Aug 25 2009, 11:11AM
Why Hasn't the Glenn Beck Boycott Hurt Fox News?
This Glenn Beck boycott is fascinating. I wrote a post for Andrew Sullivan on the substance of the matter last week, and I think it holds up okay. Let me just say that I continue to be amazed that some people think there is a free speech issue here. It seems to me that the right to free speech does not give you the right to massive corporate underwriting. Glenn Beck can defend "the white culture" and call Obama a "racist" in poverty and in private.
What I'm interested now is the economics of the boycott. Thirty-six companies have apparently signed on. And while it appears that some of them never advertised with Beck in the first place (oops), many if not most of them did. To which Fox responds:
While the advertising boycott has generated substantial media coverage, Fox News said it has not impacted the network's revenues or Beck's audience. "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost," a spokeswoman said.
I have had enough tangential experience with the wacky world of marketing and advertising to believe that what this Fox News spokeswoman says is true. But I still wonder: Why is it true? It's not clear that there should be "no revenue lost" in this situation. Let's assume that (1) the number total TV advertising spots is fixed and (2) the advertising budgets of the companies involved are fixed. (I believe both things are more-or-less true.) Let's further assume that (3) a boycott reduces the total number of available advertising spots.
So when the Beck Boycott hits, the same number of dollars is chasing a smaller number of advertising slots. This should ... raise the price of an advertising slot. And when that happens, I don't understand how the advertisers can simply move their spots "from Beck to other programs on the network" without increasing their advertising budgets. And if they don't increase their budgets, it would be more cost-effective for them to buy spots on (the now relatively cheaper) other networks.
But perhaps that assumes the market for advertising is efficient, and I've never met someone who believes that it is. Or am I missing something?
(Photo: Flickr User permanentlyscatterbrained)
YOu honestly can't pretend to be "for" free speech and then be against speech that you disagree with.
The 36 companies who suddenly find some form of principle by pulling their adds makes me laugh. They advertise their products during violent programming, news programming, sexually explicit material, and ultra liberal talk show hosts,
but can't stand a differnt view point.
Well, I have free speech too, its called, not purchasing their products.
TommyJ... You completely missed the entire point.. and your post is discouraging the action taken against Beck/Fox, but then you support it with your final line.
You do have free speech (not buying a product is not speech) -- BUT - writing an email or letter to a company and telling them you won't be buying their product is free speech. It is then up to the company to decide whether to pull the ad based on your letter or to continue running the ad. (more freedom)... If they get 10,000 similar letters, they might decide FREELY that pulling the ad is best for their company.
If you have a problem with companies that run ads on violent programming, liberal programming, etc... then you are FREE to write to those companies making a similar protest. But you didn't - so not buying their products doesn't do a damn thing. I doubt they notice sales dropping by 1 consumer and think to themselves "Gee, he must have not bought our product due to our ad on MSNBC"
You and I ABSOLUTELY can be for free speech and against speech we disagree with. If someone I know calls gay people fags all the time.. I can CHOOSE to disassociate with that person. I can choose to walk out of a room every time that person walks in. I cannot punch him in the face or shoot him, because I would then be breaking the law -- but I don't have to listen to/agree with him because of "Free Speech".
I can CHOOSE to surround myself with others that have the same general viewpoints as me and ignore and make fun of the other groups. FREE SPEECH does not mean everyone says whatever they want and everyone has to believe and agree with what they say. Glen Beck is a fucking piece of shit actor that doesn't even believe in half of what he says on his show... he is delivering what his viewers want to see/hear. I CHOOSE not to watch him because of this.. I encourage other people not to watch him and Fox News.. again, FREE SPEECH.
Basic civics lesson: The free speech guaranteed by the Constitution means freedom from *government* regulation of speech. It has absolutely nothing - *nada, zip, zero* - to do with the question of whether a network gives into pressure from advertisers. Glenn Beck does not have a Constitutional right to advertising dollars, or to be on the air if Fox decides he has to go. People complaining to advertisers, advertisers taking action to shift ads - all these are healthy signs of the same political process that allows Beck to speak in the first place.
He will be the reason that free speech will be taken away because it is all right to speak but it should be an offense that is punishable by death for lying as he and a bunch of other Repugnant and so-called journalist (i.e.) #1Glenn Drunkard
#2Sham Hammity
#3Lush Limpdick
#4Pill O'Liely
#5 etc. etc. FOX Bullshit Network
#6Senator John McFane the traitor and traitor.
I could go on and on about all of these so-called great Americans they are nothing but a bunch of racist and sore losers and will tell any kind of lie to get back in power BUT them BASTARDS have got another thought coming for if they want us to forget about 12 years of lying and raping America for that long they are full of shit.
I hope that I have not offended anybody by my speaking the truth but the Republican PARTY needs to act out what they PREACH and that is not to rewrite history
what? of course I can. I can 'defend to the death' beck's right to say whatever the heck he wants to say, but advertisers are under absolutely no obligation to fund it.
Except those advertisers are responding to pressure from a samll hard leftwing group started by one of Obama's henchmen in the White House. The advertisers didn't come up with this on their own.
This is no different than the "boycott" of Whole Foods because the CEO had the "effrontery" to challenge "great leader's" obscene healthcare reform.
Of course, we also have all the leftwing name calling in reference to tea parties, town hall protests, etc. Even "dear leader" Obama said he wanted opponents of his healthcare fiasco to "shut up".
The simple fact is that leftists only believe that free speech applies to them and any opponents should be silenced - by any means necessary.
Actually I suspect the advertisers don't want to be associated with nutcases who are becoming increasingly crazed. Crazy people scare their customers - it's bad for business. Seriously - why else would they do this?
The only way to truly offset freedom in speech in our country without breaking the law is to voice a contradicting opinion that is more powerful than the other sides voice. By Walmart, CVS, and Bestbuy(among others) not supporting Mr. Beck's show they are voicing an opinion in favor against your own.
Blue states account for almost eighty percent of GDP so I might say Walmart, for example has an economic incentive to lean against Beck's favor. We are a capitalist society ed, and companies will act in the favor of the people more willing to spend money. These companies would never have publicly announced this if what you were saying was true. This is free advertisements to people who care about the subject, and more often than not the people reading this article will think more likely positive of those companies after this article.
hey stupid its not a free speech issue, its a free market issue. companies choose who they associate themselves with through their marketing and advertising spending. beck is a buffoon and his audience are mainly scared, uneducated white folks like yourself. everything you buy anyway is probably on a maxed out credit card so do us all a favor and stay shacked up in your trailer.
Which of Beck's shows did you watch in order to know so much about it. I have a college degree a job and own a home. I watch. How about you?
tommyJ, I suppose since you claim to be "for" free speech you aren't against those "ultra liberal talk show hosts" and their free speech. So don't worry, be happy.
I'm glad not to buy products advertised by this dangerous raving lunatic - that's my freedom.
Since you obviously don't watch the show, how would you know who the advertisers are and avoid their products?
Fox is swapping in other of their existing non-boycotting advertisers from other programs onto Glen Beck. The 'boycotting' advertisers are just switching places. Assuming they are charging the 'non-boycotting' advertisers the same as before, those companies are surely getting higher eyeballs for their advertising buck vs. the shows they were on before.
Reality check to Conor Clarke: the only people who really care about Glenn Beck are the right-wing loons that worship him and the left-wing nuts that vilify him. To which category do you fall?
A boycott won't work against Mr. Beck because not enough people CARE about what this man says. So he thinks Obama is a racist. BIG DEAL. Political commentators said Bush was a racist after Hurricane Katrina. Political commentators say all sorts of stupid things to get attention and ratings. And it works. The LA Times reported today that Mr. Beck's ratings have only improved recently. He's loving this.
Bottom line: Move along to a new bone to pick. Glenn Beck is just a splotch on the messy fabric that is cable news.
I don't understand why free speech is only available to people with no money and no outlet ("Glenn Beck can defend "the white culture" and call Obama a "racist" in poverty and in private.")
It's unfortunate (and inconvenient for people who disagree) that Glenn Beck and FoxNews have such a wide audience for their bull-s*&#, but I don't think there's much we can do about it, other than what's already being done. I think it's completely irresponsible journalism, but unfortunately, they are allowed to say whatever they want, and only have to change when it becomes unprofitable for them (which, so far, sounds like it's not happening).
