Why Hasn't the Glenn Beck Boycott Hurt Fox News?

This Glenn Beck boycott is fascinating. I wrote a post for Andrew Sullivan on the substance of the matter last week, and I think it holds up okay. Let me just say that I continue to be amazed that some people think there is a free speech issue here. It seems to me that the right to free speech does not give you the right to massive corporate underwriting. Glenn Beck can defend "the white culture" and call Obama a "racist" in poverty and in private.

What I'm interested now is the economics of the boycott. Thirty-six companies have apparently signed on. And while it appears that some of them never advertised with Beck in the first place (oops), many if not most of them did. To which Fox responds:

While the advertising boycott has generated substantial media coverage, Fox News said it has not impacted the network's revenues or Beck's audience. "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost," a spokeswoman said.
2156536893_b4c064b6c5_m.jpg

I have had enough tangential experience with the wacky world of marketing and advertising to believe that what this Fox News spokeswoman says is true. But I still wonder: Why is it true? It's not clear that there should be "no revenue lost" in this situation.

Let's assume that (1) the number total TV advertising spots is fixed and (2) the advertising budgets of the companies involved are fixed. (I believe both things are more-or-less true.) Let's further assume that (3) a boycott reduces the total number of available advertising spots.

So when the Beck Boycott hits, the same number of dollars is chasing a smaller number of advertising slots. This should ... raise the price of an advertising slot. And when that happens, I don't understand how the advertisers can simply move their spots "from Beck to other programs on the network" without increasing their advertising budgets. And if they don't increase their budgets, it would be more cost-effective for them to buy spots on (the now relatively cheaper) other networks.

But perhaps that assumes the market for advertising is efficient, and I've never met someone who believes that it is. Or am I missing something?

(Photo: Flickr User permanentlyscatterbrained)

Presented by

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. More

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism, an economics blog that was recently published in book form by Simon and Schuster. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. He is also on Twitter.

What LBJ Really Said About Selma

"It's outrageous what's on TV. It looks like that man is in charge of the country."

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

What LBJ Really Said About Selma

"It's going to go from bad to worse."

Video

Does This Child Need Marijuana?

Inside a family's fight to use marijuana oils to treat epilepsy

Video

A Miniature 1950s Utopia

A reclusive artist built this idealized suburb to grapple with his painful childhood memories.

Video

Why Principals Matter

Nadia Lopez didn't think anybody cared about her school. Then the Internet heard her story.

More in Politics

Just In