Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

Hatuey said:

Again, ratings? Irrelevant to whether a show gets cancelled or not. It's whether or not businesses want to be associated with Beck. So far? It doesn't look like it. When you have Geico and Progressive pull sponsorship, it's safe to say many other companies who have have customers in the millions won't want to be associated with you either. Progressive has ads on Jack-Ass. Why pull out of Glenn Beck? Geico has ads on Spike. Why pull out of Glenn Beck? Well, aside from being afflicted with the STI known as stupidity, they'd also be associated with the guy who has called the president a racist, predicted the end of the world, tried to associated the anti-Christ with Muslims. The only wishful thinking here is yours. It's the type of thinking where you believe that 'viewers' actually mean anything to companies.

Why do you think shows with ratings far bellow Beck's manage to stay on air? Sponsors. Companies want to reach the people watching those shows even if they're just under a million. Once major sponsors start pulling out? Say bye bye to your show.

Click to expand...

That shows how little you know about ratings as ratings set the rates networks charge for their ads. Beck's ratings help Fox remain number one and thus demanding the highest advertising fees so as long as Beck's ratings remain high the network still makes money so it is all about ratings. Explain "sweeps" to us all?

Conservative said:

That shows how little you know about ratings as ratings set the rates networks charge for their ads.

Click to expand...

ROFL more proof that you have no idea how ratings/sponsorships actually work. What's best is that you just contradicted yourself. Sponsorship rates decrease as space becomes harder to fill in. As major companies refuse to sponsor a program that is not only hemorrhaging viewers but also alienating millions of potential costumers, smaller companies follow suit. By default this would mean News Corps has to lower its rates and loses profit because of Beck.

If Beck's ratings were an attraction to companies, they wouldn't drop him right and left, they'd support him. However, they're not. Why?

But let's say for a second your answer was coherent and you understood what it is you're talking about. Numbers are still not important. Demographics are. Demographics are far more important than actual number of viewers. If Glenn Beck had 900K viewers in the 18-49 age groups he'd be far profitable than somebody who has 2.1 million viewers in other demographics. Let's just say that by some miracle Glenn Beck had 2.1 million viewers in the 18-49. This is from 3.1 million just a year ago. Would you consider that a net loss in profit? Or net gain? Now factor in the dozens of sponsors he's lost in just over a year. Now factor in the sponsors who pull out from your network because of that show.

Still think ratings are all that important?

Beck's ratings help Fox remain number one and thus demanding the highest advertising fees so as long as Beck's ratings remain high the network still makes money so it is all about ratings. Explain "sweeps" to us all?

Click to expand...

I just ignored the rest of your gibberish and red herrings.

Conservative said:

That shows how little you know about ratings as ratings set the rates networks charge for their ads. Beck's ratings help Fox remain number one and thus demanding the highest advertising fees so as long as Beck's ratings remain high the network still makes money so it is all about ratings. Explain "sweeps" to us all?

Click to expand...

Demand for ad space is what determines ad rates. All other things being equal, demand for ad space is higher on high rated shows. However, if companies do not want to advertise with a show then ad rates go down, no matter what the ratings look like. It's that fancy supply and demand thing you might have heard of in school.

It is also important to note that something else you are confused on is that just because a corporation is profitable does not mean every division or segment of that corporation is profitable. In fact, usually there are some areas of a company that are, at least temporarily, not profitable.

Hatuey said:

ROFL more proof that you have no idea how ratings/sponsorships actually work. What's best is that you just contradicted yourself. Sponsorship rates decrease as space becomes harder to fill in. As major companies refuse to sponsor a program that is not only hemorrhaging viewers but also alienating millions of potential costumers, smaller companies follow suit. By default this would mean News Corps has to lower its rates and loses profit because of Beck.

If Beck's ratings were an attraction to companies, they wouldn't drop him right and left, they'd support him. However, they're not. Why?

But let's say for a second your answer was coherent and you understood what it is you're talking about. Numbers are still not important. Demographics are. Demographics are far more important than actual number of viewers. If Glenn Beck had 900K viewers in the 18-49 age groups he'd be far profitable than somebody who has 2.1 million viewers in other demographics. Let's just say that by some miracle Glenn Beck had 2.1 million viewers in the 18-49. This is from 3.1 million just a year ago. Would you consider that a net loss in profit? Or net gain? Now factor in the dozens of sponsors he's lost in just over a year. Now factor in the sponsors who pull out from your network because of that show.

Still think ratings are all that important?


I just ignored the rest of your gibberish and red herrings.

Click to expand...

And apparently you have no idea how revenue is generated by the networks. Ad revenue is generated by the ratings times a fixed rate, the higher the ratings the more revenue generated. Fox is the number one cable news network and has record profits because their ratings times the rate generates the most revenue. Keep buying the rhetoric because the networks still work hard for those ratings and you don't have a clue as to why.

Conservative said:

And apparently you have no idea how revenue is generated by the networks. Ad revenue is generated by the ratings times a fixed rate, the higher the ratings the more revenue generated. Fox is the number one cable news network and has record profits because their ratings times the rate generates the most revenue. Keep buying the rhetoric because the networks still work hard for those ratings and you don't have a clue as to why.

Click to expand...

This is not true. Revenue is generated (in part, there are other revenue generating aspects of a network, but this is a beginner course) by selling ad space, which like any commodity is affected by supply and demand. If not enough people want ad space on a show, ad prices drop.

Conservative said:

And apparently you have no idea how revenue is generated by the networks. Ad revenue is generated by the ratings times a fixed rate, the higher the ratings the more revenue generated. Fox is the number one cable news network and has record profits because their ratings times the rate generates the most revenue. Keep buying the rhetoric because the networks still work hard for those ratings and you don't have a clue as to why.

Click to expand...

I have a clue why:

Because they are an entertainment network, not a news network. Because they use fear to drive ratings and attract viewers. Bill O'Reilly can't explain that, and neither can you. All of these unsupported ideas of yours do nothing to change that fewer and fewer people seem to want anything to do with Beck.

Conservative said:

And apparently you have no idea how revenue is generated by the networks. Ad revenue is generated by the ratings times a fixed rate, the higher the ratings the more revenue generated. Fox is the number one cable news network and has record profits because their ratings times the rate generates the most revenue. Keep buying the rhetoric because the networks still work hard for those ratings and you don't have a clue as to why.

Click to expand...

You already tried this red herring a few pages ago and I explained to you already: A corporation making a profit and a show being canceled are completely unrelated. Corporations measure the liability of a show on individual merit and overall revenue. Once a show loses dozens of sponsors in a year, the chances of it surviving are slim to none. If Beck was only losing viewers, he'd simply get moved around time-slots. But since he's been losing sponsors, I'm sure there a few suits in News Corps writing up that letter.

Hatuey said:

You already tried this red herring a few pages ago and I explained to you already: A corporation making a profit and a show being canceled are completely unrelated. Corporations measure the liability of a show on individual merit and overall revenue. Once a show loses dozens of sponsors in a year, the chances of it surviving are slim to none. If Beck was only losing viewers, he'd simply get moved around time-slots. But since he's been losing sponsors, I'm sure there a few suits in News Corps writing up that letter.

Click to expand...

No corporation is going to axe the top rated show in their time slot. Your desire to get Beck off the air is typical liberalism which has to silence or destroy anyone that challenges the liberal ideology. The outrage by the Beck followers will affect Fox more than any lost advertising revenue if there is any. I worked for 35 years in the business world and am quite familiar with corporations and how they run their business.

whysoserious said:

I have a clue why:

Because they are an entertainment network, not a news network. Because they use fear to drive ratings and attract viewers. Bill O'Reilly can't explain that, and neither can you. All of these unsupported ideas of yours do nothing to change that fewer and fewer people seem to want anything to do with Beck.

Click to expand...

Yet two million a day disagree, three times the closest competitors.

Conservative said:

No corporation is going to axe the top rated show in their time slot.

Click to expand...

As I explained, if the show doesn't bring in revenue? It will. If major sponsors are pulling out of the show? It will. End of story.

Your desire to get Beck off the air is typical liberalism which has to silence or destroy anyone that challenges the liberal ideology. The outrage by the Beck followers will affect Fox more than any lost advertising revenue if there is any. I worked for 35 years in the business world and am quite familiar with corporations and how they run their business.

Click to expand...

Save it for somebody who cares. You worked in the business world for 35 years? Doing what? Asking people 'paper or plastic'?

Conservative said:

That shows how little you know about ratings as ratings set the rates networks charge for their ads. Beck's ratings help Fox remain number one and thus demanding the highest advertising fees so as long as Beck's ratings remain high the network still makes money so it is all about ratings. Explain "sweeps" to us all?

Click to expand...

FOX can charge whatever it wants for it's ad space, ratings or not, but if nobody is purchasing the airtime for them, then it's still a losing situation.

Mellie said:

Explain, please.....

Click to expand...

well you know.... mormons are conservative. so their religion is insane and whacky.

unlike black liberation theology. it believes in jewish conspiracy controlling America and the need to cast down the White Man, but it also reliably votes democrat so..... well, you know, we value diversity in this country.....



odd, isn't it, they tried the same thing with Mitt Romney, expecting somehow that Conservatives would jump all over the "hey, he's an evil moromony-thingy! He Aint Laik Onuva Us!" bandwagon.... leading me to suspect if there isn't just a bit of that sentiment over there.

danarhea said:

FOX can charge whatever it wants for it's ad space, ratings or not, but if nobody is purchasing the airtime for them, then it's still a losing situation.

Click to expand...

indeed. but if no one was purchasing the airtime, then they would have to lower prices. good ole supply and demand.

so the fact that prices are high indicate solid demand.

cpwill said:

well you know.... mormons are conservative. so their religion is insane and whacky.

unlike black liberation theology. it believes in jewish conspiracy controlling America and the need to cast down the White Man, but it also reliably votes democrat so..... well, you know, we value diversity in this country.....



odd, isn't it, they tried the same thing with Mitt Romney, expecting somehow that Conservatives would jump all over the "hey, he's an evil moromony-thingy! He Aint Laik Onuva Us!" bandwagon.... leading me to suspect if there isn't just a bit of that sentiment over there.

Click to expand...

Mormons aren't wacky because they are Conservative. They are wacky because they defy what is written in the Bible:

Revelatons: Chapter 22 Verse 18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Click to expand...

The Book of Mormon was written in the 1800's.

jamesrage said:

Here is another one.

Click to expand...

They don't look alike.. they both just have short brown hair

danarhea said:

Mormons aren't wacky because they are Conservative. They are wacky because they defy what is written in the Bible:



The Book of Mormon was written in the 1800's.

Click to expand...

Mormons aren't any more or less wacky than most Christians...in fact they are a lot less wacko than a lot of the evangelical/pentacostal sects.

disneydude said:

Mormons aren't any more or less wacky than most Christians...in fact they are a lot less wacko than a lot of the evangelical/pentacostal sects.

Click to expand...

I can't watch Vevo cause a British black guy shows up feeling the need to tell me that he's a Mormon. This mother****er:

doctorhugo said:

I love how you make the great leap of assumption that anybody who spouts political opinion on a TV show is responsible for the actions of someone watching or listening. …

Click to expand...

I can only point at the definitive interview about the incident in my home town, I can't make you read, let alone comprehend.

cpwill said:

indeed. but if no one was purchasing the airtime, then they would have to lower prices. good ole supply and demand.

so the fact that prices are high indicate solid demand.

Click to expand...

The question is are prices high for the Beck show. If this has been shown to be the case(or been shown to not be the case) I am sorry but I missed it and can you point me to where it was shown?

liblady said:

lol...says the poster who gives lessons in partisanship.

Click to expand...

If there was a "Mega Doh Alert!" icon I would have used it.

Let's break this down for you and your Homies.

I was a hard leftist dolt like many of you that post here. I converted. Did it happen in a vacuum? NO! It was due to hearing, as the late, great Paul Harvey used to say... "hearing the rest of the story"... or the otherside. Something we didn't get very much of 25-years ago. Oh... I bet you think those were the good 'ol days... dontcha?

Yes, Virginia I am a partisan, but a converted one. I have weighed both sides, I do know your feeble arguments... cold, and my conversion took many years... and it is voices capable of getting some people from your side to actually use the grey matter atop their shoulders for something more than sparking a bong that helped make those conversions. Get them to put down the bong and take notice.

You see... I was open minded and still am... I was open minded enough to be interested in what others said. At first it wasn't comfortable to hear, or read these opposing views... but with time it sunk in. I admitted I was wrong. Then I slowly changed my mind because I was wrong and open minded. I wasn't for a political team... I was for the truth, and the greatest good for the greatest number.

Yes Virginia I am a partisan because I believe in the Constitution, because I have seen much of the world, because I have engaged in enterprise, and because what you folks believe has a negative influence on society, on enterprise... and it's my duty as a citizen to be engaged and help put out the flames you arsonists start.

I did say I believe you should be free to have your voices on the airwaves... I think they serve a purpose, and I did lament one of my favorite comedy networks... Air Amerika... failing. Because it was hilarious to hear Cheech and Chong talk politics. It was incredible advertising for stupidity, and for that reason... it failed. Not enough people wanted too listen to idiocy. Too bad... I truly miss the profanity laced stand up routines.

There is a link to a book in my signature line. I suggest you read it.
Please.

If you do anything as a citizen... you and those who "thanked" your thread... take some time and have a gander... and think. Is that me?
Yes Virginia... I do think so.

.

Hatuey said:

I can't watch Vevo cause a British black guy shows up feeling the need to tell me that he's a Mormon. This mother****er:

Click to expand...

Wow...bigot much? You are SUCH a class act...every day you go and prove Oscar right about you.

Hatuey said:

Again, ratings? Irrelevant to whether a show gets cancelled or not. It's whether or not businesses want to be associated with Beck. So far? It doesn't look like it. When you have Geico and Progressive pull sponsorship, it's safe to say many other companies who have have customers in the millions won't want to be associated with you either. Progressive has ads on Jack-Ass. Why pull out of Glenn Beck? Geico has ads on Spike. Why pull out of Glenn Beck? Well, aside from being afflicted with the STI known as stupidity, they'd also be associated with the guy who has called the president a racist, predicted the end of the world, tried to associated the anti-Christ with Muslims. The only wishful thinking here is yours. It's the type of thinking where you believe that 'viewers' actually mean anything to companies.

Why do you think shows with ratings far bellow Beck's manage to stay on air? Sponsors. Companies want to reach the people watching those shows even if they're just under a million. However they only do this as long as there is a belief that the person bringing in these viewers is good for their publicity. If the sponsors don't want to be associated with the guy who calls Obama a racist, they pull out. Once major sponsors start pulling out? Say bye bye to your show. Here is one list of sponsors that have dropped Beck:



The important ones are in bold. If you think getting dropped by Walmart and Coca-Cola isn't a sign that your show is bad for business, you're welcome to throw yourself off a cliff right now.

Click to expand...

Kind of funny that Walmart dropped him, because I always thought they loved the Republicans... they seem really socially conservative.

BTW... why are some of those companies bolded???

Hatuey said:

As I explained, if the show doesn't bring in revenue? It will. If major sponsors are pulling out of the show? It will. End of story.



Save it for somebody who cares. You worked in the business world for 35 years? Doing what? Asking people 'paper or plastic'?

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't care about anything other than a leftwing agenda and silencing anyone that disagrees with your ideology. I could say the same thing for you, "save it for someone who cares" about anything you say for thread after thread you have been very clear on your leftwing agenda. TV works too hard on ratings which whether you accept it or not drives network revenue.

I did find that plastic was actually more popular than paper since it didn't split as easily. Then we went to the more permanent fabric "bags" and even allow people to bring in their own.

danarhea said:

Mormons aren't wacky because they are Conservative. They are wacky because they defy what is written in the Bible:

Click to expand...

:shrug: so do jehova's witnesses (heck, they rewrote the bible - well, the new testament). and (get ready for this) we even have politicians who are jewish!!! and who don't even believe in the new testament at all!!!!

:shock:
:freaks out:




the mormon canard is just that - a canard. look, i'm not going to say that they are a Christian sect, because i think theologically they've wandered way too far outside the boundaries for that. but that doesn't make your average mormon a nutter.

disneydude said:

Mormons aren't any more or less wacky than most Christians...in fact they are a lot less wacko than a lot of the evangelical/pentacostal sects.

Click to expand...

i have yet to see mormons get up and dance around holding snakes, or drink snake poison.