Let's be careful...Beck's program is not, by any stretch of the word, "journalism."
tommyJ, great points. I've long been struck by the fact that liberals squawk about free speech and tolerance, but are usually the ones who are intolerant of any view that differs with their own, and attempt to reserve free speech to themselves exclusively.
Where can I get a list of the 36 boycotting companies? That way I can boycott them! I am under absolutely no obligation to fund them.
P.S. Liberals typically claim that they will "defend to the death" the free speech of others, all the while trying to suppress it when it differs with their views.
P.P.S. Read Common Sense by Glenn Beck. Most liberals who were asked about its contents agreed with all of it, but were then shocked to find that it had come from his pen. It is time to take back our country and restore its liberty.
You don't understand how the company isn't losing money? There are still commercials on the show. They just move advertisers from one show to the next. Companies that did not sign the boycott are now advertising on the Beck show while the others just moved to different slots. There is not a reduction in advertising slots, just a scrambled up version.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to the entire post.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Making statements that are factually incorrect and socially inappropiate are another. Just because someone has the right to free speech doesn't mean that false information and inappropiate comments have to be tolerated or accepted from that individual. We value free speech as a nation, but at no point am I obligated to entertain complete garbage from people intent on politicizing every issuse. That is why so many people who wish to express their viewpoints get pounced on with such fury; because when you are wrong you are wrong. It has nothing to do with free speech.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy…always followed by a dictatorship."
Alexis de Tocqueville, French diplomat and historian in the early 19th century, from his book Discovery of America.
It's pretty obvious that people against the ads being pulled or against the issue in general are completely missing the point.
If someone on ANY Fox News or other program said "Retarded babies should be put to sleep" or "Jews should all be killed.. again" -- they would be taken off the air - simple as that. In this case, Fox News is CHOOSING to ignore Glen Beck's racist comments because they know that 80%+ of their viewer base are just as racist as their network.
The fact is opinion based shows are not an open forum to spout out any opinion you have. Like it or not, each host/guests comments reflect on the network/show. This is just simply a case where Fox News knows that Glen Beck calling Obama a racist is exactly what their viewers want to hear - so there is no issue. If any Fox News employee said George W and Dick were murderers and should be tortured and murdered, they would be fired.
I see it's ok for people to criticize Bush and Cheney, but you can't Obama? If you don't like what he has to say DO NOT WATCH or read articles about him. If you don't like something someone is doing, do not watch, read, or listen to the show. It's that simple. Americans want to complain about anything anymore...
there is nothing wrong about criticizing Obama.. he has done several things I disagree with since taking office.. and I talk about that stuff all the time..
But I don't call him a racist that has a deep seeded hatred for white people to pander to my audience. I also don't have several hundred thousand viewers hanging on my every word.. Also, when I make a comment about anything or anyone - I am only representing my own opinion. You don't know what company I work for or what special interests I represent.
The simple answer is certainly "don't watch the show" .. fair enough. But if I have compassion for the rest of my species, I may not want them to be exposed to lies and deceit contained in that show - so I might want to take steps to ensure other people do not watch the show.. I am allowed to do that.
When was the last time you sent an email to Bill O'Reilly that said "STOP complaining about Keith Olbermann and MSNBC -- if you don't like them, don't watch their shows .. stop complaining BILL"
I neither watch any of them to be perfectly honest. There is no such thing as fair journalism anymore. Everyone slants and doesn't provide just the story without their input. Pandering to the left or pandering to the right. I could care less about O'Reilly and Olbermann. Who cares about Beck whether he loses advertisers. Really? When it all boils down to it, it means nothing... And you are the type of person that will raise your voice and make a mountain out of mole hill...
I agree 100% with the first part of your response Blakken. Unfortunately, the majority of this country is not made up of people like you, with a rational view of life. People are making decisions that affect my life and yours based on the bullshit on these shows (left and right)... We are a stupid nation. The people attending health-care reform rallies can't answer basic questions about the current system or what is actually in the bill. I've seen polls that indicate over 1/4 of our country would vote for SARAH PALIN as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Liberal or Conservative, someone that clueless about the world around them can't be trusted with that responsibility .. but the same people getting 100% of their information from Faux News are the same ones that don't even know to question things like that. (It's just gotcha-journalism) - WTF?!?
