According to a memo published by the industry website Radio-Info.com at least 98 advertisers -- including big names like Ford, GM and McDonald's -- have indicated they want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments."
Here's an excerpt of the memo, as published on Radio-Info.com:
"To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory. More than 350 different advertisers sponsor the programs and services provided to your station on a barter basis. Like advertisers that purchase commercials on your radio station from your sales staff, our sponsors communicate specific rotations, daypart preferences and advertising environments they prefer…They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public."
Sponsors began abandoning Limbaugh's show en masse after he made offensive comments about Sandra Fluke, calling the law student a "slut" for her testimony in support of President Barack Obama's birth control mandate, and suggesting she should make sex tapes if she wants birth control covered by insurance.
By last count, at least 50 sponsors have pulled their ads from Limbaugh's show, including AOL, The Huffington Post's parent company.
On Thursday, Limbaugh's program was practically devoid of paid advertisements, according to reports.. Of the 86 spots that aired, 77 were "free public service announcements donated by the Ad Council." Seven ads were from companies "in the process of pulling their spots."
Limbaugh's website features in-house advertising for tshirts and baseball caps.
As advertisers were contacted by angry listeners, many said there "were no ads on Limbaugh's show." Upon further investigation, some found that the advertising packages they had purchased did, in fact, include a few spots there, and they made arrangements to have them removed. This was not necessarily because they agreed or disagreed with Rush's statements, but because they want to avoid controversy.
Several talk show hosts have epressed concern that an all out boycott would hurt them as well. Stephanie Miller (6a-9a KPTK) commented, "If a listener is unhappy, by all means they should contact a sponsor and complain about their choice to advertise on a particular show. But to actually boycott the product hurts all of us, even if we had nothing to do with the controversy." RR
boycotts cut both ways.
advertisers are in the business of selling not controversy. the folks on the right are no doubt taking careful note and if they can manufacture 'war on christmas' every year no doubt going after a talk show host advertiser base will be easy pickens...don't shoot me, i'm just the messenger.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 10, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Yeah. I left a comment on Huffpo to that one. They were all conservative except for Leykis. We'll see. Money is money . . .
Posted by: Mary | March 10, 2012 at 07:46 PM
Here is another article about the same topic...
Posted by: sparky | March 10, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Good Article. The most salient point that goes to how it will be likely turned on those cheering the Rush Advertiser Metldown is this:
"An additional irony: just as the technology-driven fragmentation of the landscape allowed partisan media to proliferate, a new technological development is providing the tools to take it down. Social media is making it possible to create a grassroots movement very quickly, voicing grievances very quickly and getting heard at the top of corporate headquarters.
“In the past, a letter, petition, or phone campaign took a few days to put together and longer to execute,” says Valerie Geller. “But now customers [listeners] can instantly rally using Facebook, Twitter, and instant messaging to make their displeasure with a client, product, or service known immediately. These movements can happen fast.”
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers unintended consequences... | March 11, 2012 at 06:10 AM
Nobody listens to talk radio, and the PPM ratings confirm it. Even at its heyday KKKVI was still way down the ratings list, with family-friendly pap like Warm 106.9 being near the top. On top of that, Lush Limbaugh has managed to completely alienate the über-important 25-54 female demographic. It's no wonder his advertisers are abandoning him and his show in droves.
Posted by: OneLessFixie | March 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/310603/20120307/rush-limbaugh-advertiser-show-investor-boycott-stocks.htm
At least 29 advertisers have pulled their sponsorship from Rush Limbaugh's radio program--and now they may be paying the price.
.........
Posted by: ksr | March 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM
All of the name calling is silly, we can have an adult conversation without it.
Posted by: Montego | March 12, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Name calling may be silly, but those who do it (particularly the left) do it because they think it works by pulling in listeners. As for those who jumped on the bandwagon to dump Rush should have known that they were biting a hand that fed them.
As long as the political climate stays polarized, survey says ! No change in sight...
Posted by: KS | March 12, 2012 at 07:13 PM
“In the past, a letter, petition, or phone campaign took a few days to put together and longer to execute,” says Valerie Geller. “But now customers [listeners] can instantly rally using Facebook, Twitter, and instant messaging to make their displeasure with a client, product, or service known immediately. These movements can happen fast.”
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers unintended consequences... | March 11, 2012 at 06:10 AM
An appropriate screen name. With all of the recent new social networking innovations, the playing field has been leveled, so everyone is equivalently pissed off or happy for a snapshot in time. It gives new meaning to what goes around comes around.
Posted by: KS | March 12, 2012 at 07:18 PM
Nobody talks hate and smack like some of the progressive talk shows on the radio and MSNBC.
Rush Limbaugh paled by comparison, but he should have known that he would be attacked by the media midget hypocrites of double standard for saying what he said. However, rising gas prices and the lack of a coherent energy policy from El presidente have a more profound affect on the masses than 100 Rush Limbaughs.
Posted by: KS | March 16, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Yes, the president is responsible for high gas prices just like the last one was responsible for the housing bubble.
Posted by: Jim Beam | March 16, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Partly, actually this one prefers to raise gas prices (as he is doing by not permitting drilling on Federal lands and sending a large chunk of our supply overseas) and the Keystone pipeline construction would have lowered prices by speculation. He really went out of his way to veto it. His fingerprints are on the rise in gas prices as he is selling more snake oil by claiming he is trying to lower gas prices, while doing nothing. Pay attention not to what he says but what he does. This has been a familiar pattern over the last 3 years.
Bush's inaction in the housing bubble didn't help either.. Actually, the repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration had more to do with the housing bubble.
Posted by: KS | March 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM
KS
the Keystone decision is such a horrible one.
the President manages to tick off a key partner in Canada and toss away thousands of jobs.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 17, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Just received this from a friend in Canada...
"A complaint sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January accused TransCanada of using “false or misleading statements about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline,” and “consistently used public statements and information it knows are false in a concerted effort to secure permitting approval of Keystone XL from the U.S. government” with claims the pipeline will create American jobs “at a rate that is 67 times higher than job creation totals given by the company to Canadian officials for the Canadian portion of the pipeline.” TransCanada admits the pipeline’s construction will create at best, a few thousand temporary jobs, and that the Canadian oil will be sold to China and Europe on the foreign market.
TransCanada also reported that instead of reducing fuel prices for Americans, it will increase them because the pipeline will drain off oil reserves as it passes over the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies drinking water to 2 million Americans and is the primary source of groundwater for 20% of America’s agriculture. The potential for environmental disaster is immense because another TransCanada pipeline spilled 12 times in one year, and two years ago in Michigan the Lakehead pipeline system ruptured; crews are still cleaning up the mess because instead of floating, tar sand oil sinks. Those are indisputable facts about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and still, Boehner and the Republicans continue assailing the President for not granting an immediate permit."
It's business. They are hardly "ticked off" as you put it. They have gone ahead and decided to deal directly with China. They are still our largest trading partner.
Posted by: sparky | March 17, 2012 at 09:57 AM
Sparky,
Those temporary jobs will help a lot of folks.
I love the part about, "They are hardly "ticked off" as you put it."
Since when do you speak for all of Canada?
Kind of funny your lack of understanding.
All because someone sends a 'complaint' to the SEC doesn't make it a fact.
Your friend appears to have gotten this off a website "http://www.politicususa.com/keystone-xl-gas-prices/" word for word.
While it is 'business' as you say, turns out to be good business for China.
Listen to this Canadian Gov't Official
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1400694616001
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers facts to Sparkles | March 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM
I don't speak for all Canadians-that's your own personal take on it. But I will believe someone who was born and lives there over your opinions, sorry.
I don't know where she got it. It doesn't mean it isn't true. I realize the Republicans are running out of time and things on which to project their faux outrage, but they will have to find something else. I'm sure you will all keep trying.
Posted by: sparky | March 17, 2012 at 01:04 PM
PS is an accountant he says. So, look at the balance sheet: temporary jobs vs. water, habitat and health
Which is why many of the people depending on the aquifer are against it as well.
KS: "ticked-off a key partner in Canada."
KS used it. Sparky simply responded in kind.
KS wants to be China. Amazing. Suicides over working conditions, polluted everything, and an authoritarian regime.
PS: lack of understanding"
Now that's irony.
BTW, can you refute any of the author's claims? He links the source for each of them.
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 17, 2012 at 02:03 PM
BTW, Sparky, your friend should have linked the source. It is a good one. Whenever an author links to sources, I can make up my own mind about the worth of the claims. The right can rarely do that. Their claims are usually unsupported opinions from the media people who herd the sheep.
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 17, 2012 at 02:09 PM
Truth seeker's half-baked attempt at kabookie theater to characterize his pointless and circular argument- i.e. chasing his tail.
"I don't know where she got it. It doesn't mean it isn't true. I realize the Republicans are running out of time and things on which to project their faux outrage, but they will have to find something else. I'm sure you will all keep trying."
Posted by: sparky | March 17, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Faux outrage - you are the pot calling the kettle black. The Dems Fluked it up with their gimme something for nothing meme and obfuscating of the real issue of overreaching government by making up this issue because Democrat operative Stephanopolous pulled the contraceptive thing out of his orifice. Now the gas prices are pissing off millions of Americans and free contraceptives for sluts has developed a resounding hollow ring, except for narrow minded progressives will keep running it into the ground..
Posted by: KS | March 17, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Canada can sell their gas, not ours to whomever doncha know? it would seem the pipeline will actually close or limit refineries in the midwest plus being a target for sabotage
Posted by: Jim Beam | March 17, 2012 at 02:38 PM
Wow, KS! Little by little, we're finding out who BW's posters really are.
Now the gas prices are pissing off millions of Americans and free contraceptives for sluts has developed a resounding hollow ring,
So, your turn to chime in, PS. Is that your take on it all?
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 17, 2012 at 02:53 PM
"Wow, KS! Little by little, we're finding out who BW's posters really are."
Right back at ya. And your point was ?
Posted by: KS | March 17, 2012 at 03:26 PM
it would seem the pipeline will actually close or limit refineries in the midwest plus being a target for sabotage
Posted by: Jim Beam | March 17, 2012 at 02:38 PM
How did you come up with that boogeyman ? Did you graduate from Evergreen State ?
Posted by: KS | March 17, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Those are the words of the SEC and from TransCanada...a company in, you know, Canada. All the sources were listed.
Which is why I have given up on responding to much here anymore. I could have produced signed, sealed and delivered documents, scanned and posted here and you still wouldn't believe it. That's why discussing anything with you is a huge waste of my time.
Posted by: sparky | March 17, 2012 at 03:56 PM
ah, just like the old days. i'll pull out the 'usual suspects' chestnut just to get things rolling.
ya know sparkles, folks would take you a whole lot more serious if you had a bit of consistency in you. you have a democratic governor and uber democratic majorities in the legislature yet you still blame tim eyman for funding woes. why won't those dems step up and increase taxes? why don't they have the courage of their convictions if they think we should raise taxes? even those pesky initiatives of tim eyman only have the force of law for a limited period of time at which point the legislature can over turn it.
you are the same one who cried to the heavens about the usapatriot act back in the 'horrible' bush years (citing the worries that the fbi would be spying on what you checked out at the Library) yet President Obama has expanded the War on Terror laws to include the interpretation that he has the right to order the death of an American Citizen without due process. you were the same one crying about waterboarding is torture, etc but it's okay to kill without a trial? Nary a peep.
So as we move it to Keystone, since Pres Obama vetoes it then of course it's okay to say no to those jobs. As you put it, just temporary...as if the pipeline installation is a three month project. LMAO
Or maybe you are consistent, if a Dem is behind it then its all 'Jake' and if a Repub is behind it then it must be bad.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 17, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Close Gitmo...ah, not so fast.
End Military Tribunals...ah, not so fast
End Rendition...ah, not so fast
Withdraw from Afghanistan...ah, not so fast
End Drone Attacks...ah, not so fast
End the USAPATRIOT Act...ah, not so fast.
The Far Left Dims....ah, they are not so fast.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 17, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Old days? Another rant is all you gave. Another condescending factless diatribe. Simplicity is on the bottom of Bloomos Taxonomy.
BTW, ...folks would take you a little more seriously if...
Now you're speaking for "folks?" And just who are they? She's right.
usual suspects
The Far Left Dims
You couldn't wait to pull out the name calling and the pejorative comments could you. There's not one fact in what you've written. Not one. All opinion and all negative.
That's the "good old days" for you.
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 17, 2012 at 05:29 PM
thats what it lookslike to me too, old days
Posted by: Jim Beam | March 17, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Truth-Seeker
Not one fact?
With Pres Obama, suddenly no protests over the crap that when Bush did it 'folks' were all a twitter...nothing of note over the last three years. Kind of Funny, eh? Anyone here really think if it was Pres McCain pursuing those same policies that the Left would be so quiet?
Puhleeese. 'Folks' would take these faux protests more seriously if their was a little bit of consistency in their outrage. Which brings us back to Keystone that Sparkles is all a twitter about. She's against it until she is for it, which will be the day Pres Obama signs it into law. Kind of like Gitmo, Drone Attacks on civilians, waterboarding, USA Patriot, etc etc etc.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 05:53 AM
Nope. No facts . . . still no facts.
Lots of opinions, though. And some mis-characterization about Sparky.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM