• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

500x_beck.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
How's that working out? I'm watching more Glen than ever, lately. It's good lead in to Red Eye.
 
It's sad that they're trying to put programing at the mercy of advertisers' political passions rather than consumer demand. I might even care about it if TV wasn't a slowly dying medium to begin with.
 
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.

500x_beck.jpg


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.
good. as conservatives say, the market speaks.
 
good. as conservatives say, the market speaks.

The market is supposed to be based on supply and demand. Since demand has not decreased, advertisers being urged to act on their political passions is actually a distortion of the market.


Again, this ultimately doesn't really matter, since the TV-model market will die out soon anyways. Possibly even within the next decade.
 
Considering the success of Beck's show (rivaling O'Reilly and Hannity and hugely more successful than shows on other cable news networks), I must say I have some doubts about just how this is being presented by "stopbecknow" (or whatever the link was).

The Foundation for a Better Life ads are broadcast an average of 2 million times daily, so it's hardly an indicator that Fox can't get advertisers in the time slots. Even if they are, I don't yet foresee Fox dropping Beck when he pulls in such a huge audience.

It's an interesting question though.:)
 
The market is supposed to be based on supply and demand. Since demand has not decreased, advertisers being urged to act on their political passions is actually a distortion of the market.


Again, this ultimately doesn't really matter, since the TV-model market will die out soon anyways. Possibly even within the next decade.

It's not really a distortion of the market at all, since it is not only the viewer that drives it, but advertisers as well. If they choose not to advertise on a show, then they have made a decision that impacts the market, and legitimately affects it. Glenn Beck's ad slots are also driven by supply and demand. If there is no demand, then FOX News has to adjust its rates on the supply side in order to attempt to create it. That's a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
If they choose not to advertise on a show, then they have made a decision that impacts the market, and legitimately affects it.

Yes, but unless they do it for market reasons, i.e. the show not getting high enough ratings, then that decision does not follow consumer demand, which is what the market is supposed to be all about. It is their political passions, and those urging the advertisers to act on them, that plays the part of the distorter here, since the decision they make has nothing to do with the goal which would be the sole motivator in an ideal free market: the maximization of revenue.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I'm just saying that it's sad that they are nullifying consumer interest- and that they are even able to do so. It will be interesting to see if such a situation is even possible with whatever television model follows the current one.
 
The market is supposed to be based on supply and demand. Since demand has not decreased, advertisers being urged to act on their political passions is actually a distortion of the market.


Again, this ultimately doesn't really matter, since the TV-model market will die out soon anyways. Possibly even within the next decade.
not really, in this case the advertisers are the buyers, right? don't buyers act on their passions?
 
not really, in this case the advertisers are the buyers, right?

Sort of. They buy on behalf of the viewers, since they're going to pay more to advertise on a show that is more widely viewed. But when they let they're passions take over, the relationship between viewership and revenue is destroyed, and suddenly it's the advertisers, rather than TV viewers, that get to decide what TV stations should air.

It would be entirely different if viewers let they're passions take over in refusing to watch a show. They, ultimately, are the actual market, not the advertisers.
 
Yes, but unless they do it for market reasons, i.e. the show not getting high enough ratings, then that decision does not follow consumer demand, which is what the market is supposed to be all about. It is their political passions, and those urging the advertisers to act on them, that plays the part of the distorter here, since the decision they make has nothing to do with the goal which would be the sole motivator in an ideal free market: the maximization of revenue.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I'm just saying that it's sad that they are nullifying consumer interest- and that they are even able to do so. It will be interesting to see if such a situation is even possible with whatever television model follows the current one.

You are 100% wrong there. Let me demonstrate with a story of my own (which, for obvious reasons, will not be televised).

The Saga of DanaRhea's Feces Sandwiches

One day, DanaRhea came up with a plan to make money, and eventually retire a rich man. He could manufacture and sell sandwiches. So he raided his cat's litterbox (The cat was a prolific litterbox user), and placed the cat droppings between slices of bread, making feces sandwiches. He got a vendor's license (by bribing someone in the Health Department), and immediately began selling his feces sandwiches for a dollar each. A month went by, and no sandwiches had been sold. Not a one. DanaRhea then realized that maybe his price was too high. For the next month, DanaRhea marketed his feces sandwiches at 10 cents each. Still no takers. He tried it again for a third month, this time, replacing the bread with pita bread, and selling them as feces "wraps". At the end of month 3, he had not sold a single sandwich. Then he got an idea. He bought fresh loaves of bread, and this time put ham and cheese in them. These sandwiches not only sold like hot cakes, but DanaRhea was able to charge $3.95 each for them. By trial and error, DanaRhea finally prevailed, and eventually retired a rich man.

*End of story*

Now let me introduce you to the actors in the above drama:

DanaRhea - Played by Rupert Murdoch.
The price of the sandwiches - Played by the price of the advertising slots.
Those who bought sandwiches - Played by the advertisers on FOX News.
The bread - Played by FOX News Channel.
Ham and cheese - Played by programs which educate, inform, and stimulate.
The feces - Played by Glenn Beck.
:mrgreen:
 
Yes, but unless they do it for market reasons, i.e. the show not getting high enough ratings, then that decision does not follow consumer demand, which is what the market is supposed to be all about. It is their political passions, and those urging the advertisers to act on them, that plays the part of the distorter here, since the decision they make has nothing to do with the goal which would be the sole motivator in an ideal free market: the maximization of revenue.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I'm just saying that it's sad that they are nullifying consumer interest- and that they are even able to do so. It will be interesting to see if such a situation is even possible with whatever television model follows the current one.

The product a network sells is advertising space, the consumers of this product are advertisers. Viewers are not the consumers of the networks product, they are merely enticement to lure in the actual consumers to buy the advertising space. As such consumer demand -and the market for the product- is NOT driven by the viewers (although it is influenced by it), it is driven by overall attractiveness of the product (advertising space) to the consumer (in this case an advertiser).
 
Last edited:
Sort of. They buy on behalf of the viewers, since they're going to pay more to advertise on a show that is more widely viewed. But when they let they're passions take over, the relationship between viewership and revenue is destroyed, and suddenly it's the advertisers, rather than TV viewers, that get to decide what TV stations should air.

It would be entirely different if viewers let they're passions take over in refusing to watch a show. They, ultimately, are the actual market, not the advertisers.
i don't for one second believe the advertisers are driven by their political passions. that's pretty funny, actually.
 
You are 100% wrong there. Let me demonstrate with a story of my own (which, for obvious reasons, will not be televised).

The Saga of DanaRhea's Feces Sandwiches

One day, DanaRhea came up with a plan to make money, and eventually retire a rich man. He could manufacture and sell sandwiches. So he raided his cat's litterbox (The cat was a prolific litterbox user), and placed the cat droppings between slices of bread, making feces sandwiches. He got a vendor's license (by bribing someone in the Health Department), and immediately began selling his feces sandwiches for a dollar each. A month went by, and no sandwiches had been sold. Not a one. DanaRhea then realized that maybe his price was too high. For the next month, DanaRhea marketed his feces sandwiches at 10 cents each. Still no takers. He tried it again for a third month, this time, replacing the bread with pita bread, and selling them as feces "wraps". At the end of month 3, he had not sold a single sandwich. Then he got an idea. He bought fresh loaves of bread, and this time put ham and cheese in them. These sandwiches not only sold like hot cakes, but DanaRhea was able to charge $3.95 each for them. By trial and error, DanaRhea finally prevailed, and eventually retired a rich man.

*End of story*

Now let me introduce you to the actors in the above drama:

DanaRhea - Played by Rupert Murdoch.
The price of the sandwiches - Played by the price of the advertising slots.
Those who bought sandwiches - Played by the advertisers on FOX News.
The bread - Played by FOX News Channel.
Ham and cheese - Played by programs which educate, inform, and stimulate.
The feces - Played by Glenn Beck.
:mrgreen:

I hope you realize that that's not really a valid metaphor, since advertisers specifically advertise for Glenn Beck's time slot, which is the equivalent of buying only the turd.
 
i don't for one second believe the advertisers are driven by their political passions. that's pretty funny, actually.

Did you even read the OP? Hint: that is what is happening.
 
I'm boycotting Tide they advertised on Glen Beck.......Actually I'm boycotting because they over charge.:lol:
 
Did you even read the OP? Hint: that is what is happening.
of course i read it....and i think advertisers are staying away because of the controversy beck stirs up. it has nothing to do with their passions. you seriously think most corporate execs are liberal?
 
of course i read it....and i think advertisers are staying away because of the controversy beck stirs up. it has nothing to do with their passions. you seriously think most corporate execs are liberal?

I think that quite a lot of them are, enough of them to make a difference.
 
I think that quite a lot of them are, enough of them to make a difference.
doubtful. if enough people boycott beck's sponsors, they withdraw their ads. this is about the $$.
 
The market is supposed to be based on supply and demand. Since demand has not decreased, advertisers being urged to act on their political passions is actually a distortion of the market.

Not at all. You're misunderstanding one thing.

The advertisers, THEY are the market. Fox is trying to sell ad time to them.

You stand outside a store and decide if you want to buy what's inside. Do you want to look like the mannequin in the window? The advertisers do not want their products associated with Fox News editorial content -- or -- do not believe the average Fox News watcher would be likely to buy their product.

Also, who watches Fox News? 18-35 year-olds? Some, maybe.. But their audience is not a young audience.

There's a lot of gold and boner pills for sale on Fox.

It doesn't matter how big an audience is, if they are not a target for the product, then ad dollars would be wasted.
 
It's sad that they're trying to put programing at the mercy of advertisers' political passions rather than consumer demand. I might even care about it if TV wasn't a slowly dying medium to begin with.

You realize that boycotts are legal and have a long history in this country> You realize that advertisers should be allowed to choose who they advertise with? You do realize that Fox having to see Beck advertising for less money is exactly the free market in action? Less demand, same supply, lower cost?
 
I find it funny that a liberal can say that an advertiser should have the right to boycott a show yet individuals don't have the right to choose their healthcare or whether or not they have to buy it at all. So choices for companies:good freedom for the individual: bad I got it now! Just an interesting thing I noticed, not trying to derail the thread.
 
I find it funny that a liberal can say that an advertiser should have the right to boycott a show yet individuals don't have the right to choose their healthcare or whether or not they have to buy it at all. So choices for companies:good freedom for the individual: bad I got it now! Just an interesting thing I noticed, not trying to derail the thread.

Might best find out my opinions on health care reform before you make assumptions.
 
Not at all. You're misunderstanding one thing.

The advertisers, THEY are the market. Fox is trying to sell ad time to them.

Only in the sense that retailers are the market for items that get retailed.

You realize that boycotts are legal and have a long history in this country> You realize that advertisers should be allowed to choose who they advertise with? You do realize that Fox having to see Beck advertising for less money is exactly the free market in action? Less demand, same supply, lower cost?

I agree with the first two and have already stated that it's not like I think this shouldn't be legal or allowed. I disagree with the last one for reasons I have already stated like five times (in short, among actual viewers, there is no "less demand").
 
Back
Top Bottom