Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Don’t Blame Fox, They Didn’t Fire Bill O’Reilly The Advertisers Did

Friday, April 21, 2017 9:26
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)


After twenty years, the man whose TV show helped to make Fox News the number one cable news network is gone. Bill O’ Reilly lost his job at Fox News Channel after the NY Times reported that five women had been paid millions of dollars to keep quiet about harassment allegations on April 1st. The report initiated an inline movement cause the show to lose half its advertisers. And 18 days later Bill O’ Reilly was gone. Sadly it was a move that FNC had to make before the dollar losses got worse.

Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 11.02.21 AM

21st Century Fox issued a statement Wednesday that “after a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.” O’ Reilly has ruled the “no spin zone” with cable news’ most popular show, and his ratings had never been higher. Keep in mind though, that ratings only matter because it enables the ad sales department to charge more for advertising. If a show has the ratings but marketers don’t want to advertise , the network is going to lose money.

If a newspaper/magazine doesn’t have an advertiser to fill an ad slot, they can cut back on the number of articles in a particular issue, to save printing and mailing costs.  As a former publisher of a magazine I had to make that decision many times.

Unlike magazines, newspapers, and websites TV, and Radio advertising is limited by the clock. A magazine can throw in another article if there is more advertising but a cable network, even one as powerful as Fox cannot change an hour to sixty-one minutes. And once a program runs and an ad slot isn’t filled the network can never get that ad slot back.

The liberal movement to target Bill O’Reilly was very sophisticated. They didn’t target Fox news, They targeted O’Reilly’s advertisers.  One thing I learned about advertisers in my 30+ years in the industry most them are cowards, the rest are worse than cowards.  It doesn’t take many letters/emails for them to ask their ad agency “Why are we advertising in this show again?” Usually that means the agency will take the easy way out, and drop the show from the schedule. That’s  what began to happen to O’Reilly.

Ad trade magazine Adweek reported the program lost close to fifty advertisers in the five days following the NY Times Story

The brands pulling their ads from the show (which just so happens to be coming off of a record-setting quarter ratings-wise), include carmakers Subaru, BMW, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and Lexus; healthcare brands GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Advil, and Bayer; also Wayfair, Orkin, T. Rowe Price, Allstate, and Esurance.

Mercedes-Benz was the first company to pull its ads from the show, with the company calling the allegations “disturbing given the importance of women in every aspect of our business, we don’t feel this is a good environment in which to advertise our products right now.

Now the TV advertising market is the closest thing to a true supply and demand negotiation one will ever find. Therefore Fox didn’t only lose the money from the advertisers who dropped the show but because there were empty slots, the ad units they did sell were at depressed rates. So FNC’s top program. its cash cow, was bleeding money.

As someone who bought TV time, I can also assure you that the depressed costs of O’Reilly probably began to affect other programs. Most likely media negotiators hit FNC’s ad sales department with, “If am paying  only X dollars for O’Reilly your top show, then I want to pay one tenth of that for Shepard Smith at 3pm. In other words, FNC ad revenue was falling, and the only way to stop it….well, was to get rid of O’Reilly. Now when you add in the fact that Fox News accounts for about 25% if parent company 20th Century Fox’s Ad Revenue…something had to happen.

I am not going to say that I am happy O’Reilly is gone, because I’m not. In 20 year’s he provided many of my favorite moments ever in TV, like his classic fight with Barney Frank right after the housing bubble collapsed (embedded at the bottom of this posts). As an interviewer O’Reilly had no equal because he would ask the impolite questions that needed to be asked.

But in the end the fact that we do not know if the charges against him were true or not doesn’t matter. Nor does the fact that his ratings were at or near an all time high. In the business of media, especially media owned by large public companies—“it’s all about the Benjamin’s.” Bill O’Reilly’s troubles were causing advertisers to put their money elsewhere. That’s why Fox had to get rid of their biggest star, and sadly it was their best (and only move).


The post Don’t Blame Fox, They Didn’t Fire Bill O’Reilly The Advertisers Did appeared first on The Lid.


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 6 comments
  • Mike

    Divide and conquer.

    They are dividing the people in this country, now advertisers will have to identify which product is shown to which class of people.

    Most ads carry their own political message in one way or another.

  • Canderson

    He is relatively well off, he could go alt right independent meia if he wanted to. If not well then he just did what he did for money.

    • Canderson


  • harry

    So, do you actually believe all this hullabaloo? Not me! Mike’s comments “divide and conquer” are spot on. Anyway, I just do not buy this story of Advertisers, as they are just using this as an excuse to justify their BS to rid themselves of old Bill. Sounds as though Fox is going to join the ranks of CNN etc.

  • FirstFirstFirst

    And as I understand it, HALF of Fox News advertising is controlled
    by a Hillary support, WPP’s (Wire Plastic Products) most highly paid
    CEO in London at $65 million annualy Martin Sorrell. As an aside,
    as a loving DAD whose three sons work or have worked for
    Goldman Sachs, why would he go against his sons bosses??

    So how about an investigation into which ads are run by WPP,
    and a boycott initiated???

  • harry

    So – Do you believe all this hullabaloo?

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.