Not only that, but I imagine there are more liberals who would be offended that they refused to run ads on AA. I for one would boycott any company that confirms that they made such a request.
But what about REI’s statement? If what they’re saying is true, doesn’t that cast doubt on the accuracy or authenticity of this document?
I guess we’ll find out more about that as the story develops – assuming there are any journalists interested enough to keep it developing.
I’ve been listening to AA the past few days and, while they sometimes discuss the network’s bankruptcy troubles, I’ve heard no mention of the ABC blackout list from Franken, Rhodes or anybody, yet, nor can I find any mention of the story on their website.
You’d be surprised. Some companies are very sensitive about their image and avoid placing their ads anywhere near content they perceive to be controversial. Others fear that a boycott may not hurt them per se, but hurt their franchisees and others who sell their products; McDonald’s likely falls into this category.
In the past, I’d’ve agreed with you; backlash wouldn’t matter because the listenerships are just too small. But thanks to the Internet, it doesn’t take much to get an e-mail campaign going that reaches people who don’t even live in AA markets, and I know some advertisers think about that.
Finally, as to REI, I’m willing to accept that someone, somewhere made a mistake. I just think you’re seeing a conspiracy where there isn’t one.
Robin
It may not have anything to do with what customers are likely to do. General Motors is notorious for pulling sponsorship out of shows for which the least rumor of controversy has arisen–even shows into which they had already pumped production costs. A frightened sponsor does not have to have a legitimate reason to believe that they will suffer–an irrational fear is quite sufficient.
That said, barring some sort of acknowledgment (or secretly linked memo) stating that the company fears association with a show, I would think that it is more likely that they are basing advertising expenditures on market share rather than association with any show’s content.
Yes, but do they advertise on his radio show?
Out of curiosity, I listened to Michael Savage tonight on my way home from work. He’s the most right-wing radio guy I could find while I was driving. According to the ratings cited above, his share is 8.25…MUCH higher than Air America (which surprised me…I had no idea he is so popular). While I listened, I kept track of the advertisers I heard:
Debt Relief of America
Jimmy Johns Sandwich Franchises
Sleep Number Beds
Panasonic
Great Northern Mortgage
Hewlett-Packard Color Printers
Mold Pro
Visiting Angels Home Care
Kohl’s
Not exactly your heavy hitters like Wal*Mart and McDonald’s. Are these advertisers afraid of right-wing radio as well?
Unless you want to claim that his TV show isn’t politically divisive, I have no clue what that has to do with what I was responding to. Are you making such a claim?
Not if you’re trying to avoid politically divisive shows, no.
Admittedly, I’m not a heavy radio listener, especially of talk radio format of any persuasion. But of the advertisers listed in the OP, the only one I can think of hearing radio ads from is McDonald’s. I don’t recall ever hearing a radio ad from WalMart, Microsoft, Exxon, or Federal Express, for example.
Of that list, two (Kohl’s and HP) can be found on the list of advertisers not wanting to air on AA programming. With annual revenues of over 13 billion and 86 billion respectively, and considering that McDonald’s Corp had revenues of 20 billion, I’d say that they are indeed heavy hitters.
As an aside, considering REI’s statement, I’m perfectly happy with waiting until the facts come out before condemning the companies’ motivations, but if true, then at least some of them appear to be motivated for far different reasons than have been attributed to them by many here.
But, as Sarahfeena pointed out, Savage gets much higher ratings than AA does, so it can still come down to a decision made based entirely on higher ratings.
Robin
Right. I wish I listened to a show that had more comparable ratings, as I said, I didn’t realize at the time that Savage’s were as high as that. (I’m sure he still doesn’t compare to what TV news gets, being radio ratings, but he’s still pretty high compared to most radio talkers.)
I listen to a lot of radio, and flip around a lot to all the talk stations. Many of the advertisers listed are the typical ones I hear over & over (it’s apparently Sleep Number Beds’ favorite way to advertise, because I hear them ALL the time…I must hear their ads literally 10 or more times a day.) I simply do not tend to hear ads for the same kinds of companies that advertise on TV…for whatever reason, they just don’t seem to advertise on the radio.
The ads are oftentimes a little different from TV ads, too…Jimmy Johns was actually advertising for franchisers, as they are a local sandwich place which expanding nationally…I have never heard a regular ad for their restaurants before on the radio.
My point just being that it doesn’t work to compare TV ads to radio ads…radio is just a completely different animal, with far different #s of listeners vs. TV viewers, and also most likely a different demographic profile.
BTW, in my post where I listed the ads I heard, I should have said “not A LOT of heavy hitters.” Obviously, there were a couple…but it was a total of maybe 30-60 seconds of airtime, which is a pretty tiny amount, considering how many ads there are (I actually heard 3 ads for Debt Relief of America while I was listening). So, even the companies that do advertise on talk radio are not spending big bucks on that medium.
Radio advertising is much cheaper than TV advertising, as a general rule. It’s also more localized since radio stations don’t always compete against a network for advertising time. So it’s easier for local businesses to buy radio time.
But you’re basically right about one thing. Radio audiences are different from TV audiences. Most people who listen to the radio are doing other things, like working or driving. So you get more spots for the same product, because research has shown that repetition is necessary for people to understand and remember the message. Spots are also planned to appeal to the most common denominator, so you may hear different commercials at night than you would during the day. Believe me, advertising scheduling is almost as much a science as anything else.
Robin
Regarding the income of Republicans and Democrats, allow me to refer you people to this fairly well thought out and conducted research:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/presentations/redblue.present.pdf
[Caution-PDF!]
Here’s the best available summary from page 13:
“Higher-income states support Democrats
• Lower-income states support Republicans
…
• Higher-income individuals support Republicans
• Lower-income individuals support Democrats”
“The false ecological inference
(Some) Journalists’ Reasoning:
• Richer states and counties now favor the Democrats,
• and since richer states and counties are composed of richer individuals . . .
• richer individuals now favor the Democrats.
Similarly . . .
• Poorer states and counties favor the Republicans, thus poorer individuals
favor the Republicans
• Anecdotes of “latte Democrats” and “Nascar Republicans”
But that reasoning isn’t right. Looking at the individual level …”
“”
My posts in this thread have simply been to counter the stance that the advertisers are avoiding AA because it is politically divisive. Where ratings come into that picture, you’ll have to tell me. Also, Sarahfeena pointed out that the big hitters weren’t advertising on politically charged right wing programming. I showed that some of them are actually doing so.
Ratings are a measurement of how big the audience is. Also, as part of the ratings-gathering process, demographic information is gathered and analyzed.
My point was that advertising decisions may have nothing to do with content, but rather with size and demographic makeup of the audience. Some companies aren’t squeamish about controversial programming (and I think you’d be hard-pressed not to call Savage “controversial”) but care more about the kind of audience they’re buying.
Robin
I’m very aware of all of that, but what started this sidetrack was this statement:
I think that I’ve demonstrated that that is not the reason that at least some of the companies in the purported memo are backing away from AA. Do you disagree?
Not when you put it like that, no.
Robin
Ratngs are only one factor when considering the value of your advertising dollar. Demographics are at least as important. Hee-Haw and Green Acres were both cancelled despite having good ratings, for the simple reason that their audience was old, and old people don’t buy a lot of stuff.
So what’s the demographic mix for Air America? If its audience is poor college students, they might not be worth reaching. The ‘killer’ demographic is generally 25-54 year old males. So, if Fox News is reaching into middle America and grabbing NASCAR families and 30-something working class males, that’s a lot better than reaching the dorms at Berkeley.
And look at the list of advertisers on the Savage show:
Mortgage companies. Debt Relief (gotta like those viewers who’s spending habits tend to put them in debt…). Companies that offer to fix your aching back and get rid of the mold in your home. That’s your Middle America demographic, right there.
The combination of low ratings, a poor demographic, and then the stigma of bankruptcy may have caused those advertisers to say, “Screw this. It’s doing more harm than good. Time to pull the plug and direct our money elsewhere.”
I know BrainGlutton wants to believe that corporations are evil and conservative, but the fact of the matter is that political preference rarely enters into corporate decisions. They have shareholders to answer to, and almost any executive who made a money-losing decision because he’s Republican or Democrat would get his ass kicked.
The rule of thumb for understanding decision-making in corporate America: Follow the money.