Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

liblady said:

sorry.......the sponsors beck lost for his show. coke, honda, starkist...........many, MANY sponsors.

Click to expand...

Sponsors who caved to the demands of liberals. Damn! I wish I wasn't hooked on diet coke.

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.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.

Now, if you can show everyone how much revenue Beck's show has lost, you will have a point, otherwise, you are only making an uninformed assumption

whysoserious said:

That's because sane people get their news from a variaty of different sources. That's why CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, ABC, etc will never match up to Fox. Not because they are worse, but because conservatives get their news from two places:

1) Fox News
2) Conservative Talk Radio

That's it. End of story. I think you'll find that there is a giant group of people who don't watch Fox at all because they find it to be full of partisan hackery. However, this giant group of people does not all go to one source to get their info. Some go here, some go there, and some go to a mixture of all of them.

We don't fall for the liberal machine quite the same way that conservatives fall for their respective conservative one.

Click to expand...

There you go with that big paint roller again. I"m a conservative and I watch as much or more CNN and MSNBC than I do Fox. (sorry can't stand liberal talk radio) I listen to Conservative talk sometimes. I also like C-Span.
Just from reading on DP, I get the impression that many liberals never listen to Conservative talk radio or watch Fox. Where do they get anything that doesn't have a left lean?

Barbbtx said:

Sponsors who caved to the demands of liberals. Damn! I wish I wasn't hooked on diet coke.

Click to expand...

LoLz. I love the world you live in Barb. It's so simple. "We are the victims! It's not our fault, it's all liberals!".

Gill said:

You are absolutely right.

Now, if you can show everyone how much revenue Beck's show has lost, you will have a point, otherwise, you are only making an uninformed assumption

Click to expand...

You might want to follow that conversation, since he was responding to some one claiming that FOX would not pull a highly rated show, which is clearly false. They will pull any show that is not giving them the return on investment they want.

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.

Click to expand...

I sold advertising on a heavy metal station back in the late 1980s. We were rated #2 in the 18-34 timeslot, a highly desirable demographic. But, our ad rates were less than our competitors who were at #3-5. During that era, advertisers believed that our listeners were slackers without money. Even though we had good ratings, we could not charge as much as some radio stations because of our format. The demand for our ad slots wasn't as high as it was with more mainstream, innocuous pop stations.

Also, during this time period, Slash was interviewed by one of our DJs during the morning drive. This was a major coup, GNR was at the top of the charts back then. But...Slash said the F word several times, and the idiotic DJ didn't have him on time delay. Not only did we get fined by the FCC, but a couple of my advertisers pulled their ads (money out of my pocket and out of the station's coffers). The DJ was later fired.

It's not just about ratings. The image of the station is everything. In beck's case, he's increasingly presented an image that isn't desirable to most advertisers. He appears fringe, offensive, erratic, and frankly---crazy. He's the Charlie Sheen of political talk right now. That's not a good thing. Major corporations want to advertise with programs that aren't going to offend their potential customers.

Redress said:

You might want to follow that conversation, since he was responding to some one claiming that FOX would not pull a highly rated show, which is clearly false. They will pull any show that is not giving them the return on investment they want.

Click to expand...

Then prove that Beck isn't generating "the return on investment they want?"

Catz Part Deux said:

I sold advertising on a heavy metal station back in the late 1980s. We were rated #2 in the 18-34 timeslot, a highly desirable demographic. But, our ad rates were less than our competitors who were at #3-5. During that era, advertisers believed that our listeners were slackers without money. Even though we had good ratings, we could not charge as much as some radio stations because of our format. The demand for our ad slots wasn't as high as it was with more mainstream, innocuous pop stations.

Also, during this time period, Slash was interviewed by one of our DJs during the morning drive. This was a major coup, GNR was at the top of the charts back then. But...Slash said the F word several times, and the idiotic DJ didn't have him on time delay. Not only did we get fined by the FCC, but a couple of my advertisers pulled their ads (money out of my pocket and out of the station's coffers). The DJ was later fired.

