Here is the article I was semi citing. This was a WSJ article that appeared in SFGate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/20/financial0858EDT0032.DTL&type=printable
This is just an excerpt:
For Fox News, ad-sales market isn't fair, balanced
- JULIA ANGWIN, The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, May 20, 2004
(05-20) 05:58 PDT (AP) --
NEW YORK -- Paul Rittenberg, head of advertising sales for the Fox News Channel, got on the phone recently to counter a lowball offer. Chrysler wanted to buy nearly $2 million of commercials -- but at a cut-rate price of $8 per thousand viewers.
Mr. Rittenberg pushed for $11.98, almost a dollar below his original asking price. Chrysler turned him down. As he hung up the phone, Mr. Rittenberg said nervously, "I hope CNN didn't get it."
The haggling illustrates a frustrating paradox for Fox News. No longer a struggling upstart, it is beating Time Warner Inc.'s Cable News Network handily in the ratings. But in the peculiar market for television advertising, where the usual rules of supply and demand don't always apply, it has trouble commanding the same rates as its rival.
But in the peculiar market for television advertising, where the usual rules of supply and demand don't always apply, it has trouble commanding the same rates as its rival. Dave, thanks again for links to the working innards of this business; interesting stuff. The FACT that FoxNews, averaging twice the audience as CNN, is just now able to charge similar ad rates is, well, curious. The rationale behind this anomaly seems to be guesswork as much as anything else, but whatta I know. It also didn't add much toward my theory re the easy pickins' demographic. Didn't seem to hurt it either ;^)
FGS