims.

It is a pompous, arrogant attitude and talking down to people that liberals seem to believe sells in this country today

Originally Posted by Conservative

Ockham, we are dealing with someone out of touch with reality and I have dealt with book smart street stupid individuals for decades now.

The financials of Fox are on the company website and show profits and increasing ad revenue. Beck ratings are about 2.5 million a night, the highest on the cable networks for that time slot. Where individuals get the information that Beck's show is losing money is beyond me and not one can site a credible source to prove those claims.

It is a pompous, arrogant attitude and talking down to people that liberals seem to believe sells in this country today

Ok - understood. I will ignore from now on. Some people just can't see the difference between

AND

and that's just a shame.

Originally Posted by Conservative

Ockham, we are dealing with someone out of touch with reality and I have dealt with book smart street stupid individuals for decades now.

The financials of Fox are on the company website and show profits and increasing ad revenue. Beck ratings are about 2.5 million a night, the highest on the cable networks for that time slot. Where individuals get the information that Beck's show is losing money is beyond me and not one can site a credible source to prove those claims.

It is a pompous, arrogant attitude and talking down to people that liberals seem to believe sells in this country today

You do understand that a profitable business can have some products that lose money, right? Saying that the company is profitable has jack to do with whether a particular product is profitable.

You also understand that viewership is not the only factor in determining whether a show is profitable, right? In fact, it's not even the biggest factor.

Originally Posted by Redress

You do understand that a profitable business can have some products that lose money, right? Saying that the company is profitable has jack to do with whether a particular product is profitable.

You also understand that viewership is not the only factor in determining whether a show is profitable, right? In fact, it's not even the biggest factor.

Yes, certainly, but there is no evidence that is what is happening with Beck. His 2.5 million viewers each night help Fox News set their advertising prices and the fact is Fox News isn't losing advertisers.

Not sure where they get their numbers but if you ever watched Beck, you see advertisers and the News Corp financials show advertising revenue higher than the previous year so where is that revenue drop. Where do the detracters get their numbers? The chart posted is speculation, not fact. The facts come from the financials released by the company.

Originally Posted by Redress

You do understand that a profitable business can have some products that lose money, right? Saying that the company is profitable has jack to do with whether a particular product is profitable.

You also understand that viewership is not the only factor in determining whether a show is profitable, right? In fact, it's not even the biggest factor.

Given his reply to you, he clearly doesn't. It is disturbing to me how he doesn't realize that internally, a company is made up of many different branches, many selling different products. His constant harping on the entity level financial when everyone else is talking about what amounts to entities within departments is pretty telling about just how little he knows.

Just because Fox as an entity is showing profits doesn't equate to Beck's show making money. Why he can't understand this is disturbing.

Originally Posted by Redress

You do understand that a profitable business can have some products that lose money, right? Saying that the company is profitable has jack to do with whether a particular product is profitable.

You also understand that viewership is not the only factor in determining whether a show is profitable, right? In fact, it's not even the biggest factor.

Redress, can you prove that Beck is losing money for Fox?