Should We Boycott All Of Fox News Advertisers?

[Free]

And seriously all those companies exist to make money. To make money they have to sell products. To sell their products they have to advertise (though seriously - who isn't buying toilet paper or laundry detergent?) They couldn't give a rat's ass if the people who buy their products are assholes as long as they get their money.

Analysis: Bill O’Reilly’s problems just got real

Losing advertisers, let’s remember, contributed to Glenn Beck’s downfall at Fox News in 2011. Walmart, Geico, CVS and Procter and Gamble were among the major companies that pulled ads off Beck’s show

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

There's a difference between pulling your ads from one show and from an entire network - not to mention to Fox News watchers would probably turn around and boycott them for pulling their ads. So either way they're kinda fucked.

 

[Free]

There's a difference between pulling your ads from one show and from an entire network

Really? Thanks.

 

[Nika Talaj]

I'm surprised that Luce made such a vague statement. I think focused, well-publicized, measurable product boycotts can have an effect. Say, you could boycott 3 specific consumer products because their parent company advertises on Fox, and perhaps get them to pull ads. You don't want to boycott a car company or insurance company, because people buy those items infrequently, so the impact is impossible to measure.

Keurig is an obvious choice - SO MANY reasons to boycott Keurig!

HOWEVER, ironically, Sean Hannity's fanbase already started a Keurig boycott in 2017 because Keurig pulled their ads from his show in the wake of a tsunami of negative feedback over his pro-Roy Moore rants. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

One could call a boycott of Crest products, Ace Hardware (franchisees might force a quick reaction), and ... Viagra (Pfizer)!
[Haha, no, obviously can't boycott prescriptions drugs, since folks may actually NEED them. Altho in this case it's tempting because it would cause the patriarchy so much angst]
Sensodyne? (Glaxo)

It needs to be a short list of consumer products for which there are viable alternatives made by other companies. And it would need to be very well promoted.

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

I'm not saying that people - even individuals shouldn't avoid certain things or products that conflict with their values - I'm not planning on seeing Fantastic Beasts in theaters because of Johnny Depp. The movie will undoubtedly be a huge hit, but it can be a huge hit without my little bit of money.

 

[Tigar]

The companies will not be impressed. They know who they target when they advertise on Fox.
Most of them run ads on all stations. They are not after spreading the Fox news.
They are after the attention for their products.

That’s the thing, the entirety of the thing.
They don’t care about the content of whatever show they advertise on, they only care about how many eyes they can present their ads towards.
If you’re watching free tv , listening to free radio , using sites like Facebook, etc. you are not the customer. You are the product.

 

[Sid]

Fox is a lot more than the news channels as you will know. It is an international network group. Here in the Netherlands they run Fox channel. Fox sports (with the Dutch football rights), National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, 24 Kitchen, Sky News (distribution rights), Baby TV. They have their feet in All European countries, with all kind of channels. Just like in the USA.

Fox News is just a fraction of their business. They can afford to do what they do.
They will not change their policies because of one or two advertisers walking away from the US Fox news channels.
Added: The whole boycott idea is dead in the water before it even starts IMHO.

 

[Archer]

Fox is a lot more than the news channels as you will know. It is an international network group. Here in the Netherlands they run Fox channel. Fox sports (with the Dutch football rights), National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, 24 Kitchen, Sky News (distribution rights), Baby TV. They have their feet in All European countries, with all kind of channels. Just like in the USA.

Fox News is just a fraction of their business. They can afford to do what they do.
They will not change their policies because of one or two advertisers walking away from the US Fox news channels.
Added: The whole boycott idea is dead in the water before it even starts IMHO.

The only thing people are interested in is the news portion, because that's what is so damaging to our politics now. Organized boycotts, that are aimed at specific shows or people, for specific issues, and are well advertised DO work, usually because of the optics and bad press the advertisers are bombarded with. Taking them down one bit at a time just might send the message that we don't want their trash anymore. The blowback from their regular viewers would be minimal compared to the rest of the public that wants them gone. The right wing has a long reputation for extremely low turnout for this sort of thing.

 

[Sid]

Fox News is the expression of the companies right wing political ideology. Likely the main reason they exist, besides making money.
At the moment they think that stirring up things and activate the angry white conservative male are the right thing for them to do.
They will not change that, whatever advertiser walks away. They have resources enough to compensate to pursue their political agenda.

Added: At best they will cancel a show or two, but that doesn't mean they will stop with what they are systematically trying to achive.

 

[Essence Lumin]

The list of products Proctor and Gamble makes is very long.

 

[Sid]

Proctor and Gamble and Unilever are the main worldwide producers of daily household products.

 

[Khamon]

The only thing people are interested in is the news portion, because that's what is so damaging to our politics now. Organized boycotts, that are aimed at specific shows or people, for specific issues, and are well advertised DO work, usually because of the optics and bad press the advertisers are bombarded with. Taking them down one bit at a time just might send the message that we don't want their trash anymore. The blowback from their regular viewers would be minimal compared to the rest of the public that wants them gone. The right wing has a long reputation for extremely low turnout for this sort of thing.

Enough boycott buzz can prompt a reaction if it reaches a tipping point. How do we generate that? If we were Republicans, we could simply claim that an effective boycott was severely damaging the bottom line of Fox News advertisers; everyone would automatically believe it to be true and flood the Facebook with encouragement to join.

 

[Tigar]

Proctor and Gamble and Unilever are the main worldwide producers of daily household products.

I really not sure that I can boycott toidey paper...

 

[Kara Spengler]

It needs to be a short list of consumer products for which there are viable alternatives made by other companies. And it would need to be very well promoted.

Yes, boycotts are easier said than done. One of the things (capitol one bought my bank awhile back) is not easy for me to avoid. It would require a bit of effort to get everything positioned to where I was using another bank instead. After all that effort they would hardly even notice that I left them anyway because most people would not feel strong enough to go to that much work. Picking up brand B rather than brand A at the store is a doable ask of people though.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Free]

The point is not to just up and stop buying some products or leave a service. Before you do so, you have to, you know,



Loudly and often about it. In messages to the company, and publicly - in some way. You should want someone in that company to take notice. They may not care to lose you, or a dozen yous, or a hundred yous. But say there's a thousand. Or tens of thousands...

And hey, even if it comes to nothing, don't you feel good about yourself?

 

[Pamela]

I think it’s more the negative publicity, not the bottom line, that makes companies fall all over themselves to ditch people like Ingraham, who has never recovered from the last time she got dumped.

I don’t know if boycotting all sponsors of all Fox shows would be as effective as targeted boycotts. Fox is not as monolithic as you would think. The actual reporters/anchors of Fox News — Shep Smith, Bret Baier , Neal Cavuto, Chris Wallace — are not like the circus clowns that provide lunatic opinions and make shit up. They frequently come out and say, that shit is made up.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

So all the people who say they don't buy P&G stuff don't buy toilet paper or laundry detergent??? *gives some of you mugs the side eye*

They make both Tide and Gain which are like the best laundry detergents on the market. Sorry. Not boycotting. And seriously all those companies exist to make money. To make money they have to sell products. To sell their products they have to advertise (though seriously - who isn't buying toilet paper or laundry detergent?) They couldn't give a rat's ass if the people who buy their products are assholes as long as they get their money.

Detergent, soap, TP and paper towels I buy from Trader Joe's.
It's possible that they're rebranded P&G products... But who knows.

 

[Archer]

Here's an interesting article, showing that Fox may actually be shooting themselves in the foot, along with the effect activists are having.

Advertisers Leaving Fox News

The advertiser problems aren’t limited to Ingraham’s show either. Dozens of companies have removed their ads from Sean Hannity’s program, and even more have told me that they block Hannity and other more extreme Fox News programs so their ads never appear in the first place.