Schadenfreude: Rush Limbaugh’s Downward Spiral

[Walter Ego]

At least isn't not drugs this time.

Limbaugh’s ongoing major market woes can be traced to his 2012 on-air meltdown over Sandra Fluke, where he castigated and insulted the graduate student for three days on his program, calling her a “slut” and suggesting she post videos of herself having sex on the Internet. (Fluke’s sin in the eyes of Limbaugh was testifying before Congress in favor of contraception mandates for health care insurance.)

The astonishing Limbaugh monologues sparked an unprecedented advertiser exodus, which means selling his show has become a major lift for the affiliate stations that pay a hefty fee for the right to carry his program. The reported on the millions of dollars in advertising revenue that Limbaugh’s host stations lose because of the talker’s stigma on Madison Avenue.

The still-unfolding repercussions? Some key stations want out of their Limbaugh deals. And when those deals are up, nobody else is stepping forward to ink new contracts with Rush.

http://www.alternet.org/print/rush-...ther-demotion-another-step-toward-irrelevancy

Rush Limbaugh's ratings appear to be sagging after he's picked up by 'bottom-rung' station in Boston

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shouldn't happen to a nicer person.

 

[Ladewig]

From second link

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” Limbaugh said at the time. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."​

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this rant is Limbaugh's not understanding that that the contraception that S. Fluke was discussing in front of Congress is a fixed cost and not a variable cost: having a lot of sex doesn't increase the cost of the contraception for each insured person.

In any case, I will be glad to see Mr. Limbaugh lose his standing in the political world. I do love that his apparent undoing is entirely his own fault.

 

[PursuedByABear]

From second link

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” Limbaugh said at the time. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."​

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this rant is Limbaugh's not understanding that that the contraception that S. Fluke was discussing in front of Congress is a fixed cost and not a variable cost: having a lot of sex doesn't increase the cost of the contraception for each insured person.

In any case, I will be glad to see Mr. Limbaugh lose his standing in the political world. I do love that his apparent undoing is entirely his own fault.

He's never had any standing in the political world. In the political world everyone knows he's an idiot. It's just a matter of whether they regard him as a dangerous idiot or a useful idiot.

 

[applecorped]

he's crying in his millions

 

[kookbreaker]

He's never had any standing in the political world. In the political world everyone knows he's an idiot. It's just a matter of whether they regard him as a dangerous idiot or a useful idiot.

So any idiot can get the President of the US to carry his bags?

 

[Ladewig]

He's never had any standing in the political world. In the political world everyone knows he's an idiot. It's just a matter of whether they regard him as a dangerous idiot or a useful idiot.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said
"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly," and backed down from his statements less than two days later. If one can make a a party chairman apologize, then one has a certain amount of political clout.

 

[Cain]

I saw articles about this last week, and my frustration with them is that they didn't mention how many millions of listeners currently tune in, or if he's no longer number 1. Since they didn't bother answering those questions, I'm guessing tens of million still listen to Rush and that he's still number 1.

I know that sometime ago here in the Los Angeles market, he got shifted from KFI (the biggest talk station with a 50,000 watt reach) to a new station called "Patriot Radio" (which used to be the home of syndicated leftish talk hosts). He didn't get "the boot" since the same company owns both channels.

 

[shemp]

I saw articles about this last week, and my frustration with them is that they didn't mention how many millions of listeners currently tune in, or if he's no longer number 1. Since they didn't bother answering those questions, I'm guessing tens of million still listen to Rush and that he's still number 1.

I know that sometime ago here in the Los Angeles market, he got shifted from KFI (the biggest talk station with a 50,000 watt reach) to a new station called "Patriot Radio" (which used to be the home of syndicated leftish talk hosts). He didn't get "the boot" since the same company owns both channels.

If tens of millions of people listen but nobody advertises, the show's distributors and stations lose money. He can be #1 and still find himself off the air when the present contract runs out.

 

[Olowkow]

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/savage-tops-online-radio/2013/07/08/id/513784/

At least one survey has Limbaugh at second place. Numbers are audience shares.

1 Michael Savage 12.5
2 Rush Limbaugh 12.3
3 Glenn Beck 9.2
4 Mark Levin 6.7
5 Laura Ingraham 6.0
6 Sean Hannity 4.4
7 Tammy Bruce 3.7
8 George Noory 2.6
9 Dennis Miller 2.3
10 Alex Jones 2.2
11 Bill Bennett 1.7
12 John Batchelor 1.4
13 Michael Medved 1.3
14 Andrea Tantaros 1.2
15 Red Eye Radio 1.1
16 Jerry Doyle 1.0
17 Dennis Prager 0.9
18 Rusty Humphries 0.9
19 Monica Crowley 0.9
20 The Dana Show 0.7
21 Hugh Hewitt 0.7
22 Quinn and Rose 0.7
23 IMUS 0.6
24 Larry Kudlow 0.6
25 Dave Ramsey 0.6

 

[Cain]

If tens of millions of people listen but nobody advertises, the show's distributors and stations lose money. He can be #1 and still find himself off the air when the present contract runs out.

Maybe he's losing, even hemorrhaging corporate sponsors, but no, he will not be #1 and off the air (unless it's by choice). Someone will always want to advertise gold, flowers, home survival gear, or some kind of quack medicine.

That above list depresses the human spirit. Here's a more up-to-date source (though they do their own finagling with the numbers):

 

[Polaris]

Maybe he's losing, even hemorrhaging corporate sponsors, but no, he will not be #1 and off the air (unless it's by choice). Someone will always want to advertise gold, flowers, home survival gear, or some kind of quack medicine.

That above list depresses the human spirit. Here's a more up-to-date source (though they do their own finagling with the numbers): [qimg]http://www.talkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/audiencechart_june15.jpg[/qimg]

I get a chuckle out of Imus being higher on that list than Sharpton.

 

[crescent]

Maybe he's losing, even hemorrhaging corporate sponsors, but no, he will not be #1 and off the air (unless it's by choice).

I can't help but wonder if some sponsers find ways to advertise on his show without admitting to it.

I remember after the Sandra Fluke incident there were some that were determined to have done so - they purchased advertising time without specifying when the ads would be played, but bought enough that it was pretty certain that some would be played during Rush's show. The advertisers could still pretend to claim plausible deniability by saying that as far as they knew their ads had not been played during show . It took people actually listening to the ad breaks on nearly every station that carried him to identify the advertisers who were then targeted for boycotts to get those advertisers to actually take steps to remove their ads from Rush's show.

Now that the heat of the moment is passed, I wonder if a few have not started buying ad time again, without specifying when it will be played or that it shall not be played during Rush's show. If those who strongly oppose Rush don't make the effort to listen in and ID advertisers, some of them could sneak back in.

I mean, #1 is #1, there are a lot people out there still listening.


ETA: Also, according to Cain's link, there is a reasonably popular radio host named "Bubba the Love Sponge". I guess if you are going for a catchy name, you might as well go all-in.

 

[ponderingturtle]

From second link

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” Limbaugh said at the time. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."​

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this rant is Limbaugh's not understanding that that the contraception that S. Fluke was discussing in front of Congress is a fixed cost and not a variable cost: having a lot of sex doesn't increase the cost of the contraception for each insured person.

In any case, I will be glad to see Mr. Limbaugh lose his standing in the political world. I do love that his apparent undoing is entirely his own fault.

And to think it was so shortly after his political height were the RNC chairman was brought quickly to heel after a disagreement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He's never had any standing in the political world. In the political world everyone knows he's an idiot. It's just a matter of whether they regard him as a dangerous idiot or a useful idiot.

You forget how quickly RNC chairman Michael Steele appologized to Rush for describing him as an entertainer?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/?_r=0

 

[marplots]

The timeline seems wrong for Sanda Fluke to have mattered much. That happened in 2012 and it's three years later. The scandals I think of (Imus, for instance) had an immediate (or nearly) effect. At best, the article might be trying to make a case for some overall, slow trend in listener preferences.

I'm not a fan of Limbaugh, but that article didn't make a very strong case for his demise.

 

[BenBurch]

The timeline seems wrong for Sanda Fluke to have mattered much. That happened in 2012 and it's three years later. The scandals I think of (Imus, for instance) had an immediate (or nearly) effect. At best, the article might be trying to make a case for some overall, slow trend in listener preferences.

I'm not a fan of Limbaugh, but that article didn't make a very strong case for his demise.

Well, I have watched this play out and the pressure never let up on his advertisers. To the point where many companies now specify that their ads will never be played on political talk shows of ANY sort. And this has hurt talk radio in general. And at the same time, the social media attention has reached the casual Rush listener and caused a change in their radio habits. And as he goes from blowtorch stations to lightbulb wattage stations because of the ad boycott, his ratings have no direction to go but down.

So, the time-frame is because it really has taken that long to hurt him seriously with the boycott. It takes a dinosaur a long time to bleed out and he was about as big as they get.

 

[marplots]

Well, I have watched this play out and the pressure never let up on his advertisers. To the point where many companies now specify that their ads will never be played on political talk shows of ANY sort. And this has hurt talk radio in general. And at the same time, the social media attention has reached the casual Rush listener and caused a change in their radio habits. And as he goes from blowtorch stations to lightbulb wattage stations because of the ad boycott, his ratings have no direction to go but down.

So, the time-frame is because it really has taken that long to hurt him seriously with the boycott. It takes a dinosaur a long time to bleed out and he was about as big as they get.

I suppose. It's just hard to attribute it to any single cause. One might as well say it wasn't about turning away from Limbaugh so much as the country moving on to other things. Everything goes stale, doesn't it?

I'd be interested in seeing what the trend for advertizing dollars is across radio in general.

Here's one graphic on it (http://adage.com/article/global-news/10-things-global-ad-market/245572/) - down 20% from 2005 to 2013. Not quite the time period of interest, but if that trend continued, more expensive content (assuming the RL show don't come cheap) would tend to get pushed out, wouldn't it?

I'm guessing Hannity might provide a better example than Limbaugh, but only because I think Sean has a higher crazy ratio.

 

[PursuedByABear]

So any idiot can get the President of the US to carry his bags?

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said
"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly," and backed down from his statements less than two days later. If one can make a a party chairman apologize, then one has a certain amount of political clout.

You forget how quickly RNC chairman Michael Steele appologized to Rush for describing him as an entertainer?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/?_r=0

I said they know he's an idiot. That doesn't mean they say publicly he's an idiot, because he is useful to them. He can swing the votes of other idiots so it pays to keep him onside, and it certainly doesn't pay to let the other idiots who are voting for you because of what he says know what you think of him.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Maybe he's losing, even hemorrhaging corporate sponsors, but no, he will not be #1 and off the air (unless it's by choice). Someone will always want to advertise gold, flowers, home survival gear, or some kind of quack medicine.

That above list depresses the human spirit. Here's a more up-to-date source (though they do their own finagling with the numbers): [qimg]http://www.talkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/audiencechart_june15.jpg[/qimg]

I am pleased Thom Hartmann placed above Bubba the Love Sponge.