• 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!

Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

Matthews having 750 thousand viewers wouldn't counter a statement that Beck went from 3 million to 2 million.

However, pointing out Matthews having 750 thousand views WOULD be a relevant counter to someone suggesting that because Beck went from 3 million to 2 million Fox should axe him, or suggesting that he's significantly "hurting" when it comes to the ratings, or that people by and large are tired of him.

Its factually accurate to suggest he's lost viewers in a micro-view of the situation. However, in a macro view, he is still a successful show with a large viewing base and significantly more eyes and ears on him than his nearest competitors.

Doing worse than you were doing is not necessarily the same as doing bad.

Right, though that is not entirely the whole picture. If FOX thinks they should be getting more viewers and can with another host, then how many viewers Mathews get is irrelevant, except as in how much of his market share than can draw away. Stating that beck cannot have lost a million viewers cuz he has 3 times the ratings of Mathews(which was what I was commenting on) is clearly false logic.

I would also point out that a successful show on FOX is different from a successful show on MSNBC. There is no viewer threshold that works for every network. Let's look at an example you and I can relate to in a way, wrestling ratings. If Raw was on NBC and getting the ratings it is getting on USA, it would be a failure. But on USA, it is a huge success. Impact, which has 1/3 the ratings of Raw, is also successful for it's network. FOX has much higher built in ratings based on network appeal than MSNBC, so to be successful on FOX, you need higher ratings. MSNBC considers Hardball a successful show for them that makes them money. On FOX a show with the same ratings in the timeslot would quickly be canceled.

Is FOX considering firing Beck, or reworking his contract, or nothing at all? Damned if I know, I, and you, and every one else posting here does not have enough information to determine. Is he costing the network advertisers? Do they think they can get better ratings with some one else, or get ratings for less? How is the demographic breakdown compared to what FOX wants? Without knowing these things we cannot really judge the likelihood of the truth to the story.
 
As for TV. The following is from March last year but the numbers hold up and Beck remains #3 on the radio, and even if he was 5th he'd be way ahead of any Liberal.

This is wishful thinking by desperate losers.

CNN, MSNBC Plunge as Fox News' Ratings Surge

CNN, MSNBC Plunge as Fox News' Ratings Surge

CNN's main hosts lost almost half their viewers in a year, according to ratings data assembled by the Times. In fact, the trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year was only up for Fox, while MSNBC continued its huge plunge, too.

In all, Larry King's audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in March. Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper, who follow's King dropped 42 percent in viewers and 46 percent among the key 25-to-54-year-old audience.

By comparison, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009, continues to add viewers. Greta Van Susteren’s show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill O’Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck was up 50 percent from a year earlier.!
 
You are aware that you have the "Power" switch, on the remote, right? If you don't like what he says, turn it off. If you still don't like what he says, then research the information. You might be surprised.

Unfortunately too many of Beck's weaker minded viewers are arming themselves and attacking innocent people for us to simply ignore him as we would prefer to do.

For example: "Progressive Hunter" | Media Matters for America

Beck's irresponsible lies must be refuted at every turn. It's why I donate to Media Matters of America.
 
sorry.......the sponsors beck lost for his show. coke, honda, starkist...........many, MANY sponsors.

There are people standing in line to have their product exposed to 3-4 million viewers, at a time.
 
Unfortunately too many of Beck's weaker minded viewers are arming themselves and attacking innocent people for us to simply ignore him as we would prefer to do.

For example: "Progressive Hunter" | Media Matters for America

Beck's irresponsible lies must be refuted at every turn. It's why I donate to Media Matters of America.
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. That a cute tactic of convenience and 'tranference' to Beck of the responsibility of the actions of another. Let's say, for argument sake that this guy is judged to ultimately be insane. Is Beck still guilty? How about if he is judged to be sane? Still guilty? The reason I ask is by your standard the person committing the act never bears full responsibility for the personal consequences of their own behavior or lack thereof. That's an insane position to paint yourself into, because if that is accepted as correct, then the state must automatically censor broadcast speech and where is our freedom of speech then. IF there ever was a video that was produced and directed to drive home one narrow opinion...that was it. You keep sending your money to Media Matters to support the fascist state of your dreams, because that is the end solution for what you advocate on behalf of. This is the same sick liberal/leftie bad joke as after the AZ Rep. was shot by that head-case. Oh woe is we! The right-wing radio is using terms to direct and suggest violence like "target groups" and "crosshairs" and such. Were you also bent out of shape about this:
Eyeblast.tv
and notice how Dreyfuss weasels about to equivocate that there is a nice way to wish someone you hate was dead. This guy has been making the rounds speaking as if he just came down for the Sermon on the Mount and is spreading the wrong message, but it works. Libs pay attention to their fantasyland idols of worship and those idols know it too.
 
