Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

Redress · Mar 9, 2011

Zyphlin said:
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"

I have mixed feelings on the TV-PG era. At least Mae Young won't be giving birth to a hand or anything as stupid and vile as that.

You are correct on the direction of the thread, but the position that he was getting axed for losing viewers was never my position. I simply countered the claim that just because he has more viewers than some one else does not mean he is safe. I have no clue what FOX is considering with respect to Beck, and for the most part don't care.

j-mac · Mar 9, 2011

USA_1 said:
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.

I catch him from time to time....I like it better when he sticks to business and exposes the Allensky left for what they are through their connections. I don't much care for the preachy shows....Other real good ones are the ones on the founding fathers....very interesting.

j-mac

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2011

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

What's biggoted about being annoyed that every time I'm trying to watch a video I have to sit through a commercial about his religion?

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2011

SheWolf said:
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???

The ones bolded are the important ones. Coca-Cola, Best Buy, insurance companies.

USA_1 · Mar 9, 2011

j-mac said:
I catch him from time to time....I like it better when he sticks to business and exposes the Allensky left for what they are through their connections. I don't much care for the preachy shows....Other real good ones are the ones on the founding fathers....very interesting.

j-mac

He was exposing some hipocrisy of the right on the show I watched. I bet that doesn't happen all that much.

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2011

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.

TV media is a business just like anything else. If Beck was an internet personality, I'd agree that maybe he wouldn't see his website shutting down anytime soon with 2 million unique hits a day. However any ventures outside of the internet are almost entirely dependent on advertisement revenue. You could have 10,000,000 viewers but if nobody wants to pay for the operating costs of your show and you start bleeding viewers, the chances of you surviving are slim to none.

Conservative · Mar 9, 2011

Hatuey said:
What's biggoted about being annoyed that every time I'm trying to watch a video I have to sit through a commercial about his religion?

Then don't watch, turn the channel or better yet turn off the TV. Trying to destroy the man is typical liberalism these days. Let the ratings and Fox decide, an organized boycott shows the intellectual dishonesty of liberalism.

j-mac · Mar 9, 2011

Hatuey said:
The ones bolded are the important ones. Coca-Cola, Best Buy, insurance companies.

Hatuey, can you tell us what you think is wrong with Beck's message, and offer what you think he should do to regain the sponsors caving to pressure from the Van Jones, Geo. Soros groups now going after them?

j-mac

pbrauer · Mar 9, 2011

Conservative said:
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.

I can't speak about anyone else but, I support Glenn Beck's right to be on the air 100%. However, I do believe he makes the right look foolish and stupid.

Conservative · Mar 9, 2011

pbrauer said:
I can't speak about anyone else but, I support Glenn Beck's right to be on the air 100%. However, I do believe he makes the right look foolish and stupid.

Now that I can accept and agree with. You have a right to your opinion just like Beck does and if someone doesn't like it, turn the channel or TV off. Organizing a boycott shows just how radical some really are.

Ockham · Mar 9, 2011

Redress said:
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.

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.

Catz Part Deux · Mar 9, 2011

Hatuey said:
TV media is a business just like anything else. If Beck was an internet personality, I'd agree that maybe he wouldn't see his website shutting down anytime soon with 2 million unique hits a day. However any ventures outside of the internet are almost entirely dependent on advertisement revenue. You could have 10,000,000 viewers but if nobody wants to pay for the operating costs of your show and you start bleeding viewers, the chances of you surviving are slim to none.

Howard Stern, anyone?

Catz Part Deux · Mar 9, 2011

pbrauer said:
I can't speak about anyone else but, I support Glenn Beck's right to be on the air 100%. However, I do believe he makes the right look foolish and stupid.

Nobody has a "right" to be on the air. It's a purely for-profit venture to be on television, and the television stations license a particular bandwidth to broadcast their programming in hopes of making money. If he stops making a profit, he will be axed from the air so fast it will make your head spin.

He has a right to speak. He does not, however, have a right to air time. No one does.

Catz Part Deux · Mar 9, 2011

Conservative said:
Now that I can accept and agree with. You have a right to your opinion just like Beck does and if someone doesn't like it, turn the channel or TV off. Organizing a boycott shows just how radical some really are.

Organizing a boycott is a time-honored method of voting with your dollars in a free market economy. Nobody has a right to be financially supported by advertising dollars. The far right uses this tactic ALL THE TIME, and they have every right to do so. I can't believe that these kinds of simple political concepts apparently elude you.

Government can't infringe on your free speech. But, your rights to free speech, as an individual, don't outweigh anyone else's right to free speech. Organizing a boycott IS A FORM OF FREE SPEECH.

Jesus Christ. For people who claim to love the constitution, some of you sure don't understand it very well.

Conservative · Mar 9, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
Organizing a boycott is a time-honored method of voting with your dollars in a free market economy. Nobody has a right to be financially supported by advertising dollars. The far right uses this tactic ALL THE TIME, and they have every right to do so. I can't believe that these kinds of simple political concepts apparently elude you.

Government can't infringe on your free speech. But, your rights to free speech, as an individual, don't outweigh anyone else's right to free speech. Organizing a boycott IS A FORM OF FREE SPEECH.

Jesus Christ. For people who claim to love the constitution, some of you sure don't understand it very well.

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.

BWG · Mar 9, 2011

Zyphlin said:
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"

Both. Revenue AND viewership were mentioned in the article.

From the OP:

Although reasons behind the possible dismissal remain unclear, one suggestion has been his steady loss of viewers - from an average of 2.9 million in January 2010 to 1.8 million in January 2011.

[...]

Fox News has also lost a host of lucrative advertising deals including Coca-Cola, BMW and British supermarket chain Waitrose from the cable channel, left uncomfortable with his increasingly outspoken views.

The New York Times writes: 'Some 300 advertisers fled the show, leaving sponsorship to a slew of gold bullion marketers whose message dovetails nicely with Mr. Beck's end-of-times gospel.'

Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe from controversial TV show after losing a million viewers in a year | Mail Online

Barbbtx · Mar 9, 2011

USA_1 said:
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.

I used to watch him every day, then almost never, now about half the time. I change channels when he gets too many pictures and too many chalkboards going at once. His ADD is getting out of control and I can't keep up.

Gill · Mar 9, 2011

BWG said:
Both. Revenue AND viewership were mentioned in the article.

From the OP:

Still doesn't mean his show has lost revenue.

Catz Part Deux · Mar 9, 2011

Conservative said:
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.

He's on the publicly-owned airwaves. I'm surprised that you don't understand that this is everyone's business.

j-mac · Mar 9, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
Nobody has a "right" to be on the air. It's a purely for-profit venture to be on television, and the television stations license a particular bandwidth to broadcast their programming in hopes of making money. If he stops making a profit, he will be axed from the air so fast it will make your head spin.

He has a right to speak. He does not, however, have a right to air time. No one does.

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

BWG · Mar 9, 2011

Gill said:
Still doesn't mean his show has lost revenue.

Didn't say it did.

I answered a question from a poster who questioned the changing of the argument for Beck's possible 'axeing', from viewership to revenue.

Both were mentioned in the OP.

Barbbtx · Mar 9, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
Organizing a boycott is a time-honored method of voting with your dollars in a free market economy. Nobody has a right to be financially supported by advertising dollars. The far right uses this tactic ALL THE TIME, and they have every right to do so. I can't believe that these kinds of simple political concepts apparently elude you.

Government can't infringe on your free speech. But, your rights to free speech, as an individual, don't outweigh anyone else's right to free speech. Organizing a boycott IS A FORM OF FREE SPEECH.

Jesus Christ. For people who claim to love the constitution, some of you sure don't understand it very well.

And liberals sure do like to take advantage of their free speech to try and silence opposing views.

You say the far right does this all the time. Maybe in some areas to protect children from filth on TV etc but when have Conservatives tried to silence political speech?

Gill · Mar 9, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
He's on the publicly-owned airwaves. I'm surprised that you don't understand that this is everyone's business.

Hate to bust your bubble, but you are dead wrong. Beck is NOT on publicly owned airwaves, he's on cable. Cable is not controlled by anyone, including the FCC.

I'm surprised you didn't know that........

Hatuey · Mar 9, 2011

j-mac said:
Hatuey, can you tell us what you think is wrong with Beck's message, and offer what you think he should do to regain the sponsors caving to pressure from the Van Jones, Geo. Soros groups now going after them?

j-mac

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

Despite Beck's ascendance, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity remain marquee names at Fox, with "The O'Reilly Factor" still the highest-rated program, drawing 3.7 million viewers. O'Reilly has embraced Beck, showcasing him as a weekly guest. Despite strong resistance from Fox management, O'Reilly has joined forces with Beck on the so-called "Bold & Fresh Tour" (named for an O'Reilly book), speaking to sold-out audiences from Los Angeles to Tampa.

Publicly, there is plenty of praise. While Beck declined to be interviewed, Chris Balfe, president of Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts, says that "Glenn and Roger have a fantastic relationship. That's the reason he went to Fox, because of Roger." He adds: "Roger definitely gives Glenn advice on a lot of different things he thinks Glenn could be doing better or differently."

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

“The time has instead been sold to smaller firms offering such products as Kaopectate, Carbonite, 1-800-PetMeds and Goldline International,” says the Post. And that should have been everyone’s wake up call moment, right there: Carbonite. Remember when Darth Vader used it to freeze Han Solo and send him off with Boba Fett? If you’re endorsed by the Empire, shouldn’t that send up a red flag of some sort?

Anyway, Apple’s boycott of Fox means that its iPad product, due to launch in April, won’t be given any advertising time on the network. Considering how big that network’s audience is, that could conceivably affect sales, at least at launch, though it does make me wonder exactly what the Venn diagram looks like for Apple enthusiasts who are also Fox watchers. It’s probably not that much of a crossover, but still, it’s a risk for Apple to manage. At the same time, as a staunch Apple guy myself (I still bleed in six colors), I’m not terribly interested in an iPad at all. I’ll just keep my eyes peeled for Glenn Beck’s anti-Apple rant, which is sure to come sooner or later.

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.

Conservative · Mar 9, 2011

Catz Part Deux said:
He's on the publicly-owned airwaves. I'm surprised that you don't understand that this is everyone's business.

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.

Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

j-mac

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Hatuey

Rule of Two

USA_1

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Conservative

j-mac

pbrauer

Conservative

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Catz Part Deux

Catz Part Deux

Catz Part Deux

Conservative

BWG

Barbbtx

Gill

Catz Part Deux

j-mac

BWG

Barbbtx

Gill

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Conservative