HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » More sponsors yank ads fr...

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:23 AM

More sponsors yank ads from Limbaugh (many buyers are advising their clients to sever ties…)

Source: Media Life Magazine

More sponsors yank ads from Limbaugh
Some 30-plus have withdrawn support from the radio talker's show

By Bill Cromwell
Mar 7, 2012

The number of advertisers abandoning Rush Limbaugh's talk show has gone from a trickle to a flood.

More than 30 companies have pulled their ads off his program, including more than 20 yesterday alone, as the fallout continues over Limbaugh's comments last week about a Georgetown University law student, whom he called a slut and a prostitute for discussing contraception in front of a Congressional committee.

And the advertiser exodus probably is not done.

Sentiment in the media community is clearly against Limbaugh, as a poll taken yesterday by Media Life found, and many buyers are advising their clients to sever ties to the radioactive talk show host.



Read more: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Radio_46/More-sponsors-yank-ads-from-Limbaugh.asp

41 replies, 6363 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply More sponsors yank ads from Limbaugh (many buyers are advising their clients to sever ties…) (Original post)
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 OP
MADem Mar 2012 #1
gvstn Mar 2012 #2
Aviation Pro Mar 2012 #3
liberalmike27 Mar 2012 #12
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #14
DeSwiss Mar 2012 #18
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #26
Aviation Pro Mar 2012 #37
allan01 Mar 2012 #4
Vincardog Mar 2012 #5
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #8
Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #16
Vincardog Mar 2012 #17
Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #21
unionworks Mar 2012 #36
Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #38
unionworks Mar 2012 #39
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #41
Brother Buzz Mar 2012 #33
Botany Mar 2012 #6
zipplewrath Mar 2012 #15
deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #7
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #9
deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #10
Wait Wut Mar 2012 #11
CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #22
Wait Wut Mar 2012 #24
CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #28
Bonhomme Richard Mar 2012 #13
spiderpig Mar 2012 #19
mac56 Mar 2012 #34
Demonaut Mar 2012 #20
christx30 Mar 2012 #23
Kalidurga Mar 2012 #25
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #27
Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #29
OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #30
DeschutesRiver Mar 2012 #31
Fuddnik Mar 2012 #32
emulatorloo Mar 2012 #40
Gman Mar 2012 #35

Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:35 AM

1. They're dropping like flies!

Capital One similarly said it usually does not run ads on Limbaugh but one had aired inadvertently on a Limbaugh web page. The financial company said it will boycott Limbaugh entirely going forward.

Other advertisers pulling their support included John Deere and AccuQuote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:41 AM

2. Thanks! This article from Media Life is even more damning...

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Radio_46/Buyers-to-clients-Dump-Rush-Limbaugh.asp

"Pull support. It's not what he said, it's the tone of what he said, he was factually wrong in the items he testified were true,". noted another "He has a strong enough popular appeal that people believe the lies -- the power of advertising is that people believe in the product or service being advertised; linking a product to a liar is just not smart business."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:42 AM

3. His poor....

...beard, er, trophy wife is probably doubling down on Xanax knowing that his wealth will soon evaporate.

This is the way you hit bags that douche, right in the wallet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:02 PM

12. His "Income"

Not his wealth. His wealth is pretty solid, as I'm sure the guy is in Romney territory as to overall accumulated wealth.

I think it's time to put him out to pasture, and I'm not sure that is going to happen. They can no longer control what comes out of his mouth.

He's like a cancer on the media, and needs to be excised. The 15 million listeners need to find themselves in a vacuum, so they can think about there terrible choices in radio listening, and find someone else to repeat.

God I wish we could go back to a time where a conservative could just simply say "I don't believe insurance companies should pay for birth control," rather than go into all of this maniacal BS. But the truth would never get Republi"cons" elected. They need the con to dupe their middle and lower class voters, don't they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:13 PM

14. Thomas Jefferson faced the same frustration in his day.

http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116906


To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, etc., but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the first, Truths; the second, Probabilities; the third, Possibilities; the fourth, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Such an editor, too, would have to set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these abominations still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation which should fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves. It seems to escape them that it is not he who prints but he who pays for printing a slander who is its real author.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:38 PM

18. That second paragraph???

I wish Jefferson had put that in the Constitution as a design requirement for all press.

- Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it before.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:35 PM

26. Sadly, Jefferson had little to do with Constitution ;)

He was one of the advocates for what we know as “The Bill of Rights” but only as an outside observer:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/v1ch14s49.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:51 PM

37. His wealth is going to take a hit...

...because can anyone imagine this fat, bloated carcass cutting back on his lifestyle?

Me neither.

Wealth, even major wealth, disappears pretty quickly when your revenue stream is cut off.

Of course, he'll go on the rabid right-wing lecture circuit at 50,000/one hour hate fest, but just like that waste of zygote named Palin that will get old very soon.

Come to think of it these shitstains should get together cannibalize each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:52 AM

5. WE need to push them to drop Clear Channel all together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:22 AM

8. I think complaints to the FCC are in order

I filed a complaint with the FCC, and encourage others to do the same. Find out what station carries Rush in your area, what network they belong to, and when they run Rush (you’ll need this information to file the complaint.)

Then, file a complaint, based on Indecent or Profane programming.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity
Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.



Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.





http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201202290008
Limbaugh: Student Denied Spot At Contraception Hearing Says "She Must Be Paid To Have Sex," So She's A "Slut" And "Prostitute"

February 29, 2012 2:46 pm ET

From the February 29 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:




http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203010013
Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk"

March 01, 2012 3:52 pm ET

From the March 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:




http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203020013
Limbaugh: Fluke Said She's "Having Sex So Frequently That She Can't Afford All The Birth Control Pills That She Needs"

March 02, 2012 3:13 pm ET

From the March 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:




http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203020013
Limbaugh Further Denigrates Fluke, Saying She Has Boyfriends "Lined Up Around The Block. They Would Have Been In My Day"

March 02, 2012 3:33 pm ET

From the March 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:




Seriously, if a “fleeting expletive” at the Emmys led to an FCC crackdown, how about an ongoing line of character assasination, libel and the intentional use of vulgar language?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:19 PM

16. There are huge problems with "Clear Channel" itself. It's right,proto-military defense organization?

The term "Clear Channel," I'm told, means it is designated a strong, "clear" emergency broadcast station, for national/military emergencies. But as part of this martial law orientation? The Clear Channel stations, tend to (or are required to hire?) ex- and current military employees. Who are? Extremely right wing; militaristic; "support the troops" folks.

That's who supports Limbaugh.

Shouldn't this be illegal in fact? For the military and Homeland Security, to be running their own media network? And broadcasting right wing messages on it? Isn't that just ... police state propoganda, directed at our own citizens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:23 PM

17. BANE Capitol owns them. Mitt Richy Rich Rommney owns a large piece of Bane Capitol.

When Clear Channel radio personality pushing Republican "conservative" items, I wonder if the FEC will require equal time for the Democratic progressive views?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:32 PM

21. Yikes! A real RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY? Clear Channel, the right wing propoganda/takeover channel?

"Clear channels" by the way, originally meant AM channels that were kept clear, for night-time communications. But? These channels also double for national emergencies. And? WOAI, San Antonio, was one of the originals; and it was also founder of "Clear Channel Communications." The network ... named for this night/emergency/military function.

And as such? Clear channel Com. always retained a sense of ... conservative/national/military preparedness.

By the way? Talking to right-wingers in bars in Texas? I discovered that they claim they have strong ties to our overwhelmingly Republican military. And? The right wing expects the Army to back them up one day, in a national emergency coup.

Guess they'll need a communications network for this, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:23 PM

36. "Overwhelmingly Republican Military"???

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unionworks (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 05:55 AM

38. 80% of active military troops self-identify as Republican. Especially since the end of the draft.

It makes sense. Who joins the military? People who are hyper-patriotic, and militaristic;

Those who are not? Congratulations. But look around you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 06:44 AM

39. source please

 

And from my own observations, about half of the military is composed of minorities who saw enlistment as a way out of poverty. These folks do not vote republican. That is why you see USMC recruiters walking aroundd the "hood" in dress blues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unionworks (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 05:40 PM

41. Yes, 80% was certainly overstated, however military members are more likely to be Republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:43 PM

33. They are almost there without our help

<snip>
Premiere Networks, the Clear Channel subsidiary that syndicates Limbaugh's program, is urging media buyers to consider moving their clients' ad dollars from Limbaugh's show to another one of its programs so that it does not have to offer refunds, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Whether that strategy will work remains to be seen. Many have criticized Premiere for jumping too quickly to Limbaugh's defense when the controversy began.

The syndicator merely said it respected Limbaugh's right to his own opinion in a debate that inflamed so many people's passions.

But with media people so disgusted with Limbaugh's behavior, they may not want their clients to continue to support Premiere, which seems to be enabling the host's continued claims that he was merely stooping to his critics' level when he used the words slut and prostitute.



http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Radio_46/More-sponsors-yank-ads-from-Limbaugh.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

6. I think a lot of companies were looking for a reason to drop Rush

Could this be the beginning of the end for Rush???? hope hope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:15 PM

15. I think so too

I suspect there was no small amount of desire to somehow get out of this show. At one time they may have felt that it was a bear they didn't want to poke. Now they can get out "clean" and be done. Many have opined that his numbers aren't anywhere near what they were, if they ever were. Many may have felt they've been over paying for years.

He'll probably be around for years. Rumor was he paid many of the stations that carried him, because he could sell the advertising on his own. At some point, he may not see the value in that, and the whole enterprise will come to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:21 AM

7. The count is up to 43

according to Thinkprogress at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deacon_sephiroth (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:24 AM

9. I'm afraid ThinkProgress is overcounting

They seem to be counting companies who claim not to have been advertising on Rush in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:30 AM

10. awww, poo

oh well, though I'd love for the number to be as high as possible accuracy is more important. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:49 AM

11. I was thinking of that this morning.

While I'm truly grateful to the companies that have pulled their ads. What about the companies that refused to air ads on Rush from the beginning? Harder (if not impossible) to track, but I think I'll pay closer attention to the ads on shows like Maddow, O'Donnell, etc. A quick(?) comparision might give us some insight into the "already there" companies.

I'm all for rewarding the kid who has voluntarily stopped hanging out with the bullies, but I don't want to ignore the kids that have been spending their freetime at homeless shelters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:48 PM

22. Grateful?

 

The boycotters better buy their products to make up for the Rushbots dropping the droppers. Or they boycott will look stupid and silly. Rushbots are voting with their wallets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CAPHAVOC (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 02:00 PM

24. I'm personally not in the market for a John Deere.

But, I placed a much larger than normal order with Vitacost, I've been a customer of Netflix for 10 years and will continue to be, my opinion of Penney's has improved so I'll put them back on my list of places to shop at...I'm not going through each advertiser. You get the point.

And, please forgive me if I have a hard time imagining any of the "Rushbots" shopping anywhere but Walmart and the local "OMG! The Sky is Falling!!!" store. I've known a few and work with one. Their threats are as empty as their heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

28. Righto

 

Biz goes for the bottom line...Deere makes good boat engines. I get shoes at Penney's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:09 PM

13. People need to contact the local stations that carry him.

That's what I did and told them that I will not purchase from their advertisers as long as they support Limbaugh. It probably won't count for much but it's something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:46 PM

19. I agree, BR

When expressing outrage to friends and family, many shrug and ask "What are you doing about it?"

I vote, I call, I write, I march.

(Adding parenthetically that I always try to express my views in a reasoned and civil manner - but how do we realistically deal with these nuts who refuse to play nice?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:43 PM

34. Put it in writing. CC it to the FCC.

Tell the station that you expect the letter to be placed in their public inspection file, available for review.

BTW, a listener can inspect a station's public inspection file at any time.

The FCC takes these matters seriously.

(have worked in radio for 15+ years)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:04 PM

20. Lifelock still advertising "Rush as spokesperson" and Geico, Granger,

goldworth financial, la quinta inns,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:55 PM

23. This is amazing!

I don't listen to Rush any more. I didn't know there was this much time in 3 hours for that many advertisers. I always tune out during the advertisements. But I think it's probably too late for Rush. Once an avalanche gets started, it's impossible to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:24 PM

25. I guess I shouldn't have expected an immediate response from advertizers.

I didn't know how complicated advertizing on radio was. For example I didn't know they bought ad slots and didn't always know what programs their ads would be placed on. But, that being said, I wish that the comapanies would have checked where their ads are going and would have had a spokesperson or someone respond to Rush's diatribe and non-factual musings, to put it nicely. He needed to be off the air 20 years ago. But, I will take having him gone today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:39 PM

27. Having had something to do with buying radio ads on occasion…

It’s like everything else in life.

The more control you want over when your ad runs, the more it will cost you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:51 PM

29. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, OKIsItJustMe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:06 PM

30. You’re welcome

My pleasure…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:22 PM

31. Rush says he hasn't lost a single "sponsor", nor have station affiliates lost a single dime.

Says that with 18,000 advertisers, 28 gone is the equivalent of losing a few fries from your fry container - no big deal; besides, 2 are begging to come back to his time slot, plus he will be announcing 3 new ones.

Says the left either doesn't understand the business or is just lying, and that they are going to blow up in frustration and anger in a few weeks when they figure out that he ain't going anywhere over this dustup.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/07/clearing_up_misinformation_on_our_sponsors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeschutesRiver (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:34 PM

32. Obama should buy his advertising slots.

All of his listeners will ditch him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeschutesRiver (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 08:30 AM

40. 18,000 advertisers? Sure, Rush.

Must be into LSD now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKIsItJustMe (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:22 PM

35. Wow. Is this finally it for El Rushbo?

I dunno, he's got 9 lives. I thought he was done in before and he always comes back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread