Glenn Beck’s Ad Revenue Losses – A Visual Reminder
Posted by FoxNewsBoycott on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009
Filed under Glenn Beck
Filed under Glenn Beck
Want to see what losing 62 advertisers did to Glenn Beck’s bottom line? Check out this graph from Gawker showing his FNC ad revenue drop more than 50%!
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Related posts:
- Glenn Beck’s Ad Revenue Cut In Half! We’ve got big news — Glenn Beck’s show is making...
- ColorOfChange.org’s Efforts Against Glenn Beck Sponsors on Countdown Keith Olbermann addressed the several companies who pulled their ads...
- Glenn Beck Has Lost 96 Sponsors! A recent update by @stopbeck (StopBeck.com) shows that the current...
- UPS Pulls All Ads From Fox News, Not Just Glenn Beck As of yesterday, 36 sponsors have pulled their ads from...
- Number of Sponsors Lost for Glenn Beck: 116 Thirteen more sponsors have been added to the list of...
So long,Glenn!
According to your source (Gawker) they got their information (and professional looking graph) from Color of Change. The same Color of Change that called for the boycott. Since this advertising information is never made public, Color of Change got their numbers from an anonymous source. I’m not saying it’s not true but FNC is denying the story. Do you have other sources or do you just print any negative Fox News story, regardless of the truth?
PS
Why don’t you guys break any news? A phone call here or an email there could put FNB on the map.
Plunket, I guess you didn’t read this part: “a well-known firm that tracks advertising revenue and sells its proprietary data. The firm monitors advertising on shows and uses rate-cards, ratings information, and its own industry contacts to estimate how much advertisers paid for each spot.” Gawker has the source and the raw data.
FNB, I guess you DID read this part: “Color of Change’s release doesn’t say where it got that data…” But we’re supposed to believe that the writer from Gawker (his name wasn’t Woodward or Bernstein) got to view the “raw data” if he promised not to reveal the source. That’s it. That’s his verification. Great reporting.
Besides, Mediaite has already debunked this story.
Plunket, You do realize that if the source was named, people could lose their jobs, right? Journalists have gone to jail to protect the names of their sources. At least they explained how the source was able to provide the information due to their role in being able to provide the data.
Where is your outrage that Fox & Friends, Beck, et al claimed a woman murdered her husband, who is still alive?
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news/fox-news-fox-nation-punked-by-acorn/
Where is your outrage that Beck provided attendance numbers from the 9/12 event that were actually from Obama’s Inauguration?
http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/truth-about-glenn-becks-912-project-attendance-claims/
etc. etc. etc.
As for Mediaite debunking the story, that was their opinion based on Fox News’ word. Fox News has an obvious interest in claiming they have not lost revenue, just like CNN has an obvious interest to use different metrics in claiming viewership. That is to be able to charge more for advertising. The simple fact is that there is only so much time in the day and the smaller advertisers do not pay as much as the larger companies because their ads are usually in less expensive time slots. (A small company like Telebrands can’t likely pay as much as AT&T or BMW) And, there are now numerous in-house and public service ads running during his show. The sponsors who have asked to be removed from Beck’s time slots have been moved to other times, which leaves fewer, more expensive, slots available for sale. Couple that with companies paying in advance, and Fox News will definitely not be able to claim that they haven’t lost revenue when it comes time for companies to renew their contracts. Additionally, Mediaite seems to confuse the loss of Beck’s revenue with the loss of revenue for Fox News as a whole (i.e. “because the loss for the network couldn’t possibly be anything close to the numbers estimated”).
My outrage? The woman (while on camera) said she murdered her husband. All Fox did was just play the video. I’m actually not outraged by any of this. I just think it’s irresposible to take Color of Change’s word without another source. Color of Change provided the “insider” documents, too. I wonder how many places Color of Change shopped this story before they found a taker? Beck’s on the cover of Time this week, did they report this as true?
Mediaite didn’t seem to care which way the story fell. In fact, at the end of the piece they said the boycott hadn’t affected Beck…yet.
Boycotts eventually lose their steam and advertisers can creep back to popular (ratings wise) programs with little or no backlash. The only boycott that will work (verifiably) against Beck is for people to stop watching.
Beck amuses me. So does the response he gets.
Fox didn’t just play the video. They spent hours picking it apart, and all they had to do was check with the police department to verify it, but they (Beck, Hannity, Van Susteren, et al) had to rush to get the story out, regardless of its accuracy.