“We’ve had a tough go of it this last year,” Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey said Tuesday morning. “The facts are indisputable regarding the impact certain things have had on ad dollars.”
Dickey told analysts on the earnings call that his radio empire’s revenue was down $5.6 million in the first quarter of 2013 on top of a boatload of debt. Why? Parse the weasel words (“the impact of certain things”) and you’ll see that Dickey is blaming one man for the precipitous decline of right-wing talk radio’s profitability: Rush Limbaugh.
El Rushbo is still a giant in the industry, but the impact of slamming Sandra Fluke on his radio show one year ago persists—with some $2.4 million in losses attributed by Dickey to declines in the “syndicated-talk segment.”
Insiders confirm that these declines are primarily due to the ongoing reluctance of national advertisers to attach their name to the toxic talk-radio format that first made Limbaugh famous a generation ago.
“We’re watching the end of right-wing conservative talk radio,” says Jerry Del Colliano, publisher of the radio-industry tip sheet Inside Music Media. “The genre is dying among ratings and dying among advertisers … Rush is at the end of his career. His constituency is all wearing Depends. And he’s getting himself into trouble he doesn’t need. So can you put Humpty Dumpty back together again? They have been able to improve their advertising picture, but they have not been able to come back.”
“Sandra Fluke was simply the lightning that struck and hit an old building that collapsed,” Colliano says. “She didn’t do it. She helped to bring it down at the end, but it was falling apart on its own…”
But the larger issue is the declining demographics of the right-wing talk-radio racket. “Look at the millennial generation,” says Colliano. “There’s 80 million of them coming of age. They don’t see color. They don’t see gender. And they’re civic minded: they don’t like bloviating. They don’t like yelling and screaming. So you tell me: how’s right-wing talk radio working for them?”
Short-term reaction – or long-term change?
Let all the trolling begin. Except I bet Rush Limbaugh makes radio stations fists full of dollars.
The market for the lunatic fringe segment is getting narrower. Also, their disposable income is declining as they allocate more for adult pampers and lunch meat.
HMyers demonstrating the conservative ditto head tendency not to let facts get in the way of dogma.
From the link: “The blowback was immediate. Elected Republicans, usually loathe to offend the influential talker, distanced themselves from his comments. But more powerful was the boycott that ensued, with 98 advertisers pulling their support for the show.” /// Now, I assume these 98 were not part of the ebb and flow of normal corporate sponsorship. You know==as the link says==a TREND.
Rush will be on radio as long as he make money. He’ll be off when he doesn’t.
Just as it should be.
So is the issue does he make money or is there a downward trend?
Don’t conflate the two. That wouldn’t be prudent.
P.S. Isn’t this kind of talk what happens in contract negotiations? Isn’t his contract expired. So is this real or is this posturing?
Give Rush a listen this afternoon and tell me if this is happening in your market. All I get are government sponsored ads and some local stuff. How does that play into this? Seriously, ad after ad after ad are sponsored by some government related agency or another. Be interested to know if this is happening where you are as well.
Those are ad council ads, they run when you can not sell advertising.
He lost all his advertisers last year when he went on that woman who use birth control are sluts campaign of his.
It wasn’t women who use birth control, silly. It was women who want the government to pay for their birth control. So now they apparently need a lot of birth control as they can’t afford their own, and someone who wants others to pay for them to have sex would be a prostitute. Now Rush could have gone further. Just looking at that woman, I’d say she had more of fantasies of sluttery, than actual men after her.
Free birth control for everybody!
We need to get our population under control. You reduce the number of people being born in this country now and you’ll see many of our problems start to go away close to the time those unborn people would have come of age.
Rush’s real problem here is not about morals (he has none) or money, it’s about controlling women and making decisions for them. Something that many in the depends-wearing crowd still believe in.
I bet you are a big fan of eugenics aren’t you?
Keep it up, Mikey. A proud representative of the Republican party!
MikeN said “Just looking at that woman, I’d say she had more of fantasies of sluttery, than actual men after her.”
Well congratualtions. You’re officially one of those old men that teenage girls say “Ick” to. Then kick in the balls repeatedly before stealing their dentures.
Could be worse. You could have a liberal radio talk show host with a sustaining net positive revenue stream
let the liberal “re-education” begin… *rolls eyes*
There is no market for liberal talk radio because there is too much competition/alternatives for the market that would be there if there were less choice.
Just the very same fragmentation is starting to hit conservative radio. Idiots needing their fix are going on the web rather than the radio.
Cult Leaders, like any other leaders, have a difficult time maintaining their group absent coercive tools. Rush was popular but each time he goes off the deep end and alienates some group, his audience shrinks just a little. Over time…. it all adds up. Listeners go to some other poopy pants that thinks/acts/shills just like Rush but hasn’t gotten around to the sensitive subject yet so he gets to be popular for awhile.
Its called POP culture for a reason. Its goes for a while…. then it… Pops. Popular??? No silly…. thats a tree.
“There is no market for liberal talk radio because there is too much competition/alternatives for the market that would be there if there were less choice.”
That isn’t true. The primary criteria for being able to get an audience is entertainment value.
All you have to do is amuse people.
The problem with “liberals” isn’t their ideology, but that most of them are sour-pusses or stuffed shirts.
The current problem with “liberals” is that they aren’t for “anything” they are just against things, which doesn’t make for good casual chatter.
Remember, the average joe is a mutton-head that wants to hear stuff he can relate with.
There could be a large dose of what you say. I am farther left (and right) than most liberdrools. I don’t listen to talk radio. Its format is too forced for me.
When I read or watch pre-recorded TV and I hit a patch I find boring ((like ANY politician being asked for his opinion)) I can jump forward, change a channel or whatever. When I jump off of talk radio to a music channel, I normally get captured by good tunes. Oh, my goodness===ha, ha. Haven’t been any good tunes on the Radio for 20 years. No–I jump to my cassette tape collection. DvD’s at home.
We all are SELECTING our news sources, entertainment sources, just like we chose our religions.
Same thing.
“The problem with “liberals” isn’t their ideology, but that most of them are sour-pusses or stuffed shirts.” /// The problem with liberals is that their ideology is broad and multifaceted and talk radio is too narrow, stultifying. Sour-pussies and stuffed shirts, gun toting gay hating science deniers are all fairly uniform though and enjoy being lap feed by Conservative Talk Radio….. and Faux.
There is no market because there is not enough demand. Period.
Perhaps. Rachel Madow seems to agree since she’s paid people to up her trending numbers on Twitter. 🙂
A handful of corporations having a change of heart is pop culture? Fascinating. I’ll have to remember that as I consider boycotting any product I buy that endorses liberal radio talk show hosts…. wait a minute. No one wants to listen to liberal radio talk show hosts. Never mind. 🙂
Perhaps those companies are simply trying to preserve positive cash flow under the effects of a liberal presidency?
Caught in a few tautologies.
Ha, ha.
There is no market because there is not enough demand. Period /// You do recognize you are only seconding what I said?
Perhaps. Rachel Madow seems to agree since she’s paid people to up her trending numbers on Twitter. /// You do recognize you are only seconding what I said? Twitter = The Web.
A handful of corporations having a change of heart is pop culture? /// Those Corps sell into, get there own revenue, from Pop Culture driven listeners/consumers.
I’ll have to remember that as I consider boycotting any product I buy that endorses liberal radio talk show hosts /// When you stop listening to Rush, you stop hearing the Corp Ads, and you stop buying their products making advertising on Rush rather than on Twitter a bad investment. You don’t even understand your own actions and motivations.
I think that is rightfully called being a sheeple.
Pedro?
Not Enough Demand != Too Much Competition.
Where’s the abundance of liberal radio talk shows? There is NO competition for liberal talk shows. If the demand was there, this would foster competition for liberal radio talk shows. The problem is demand. Not competition. The liberal message is not popular. But when it gets repackaged into hope and change and falsely advertised through the mainstream media outlets, then you may have a fighting chance to say that your message is somehow popular.
Yup! That was my point. Glad to know that you still have some reading comprehension skills.
In some cases yes.
I’ve got no time for most good talk radio shows. Last time I listened to a show was well over a decade ago on a road trip.
But even in a bad year, Rush makes much more than liberal radio talk shows. Why? Demand.
Rush makes much more than liberal radio talk shows. Why? Demand. /// Yes, yes, yes… redundantly yes.
Demand for what?
From whom?
Fear and Loathing.
Right Wing Low Information Ditto Heads.
For people who think for themselves, there is NO demand for a radio personality to tell them what to think.
….and THE POINT OF THIS THREAD==>even Rush is losing audience.
Besides Populars, …. there is the Larch.
Conservative philosophy. Duh.
In this case Rush. Duh.
Well said when the liberal camp has no radio talk show of any redeeming value.
In spite of your rationalizations, it’s sometimes interesting to see a different insight on something that may have been overlooked by someone of the same philosophy.
That all said, no man knows less than the one who knows it all.
Also says something about Dickey’s management that he committed so much to Limbaugh that he made Cumulus financially vulnerable.
Dan Patrick makes me laugh.
Jay Mohr makes me laugh.
Rome made me laugh.
I Heart Radio gives me choice.
I choose laughter.
Rich pricks like Rush and Hannity should be in a better mood. They are millionaires many times over.
How are those gold investments working out for you?
Really, the reason Howard Stern survives is because he is about laughing and having fun.
As many terrible things we all have faced in our lives at one time or another, is anyone is angry and pissed off as these two Limbaugh and Hannity?
No wonder why Rush had to hit synthetic heroin for years. Why is Rush in so much emotional pain? Too much time as an alter boy?
Excellent point sho off. “Conservative” commentators tend to be angry and fearful, while liberal commentators tend to be funny, like Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, etc.
There is some serious emotional pain there, fear mostly, I think… see my other post on the conservative mindset.
There have been quite a few psychological and sociological studies on the liberal vs conservative mindset. One of the things they found is that the conservative mindset is more fearful. So it’s easier to whip up support by provoking and encouraging fear. The millennials may be more liberal in many ways — look at how blase they are about gays — but there always have been and there always will be people who can be led by their fear. Even when Rush has played out his act, there will be others.
Talk radio needs to evolve its format to catch the attention of the younger generation. And the declining return on ad dollars is a problem across the board for everyone.
If you say it enough it will come true.
Rush is a slut.
It is just indicative of the required mindset of the current youth: the spoon-fed millenium generation.
The tolerance for all; the smaller lunatic fringe; etc.
These things that are required to allow the ushering in of the one world government.
With the 1%-ers ruling and all of the sheep beneath them.
Glued to their smart-phones, with their ADD, disassociated, so they don’t realize what is really going on around them.
Not to kick a guy when he’s down, but what is the sell-by date for a shop worn political whore?
Here’s a guy who has spent all of his credibility. Why doesn’t he go away?
If he had any pull what so ever, his team would note have lost the last two elections.
*not
Well if that’s the case, then they should drop him from their lineup. His contract is up next year, and Limbaugh is already ahead of the curve saying, You can’t fire me, I quit!
Now, since he is such a money loser, I’m sure he’ll have a hard time getting a big contract, right?
The real question is will his next contract be bigger or smaller than his last contract.
That pic of Rush looks like Lassie taking a poop.
When I saw the headline in my RSS reader, my first thought was:
What has Neil Peart said or done?
But, You gotta listen to the enemy so you can know what they are thinking. I’ve listened to Rush on and off since he started blathering in Sacramento. I gotta say though that he is sometimes entertaining.
Used to be.
RIP-Rush.
Uh, millennials can’t be bothered to waste their time listening to old farts like us.
Rush is doomed to irrelevance just as surely as bin Laden was.
The McGuyver in his continuing factless keneejerk naysaying says:
5/10/2013 at 11:34 am
MSNBC use comedy (and facts)
ROFLMAO. Too funny Bobbo. /// Its true. Just watch Maddow and Kornach (sp?) followed by Hannity and Whats her name. Each time you hear a fact whether right or wrong or agreed to or not, make a dot. at the end of the evening, add up your dots.
On msnbc you got a pile of dots.
On Faux, just a steaming pile of crap.
Its Hate Radio on Tv.
Just look.
http://tinyurl.com/63cw6c
What a useless piece of human garbage this guy is. Why is he still on the air after 20 years of spewing hatred? Too bad the gun carrying nutballs are on his side. Otherwise he wouldn’t have made it this long.
The McGuyver always the science denying corporate stooge that he is says:
5/10/2013 at 11:37 am
the main rap on any rational response to Global Warming is that it is the NANNY STATE trying to control your life just as they want to take away your God, and take away your guns.
What you call science is an appeal to authority and not off of any scientific method. /// The IPPC is the most qualified and scientific of Authority on the subject of Climate. There is no qualified opposition beyond noise except for that paid by the Energy Oligarchs and their play along stooges like you.
THAT is as obvious as the sea level rise, the increasing acidity of the Ocean, the shift and decline of agricultural zones, the increasing number and intensity of droughts and floods, the loss of temperature based sex selecting species, the increasing release of methane into the atmosphere, the decline of glaciers, and so forth. Yes, pure Science Denying Luddites and Poopy Pant Posers to suggest anything else. To actually “believe” trillions of tons of co2 can be released into the atmosphere without effect?==>pure stupidity on a religious scale.
The moment a rational skeptic addresses shortcomings to your predictions, methodologies, etc you guys sh1t yourselves. /// Name One. The whole point of science is to incorporate valid complaints thereby making the theory/model even more robust.
I think you are confusing your dogma re social/political policies where THEY HAVE NO PLACE, with the more objective evidence based world of science where your dogma HAS NO PLACE.
Gee McGuyver…. seems you have no place.
BWHAHAHAHAHAH!
I do crack myself up.
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Thanks for proving my point.
McGuyver–Its not just an Authority Argument but rather the studies and models produced by the IPCC. Sorry to confuse you.
Some authorities are the benchmark until proven otherwise. If you’re sick, you go to a Doctor. Its his authority. You know, skills, training, certifications, expertise in the field recognized by other authorities.
Regarding proof. You’ve been told and have no response other than repetition of your idiotic empty skepticism that there can be no “proof” as you call for. There is no control Earth to run variables on. No–we only have the best evidence.
There is NO PROOF that if you take a long walk off a short pier that you will get wet. We only have the best evidence for that.
You are an idiot.
Theories are not law until proven true. It doesn’t go the other way around.
You can say a theory is generally accepted / popular, but that no one truly knows for sure.
Doctors for the most part deal in treating symptoms and not the root cause.
The gripes you make are about the symptoms with no actual knowledge of what is truly the root cause.
I don’t have empty skepticism. I do provide an alternative in that if the model is very accurate, then predictions 10 years into the future should be easy peasy.
That’s not unreasonable given how accurate those non-scientific computer simulations claim to be.
Evidence of what? At best you have symptoms / correlation.
In the absence of proof, if your “science” is sound you can make accurate predictions for the near future. Yet, in spite of all those “accurate” models no one is willing to make near-term predictions.
LOL. Because I cling to science too much? Or because I simply don’t assume that just because someone has a degree in science means that they they are immune to politics or that they have evaluated the problem scientifically?
I’ll remember to tell my doctor that when I get annoyed over why he doesn’t know the root cause to what ails me. 🙂
Climate Shocker: http://tinyurl.com/bbqa5yb
If you’re sick, you go to a Doctor. Its his authority. You know, skills, training, certifications, expertise in the field recognized by other authorities.
According to statistics gathered during a protracted doctors’ strike, that’s the surest way to the cemetery.
Technically, the IPCC does not produce science, merely summarizes it. The reality is they do so many times, as an opportunity to push their agenda. Most recently, we have a Pages2KConsortium paper to produce some fresh hockey sticks from around the world. One of the inputs, Gergis, has already been withdrawn as flawed, but that doesn’t stop the IPCC. Science rejected the paper, probably because it was such a mishmash they couldn’t review it in time to make the next IPCC report. So they go to Nature, where they have the same problem. Only now they declare it not a Review article but a Progress article, which Nature says is intended for fields that are ‘not mature enough for review’
So according to Nature magazine, IPCC and climatology is not just a developing field, but not mature enough for review!
If climate science operated with the same level of ethics as medical science, the IPCC would have to shut down, though the field would have more credibility.
There are no double blind trials in climate science, but rather picking the data that fit the conclusion you want to reach.
“You have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie.”
You would never hear a medical researcher say
“The ability to pick and choose which patients respond favorably to a medication to enhance a desired signal is an advantage unique to medicine.”
“Atmospheric CO2 reaches 400ppm for the first time in two million years.”
According to The McGuyver and Micky: nothing to worry about. Ignore the evidence piling up as there is no DOUBLE BLIND TEST. ((You know–where they take an identical Earth and add more co2 to the atmosphere))
These SCIENCE DENIERS are going to kill us all, because you know—co2 doesn’t kill people–it makes the grass grow green.
Retards.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22486153
PS–Rush denies AGW too.
http://tinyurl.com/d3muh28
Rush, the douche-bag mayor of Spatula City.
He is a giant piece of shit! He should go back to Guatemala to face charges.
Radio stations carrying liberals don’t bleed millions of dollars because they are already dead.
True. Even the Leftist radio Dream Team that was “Air America”(I think most of them are on MSNBC now) couldn’t make it in even the most Progressive havens like NYC, among other places.
Conservatives like things with tubes and aerials.
Mostly they like to whip people with fallopian tubes with television aerials.
Or solicit black teenage prostitutes in third countries.
Or whip black under-aged prostitutes in third world butt-wad countries where $ buy complicity.
He failed to deliver votes. He can now retire and hire as many teenage prostitutes as he wants.
I thought the headlines was about the Canadian rock band.
NO! Rush, the band, is still great. They actually have talent and deserve accolades.
Rush, the radio troll, is – at best – a D-list celeb. He is not talented, or merits discernible attention.
HUGE differance between the two ‘Rush’s.
Nice callout.
He, like disco, reality shows and magnetic car ribbons have outlasted their value.
The McGuyver, contributing late not to return, nonetheless says:
Theories are not law until proven true. It doesn’t go the other way around. /// Not the subject here. Your profundity is inane.
You can say a theory is generally accepted / popular, but that no one truly knows for sure. /// Thats why we go on best evidence. What about plaint direct simple English eludes you?
Doctors for the most part deal in treating symptoms and not the root cause. /// BS… or purely definitional…but not the point.
The gripes you make are about the symptoms with no actual knowledge of what is truly the root cause. /// YOU give the symptoms as all you know. THE DOCTOR, being the expert, knows and treats the root cause. You sound just like a SCIENCE DENIER—even though you use the doc every time you need one.
I don’t have empty skepticism. I do provide an alternative in that if the model is very accurate, then predictions 10 years into the future should be easy peasy. /// On what basis to you apply this 10 year rule? If this is the basis for your skepticism, then I agree its not empty, its full of made up BS.
That’s not unreasonable given how accurate those non-scientific computer simulations claim to be. /// How accurate is that==give an example. What the models do is provide a RANGE of effects based on the range of co2 that is dumped into the atmosphere. They are conditional statements: if===>then. Why would just a general “Its going to become hotter” not a totally valid theory with the consistent with temp rise the best evidence that the theory of co2 pollution to be accepted?
xxxxxxxxxxxx
You are an idiot.
LOL. Because I cling to science too much? /// You don’t. Scientists are not “skeptics” when the evidence is sufficient to make predictions and there is no better theory available to make conflicting predicitions. Your appeal to “lack of accuracy” is the call of the Science Denier deeply into confusion politics.
Or because I simply don’t assume that just because someone has a degree in science means that they they are immune to politics or that they have evaluated the problem scientifically? /// Immune? Straw man argument. Of course–“everyone” is subject to bias. You don’t even have the language of the field understood.