• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Another Ad Boycott At Fox

T

TheBigA

I've said before that I'm not a fan of advertiser boycotts against show hosts. I don't think it's a good tactic. It's bad for the industry, it's bad for the format, and I believe it's bad for democracy. But that's just my opinion.

Two days ago, one of the Parkland High School students, David Hogg, called for an advertiser boycott of Laura Ingraham's show on Fox, because of her tweet attack on him.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/29/media/laura-ingraham-apologizes-david-hogg/index.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...tudent-criticism/ar-AAvfWU8?OCID=ansmsnnews11

http://www.tmz.com/2018/03/29/david-hogg-laura-ingraham-boycott-whining-cyber-bullying/

It seems to me an ad boycott against a show should have something to do with what's done during the show, not something done by the host off the air. But again, that's just my opinion.

To me, the interesting thing was the way in which the student went about it, and the speed with which it had an effect. High school students really understand social media in ways that make adults really look bad. Certainly any time an adult picks on a high school kid, it's a bad idea. We all should pay attention and learn from this incident, because I expect it will happen again.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, boycott are democracy in action. Its American to stand up and say NO, I DISAGREE,, and then use your financial clout,, how ever small,, and not patronize a company that supports something you do not. If a store owner calls you ugly, you wouldn’t go to that store. In the same way, Ingraham said something people didn’t like, and as a way to show their disapproval, they boycott people that support her and her show.
 
I'm no fan of Laura Ingraham, but the high school student has plenty of adults and left-wing money backing him, free unchallenged airtime anytime he wants, and any criticism brings "how can you dare criticize a teenager!"
 
Ingraham should've realized that criticizing him was a no-win proposition. She's free to criticize what he says, but something like his not getting accepted at some colleges would be seen by even many of her fans as petty. I think she endures this, and at least some of the advertisers will quietly return. The ones who heeded the boycott also made a mistake, IMO. A better response would've been something like, 'Laura Ingraham hosts an opinion show that has, and will continue to have strong views. While we don't think Ms. Ingraham's criticism of Mr. Hogg's college prospects were appropriate, they were but a small part of her show, and she has apologized. We want all Americans to be aware of our amazing product which is why we place advertising with Ms. Ingraham's show and shows that have an opposite view. We are a product for all Americans.'

I mean you're going to let your advertising placements be dictated by a 17 year old who had his feelings hurt?!? Come on!
 
There's a lot of anger on the Rachael Ray Facebook page about her decision to pull advertising for her pet products from Ms. Ingraham's show, but I think a lot of it is from fake Facebook accounts because a lot of posts from different people were the same word for word. There's also calls to smash all the Rachael Dishes, cookware, etc - boycott her talk show, and boycott The QVC, which sells her products. (Why QVC specifically? Her cookware is also available at retailers ranging from Walmart to Target to Kohl's to Macy's and her pet products are sold at supermarkets such as ShopRite, Stop & Shop/Giant, etc and pet store).

You want to talk about mental illness in this country? Check out the comments to Rachel Ray's Facebook page. *eye-roll*

As for Ms. Ingraham herself. Washed up nobody. - Her show is on one of the lowest rated radio stations in Hartford.
 
umfan said:
I mean you're going to let your advertising placements be dictated by a 17 year old who had his feelings hurt?!? Come on!
Click to expand...

That's obviously not the issue. If it was just the 17 year old, you're right. But this 17 year old managed to mobilize a lot of other people, and its that mobilization that had the effect.
 
sack said:
I disagree, boycott are democracy in action.
Click to expand...

In a way, or it's tyranny. The tyranny of a minority to shut down another voice, by going after the finances rather than the issue itself.

So it's not about the free flow of ideas, where one discusses whether or not adults should harass high school kids.

Advertisers don't necessarily buy spots on a TV network for political reasons or to support the views of a host. They buy commercials because they want to reach an audience to get them to buy products. But this approach reduces the sponsor pool on channels like this to only sponsors who agree with the views expressed. In the long run, that's not a good thing for anyone.
 
Last edited:
When the 17 year old claims every NRA member wants dead kids, why can that not be challenged? (Absolutely no one at the march blamed the pwrson who did the actual shooting, law enforcement and school policy that failed, etc.) Apparently it was all the fault of a random gun owner in Iowa,.
 
Maybe Hogg has a crush on the Cougar, and vice versa. This inter-species interdigitation can't end well.

All cuteness aside, we all should be less like the birds. Tweet less, think more.
 
gr8oldies said:
When the 17 year old claims every NRA member wants dead kids, why can that not be challenged?
Click to expand...

She didn't challenge him on the issues. At least not in this particular tweet. A lot of commentators have challenged the kids on their facts. That's fair game. But this was beyond that. It was a personal attack. I think that's a different situation.
 
This sort of Boycott threat in the case of Parkland mass shooting victims specifically has been going on for 1 1/2 months. Initially the boycott threats was targeted at Youtube, Roku, Amazon FireTV and AppleTV to end the broadcasts of NRA-TV. But this recent Fox News Boycott is strange though given how Ingraham targeted one of the leaders of the Parkland Shooting protests over college.

I get the reasons though and yes Ingraham has a right to say whatever she wants on her show as long as it meets the standards of Fox News but Ingraham should have had the parkland shooting protest leader debate against the spokespeople with the NRA directly though. But then again any controversial move a political talk show rants about is performance art anyway.
 
umfan said:
Ingraham should've realized that criticizing him was a no-win proposition. She's free to criticize what he says, but something like his not getting accepted at some colleges would be seen by even many of her fans as petty. I think she endures this, and at least some of the advertisers will quietly return. The ones who heeded the boycott also made a mistake, IMO. A better response would've been something like, 'Laura Ingraham hosts an opinion show that has, and will continue to have strong views. While we don't think Ms. Ingraham's criticism of Mr. Hogg's college prospects were appropriate, they were but a small part of her show, and she has apologized. We want all Americans to be aware of our amazing product which is why we place advertising with Ms. Ingraham's show and shows that have an opposite view. We are a product for all Americans.'

I mean you're going to let your advertising placements be dictated by a 17 year old who had his feelings hurt?!? Come on!
Click to expand...

I agree Laura shouldn't have said what she said it was no win for her it was a low blow insult I don't see it as cyberbulling as David's sister claimed from a headline I saw on Yahoo said that Laura should grow up. I agree with Big A I don't believe in ad company boycott which to me David Hogg was being too sensitive, if I was him I wouldn't have said anything at all and let it go wouldn't go with a boycott.
 
The thing to consider is when advertisers go away, they don't come back. They find other ways to sell their products. They find other less controversial platforms. So the money stars flowing out of cable news. One day you wake up, and there are more home shopping channels or more reality shows, and less current events. Would anyone care? Probably not.
 
TheBigA said:
The thing to consider is when advertisers go away, they don't come back. They find other ways to sell their products. They find other less controversial platforms. So the money stars flowing out of cable news. One day you wake up, and there are more home shopping channels or more reality shows, and less current events. Would anyone care? Probably not.
Click to expand...

If controversial content was not around then we are in a tough situation and its what facebook live , YouTube, Twitter has been facing for the past year over boycott threats initially over hate speech, fake news and the fallout of Alex Jones various scandals but at the same time these same companies like Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are broadcasting platforms where they have to show that a certain event did exist. These companies now have to negotiate with news outlets, Political talk and documentary outlets over free speech along with advertisers over fair game and complaints.


But BigA I think people do care about controversial content and controversial content and how its being handled. Note some Youtube Talk show hosts a seen made disclosures at the end of the video saying to donate to their Patreon page.


But Back to Fox News well this is the third boycott threat they have seen in the past year though. All the boycott threats Fox News faced initially was for the misconduct incidents involving Ailes and O'Reilly. But now this over a rant Ingraham has made on Hogg that is odd for her to do that. I can see the Parkland supporters viewing this as targeting the victim though but its not relevant to the debate these people wanted though.
 
RadioPatrol said:
The companies are Office Depot, the dieting company Jenny Craig, the Atlantis, Paradise Island resort and Johnson & Johnson.
Click to expand...

Those are the kinds of companies that aren't buying ideology, but buying a demographic and the ratings.

But when they're forced to defend an ideological buy, they withdraw. That's not good, because Fox can't profit from their ratings advantage.
 
TheBigA said:
Those are the kinds of companies that aren't buying ideology, but buying a demographic and the ratings.

But when they're forced to defend an ideological buy, they withdraw. That's not good, because Fox can't profit from their ratings advantage.
Click to expand...

What you say is true but it does not matter at this point though we live in a guilt by association world.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom