Liberal Effort To Kill Breitbart Working, 1250 Advertisers Gone

Well Trump's popularity hasn't waned any snowflake, and the massive spike that Brietbart enjoyed has not decreased once ounce. If they were surviving before at a lower level, surely they must be flourishing now at a much higher level.

Which defeats your entire desperate false narrative that they are "only surviving" because of the "deep pockets of owners". Are there any other really stupid lies would you like to attempt?

BS. Their sales are flat and they have dropped 41 points in their worldwide rankings. The onslaught continues with great effect.

Idiots who made that graph in your OP couldn't even get it right side up... And the "data" isn't specified. You're talking about number of advertisers, but the explanation for the data is some kind of nebulous "world ranking"..

Just more proof that math and reason are keeping the left contained all by themselves. WTF is that graph anyways?

LOL

I love how you're bashing the graph and calling the automatic algorithm that created it "idiots," then ask "wtf is that graph anyway?"

Hilarious. Here's a suggestion, don't run your mouth about stuff you're absolutely clueless about. You'll only embarrass yourself.

That graph "made by idiots" comes from Alexa, dumbass. One of the oldest internet traffic/SEO tools out there. By the way, it didn't "reverse" anything.

Good Evening DUMBASS !!!! That chart appears on Alexis here -- Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

And contrary to the sheer crap you were licking off the floor about what it PROVES --- what it ACTUALLY shows is the BreitBart TRAFFIC is WAY up since election night. WAY beyond where it was during the campaign.. The site ranks 262 or something close in the WORLD....

So sorry ass know nothing bitches like yourself might think it LOOKS pretty and no one with 11th grade math skillls from YOUR side would ever question it -- but you dumbasses constantly prove you don't have a CLUE about defending yourselves on facts, data or math.. So you should be more careful with the ad-homs.

Maybe it wasn't "made by idiots" -- but it was totally MISINTERPRETED by morons.

Congratulations! You finally learned how to read the graph! Are they idiots now, dumbshit? LOL

And no shit traffic is up -- fuckwit -- that's why I said nothing was reversed -- because traffic is up for them. Jesus fucking Christ. I never said it wasn't. This whole thing has caused a spike in traffic for them as it's made headlines across the web, but it's likely a temporary spike.

However, they are looking at rebranding since the Milo debacle and the mass exodus of advertisers. Even if they've got a temporary spike in traffic, they're still getting hurt every time advertisers pull their ads.

Sorry.. I guess I skip most of your posts.. :badgrin: I was referring to OP's totally bogus characterization of that data which was ----

In the run up to the election Breitbart was doing quite well but from the graph from Alexa, you can see they have flattened out

Apparently confused by UP vs DOWN or what a ranking is... .

I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?
 
Bunch of hogwash by the OP....

Breitbart News is now the 29th most trafficked site in the United States, surpassing PornHub and ESPN, according to figures from the latest Alexa rankings.

The analysis, which is based on a variety of factors, found that the average Breitbart reader spends 5 minutes 18 seconds on the site, whilst having an average of 2.64 pageviews.

It also found that 8.7% of Breitbart’s traffic came from search engines and that 41,686 sites link in every week to Breitbart stories.

At 29th place, Breitbart is the third most trafficked pure news website in America, behind only to CNN and The New York Times. Its traffic has now overtaken that of outlets such as FOX News, The Huffington Post, and The Washington Post.

Breitbart News 29th Most Trafficked Site in America, Overtakes PornHub and ESPN - Breitbart

No, they're not. They're number 32. Learn how to read a graph, cupcake.

At 29th place, Breitbart is the third most trafficked pure news website in America, behind only to CNN and The New York Times

You can't possibly be this dense.
 
BS. Their sales are flat and they have dropped 41 points in their worldwide rankings. The onslaught continues with great effect.

Idiots who made that graph in your OP couldn't even get it right side up... And the "data" isn't specified. You're talking about number of advertisers, but the explanation for the data is some kind of nebulous "world ranking"..

Just more proof that math and reason are keeping the left contained all by themselves. WTF is that graph anyways?

LOL

I love how you're bashing the graph and calling the automatic algorithm that created it "idiots," then ask "wtf is that graph anyway?"

Hilarious. Here's a suggestion, don't run your mouth about stuff you're absolutely clueless about. You'll only embarrass yourself.

That graph "made by idiots" comes from Alexa, dumbass. One of the oldest internet traffic/SEO tools out there. By the way, it didn't "reverse" anything.

Good Evening DUMBASS !!!! That chart appears on Alexis here -- Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

And contrary to the sheer crap you were licking off the floor about what it PROVES --- what it ACTUALLY shows is the BreitBart TRAFFIC is WAY up since election night. WAY beyond where it was during the campaign.. The site ranks 262 or something close in the WORLD....

So sorry ass know nothing bitches like yourself might think it LOOKS pretty and no one with 11th grade math skillls from YOUR side would ever question it -- but you dumbasses constantly prove you don't have a CLUE about defending yourselves on facts, data or math.. So you should be more careful with the ad-homs.

Maybe it wasn't "made by idiots" -- but it was totally MISINTERPRETED by morons.

Congratulations! You finally learned how to read the graph! Are they idiots now, dumbshit? LOL

And no shit traffic is up -- fuckwit -- that's why I said nothing was reversed -- because traffic is up for them. Jesus fucking Christ. I never said it wasn't. This whole thing has caused a spike in traffic for them as it's made headlines across the web, but it's likely a temporary spike.

However, they are looking at rebranding since the Milo debacle and the mass exodus of advertisers. Even if they've got a temporary spike in traffic, they're still getting hurt every time advertisers pull their ads.

Sorry.. I guess I skip most of your posts.. :badgrin: I was referring to OP's totally bogus characterization of that data which was ----

In the run up to the election Breitbart was doing quite well but from the graph from Alexa, you can see they have flattened out

Apparently confused by UP vs DOWN or what a ranking is... .

I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?

you seem to be missing the point.
 
Idiots who made that graph in your OP couldn't even get it right side up... And the "data" isn't specified. You're talking about number of advertisers, but the explanation for the data is some kind of nebulous "world ranking"..

Just more proof that math and reason are keeping the left contained all by themselves. WTF is that graph anyways?

LOL

I love how you're bashing the graph and calling the automatic algorithm that created it "idiots," then ask "wtf is that graph anyway?"

Hilarious. Here's a suggestion, don't run your mouth about stuff you're absolutely clueless about. You'll only embarrass yourself.

That graph "made by idiots" comes from Alexa, dumbass. One of the oldest internet traffic/SEO tools out there. By the way, it didn't "reverse" anything.

Good Evening DUMBASS !!!! That chart appears on Alexis here -- Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

And contrary to the sheer crap you were licking off the floor about what it PROVES --- what it ACTUALLY shows is the BreitBart TRAFFIC is WAY up since election night. WAY beyond where it was during the campaign.. The site ranks 262 or something close in the WORLD....

So sorry ass know nothing bitches like yourself might think it LOOKS pretty and no one with 11th grade math skillls from YOUR side would ever question it -- but you dumbasses constantly prove you don't have a CLUE about defending yourselves on facts, data or math.. So you should be more careful with the ad-homs.

Maybe it wasn't "made by idiots" -- but it was totally MISINTERPRETED by morons.

Congratulations! You finally learned how to read the graph! Are they idiots now, dumbshit? LOL

And no shit traffic is up -- fuckwit -- that's why I said nothing was reversed -- because traffic is up for them. Jesus fucking Christ. I never said it wasn't. This whole thing has caused a spike in traffic for them as it's made headlines across the web, but it's likely a temporary spike.

However, they are looking at rebranding since the Milo debacle and the mass exodus of advertisers. Even if they've got a temporary spike in traffic, they're still getting hurt every time advertisers pull their ads.

Sorry.. I guess I skip most of your posts.. :badgrin: I was referring to OP's totally bogus characterization of that data which was ----

In the run up to the election Breitbart was doing quite well but from the graph from Alexa, you can see they have flattened out

Apparently confused by UP vs DOWN or what a ranking is... .

I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?

you seem to be missing the point.

The one one on your nose or some other point Jillian. TELL me please what I'm missing. A bunch of whiners wishing to destroy to a media company. And all they're gonna do is BOOST their traffic??
 
I tried to save Breitbart.

Andrew, that is, not the website. Back when he first started it up, he'd talk to people in the comments. I mentioned that he looked way older than his age, and he really needed to start taking care of himself.

He didn't. He died. And his site, which was kind of normal, became a crazy right-wing racist victimhood shitfest, frequented only by the most vile dregs of humanity.
 
Bunch of hogwash by the OP....

Breitbart News is now the 29th most trafficked site in the United States, surpassing PornHub and ESPN, according to figures from the latest Alexa rankings.

The analysis, which is based on a variety of factors, found that the average Breitbart reader spends 5 minutes 18 seconds on the site, whilst having an average of 2.64 pageviews.

It also found that 8.7% of Breitbart’s traffic came from search engines and that 41,686 sites link in every week to Breitbart stories.

At 29th place, Breitbart is the third most trafficked pure news website in America, behind only to CNN and The New York Times. Its traffic has now overtaken that of outlets such as FOX News, The Huffington Post, and The Washington Post.

Breitbart News 29th Most Trafficked Site in America, Overtakes PornHub and ESPN - Breitbart

No, they're not. They're number 32. Learn how to read a graph, cupcake.

At 29th place, Breitbart is the third most trafficked pure news website in America, behind only to CNN and The New York Times

You can't possibly be this dense.

33bfryo.png


You even linked to this page in your post ya dumbass
 
Brown shirt sociopaths. Pieces of shit like stalin, obozo, hitlery, mao and the kim dynasty would not exist if it wasn't for mindless drones like these who enable them.

Liberals aborting their genetic garbage or going queer is a GOOD THING.

Lets stop interfering with the weakest links naturally selecting themselves.


You hero Mao Trump is leading the Brown Shirts himself
 
Brought to us by the same sanctimonious buttpipes who howl about Cheeto Jesus barring CNN and others from a presser.

BFD.

you do understand the difference between actual, legitimate media and breitbart made up white supremacist garbage, right?

Point out where Briebart is not legitimate. At least they wear their bias on their sleeve, unlike most MSM sources who still try to bullshit us about being impartial.
 
I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?

Ad revenue is based on a bidding war among advertisers. So, even if their traffic spikes temporarily from a shit load of articles being written about them and this Sleeping Giants mission, yet advertisers are dropping left and right, it's actually possible that their revenue will still drop slightly. Reason? There is way more ad inventory than there are advertisers in the display ad world in general, and the fewer advertisers willing to be shown on the site means fewer advertisers participating in the bidding war, which means the CPC (cost per click) may actually drop which affects the payout to Breitbart.

If the number increases to say 2,000 advertisers pulling out, and then 3,000, and so on, I don't think even additional traffic will be able to make up for the difference.
 
I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?

Ad revenue is based on a bidding war among advertisers. So, even if their traffic spikes temporarily from a shit load of articles being written about them and this Sleeping Giants mission, yet advertisers are dropping left and right, it's actually possible that their revenue will still drop slightly. Reason? There is way more ad inventory than there are advertisers in the display ad world in general, and the fewer advertisers willing to be shown on the site means fewer advertisers participating in the bidding war, which means the CPC (cost per click) may actually drop which affects the payout to Breitbart.

If the number increases to say 2,000 advertisers pulling out, and then 3,000, and so on, I don't think even additional traffic will be able to make up for the difference.

Both YOU and the OP seriously misrepresented this "victory". First the graph and the popularity of Breitbart and then the claim that "Breitbart just lost 1250 advertisers".. That's NOT what the link said. The link said they lost another 100... So it's a bit hysterical.

But not as funny and dense as you ignoring their ranking. By snipping the "Porn Hub" placement from the list of top US sites.

Here's the deal -- I just upped the page hits at Breitbart to check out the situation and I get served the SAME spooky "follow you around" ads that I get served on USMB. See -- leftists not understanding how ANYTHING WORKS is a true impediment to their progress. TODAY'S advertiser dont choose sites. They follow their CUSTOMERS !!!! I just got served ads from the same engineering/scientific supply shops that I buy from over the internet every day. Along with ads for a rototiller that I bought for my father-in-laws birthday. They now know WHO YOU are, what you buy and where you browse. The idea that they are not gonna PURSUE customers where they surf ---- is hysterically funny..

And if they DO go to political war --- companies like Kellogg will be serving breakfast flakes in only about 38 BLUE counties in the USA by summer. They won't NEED national distribution anymore. They'll figure this out quickly. Because they are literally WASTING money shifting to other disputed sources like the Atlantic, or Salon or even the NY Times.

The OLD thinking don't apply anymore. Times have changed. And having your company GROUPED with any list of political activists is sheer suicide. By EITHER side...

There are a LOT of companies (especially News companies) that have a literal death wish by aligning with the resistance or sticking their necks out for the "home" team. Seems like a mental illness of some sort. If they want to join the list of aging rigormortus looking institutions that are soon to be irrelevent --- (like the Dem and Rep parties) --- I wish them Gods Speed........... Go to hell. Go DIRECTLY to hell. And take the others with ya !!!
 
I was confused why the OP would SHOW the astronomical increase in page hits post election while he's blabbering about showing how much Brietbart is hurting.. Let's do some math. If Breitbart doubles their page hits and loses 1/2 of it's advertisers --- what is the result?

Ad revenue is based on a bidding war among advertisers. So, even if their traffic spikes temporarily from a shit load of articles being written about them and this Sleeping Giants mission, yet advertisers are dropping left and right, it's actually possible that their revenue will still drop slightly. Reason? There is way more ad inventory than there are advertisers in the display ad world in general, and the fewer advertisers willing to be shown on the site means fewer advertisers participating in the bidding war, which means the CPC (cost per click) may actually drop which affects the payout to Breitbart.

If the number increases to say 2,000 advertisers pulling out, and then 3,000, and so on, I don't think even additional traffic will be able to make up for the difference.

Both YOU and the OP seriously misrepresented this "victory". First the graph and the popularity of Breitbart and then the claim that "Breitbart just lost 1250 advertisers".. That's NOT what the link said. The link said they lost another 100... So it's a bit hysterical.

It doesn't matter what "the link" said, here's THE LIST of advertisers who have pulled their ads from the right wing hate site.

SLEEPING GIANTS CONFIRMED LIST - Updated 2.27.17

Well look at that, the list has grown to 1316 advertisers now.

But not as funny and dense as you ignoring their ranking. By snipping the "Porn Hub" placement from the list of top US sites.

Here's the deal -- I just upped the page hits at Breitbart to check out the situation and I get served the SAME spooky "follow you around" ads that I get served on USMB. See -- leftists not understanding how ANYTHING WORKS is a true impediment to their progress. TODAY'S advertiser dont choose sites. They follow their CUSTOMERS !!!! I just got served ads from the same engineering/scientific supply shops that I buy from over the internet every day. Along with ads for a rototiller that I bought for my father-in-laws birthday. They now know WHO YOU are, what you buy and where you browse. The idea that they are not gonna PURSUE customers where they surf ---- is hysterically funny..

Christ almighty. That's called "remarketing." And not all advertisers do that, but the smart ones do because the conversion rate is very high on those. When you do ad buys through a display network such as google, you typically don't choose sites per se, however you do have some ability to do so. Any advertiser can use the google placement tool to pick specific sites to have their ads shown on. They also have the ability to block their ads from any site they wish. That is what this sleeping giants campaign is encouraging advertisers to do -- to get their ads removed from the right wing hate site. And that IS working. As it turns out, 1,316 advertisers and growing now agree that they do not want their brand being advertised on a far right, conservative hate site.

And if they DO go to political war --- companies like Kellogg will be serving breakfast flakes in only about 38 BLUE counties in the USA by summer. They won't NEED national distribution anymore. They'll figure this out quickly. Because they are literally WASTING money shifting to other disputed sources like the Atlantic, or Salon or even the NY Times.

The OLD thinking don't apply anymore. Times have changed. And having your company GROUPED with any list of political activists is sheer suicide. By EITHER side...

I disagree completely. We're only going to be seeing more of this kind of thinking in the future. Brands are getting smarter about who they want to advertise to and on what platforms. It doesn't make sense to advertise to everyone and anyone, targeted marketing is the only marketing that's proven to give a good return on ad spend anyway.

There are a LOT of companies (especially News companies) that have a literal death wish by aligning with the resistance or sticking their necks out for the "home" team. Seems like a mental illness of some sort. If they want to join the list of aging rigormortus looking institutions that are soon to be irrelevent --- (like the Dem and Rep parties) --- I wish them Gods Speed........... Go to hell. Go DIRECTLY to hell. And take the others with ya !!!

I'm not really sure what you mean.
 
I'm sure that there won't be a 100 other companies that are willing to advertise on their website considering that there are more people on that than there are watching CNN.
 
you do understand the difference between actual, legitimate media and breitbart made up white supremacist garbage, right?
Poor jillian - continues to make one sentence, uninformed posts without anything to back it up while supporting an ideology that despises her for her faith and wants to see her destroyed. You poor thing.

I don't suppose we could challenge you to provide even a single instance of Breitbart issuing "white supremacist" articles or radio content? No? Yeah....didn't think so. You never did let facts get in the way of your false narrative.
 

Forum List

Back
Top