Support NeoGAF

[Makonero]

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/...baugh-problem-advertisers-despise-hate/215707

So it’s official: Breitbart now has a Glenn Beck and a Rush Limbaugh problem. Its unapologetically offensive content has driven away hundreds and hundreds of advertisers, according to a tally kept by the group Sleeping Giants. And based on Beck and Limbaugh’s previous boycott struggles, it’s probably safe to predict those advertisers are never coming back.

Previously, companies and ad agencies made sure their programmatic ads didn’t appear on porn sites, for instance. But they hadn’t made provisions to keep their ads off race-baiting, homophobic, "alt-right" sites like Breitbart.

For lots of companies, the decision to ditch Breitbart was apparently an easy one. “We determined that the site violates our hate speech prohibition,” an AppNexus spokesman told The Los Angeles Times.

Here’s the bottom line: Breitbart’s online traffic has undeniably surged as the site has ridden the right-wing Trump wave, but that traffic isn’t being monetized. Breitbart’s recent rise in popularity is not only not attracting more advertisers, it’s running concurrent with a mass exodus of advertisers.

Note that Breitbart recently surpassed ESPN.com in terms of reader traffic. But does anyone think Breitbart, facing a reported 1,200-company ad boycott, is banking more ad revenue that ESPN.com? I certainly don’t. And I’m not alone.

“[P]eople inside the publication say the divergence between its web traffic and its ad revenues is fairly significant,” according to Fox Business.

Today, the larger question for Breitbart is, how much does this matter? Because here’s the truth about Breitbart: It behaves more like an "alt-right" think tank, or a super PAC, than a news organization. And like lots of purely partisan conservative entities, Breitbart is privately funded by rich ideologues, with a mission to drive a political agenda, not to publish journalism.

Robert Mercer has reportedly given Breitbart “at least $10 million.” Mercer is a billionaire hedge fund manager, and he and his family’s foundation (which is headed by his daughter Rebekah) have emerged as key Trump allies who have given millions of dollars to far-right causes in recent years, causes like the Heritage Foundation, Citizens United, the Media Research Center, and the Cato Institute. Note that there's no record of the Mercers doling out millions of dollars to nonpartisan journalism enterprises. They dole out millions to purely partisan, right-wing political operations.

Like Breitbart.

In truth, there’s little indication that without rich donors Breitbart could survive in the marketplace as an advertising-driven entity. Like the New York Post and other conservative outlets with failed business models, Breitbart needs the support of deep-pocketed ideologues to stay afloat.

So for now, Breitbart relies on people like Mercer to pay the bills, while more than a thousand advertisers insist they want nothing to do with the "alt-right" site.

Capitalism in action. Why don't we let the "free market" decide this one, folks?

 

[AstroNut325]

Starve the beast!

 

[Volimar]

Not enough money in seed banks and cash 4 gold?

 

[Inferno313]

Turns out capitalism works after all!

Spoiler

it's a joke don't @ me

 

[AuthenticM]

good. Starve them to death.

 

[Team Filler]

Funny, I don't see it as a problem.

 

[Slayven]

Not enough money in seed banks and cash 4 gold?

Nope, that is why i need to damn near break my radio dial in order to tune in Dennis Miller

 

[BitStyle]

I shed not one tear for Breitbart. Fuck em

 

[SeanC]

Trump will just have his company (or his charity) donate and fund them.

 

[yanipheonu]

Who knew basing your business around hate was problematic?

 

[ArchedThunder]

Failing Breitbart can't get advertisers! Sad!


I hope this destroys Breitbart financially.

 

[Nepenthe]

I thought the American people wanted Fair and Balanced news tho'.

 

[Slayven]

Doesn't the Blaze have a similar problem

 

[Amir0x]

now we just need to destroy his rich benefactors lives down to their very essence, until they are poor and giving cheap handjobs under the Brooklyn Bridge for a few quarters or a burger from white castle.

Nobody gets out cleanly from supporting this monster in Trump, Breitbart and the rest of his Russian loving ilk.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sounds like it doesn't matter at this point. Even if they're shedding advertisers like crazy, they have a handful of wealthy people who are willing to keep them afloat to continue being a mouthpiece for insane paleo-conservative propaganda, and there's a market for their particular brand of batshit crazy. It's not until the wealthy people supporting them decide to pull funding that Breitbart has anything to worry about.

 

[sooperkool]

Breitbart is privately funded, i don't think this will hurt for a while yet

 

[Dai101]

 

[djplaeskool]

#BoycottEverythingISupposeIDunnoThisIsGettingTiresomeWhyDontAdvertisersLikeUsWeJustWantThatSweetAdRevenue

 

[Xyrmellon]

Because Glenn Beck and Limbaugh have become huge failures? I don't get it.

 

[To Far Away Times]

To be fair, if you're in the business of selling white sheets and pillowcases, Breitbart is probably an excellent advertising opportunity.

 

[Shiv47]

Sounds like it doesn't matter, since billionaires are willing to underwrite the site to further their agenda. They can even use it as a point of pride, since the shitbags who frequent the site don't care about advertisers.

 

[JustenP88]

I guess it's good that they're not making significant bank but Breitbart will be funded and operational and awful regardless, unfortunately.

 

[Diprosalic]

Putting the free in free speech.

 

[SkywardBeam]

Since when is the Cato Institute considered far-right (as mentioned in the cited article)? Weren't they a famous libertarian think tank and loathed by lots of conservative Republicans? Just curious. Read an article from 2012 about the Koch brothers trying to take control of Cato's board, filling it with conservative Republican personas. Did they actually succeed with that?

 

[Stinkles]

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/...baugh-problem-advertisers-despise-hate/215707









Capitalism in action. Why don't we let the "free market" decide this one, folks?

Thanks for stealing the correct response in your first post.

:-(

 

[The Technomancer]

This is actually something good I'm pretty sure Twitter did. There's been a very active, concerted effort to crowdsource contacting companies about this spreading on Twitter, with documentation of successes.

 

[adamsappel]

Does Breitbart not have advertisers at all, or just those scammy gold investment and doomsday-prep ads?

 

[youbastards]

 

[devilhawk]

Since when is the Cato Institute considered far-right (as mentioned in the cited article)? Weren't they a famous libertarian think tank and loathed by lots of conservative Republicans? Just curious. Read an article from 2012 about the Koch brothers trying to take control of Cato's board, filling it with conservative Republican personas. Did they actually succeed with that?

This is a Media Matters article.

 

[LosDaddie]

Not as damning as many would hope.

Just look at Limbaugh'a Hannity's contracts. There's still plenty of advertisers willing to support them. Last I heard, Limbaugh had signed a $400M contract back in the Obama days.

 

[Makonero]

Breitbart is privately funded, i don't think this will hurt for a while yet

so they're getting a bailout, hmmm? smells like socialism

 

[Stinkles]

Since when is the Cato Institute considered far-right (as mentioned in the cited article)? Weren't they a famous libertarian think tank and loathed by lots of conservative Republicans? Just curious. Read an article from 2012 about the Koch brothers trying to take control of Cato's board, filling it with conservative Republican personas. Did they actually succeed with that?

In 2012 Just 19% of think tanks were considered left wing. Even that statistic tends to loop in a lot of basically non partisan or science/math driven groups. 46% were considered "centrist" but many of those are basically marketed as centrist to enhance the perceived validity of their findings. The rest are admittedly right wing.

The vast majority are simply lobbyists who create data and reports to support conclusions they were founded to prove. That way they don't have to exposure as lobbyists and get to influence policy worth frequently bullshit findings and results.

You would do yourself almost zero intellectual harm by simply ignoring every single think tank and look for real world findings on whatever subject they are marketing - from economics to environment.

Not as damning as many would hope.

Just look at Limbaugh'a Hannity's contracts. There's still plenty of advertisers willing to support them. Last I heard, Limbaugh had signed a $400M contract back in the Obama days.

He's going to be very grumpy when his oxycodone gets banned. He could actually do a lot of good by discussing his addiction. Maybe he has?

 

[Hellwarden]

I feel like this isn't as damning as people hope it is.

The article makes it seem like as long as they have support from rich donors and some advertisers, they'll be fine. If the former pulls out they might have some issues, but until then they're still okay.

 

[bionic77]

Funny, I don't see it as a problem.

I still see a problem that they are getting more site views than ESPN.

That is really depressing and says a lot about our country. Not good things either...

 

[NastyBook]

*hotfuzzshame.gif*

 

[BocoDragon]

These advertisers need to stop stepping on Breitbart's freedom of speech.

 

[RumblingRosco]

I feel like this isn't as damning as people hope it is.

The article makes it seem like as long as they have support from rich donors and some advertisers, they'll be fine. If the former pulls out they might have some issues, but until then they're still okay.

I agree. This seems to not matter for the survival of Breitbart at all.

 

[Akuun]

Please go the fuck out of business.

 

[captive]

Starve the beast!

Not enough money in seed banks and cash 4 gold?

Turns out capitalism works after all!

Spoiler

it's a joke don't @ me

good. Starve them to death.

Funny, I don't see it as a problem.

I shed not one tear for Breitbart. Fuck em

Who knew basing your business around hate was problematic?

did any of you even read the whole thing? As long as Breitbart et al have funds coming from Mercer its not a problem at all that no advertisers want to have anything to do with them.

 

[SkywardBeam]

This is a Media Matters article.

Sorry to ask, but being European, I never heard of them before. By looking at their self-description after a quick Google search, they describe themselves as progressive and trying to uncover and correct "conservative misinformation". So this at least sounds like they're (far?) left-leaning. Would explain why they're not fond of libertarians either. I just found calling Cato 'far-right' a bit of a stretch, judging by the (admittedly) few pieces I've read by them, they didn't come across as such.

 

[Sparse]

TidusLaughing.gif

 

[Lostconfused]

Capitalism in action. Why don't we let the "free market" decide this one, folks?

Wealthy people are clearly smarter and better than the filthy masses that advertisers con into buying shitty products. Where is the flaw here?

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Hard to cheer considering the site is being bankrolled by assholes like Mercer.

Hell, Trump & co. are probably thinking up ways to support Breitbart with our tax dollars.

 

[Shoeless]

I feel like this isn't as damning as people hope it is.

The article makes it seem like as long as they have support from rich donors and some advertisers, they'll be fine. If the former pulls out they might have some issues, but until then they're still okay.

I agree with this. The article doesn't say that Breitbart is actually in trouble, so much as pointing out that Breitbart relies on private funding from wealthy right wingers. I don't think that funding is likely to stop for several more years, unless those funders die and their heirs don't agree with their politics. Breitbart is pretty much set for life, they don't need advertisers, and that means they don't have to be beholden to them in terms of content to stay afloat. Basically, they can do what they want, as long it supports the politics of their funders.

 

[Makonero]

I agree with this. The article doesn't say that Breitbart is actually in trouble, so much as pointing out that Breitbart relies on private funding from wealthy right wingers. I don't think that funding is likely to stop for several more years, unless those funders die and their heirs don't agree with their politics. Breitbart is pretty much set for life, they don't need advertisers, and that means they don't have to be beholden to them in terms of content to stay afloat. Basically, they can do what they want, as long it supports the politics of their funders.

It's the hypocrisy of the people who worship at the altar of the free market unless the free market doesn't go their way

 

[Brandson]

Most companies go out of their way to project an image of diversity, inclusion, and equality, whether an accurate reflection of their company or not. Associating with Breitbart seems to be a great way of sabotaging those efforts, so any sponsors would have to not even want to pretend to care about any of those things. That doesn't leave too many options.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I agree with this. The article doesn't say that Breitbart is actually in trouble, so much as pointing out that Breitbart relies on private funding from wealthy right wingers. I don't think that funding is likely to stop for several more years, unless those funders die and their heirs don't agree with their politics. Breitbart is pretty much set for life, they don't need advertisers, and that means they don't have to be beholden to them in terms of content to stay afloat. Basically, they can do what they want, as long it supports the politics of their funders.

Sounds like a helluva gig. Write garbage 24/7 and still collect a check.

Maybe Breitbart needs a videogame reviewer...

 

[KernelPanic]

And Mercers hang out with Trump oligarchs like Ryobolev. Seems oligarchs come up everywhere lately.

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news...h-seen-close-together/gI074W3JLqvEYrQ0hm9zlN/

Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev last week disavowed any contact with President Donald Trump.

But speculation again was stoked when his state-of-the-art yacht Anna sat anchored in the British Virgin Islands on Friday night and another equally resplendent luxury liner, the Sea Owl, sidled up, according to a website that tracks the movement of yachts.

The owner of the dark-hulled yacht? President Donald Trump’s biggest financial supporter and Breitbart News moneyman, Robert Mercer

 

[Makonero]

Sounds like a helluva gig. Write garbage 24/7 and still collect a check.

Maybe Breitbart needs a videogame reviewer...

"what is with all these women protagonists? white male protagonist genocide!!!!!"

 

[Team Filler]

did any of you even read the whole thing? As long as Breitbart et al have funds coming from Mercer its not a problem at all that no advertisers want to have anything to do with them.

What exactly does one do to stop wealthy shitheads from financially backing heinous-yet-legal shit like Breitbart?