What About the SPONSORS in the Newsmax/Direct TV Controversy ?

[protectionist]

I've seen a lot of reports about the controversial shut-off of Newsmax from Direct TV, but haven't heard or seen a word about the sponsors who are paying big bucks to have their products shown to as many people as possible. Well, by having that advertising reduced by 13 million people, one would think that would be a big blow those companies, and a severe reduction of what they are paying for. Even on Newsmax itself (who talks about this frequently), we see no mention about the sponsors, and there are many of them, who advertise on Newsmax because it is one of the highest rated TV new shows (#4 by Nielsen ratings), reaching a large audience.

Here's a partial list of Newsmax sponsors >>>
Tide, GMC, Crunch Fitness, Jiffy Lube, Keytruda/Merck, Alfa Romeo, Worthy, Airbnb, Zaxby's, Florida leather Gallery, Nutrafol, Self, Daily Harvest, Buick/Envision, Pluto TV, Subway, Burger King, Little Caesars, Progressive Insurance, Ibrance, Calm, Greenlight, Kane's Furniture,

One would think that these sponsors would be up in arms, or at the very least, demanding rate reductions, due to reductions in service. This might be related to the specific contracts that these sponsors have with DirectTV, but having owned a business myself, I'd be hard-pressed to think that these sponsors would have went along with a contract giving Newsmax the right to reduce their viewership, without a corresponding/correlated reduction in price to the sponsors.

Lastly, we also would be hard-pressed to think that Direct TV is giving these sponsors reduction$, because their whole (ludicrous) excuse revolves around money, saying that Newsmax was asking for too much money (when they're paying more to 22 liberal broadcasters with much lower Nielsen ratings)

While it's pretty obvious that Direct TV and their parent ATT, have a political agenda here, the sponsors aren't thinking about politics. They're concerned with money, and that money comes from sale$ generated by advertising, of which there is now 13 Million viewers less of.

 

[okfine]

Crocodile tears. Boo hoo hoo.

 

[Donald H]

I've seen a lot of reports about the controversial shut-off of Newsmax from Direct TV, but haven't heard or seen a word about the sponsors who are paying big bucks to have their products shown to as many people as possible. Well, by having that advertising reduced by 13 million people, one would think that would be a big blow those companies, and a severe reduction of what they are paying for. Even on Newsmax itself (who talks about this frequently), we see no mention about the sponsors, and there are many of them, who advertise on Newsmax because it is one of the highest rated TV new shows (#4 by Nielsen ratings), reaching a large audience.

Here's a partial list of Newsmax sponsors >>>
Tide, GMC, Crunch Fitness, Jiffy Lube, Keytruda/Merck, Alfa Romeo, Worthy, Airbnb, Zaxby's, Florida leather Gallery, Nutrafol, Self, Daily Harvest, Buick/Envision, Pluto TV, Subway, Burger King, Little Caesars, Progressive Insurance, Ibrance, Calm, Greenlight, Kane's Furniture,

One would think that these sponsors would be up in arms, or at the very least, demanding rate reductions, due to reductions in service. This might be related to the specific contracts that these sponsors have with DirectTV, but having owned a business myself, I'd be hard-pressed to think that these sponsors would have went along with a contract giving Newsmax the right to reduce their viewership, without a corresponding/correlated reduction in price to the sponsors.

Lastly, we also would be hard-pressed to think that Direct TV is giving these sponsors reduction$, because their whole (ludicrous) excuse revolves around money, saying that Newsmax was asking for too much money (when they're paying more to 22 liberal broadcasters with much lower Nielsen ratings)

While it's pretty obvious that Direct TV and their parent ATT, have a political agenda here, the sponsors aren't thinking about politics. They're concerned with money, and that money comes from sale$ generated by advertising, of which there is now 13 Million viewers less of.

Are you suggesting that there should be political interference in the capitalist principle of supply and demand?

 

[protectionist]

Are you suggesting that there should be political interference in the capitalist principle of supply and demand?

If I didn't mention political interference, then I didn't suggest it. When I suggest, I say. No say, no suggest.

 

[protectionist]

Crocodile tears. Boo hoo hoo.

Nothing false in anything in the OP. If you thought there was, that's a deficiency in your perception. Not my problem.

 

[okfine]

Nothing false in anything in the OP. If you thought there was, that's a deficiency in your perception. Not my problem.

Your perception that I said anything was false is just that. False. That's your problem. Not mine.

 

[Skylar]

I've seen a lot of reports about the controversial shut-off of Newsmax from Direct TV, but haven't heard or seen a word about the sponsors who are paying big bucks to have their products shown to as many people as possible. Well, by having that advertising reduced by 13 million people, one would think that would be a big blow those companies, and a severe reduction of what they are paying for. Even on Newsmax itself (who talks about this frequently), we see no mention about the sponsors, and there are many of them, who advertise on Newsmax because it is one of the highest rated TV new shows (#4 by Nielsen ratings), reaching a large audience.

Here's a partial list of Newsmax sponsors >>>
Tide, GMC, Crunch Fitness, Jiffy Lube, Keytruda/Merck, Alfa Romeo, Worthy, Airbnb, Zaxby's, Florida leather Gallery, Nutrafol, Self, Daily Harvest, Buick/Envision, Pluto TV, Subway, Burger King, Little Caesars, Progressive Insurance, Ibrance, Calm, Greenlight, Kane's Furniture,

One would think that these sponsors would be up in arms, or at the very least, demanding rate reductions, due to reductions in service. This might be related to the specific contracts that these sponsors have with DirectTV, but having owned a business myself, I'd be hard-pressed to think that these sponsors would have went along with a contract giving Newsmax the right to reduce their viewership, without a corresponding/correlated reduction in price to the sponsors.

Lastly, we also would be hard-pressed to think that Direct TV is giving these sponsors reduction$, because their whole (ludicrous) excuse revolves around money, saying that Newsmax was asking for too much money (when they're paying more to 22 liberal broadcasters with much lower Nielsen ratings)

While it's pretty obvious that Direct TV and their parent ATT, have a political agenda here, the sponsors aren't thinking about politics. They're concerned with money, and that money comes from sale$ generated by advertising, of which there is now 13 Million viewers less of.

I think Jiffy Lube s going to be okay. As advertising options are abundant.

 

[protectionist]

Your perception that I said anything was false is just that. False. That's your problem. Not mine.

Not my problem at all. In response to the OP, you said "crocodile tears". That is calling the OP false. Your problem is using words without knowing what they mean.

crocodile tears definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[protectionist]

I think Jiffy Lube s going to be okay. As advertising options are abundant.

Could be ALL the sponsors will be OK. The point still remains that they are getting a lot less than what they previously were, .....while still paying the same rate ?

 

[busybee01]

I've seen a lot of reports about the controversial shut-off of Newsmax from Direct TV, but haven't heard or seen a word about the sponsors who are paying big bucks to have their products shown to as many people as possible. Well, by having that advertising reduced by 13 million people, one would think that would be a big blow those companies, and a severe reduction of what they are paying for. Even on Newsmax itself (who talks about this frequently), we see no mention about the sponsors, and there are many of them, who advertise on Newsmax because it is one of the highest rated TV new shows (#4 by Nielsen ratings), reaching a large audience.

Here's a partial list of Newsmax sponsors >>>
Tide, GMC, Crunch Fitness, Jiffy Lube, Keytruda/Merck, Alfa Romeo, Worthy, Airbnb, Zaxby's, Florida leather Gallery, Nutrafol, Self, Daily Harvest, Buick/Envision, Pluto TV, Subway, Burger King, Little Caesars, Progressive Insurance, Ibrance, Calm, Greenlight, Kane's Furniture,

One would think that these sponsors would be up in arms, or at the very least, demanding rate reductions, due to reductions in service. This might be related to the specific contracts that these sponsors have with DirectTV, but having owned a business myself, I'd be hard-pressed to think that these sponsors would have went along with a contract giving Newsmax the right to reduce their viewership, without a corresponding/correlated reduction in price to the sponsors.

Lastly, we also would be hard-pressed to think that Direct TV is giving these sponsors reduction$, because their whole (ludicrous) excuse revolves around money, saying that Newsmax was asking for too much money (when they're paying more to 22 liberal broadcasters with much lower Nielsen ratings)

While it's pretty obvious that Direct TV and their parent ATT, have a political agenda here, the sponsors aren't thinking about politics. They're concerned with money, and that money comes from sale$ generated by advertising, of which there is now 13 Million viewers less of.

There is no political agenda. It is a dollars and cents issue. Newsmax wanted a big increase in fees and AT&T disagreed. Another conservative network walked through the opening that Newsmax left.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've seen a lot of reports about the controversial shut-off of Newsmax from Direct TV, but haven't heard or seen a word about the sponsors who are paying big bucks to have their products shown to as many people as possible. Well, by having that advertising reduced by 13 million people, one would think that would be a big blow those companies, and a severe reduction of what they are paying for. Even on Newsmax itself (who talks about this frequently), we see no mention about the sponsors, and there are many of them, who advertise on Newsmax because it is one of the highest rated TV new shows (#4 by Nielsen ratings), reaching a large audience.

Here's a partial list of Newsmax sponsors >>>
Tide, GMC, Crunch Fitness, Jiffy Lube, Keytruda/Merck, Alfa Romeo, Worthy, Airbnb, Zaxby's, Florida leather Gallery, Nutrafol, Self, Daily Harvest, Buick/Envision, Pluto TV, Subway, Burger King, Little Caesars, Progressive Insurance, Ibrance, Calm, Greenlight, Kane's Furniture,

One would think that these sponsors would be up in arms, or at the very least, demanding rate reductions, due to reductions in service. This might be related to the specific contracts that these sponsors have with DirectTV, but having owned a business myself, I'd be hard-pressed to think that these sponsors would have went along with a contract giving Newsmax the right to reduce their viewership, without a corresponding/correlated reduction in price to the sponsors.

Lastly, we also would be hard-pressed to think that Direct TV is giving these sponsors reduction$, because their whole (ludicrous) excuse revolves around money, saying that Newsmax was asking for too much money (when they're paying more to 22 liberal broadcasters with much lower Nielsen ratings)

While it's pretty obvious that Direct TV and their parent ATT, have a political agenda here, the sponsors aren't thinking about politics. They're concerned with money, and that money comes from sale$ generated by advertising, of which there is now 13 Million viewers less of.

You are a complete and total idiot which is proven by this post. Newsmaxx has a total of about 100,000 viewers - total.

No cable company has "sponsors" and they are in no way beholding to the sponsors of the networks they choose to carry. They have no deal or contract with any of them. Their contract is with NewsMaxx and no one else.

As for Newmaxx's sponsors, tough noogies. If Newsmaxx is no longer able to deliver the viewers they promised, it's time to reduce their advertising rates. By the time they pay the lawsuit from Dominion Voting Machines, they'll be off the air anyway.