Last edited:
Why do liberals spend so much time trying to silence conservatives? That's all I want to know. Without an explanation I'm left to assume they only believe in speech they agree with.

"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

-Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary to George Bush
 
"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

-Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary to George Bush

What was that about?
 
What was that about?

On Wednesday, tensions between the White House and its media critics, real or imagined, threatened to rise even higher. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer took a slap at "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher, who called U.S. military strikes on faraway targets "cowardly." Fleischer blasted Maher, claiming it was "a terrible thing to say," and didn't stop there, noting "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

On the face of it, these moves by the Bush administration to discourage media criticism don't seem to make much sense. By the time of the Clinton interview, for instance, polls were showing unprecedented public support for Bush, which has since only increased. And at the time, all Clinton had to say about Bush was that he supported him, and urged the rest of the country to do the same.

But this White House has developed a particularly tense, mutually distrustful relationship with members of the news media, one that has only seemed to deepen since the Sept. 11 attacks. This relationship seems to be focused specifically on the White House's political and communication staffs (it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush knowing anything about the calls to NBC). And it embodies what many members of the media -- conservative, liberal and nonpartisan -- decry as an arrogant, unnecessarily adversarial attitude, one where questions about White House decisions are regarded as inappropriate and, now, quite possibly unpatriotic.

And the relationship has been particularly hampered by these White House staffers' well-publicized difficulty telling the truth.

That is what I found it was about when I googled the phrase. Salon.com News | White House whitewashers
Apparently, the Bush Administration did not like criticism to their actions from Maher.
 
Not quite the full story.
On September 17, Bill Maher, host of ABC’s Politically Incorrect, took issue with Bush's characterization of the hijackers as "cowards," saying that the label could more plausibly be applied to the U.S. military’s long-range cruise missile attacks than to the hijackers' suicide missions. Maher, a hawk on military issues, intended his comment as a criticism of Bill Clinton's emphasis on air power over ground troops, but major advertisers, including Federal Express and Sears, dropped their sponsorship, and several ABC affiliate stations dropped Maher’s show from their lineups (Washington Post, 9/28/01).

Commenting at an official news briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Maher's remark "a terrible thing to say," adding, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." The White House's transcript of Fleischer's remarks mysteriously omitted the chilling phrase "watch what they say," in what White House officials later called a "transcription error" (New York Times, 9/28/01).
 
Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe from controversial TV show after losing a million viewers in a year | Mail Online

Best news I've had all day. Does this mean a million people wised up last year? God, I hope so.
Beck has been losing ratings continuously since early last year. His "taking back the Civil Rights movement" was offensive to a lot of people. But his public image has taken a lot of hits due to extreme rhetoric and gold-related scandals. The biggest mistake his makes is preaching opinion as written-in-stone fact. People are getting tired of him and Fox could easily hire a younger, less damaged talent.

Megan McCain should have her own show. Let Beck's contract expire.
 
Beck has been losing ratings continuously since early last year. His "taking back the Civil Rights movement" was offensive to a lot of people. But his public image has taken a lot of hits due to extreme rhetoric and gold-related scandals. The biggest mistake his makes is preaching opinion as written-in-stone fact. People are getting tired of him and Fox could easily hire a younger, less damaged talent.

Megan McCain should have her own show. Let Beck's contract expire.

Plus when he used his show to try to prove his crackpot religion to be true, I almost lost it. How anyone can watch a Mormon (have you heard the stuff they believe?) and take what they say as logical is beyond me. Let me start getting my news from Scientologists too!
 
Plus when he used his show to try to prove his crackpot religion to be true, I almost lost it. How anyone can watch a Mormon (have you heard the stuff they believe?) and take what they say as logical is beyond me. Let me start getting my news from Scientologists too!

Explain, please.....
 
I personally don't want the gubmint to limit speech in any way. Nor do I want anyone removed from the air. I just think EVERYONE should be educated on the techniques of "persuasian", the tools of propaganda.

The "power to cloud men's minds" is real and pandemic in our discourse.

Meme-herders now attack the heretic. (That's one of the ways I can tell if you're a message tender or just meme-addled.)

Imagine a board where stuff that confronts us could be discussed openly. Without having to maintain a party's message. Either party. Actual debate, not an endless repetition of professionally manufactured messages.

I don't know how many here are in the employ of PR firms, how many are "volunteer" meme-herders, and how many are simply members of that 23% of the poulation who have no bs filters.

All I know is that I see very little in the way of actual original thought, nor much willingness to entertain the possibility that one's beliefs could be less than 100% correct.

The constant repetition of known manufactured ideas both bores and disturbs me.

The belligerant ignorance rampant in our national discourse disgusts me.

Beck and his writers are good, and most of you are at least partially aware that the best lies are those that can't be proven. Where no one can point to an actual factual lie. It is only important that your target audience believe the lie you want them to believe. That's what PR does. That is the business they are in. Because if the simple truth would suffice the industry would not exist.
 
Plus when he used his show to try to prove his crackpot religion to be true, I almost lost it. How anyone can watch a Mormon (have you heard the stuff they believe?) and take what they say as logical is beyond me. Let me start getting my news from Scientologists too!

I have respect for mormons. The same way I have respect for sheep, to be impartial most people are. But I still respect them.
 
liblady said:
yes, he's lost some recently. i've already posted a link.

Some recently... and 'many MANY' are two very different things. You DO understand the difference.... don't you?

Still no link, even though you claimed to have posted one in this thread already.

Consider yourself exposed, and PWNED.
 
Somehow I doubt the validity of this report.

"Guy who has the highest ratings lost 1 million people...to have the 4th highest ratings".

This is like saying "This sales person I have was making me $10,000 a week and was my top seller out of a few dozen. Now he's only selling $8,000 and is my fourth best seller. Obviously he's done and I need to just fire him".

Beck was putting up ridiculously good ratings numbers with all things considered for a while there. He's not putting up numbers that are simply "good" when it comes to a 24/7 news station show. Hardly a reasonable reason to guess that he's going to get "axed".

If 2/3's of his previous viewer total is still almost double that of the best show on a competing network (not even a directly competing show) then pointing out the "OMG He lost 1/3rd of his viewers!" is rather worthless in regards to using it as a means of suggesting he warrants or is likely to get the axe.

More proof that the conservative right doesn't know the 1st thing about marketing or the media they claim to hate. It's not how many people you get. It's the kind of publicity you bring in. If you have 3 million viewers but you have trouble coming up with sponsors, it doesn't really matter how many viewers you have. The point of television is to get paid. You get paid by getting sponsors. You get sponsors by having programs they want their names attached to. If sponsors consider Beck's show to be far right and he's losing sponsors(which he has) it doesn't really matter whether he has 2 or 5 million viewers. He's not bringing in money.

How Corporate Sponsorship Affects TV Programs | eHow.com

TV programs reflect the structure of a business, unless they are supported by nonprofit or government grants. Under a business model, TV channels and companies survive and expand by making a profit. These profits come primarily from companies and corporations paying the channel for advertising time between programming.

...

Pressure comes in the form of a corporation refusing to advertise around a specific program. This choice is a direct hit in the wallet, as the refusal is clearly connected with the corporation's dissatisfaction with programming. The channel must decide whether to lose the advertising or change the program to get the revenue back.

Beck's profit is not measured in viewers it's measured in sponsors. The more who publicly repudiate him, the more he hurts the wallet of the corporation he works for. It doesn't matter whether he has 2 or 200 million viewers. Before you go on and write a long boring post about how viewers do matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/media/14adco.html

The companies that have moved their ads elsewhere in recent days included ConAgra, Geico, Procter & Gamble and the insurance company Progressive. In a statement that echoed the comments of other companies, ConAgra said on Thursday that “we are firmly committed to diversity, and we would like to prevent the potential perception that advertising during this program was an endorsement of the viewpoints shared.”

Beck's hemorage is not just on viewers. It's on sponsors. So to suggest he's getting axed next year isn't that big of a stretch. He's losing viewers and sponsors. If he was just losing viewers maybe one could claim he's still holding strong as long as the sponsors stick around but once they go? So do contracts.
 
Last edited:
More proof that the conservative right doesn't know the 1st thing about marketing or the media they claim to hate. It's not how many people you get. It's the kind of publicity you bring in. If you have 3 million viewers but you have trouble coming up with sponsors, it doesn't really matter how many viewers you have. The point of television is to get paid. You get paid by getting sponsors. You get sponsors by having programs they want their names attached to. If sponsors consider Beck's show to be far right and he's losing sponsors(which he has) it doesn't really matter whether he has 2 or 5 million viewers. He's not bringing in money.

How Corporate Sponsorship Affects TV Programs | eHow.com



Beck's profit is not measured in viewers it's measured in sponsors. The more who publicly repudiate him, the more he hurts the wallet of the corporation he works for. It doesn't matter whether he has 2 or 200 million viewers.

Fox News has record profits as part of News Corp, so guess the loss of business you claim has happened hasn't affected the bottomline.
 
Fox News has record profits as part of News Corp, so guess the loss of business you claim has happened hasn't affected the bottomline.

News Corp having record profits is irrelevant to whether one of their programs will get axed. If it were we'd never see a single cancellation of any show on FOX. And yet, here we are talking about Beck getting the axe. He's losing sponsors and viewers. I'd be surprised if his show was renewed for anything more than a season. The crazier he gets the more he loses. Say bye bye to the Mormon messiah.
 
Last edited:
News Corp having record profits is irrelevant to whether one of their programs will get axed. If it were we'd never see a single cancelation of any show on FOX. And yet, here we are talking about Beck getting the axe.

"We" are people here with wishful thinking. Fox isn't going to axe the top rated cable show on the 5:00 Hour as the damage you believe Beck has done doesn't seem to have affected either the network or his ratings. Businesses still want to advertise on a program that is viewed by over 2 million per day.
 
News Corp having record profits is irrelevant to whether one of their programs will get axed. If it were we'd never see a single cancellation of any show on FOX. And yet, here we are talking about Beck getting the axe. He's losing sponsors and viewers. I'd be surprised if his show was renewed for anything more than a season. The crazier he gets the more he loses. Say bye bye to the Mormon messiah.

Maybe they can get Charlie Sheen to fill Beck's spot.
 
"We" are people here with wishful thinking. Fox isn't going to axe the top rated cable show on the 5:00 Hour as the damage you believe Beck has done doesn't seem to have affected either the network or his ratings. Businesses still want to advertise on a program that is viewed by over 2 million per day.

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:

* ADT (added 11/5/10) (statement)
* Aegon (added 9/14/09)
* Airmiles.co.uk (added 10/20/09)
* Allergan (added 8/17/09)
* Allstate Insurance (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Ally Bank/GMAC Financial Services (added 8/17/09)
* Alpro Soya (added 01/11/10) (statement) [see note 5]
* American Express (added 12/7/10) (statement)
* AmMed Direct (added 10/6/09)
* Ancestry.com (added 8/24/09) (statement)
* Anheuser-Busch (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Apple (report) [see note 6]
* Applebee’s (added 8/27/09)
* Ashley Furniture (added 8/28/09)
* AT&T (added 8/24/09)
* AVON (added 7/29/10) (statement)
* Bank of America (added 8/25/09)
* Bell & Howell (added 8/27/09)
* Best Buy (added 8/17/09)
* Best Western (added 2/5/10) (statement)

* Binder & Binder (added 9/2/09)
* Blaine Labs (anti-fungal & scar treatments) (added 8/24/09)
* BMW (added 4/1/10) (statement)
* Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Brez (anti-snoring strips) by Airware Inc. (added 8/21/09)
* British Airways (added 12/14/09)
* Broadview Security (added 8/17/09)
* Brother International Corp. (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Cadillac (added 5/8/10) (statement)
* Campbell’s Soup Co. (added 8/24/09)
* Capital One (added 9/2/09)
* Celsius (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Citrix Online/GoToMyPC (added 10/6/09)
* Clorox (added 8/23/09)
* Closing.com (Closing Corp.) (added 8/28/09) (read statement here)
* Coca-Cola (added 6/24/10) (statement)
* Concord Music Group (Hear Music) (added 10/6/09)
* Constant Contact (added 10/15/10) (statement)
* CVS (added 8/17/09)
* Dairy Crest (added 7/5/10) (statement)
* Dannon Co. (added 9/2/09)
* Diageo (Guinness, Cuervo, Baileys’, etc) (added 10/5/09)
* DirecTV (added 8/27/09)
* Discover (added 9/2/09)
* DITECH (added 8/24/09)
* EggLands Best (added 9/21/09)
* Elations Co. (added 8/24/09)
* Equifax (added 10/6/09)
* Eulactol USA (maker of Flexitol) (added 10/6/09)
* Farmers Insurance Group
* Fly.com/TravelZoo (added 7/21/10) (statement)
* FreeCreditReport.com/Experian (added 8/24/09)
* GEICO
* General Mills (added 8/27/09)
* George Foreman Cooking (added 2/20/10) (statement)
* GetARoom.com (added 10/6/09)
* GlaxoSmithKline (added 1/12/10) (statement)
* Halifax (added 2/14/11) (statement)
* Healthy Choice (owned by CongAgra)
* Helzberg Diamonds (added 12/1/10) (statement)
* History Channel (added 11/11/09)
* Hoffman La Roche (maker of Boniva) (added 10/6/09)
* Holiday Inn (added 5/12/10) (statement)
* Honda (added 1/31/10) (statement)

* HSBC (added 9/2/09)
* Humana (added 9/14/09)
* ICAN Benefit Group Insurance (added 9/2/09)
* Idaho Potato Commission (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Infiniti (added 9/2/09)
* Intersections Inc. (added 2/16/10)
* ING DIRECT (added 01/07/09) (statement)
* Jack Daniels (Updated 12/28/09) [see note 4]
* Jelmar (CLR cleaner manufacturer) (added 9/2/09)
* Johnson & Johnson (added 8/24/09)
* Jordan McKenna Debt Counseling Network (added 9/2/09)
* Jordans (added 2/14/11) (statement) [see note 8]
* Kaplan Tutoring (added 7/8/10) (statement)
* KFC (UK) (a Yum Brands! subsidiary) (statement) (added 7/12/10)
* Kodak (added 1/21/11) (statement)
* KRAFT Foods (added 8/20/09) (read statement here)
* KRAFT Foods (UK) (added 11/13/09)

* Lawyers.com (owned by LexisNexis)
* Le Cordon Bleu Culinary School (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Logo TV (added 3/23/10) (statement)
* Lowe’s (added 8/24/09) (statement)
* Luxottica Retail (parent company of Pearle & LensCrafters) (added 9/14/09)
* Mars (maker of Snickers, M&Ms, Pedigree, etc..) (added 10/20/09) (read statement here)
* Marriott International (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Men’s Wearhouse
* Mercedes-Benz (added 9/2/09)
* MetLife Bank (added 8/5/10) (statement)
* Metropolitan Talent Management (added 10/6/09) [see note 3]
* Michelin (added 11/18/10) (statement)
* Monsanto (added 2/4/11) (statement)
* Natwest (UK) (added 12/11/09)
* Nestle (added 05/03/10) (statement)
* Northland Juices (added 4/8/09) (statement)
* NutriSystem (added 8/24/09) (statement) [see note 7]
* ooVoo (added 10/6/09)
* Overture Films (added 10/6/09)
* Polaroid (added 10/2/10) (statement)
* Premier Foods (UK) (added 11/18/09)
* Premier Inn (UK) (added 12/20/09)
* Procter & Gamble
* Progressive Insurance
* Prudential (added 1/28/10) (statement)
* PUIG Beauty (added 12/14/09)
* Purity Products (added 6/8/10) (statement)
* Radio Shack
* Re-Bath (added 8/17/09)
* Reckitt Benckiser (UK) (added 12/04/09)
* Regions Financial Corporation (added 8/27/09)
* Republic of Macedonia (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Roche [see note 1]
* S.C. Johnson
* SAM (Store and Move) (added 8/27/09)
* Sanofi-Aventis
* Sargento Cheese
* Scarguard (added 10/6/09)
* Schiff Nutrition (maker of Tiger’s Milk & Fi-Bar) (added 10/6/09)
* Sears (added 5/18/10) (statement)
* Seoul Metropolitan Government (added 10/6/09)
* Simplex Healthcare (Diabetes Care Club) (added 9/2/09)
* Smith & Nephew (added 2/9/11)
* Sprint (added 8/23/09)
* StarKist (tuna) (added 2/8/10) (statement)
* State Farm Insurance
* Subaru (added 10/6/09)
* Sylvan Learning (added 2/20/10) (statement)
* Tesco (added 12/19/09)
* Toyota-Lexus USA (added 10/6/09) / Toyota (GB) (added 2/3/10) (statement)
* Travelers Insurance (added 8/27/09)
* Travelocity
* TurboTax (added 3/10/10) (statement)
* UPS (added 8/23/09)
* United Healthcare (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* United States Postal Service (added 9/14/09)
* US Fidelis (added 2/16/10) (statement)
* Verizon Wireless (added 8/21/09)
* Virgin Atlantic (added 01/08/10)
* Vodafone (added 07/02/10) (statement)
* Vonage (added 8/24/09)
* Volkswagen (added 2/16/10)
* Waitrose (added 10/4/09) [see note 2]
* Walmart (added 8/17/09)
* Weight Watchers (added 2/20/10) (statement)
* Western Union (added 2/16/10)
* Woodland Power Products (added 10/6/09)
* Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (added 9/14/09)
* Yorkshire Tea (added 2/9/11) (statement)
* Zoosk (added 8/2/10) (statement)

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom