What hath Rush wrought?

[ProSense]

What hath Rush wrought?

By Steve Benen

Limbaugh may notice trouble for his industry on the horizon.

One of the key angles to the recent controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh has to do with advertisers: at last count, 51 sponsors of the Republican's show have pulled their support, leading to a "dead air" problem in at least one major market.

As it turns out, though, it's not just Limbaugh. The larger set of circumstances -- the public backlash to the host's misogyny, social-media activism, advertisers' reluctance to take sides in a culture war -- has affected a broader group of far-right hosts in an unexpected way.

Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments." The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald's, Subway).

Premiere Radio syndicates Limbaugh's show, but the network has heard from these dozens of high-profile advertisers -- which, collectively, are worth millions of dollars in ad revenue -- each of whom want to avoid sponsorship of content that may be "deemed to be offensive or controversial." Among the other hosts included on the list are Mark Levin, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

It's brought the industry to an unexpected point: Limbaugh has become so toxic, major advertisers want to avoid him and other shock jocks who might be as offensive as he is. As John Avlon noted over the weekend, "Rush Limbaugh made the right-wing talk-radio industry, and he just might break it."

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/12/10651878-what-hath-rush-wrought

Petition to remove Limbaugh from AFN, more than 20,800 and counting: http://wh.gov/X1O

[zipplewrath]

1. This could be far reaching

These advertisers are running from ALL political discussion. Truth is, they could be running from all "controversy". They could end up running from Rachel and Olbermann as well. Ultiimately, they could run from Simpsons and South Park. Basically, we could see ourselves going back to the days when TV was sterile and Laura Petri was suppose to limit how often she wore capris.

I'm dubious we'll get there. Advertisers go where the eyes and ears are. I strongly suspect this trend has less to do with avoiding controversy, and more to do with low ratings. Advertisers are probably far more interested in many of the new mediums than in forums like AM radio.

[CAPHAVOC]

2. You get it.

These boycotts are lame. I have been scolded for saying so but it is true. Rush will probably just end up with a fatter wallet. AM radio is mainly for people in their cars. But yes. What if the Right Wing and Religious start boycotting too?

[ProSense]

4. Oh please

You get it. These boycotts are lame. I have been scolded for saying so but it is true. Rush will probably just end up with a fatter wallet. AM radio is mainly for people in their cars. But yes. What if the Right Wing and Religious start boycotting too?

...this is utter nonsense. If Rush will end up "with a fatter wallet," then he should voluntarily get is vile ass off the public airwaves.

[eShirl]

6. you mean, what if the rightwing and religious *continue* boycotting...

You mean like the boycott of JC Penney for daring to employ a known homosexual? Yeah, that was a smashing success.

[ProSense]

3. Except that

These advertisers are running from ALL political discussion. Truth is, they could be running from all "controversy". They could end up running from Rachel and Olbermann as well. Ultiimately, they could run from Simpsons and South Park. Basically, we could see ourselves going back to the days when TV was sterile and Laura Petri was suppose to limit how often she wore capris.

Olbermann is on cable. The above extrapolation based on the OP is pretty far fetched.

[zipplewrath]

7. The extrapolition is a bit long

I even said as much in my OP. However, it does appear that they are running from political discussion, at least that which is based upon controversy. I don't particularly see them making any political distinctions in their avoidance.

And, as I said originally, I'd bet these positions have as much to do with the declining listenership of the medium as anything. Why pay for marginal advertising with so much potential downside?

[ProSense]

8. Hasn't

And, as I said originally, I'd bet these positions have as much to do with the declining listenership of the medium as anything. Why pay for marginal advertising with so much potential downside?

...the claim been that Limbaugh has a huge audience?

[zipplewrath]

9. By Limbaugh

There's been questions for years about how large it actually is. There is no system for measuring the size of his audience. He makes various claims, but independent efforts have often come up with numbers around 2 million, when he generally claims between 18-21 million.

Advertisers were drawn to him because of his ability to generate responses to his advertising. They have ways of detecting what advertising is being effective. I've been suspicious that that effectiveness has been on the wane lately. That could either be because his numbers are falling, just like Beck, and Hannity and others have seen on TV. Or it could be that the advertisers are "raising the bar" on what constitutes "effective" now that they have more interactive forms on the web. AM radio in general was seen as a "good buy" because basically one could get in so cheaply.

I'm beginning to suspect those days are over. Radio on general has been experiencing declines in revenue. Across the entirel FM band around here there has been a mass exodus of on air talent, in some cases replacing them with syndicated shows from around the country. I'd bet that advertisers sat up after his latest fiasco and asked them why there were in these markets at all.

[ProSense]

11. So

"By Limbaugh"

...the advertisers have been taking Limbaugh's word for the size of his audience?

I don't buy it.

[zipplewrath]

12. Read again

They have their own ways of measuring their effectiveness. I'm sure there were advertisers that accepted the larger numbers. And I'm sure that the folks selling advertising used those kinds of numbers for their sales pitches. But I strongly suspect that they have been having doubts for some time.

This road has been traveled before. The newspapers were reporting vastly exaggerated circulation numbers for YEARS before the advertisers caught on. Advertisers often rely upon secondary measures to determine the effectiveness/efficiency of ads. Those measures don't necessarily correlate well with stated listenership numbers.

[ProSense]

13. I really

They have their own ways of measuring their effectiveness. I'm sure there were advertisers that accepted the larger numbers. And I'm sure that the folks selling advertising used those kinds of numbers for their sales pitches. But I strongly suspect that they have been having doubts for some time.

This road has been traveled before. The newspapers were reporting vastly exaggerated circulation numbers for YEARS before the advertisers caught on. Advertisers often rely upon secondary measures to determine the effectiveness/efficiency of ads. Those measures don't necessarily correlate well with stated listenership numbers.

...do understand what you're trying to say. What I'm saying is that the mass exodus has everything to do with the current controversy. Without it, advertisers would have kept on supporting that blowhard.

[zipplewrath]

14. I suspect your correct

But the fact that it extends beyond just Rush suggests this isn't so much a case of him specifically, and really a view of the entire business. They aren't seeing the effectiveness, and what they do see is the potential risks of the whole market segment. If it were more effective, if there were a larger audience, it might be worth the risks. But it would seem that this isn't the case. An awful lot of advertisers are coming to the same conclusion at the same time. That leads me to believe that their was an underlying weakness to begin with.

[GopperStopper2680]

5. Cue the 'Death March'

Death to the moguls of 'Hatio'! May they serve as a festering example to the sions of hate breeders to come in future generations.

[Taverner]

10. I thought Tom Leykis retired?

He was an interesting breed - politically more Center-Left, but at the same time a misogynist's misogynist