4 ms·

Why would Fox think that Beck was more trouble than he was worth if they didn't lose any money on the deal? By your suggestion he'd actually be no trouble at al

by crux 17y ago

Why would Fox think that Beck was more trouble than he was worth if they didn't lose any money on the deal? By your suggestion he'd actually be no trouble at all.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
They’d lose money on Beck. Let’s be honest, protests don’t work. They never work. Because eventually the protestors get bored and move on to a new cause. Remember not too long ago when the left tried to get the CEO of Whole Foods fired? That’s a chain with a major liberal customer base and even it came to nothing. The only way to enact real change is to have a long term strategy and by putting money in to other Fox shows you’re driving their rates up while Beck’s rates fall. So in the end you’re creating a situation where Beck looks like the weak link and Fox starts to ask themselves if another host could do just as well. Boycotting the network on the other hand is, I guarantee you, going to drive his rates up. Every talk radio show is going to jump on this bandwagon and conservatives who don’t watch Beck are going to start watching him out of offense. The network’s going to feel under fire and back Beck and which point this protest has guaranteed Beck and job and actually raised his rates.
- philipn 17y ago
  The CEO of Whole Foods did resign after pressure. See http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/12/26/Mackey-resigns-as-Whole-Foods-chairman/UPI-41171261857943/ http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/12/26/Mackey-resigns-a...
  - jbellis 17y ago
    He resigned as Chairman, not CEO. From your link: "Whole Foods, along with many other companies with combined CEO/chairman roles, has been targeted by corporate governance activists for several years now seeking a separation of these roles."
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    He resigned as Chairman of the Board but he's still a board member and is still CEO of the company. That's not being pushed out that's being smart enough to realize it would be better to put another face on the company because of a controversy.

by crux 17y ago

Why would Fox think that Beck was more trouble than he was worth if they didn't lose any money on the deal? By your suggestion he'd actually be no trouble at all.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

They’d lose money on Beck. Let’s be honest, protests don’t work. They never work. Because eventually the protestors get bored and move on to a new cause. Remember not too long ago when the left tried to get the CEO of Whole Foods fired? That’s a chain with a major liberal customer base and even it came to nothing. The only way to enact real change is to have a long term strategy and by putting money in to other Fox shows you’re driving their rates up while Beck’s rates fall. So in the end you’re creating a situation where Beck looks like the weak link and Fox starts to ask themselves if another host could do just as well. Boycotting the network on the other hand is, I guarantee you, going to drive his rates up. Every talk radio show is going to jump on this bandwagon and conservatives who don’t watch Beck are going to start watching him out of offense. The network’s going to feel under fire and back Beck and which point this protest has guaranteed Beck and job and actually raised his rates.

philipn 17y ago
The CEO of Whole Foods did resign after pressure. See http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/12/26/Mackey-resigns-as-Whole-Foods-chairman/UPI-41171261857943/ http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/12/26/Mackey-resigns-a...
- jbellis 17y ago
  He resigned as Chairman, not CEO. From your link: "Whole Foods, along with many other companies with combined CEO/chairman roles, has been targeted by corporate governance activists for several years now seeking a separation of these roles."
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  He resigned as Chairman of the Board but he's still a board member and is still CEO of the company. That's not being pushed out that's being smart enough to realize it would be better to put another face on the company because of a controversy.