I actually doubt they are avoiding AA because it is politically divisive…I agree with you on that point.
As I said in my last post, I realize that there were a couple of big companies advertising on Savage, but that they aren’t spending too much (one short ad spot apiece, compared to the multiple spots other advertisers are running), and that Savage’s ratings are much higher than AA. I see these, as well as the demographic reasons mentioned by MsRobyn and Sam Stone, to me much more compelling explanations than politics for why those 2 large companies would run on Savage and not AA.
I don’t know how it is in Canada, but in the U.S., major corporations spend a lot of money on politics, almost always on the conservative side. They give as much money as the law allows (or more) to Pub campaign funds, they fund right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, and those K Street lobbyists don’t come cheap. Each and every one of these would be a “money-losing decision” in terms of immediate impact on next quarter’s bottom line, but CEOs somehow never seem to get turned out by the shareholders for doing these things; perhaps the shareholders are also capable of taking the long view, and/or most of them have their own conservative ideology.
Of course they spend a lot of money on politics. They spend it to try to get people elected who will do things that benefit the company. Or they spend the money simply to buy a seat at the table. That doesn’t mean they ARE ‘conservative’ or "liberal’. In fact, go look up how many companies give huge gobs of money to candidates in BOTH parties.
Backing politicians who will vote to protect your interests is a lot different than choosing to pull money from a profitable ad campaign simply because you don’t like the political message of the carrier.
Major corporations do not make money-losing decisions for ideological reasons. They make ideological choices for the purpose of making money. Big difference.
Consider these two possible conversations. Which one do you think might actually happen in a boardroom?
“We need to pump some money into Senator X’s campaign. If he gets elected, he wants to do Y. If Y comes to pass, it will drive down the price of our major raw material cost, and increase our profits. That’s good for our company. Besides, if we put some money in Senator X’s campaign and he wins, it will give our lobbying group more leverage in Washington, which we can use to our benefit down the road.”
“I want us to pull our profitable ad campaign from Air America and lose us some money, because I think Democrats suck.”
I dont think it is about cost. If the ratings are lower ,the cost is lower. Nor would it be about the target audience. They also buy things. It would have to be an anti liberal thing.They want to reward Fox etal for supporting the right agenda. They dont want to be associated that much with liberal causes,
Of course there’s a difference. The first is a business decision, grounded in improving the financials of the company. The second is an intentional losing of money for ideological purposes.
I not sure it can be proven that radio advertising actually translates into measurable increased sales. They would not stop if it was proven to hurt profit.
Not to mention that in your scenario, Senator X could be a Democrat…it is certainly not unknown for big business to donate to Democrats. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, depending on what the business thinks that Senator X will do while in Washington. Boycotting a radio network because of its editorial slant is completely different…it would be a non-specific attempt to…what? Make a political statement, which may or may not be helpful to the company, just to make a point? Seems far-fetched to me
But, that’s the nice thing about being an American businesscritter. Generally there is no conflict between the corporation’s business interests and the business-conservative (not economic-libertarian) political ideology that demands putting those interests before almost everything else.
The point is that your theory that advertisers are pulling out of Air America because they are run by Republican partisans doesn’t hold water. Either they are doing it for financial benefit, in which case they don’t have to be Republicans or favor Republicans to make that decision, or they are intentionally losing money to help sink a liberal radio network. Companies just don’t behave ideologically like that, and if they did, please explain why they chose to advertise on the network in the first place.
You claim it’s for ‘fairly obvious and purely political’ reasons. It may be fairly obvious to you, but I certainly don’t get it. Maybe you just need to explain it better.
The network on which these companies/entities chose to advertise in the first place was ABC Radio, not Air America. Apparently there’s some kind of advertising-contracting relationship between the two.
Furthermore, you are drawing a false dichotomy between “doing it for financial benefit” and “intentionally losing money to help sink a liberal radio network.” In the first place, in their eyes the second goal furthers the first, in the long run. In the second place, deciding not to advertise on AA is not clearly and obviously a money-losing decision, although it is possible it is a less than optimal application of their advertising dollars in terms of immediate effect on sales, recruiting*, etc.
*Don’t forget the Navy is also on that list.