It's not just about ratings. The image of the station is everything. In beck's case, he's increasingly presented an image that isn't desirable to most advertisers. He appears fringe, offensive, erratic, and frankly---crazy. He's the Charlie Sheen of political talk right now. That's not a good thing. Major corporations want to advertise with programs that aren't going to offend their potential customers.

Click to expand...

If Beck is as polarizing as you claim then why do you want him off the air? Seems you would want more people to see how bad he is? On the other side why is personal choice only a liberal issue? Let the people decide whether or not they want to watch Beck as they can turn the channel or turn it off.

Conservative said:

Then prove that Beck isn't generating "the return on investment they want?"

Click to expand...

I did not claim he was. I have no way of knowing. I was merely correcting your complete and total lack of understanding of capitalism.

Redress said:

I did not claim he was. I have no way of knowing. I was merely correcting your complete and total lack of understanding of capitalism.

Click to expand...

LOL, thanks for the good laugh this morning, now it is on to Mass. BBL.

Conservative said:

If Beck is as polarizing as you claim then why do you want him off the air? Seems you would want more people to see how bad he is? On the other side why is personal choice only a liberal issue? Let the people decide whether or not they want to watch Beck as they can turn the channel or turn it off.

Click to expand...

I would like to see what you can come up with when you aren't being pre-programmed full of pablum by Beck.

Conservative said:

LOL, thanks for the good laugh this morning, now it is on to Mass. BBL.

Click to expand...

I got a laugh out of your position and lack of understanding of capitalism myself. I thought every one understood what supply and demand was.

Redress said:

You might want to follow that conversation, since he was responding to some one claiming that FOX would not pull a highly rated show, which is clearly false. They will pull any show that is not giving them the return on investment they want.

Click to expand...

I was following the conversation. He claimed that ratings don't matter, only revenues. I agree with that to a degree. But, since he didn't show any proof that Beck's show has lost revenues, his point is moot.

Ratings do matter normally, since that is the reference that all media use to set advertising rates for that particular show. In this case, I have no doubt that Beck has been harmed by the constant, ongoing boycotts by the left of anyone that dares sponsor his show, so it is entirely possible that Fox has lowered his rates below normal to attract more advertisers. But, as I said, no one has posted any information claiming that his revenue or rates are not normal for a show with his ratings.

Barbbtx said:

There you go with that big paint roller again. I"m a conservative and I watch as much or more CNN and MSNBC than I do Fox. (sorry can't stand liberal talk radio) I listen to Conservative talk sometimes. I also like C-Span.
Just from reading on DP, I get the impression that many liberals never listen to Conservative talk radio or watch Fox. Where do they get anything that doesn't have a left lean?

Click to expand...

They don't. Liberals, tend to read things like DailyKOS, and MediaMatters to arrive at their opinions of what conservatives say on their shows. Heaven forbid they actually listen or watch anything that doesn't come from the liberal echo chamber.


j-mac

Hatuey said:

Here is one list of sponsors that have dropped Beck:

Click to expand...

link to source? Or, are we to tak your word for it?

Gill said:

I was following the conversation. He claimed that ratings don't matter, only revenues. I agree with that to a degree. But, since he didn't show any proof that Beck's show has lost revenues, his point is moot.

Ratings do matter normally, since that is the reference that all media use to set advertising rates for that particular show. In this case, I have no doubt that Beck has been harmed by the constant, ongoing boycotts by the left of anyone that dares sponsor his show, so it is entirely possible that Fox has lowered his rates below normal to attract more advertisers. But, as I said, no one has posted any information claiming that his revenue or rates are not normal for a show with his ratings.

Click to expand...

You are overvaluing ratings. Let me use an example that I know about, professional wrestling. WWE has and for some time has had the highest rated show on cable. They are a big part of why USA network tends to be the highest rated cable channel. When USA has a big week they need ratings on, they get WWE to do a 3 hour special. Ratings = big. However, despite this, WWE was hurting due to both a lack of people wanting to advertise on their show, and those who did being unable to pay big bucks. This was due to two things. People thought that wrestling viewers where dumb, really dumb(so dumb that when WWE changed networks, there where a number of TV industry people predicted it would kill the show because wrestling fans would not be able to find it). More importantly, people thought(correctly) that the show was really offensive. What WWE had to do to get sponsors and raise ad revenue was to change the nature of the show, and it is now a TV-PG show as opposed to a trashy TV-MA show.

Now, I could do like those conservatives who like to play the victim and claim that the PMRC attacking any one who dares sponsor WWE programming and unfair attacks by certain conservative groups, but the truth is more that companies care about who and what they have associated with their product.

it's good to note that ratings =/= revenue on a 1-1 scale.

so. how much did Glenn Beck make Fox News last year, then?

and I'm still waiting for reasons why he is so crazy?

Redress said:

You are overvaluing ratings. Let me use an example that I know about, professional wrestling. WWE has and for some time has had the highest rated show on cable. They are a big part of why USA network tends to be the highest rated cable channel. When USA has a big week they need ratings on, they get WWE to do a 3 hour special. Ratings = big. However, despite this, WWE was hurting due to both a lack of people wanting to advertise on their show, and those who did being unable to pay big bucks. This was due to two things. People thought that wrestling viewers where dumb, really dumb(so dumb that when WWE changed networks, there where a number of TV industry people predicted it would kill the show because wrestling fans would not be able to find it). More importantly, people thought(correctly) that the show was really offensive. What WWE had to do to get sponsors and raise ad revenue was to change the nature of the show, and it is now a TV-PG show as opposed to a trashy TV-MA show.

Now, I could do like those conservatives who like to play the victim and claim that the PMRC attacking any one who dares sponsor WWE programming and unfair attacks by certain conservative groups, but the truth is more that companies care about who and what they have associated with their product.

Click to expand...

So what I take away from this was, PG-13 attracts more viewers than TV-MA, which in turn provides a more diverse audience and attracts advertisers who want to put their products or services in front of as many people as possible to generate sales/revenue. That makes perfect sense. By toning down the content of WWE they reach more people. I'd argue TV-MA vs. TV-PG13 professional wrestling is still as stupid as a post - but it's entertainments albeit a low form of entertainment. Whether or not "people" whoever they are, think Wrestling is dumb and the "people" who watch is are dumb is irrelevant as long as the advertisers can link the advertising dollars spent to sales and there is a positive correlation.

Redress said:

You are overvaluing ratings. Let me use an example that I know about, professional wrestling. WWE has and for some time has had the highest rated show on cable. They are a big part of why USA network tends to be the highest rated cable channel. When USA has a big week they need ratings on, they get WWE to do a 3 hour special. Ratings = big. However, despite this, WWE was hurting due to both a lack of people wanting to advertise on their show, and those who did being unable to pay big bucks. This was due to two things. People thought that wrestling viewers where dumb, really dumb(so dumb that when WWE changed networks, there where a number of TV industry people predicted it would kill the show because wrestling fans would not be able to find it). More importantly, people thought(correctly) that the show was really offensive. What WWE had to do to get sponsors and raise ad revenue was to change the nature of the show, and it is now a TV-PG show as opposed to a trashy TV-MA show.

Now, I could do like those conservatives who like to play the victim and claim that the PMRC attacking any one who dares sponsor WWE programming and unfair attacks by certain conservative groups, but the truth is more that companies care about who and what they have associated with their product.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read past the first word or two. I said that I agree that revenues are important, but that ratings are typically based on ratings to a large degree.

Now........do you have any information that Beck's revenues have dropped, or are you going to continue to change the subject???

I have to admit, that I didn't read all of your post. The first sentence that mentioned WWE sent me running.

cpwill said:

it's good to note that ratings =/= revenue on a 1-1 scale.

so. how much did Glenn Beck make Fox News last year, then?

and I'm still waiting for reasons why he is so crazy?

Click to expand...

But it is so much easier to just ad hominem.


j-mac

Redress said:

LoLz. I love the world you live in Barb. It's so simple. "We are the victims! It's not our fault, it's all liberals!".

Click to expand...

Can you point out where Conservatives have ever used tactics such as this to silence a liberal? Better yet can you show where any significant number even wants to silence liberals, much less take action to shut them up.

StopBeck.com: Home of Stop Glenn Beck Effort «

FreakOutNation » The Battle Begins: Media Matters Vs. Fox News

Media Matters Hires Angelo Carusone, Leader Of 'Stop Beck' Movement, To Ramp Up Campaign Against Fox News

Stop Beck | Facebook

Stop Glenn Beck (StopBeck) on Twitter

http://www.youtube.com/user/StopBeck

Liberals are only for free speech that agrees with them.

Redress said:

You are overvaluing ratings. Let me use an example that I know about, professional wrestling. WWE has and for some time has had the highest rated show on cable. They are a big part of why USA network tends to be the highest rated cable channel. When USA has a big week they need ratings on, they get WWE to do a 3 hour special. Ratings = big. However, despite this, WWE was hurting due to both a lack of people wanting to advertise on their show, and those who did being unable to pay big bucks. This was due to two things. People thought that wrestling viewers where dumb, really dumb(so dumb that when WWE changed networks, there where a number of TV industry people predicted it would kill the show because wrestling fans would not be able to find it). More importantly, people thought(correctly) that the show was really offensive. What WWE had to do to get sponsors and raise ad revenue was to change the nature of the show, and it is now a TV-PG show as opposed to a trashy TV-MA show.

Now, I could do like those conservatives who like to play the victim and claim that the PMRC attacking any one who dares sponsor WWE programming and unfair attacks by certain conservative groups, but the truth is more that companies care about who and what they have associated with their product.

Click to expand...

God I hate the PG era

With that said...I agree with your and others overall point. If Beck is losing REVENUE then that's definitely a reason to potentially axe him.

However, that wasn't the topic of this thread and has been a goal post move by a lot of the people arguing for it. The topic of this thread was focusing, seemingly, on him being "axed" because he lost a million viewers. You can't sit here and go "He's going to get axed because he lost 1/3rd of his viewers" and then when people point out the size of his viewers go "Yeah but his revenues are down".

Kind of like you saying that Matthews ratings are irrelevant to whether or not Beck lost 1/3rd of his viewers, whether he lost one million viewers or not is irrelevant to whether is revenue's are down. As you and others are arguing, him having high ratings does note correllate to high revenues. Similarly, him losing 1 million viewers doesn't necessarily mean he's hurting in regards to revenues.

People were trying to argue he was floundering because he lost 1 million viewers. People, rightfully so, countered this by showing that even though he lost 1 million he's still an extremely successful show with regards to viewership so axing him for that reason would be foolish. So now people are trying to put the revenue argument out there thinking that counters the counter, when in actuality its an entirely different argument.

Is Beck getting axed because he lost 1 million viewers...which was the original point and topic of the thread?

or is Beck getting axed because his revenue is going down...which is now the sudden change people are attempting to push.

Those are two significantly different accusations, and questions, and I find it rather funny watching people quickly grab onto that when it was obvious the million viewers lost comments didn't stand alone well when looking at the big picture as a reason Beck would be "axed"

Catz Part Deux said:

I would like to see what you can come up with when you aren't being pre-programmed full of pablum by Beck.

Click to expand...

I would like to see some logic and common sense from a liberal but that will happen when hell freezes over. I don't watch Beck but defend his right to be on air and to make the choice whether or not to watch. LIberals want to silence any opposition. Just love the compassion and liberal fairness.

Does anyone here watch Beck regularly? I have tried to watch, but I can only handle a few minutes of him. He's kind of a combination of Ross Perot and Jimmy Baker.

Ockham said:

So what I take away from this was, PG-13 attracts more viewers than TV-MA, which in turn provides a more diverse audience and attracts advertisers who want to put their products or services in front of as many people as possible to generate sales/revenue. That makes perfect sense. By toning down the content of WWE they reach more people. I'd argue TV-MA vs. TV-PG13 professional wrestling is still as stupid as a post - but it's entertainments albeit a low form of entertainment. Whether or not "people" whoever they are, think Wrestling is dumb and the "people" who watch is are dumb is irrelevant as long as the advertisers can link the advertising dollars spent to sales and there is a positive correlation.

Click to expand...

Wrong, TV-PG(not PG13 btw), does not generate more viewers. It generates more advertising demand and higher dollar advertisers and sponsors. Ratings actually went down, but ad revenue went up.