I seem to recall a chorus of "left-leaning" types making the same arguments about Letterman when Sarah Palin went on the offensive against him. So "it's okay for people to" boycott Letterman "but you can't" Beck?
Yes, you are missing something:
1. This IS about free speech. The founder of the organization Color of Change, which is openly behind the boycott effort, is President Obama's controversial Green Czar, who Beck has taken to task lately. This is a thinly veiled attempt at government censorship, which clearly runs contrary to the 1st amendment.
2. It's not working because there are plenty of other advertisers (who will not boycott Beck) who are perfectly happy to have their ads moved from other Fox News programs to the Glenn Beck program which enjoys higher ratings and viewership.
3. As stated in the article, quite a few of these "advertisers" never advertised on Fox News in the first place, soy their "boycott" amounts to nothing other than bad PR and massive citizen boycotts against the former advertisers, check out how much Geico has lost over this stunt.
I am hopeful and optimistic about America's future. America is what it is because its people have had true guts and glory. The type of people who follow the likes of Glenn Beck are those who live on fear and BS that is fed to them. They like to be told that they are safe at the hands of people like Dick Cheney et al. They cannot think for themselves or see things for what they are.
However, I am hopeful because this kind of base has been shrinking and hopefully we will go back to a nation that puts its legendary efforts in making this a truly great nation based on facts.
Our courts have consistently ruled that the right of free speech can be limited if the speech could reasonably be expected to cause danger to others. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Hate speech has been legally limited. Beck's speech teeters right on that threshold. It incites the uneducated right wing wacko's to violence. It is a subtle form of hate speech. It says 'it's us against them' in a very racist way.
I question the sincerity of the advertisers who have pulled their advertising just from Beck's show. They should pull it from Fox, and withhold it until Beck is gone. I'm going to continue to boycott the advertisers until they are gone from Fox.
Which episode of Beck did you watch?
Are you implying that Beck's speech teeters on satisfying the "clear and present danger" clause? This is hilarious! Who will be so motivated? You? Mighty Horton? I suppose I would be one of those uneducated right wing wackos. I only have a BA, but I'm married to a woman with a Master's in Science, so I guess, by association,I'm exempt.
I also wish people would stop screaming "Racism" when there is none. None whatsoever! Nevertheless, shouting "Racist" in my mind is much closer to shouting "Fire" in a theater. A lot of these racebaiting cowards need a really strong dose of STFU.
God bless you all.
What I find puzzling is why anyone would care what Glenn Beck says on any subject. In most respects, he is similar to the hosts of those TV shows on which people reveal really unpleasant "secrets" about themselves. Anyone who gets upset when Beck and other TV personalities speak would seem to be a bit foolish.
What does not surprise me at all is the people full of horror at what they hear that Beck, or anyone on FOX, says and yet they have never watched one minute of his show or any FOX show for that matter. I do watch FOX, MSNBC, CNN and the rest. I actually watched, as much as I could stand, a show on MSNBC that was discussing an O'Reilly show. They were showing cuts of statements and had a 4 person panel discussing it, horrified. Well I saw the show they were discussing and it did not happen that way at all. The entire MSNBC show was one big fat fabricated lie! I would call it irresponsible journalism, however it's not journalism. I'll defend their right to say it though.
The fact remains that, the efforts of racist organizations (Color of Change, MSNBC) notwithstanding, Glenn Beck continues to enjoy the confidence and patronage of his viewers, listeners and employers. This is the conundrum that Mr. Clarke is referring to, a fact missed by the oh-so-smarter-than-everyone-else martis and violiner. And civil rights aside, what is the matter with people that they can't discuss their differences without becoming so violently partisan? It seems that people are living with blinders on their heads and are unwilling to see a larger world than their own hates and desires. You people act like you are looking forward to another civil war. I think smaller government is better than big government. I think the President should stay out of the affairs of individual states and communities. I think if President Obama has a racial preference, well he's human and he's as entitled to his feelings as anyone else is, including me, you Glenn Beck and Shirley Jackson Lee. You bloggers and journalists need to work on improving the human condition, not dumbing it down to the least common denominator (i.e., martis).
I am hopeful and optimistic about America's future. America is what it is because its people have had true guts and glory. The type of people who follow the likes of Glenn Beck are those who live on fear and BS that is fed to them. They like to be told that they are safe at the hands of people like Dick Cheney et al. They cannot think for themselves or see things for what they are.
However, I am hopeful because this kind of base has been shrinking and hopefully we will go back to a nation that puts its legendary efforts in making this a truly great nation based on facts.
How can you honestly not be concerned about the direction our country is taking?
I find it to be a mark of sincerity, not ignorance that someone would seek the truth and not accept what the media spoon-feeds us.
Is it acceptable to you that we have self-avowed communists and socialists serving as czars to a president that has more czars that Soviet Russia at its prime.
Are you really fine with the fact that the government is running up a debt that will most definitely result in inflation and higher taxes?
Are you okay with activist judges legislating from the bench?
Are you ready to vote into law a health care bill that will give the government control over another 20% of the US economy?
How much nationalization of businesses do we have to have before you realize that our country will soon be the envy of Castro, Putin, and Chavez?
I just don't understand how anyone can be happy about the changes we're seeing.
Please, regardless of your party affiliation, take a minute to examine where the country is headed, think about what the future will look like v. what you want it to look like.
Soviet Russia didn't have any czars. Actually, they killed the czar and his whole family. So the number of czars that Soviet Russia had would be zero.
You may not be happy about the changes your seeing, but that's what happens in a democracy when your guy loses. You wait your turn until the next election and if more people agree with you than disagree with you, your guys get back in power.
If any organization wants to organize a boycott of ALL Fox News advertisers I'd be enthusiastic. I have taken the trouble to not eat at Red Lobster and not use other Beck advertisers. Then the right could boycott MSNBC advertisers and after awhile advertisers would only support real news, instead of party organs spinning the news. Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow wouldn't have wiped their butt with Beck and his ilk. When Bush and company was trying to overthrow the government it was fair for Olbermann to do his Edward R. Murrow moment and call a spade a spade. But overusing that power just makes him a joke. Obama pointed out the problem. Anybody can say anything and it is reported, with a rebuttal that it's not true, but then the "newsperson" doesn't say, "And in fact it is not true," or, "In fact it is true," to then be held accountable by the FCC. Deliberate misinformation on the public airwaves is more obscene than Janet Jackson's tits. The price of using the public airwaves is public service, not private service. Fox is the Blackwater, excuse me, the Xe, of news channels, mercenaries for hire. Every time they promote or spread a lie which is easily seen to be a lie, they should have to retract in the same forum as where they propagated it, on the first offense, and then the fines for subsequent offenses should be progressively steeper.
Oh beanbag! Hate to burst your bubble but Fox News is CABLE and doesn't use public airwaves.
Conor, your 3rd assumption is what is causing your logic to be flawed. A boycott by ALL advertisers would cause the number of spots available to decrease. However, those companies not boycotting advertising on his show are still buying that time. There is probably greater viewership now that there is controversy (isn't that always the way?) and to a media buyer, it is probably a boon to the company they represent that they can get more eyes on their product for the same price. Then a boycotting company picks up the slot left behind.
With all this carrying on, will now have to watch Glen Beck. Hmm, this might be interesting.
News is becoming entertainment. Watch Fox or MSNBC, they use comedy sketches around segments on serious issues to keep you captivated because they think you're an idiot. And, unfortunately, there's a lot of idiots who get their "life instructions" from either of these political news outlets. If you're on the left, you watch MSNBC; if you're on the right, you watch Fox. Each one trying their hardest to bring the other down, sort of like how the dems and reps try to bring each other down. Yawn... In the meantime, we are at war, we're in an economic crisis, there's a health care crisis and public education stinks. There's protests about health care! (hey, look what Michael Jackson's doctor did)There's a war we're fighting in Afghanistan (hey, they id'd that murdered model through the serial numbers on her breast implants)Jobless rates are skyrocketing! (Michael Vick got picked up by the Eagles) Keep watching and buying, America, they're focusing in on your fear and laughing all the way to the bank.
All of the answers to all of the questions regarding Fox News revolve around the following terms:
1- Yellow Journalism
2- Tabloid News
3- Churnalism
4- Writethroughs
5- Muckraking
6- Scandal Mongering
7- Sensationalism
8- Rag