Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: for-q-clinton

I don’t have time to read the article. Help me out, because this doesn’t pass the smell test. Fox has more viewers than the others combined (or something like that) and yet they can’t charge advertisers a higher rate? That’s BS. It’s one thing if libtard companies don’t want to be associated with Fox, but the rate has nothing to with that — unless ALL companies don’t want to be associated. The rate is based on number of viewers.


20 posted on 03/29/2010 11:23:18 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Lee'sGhost
I don’t have time to read the article. Help me out, because this doesn’t pass the smell test. Fox has more viewers than the others combined (or something like that) and yet they can’t charge advertisers a higher rate? That’s BS. It’s one thing if libtard companies don’t want to be associated with Fox, but the rate has nothing to with that — unless ALL companies don’t want to be associated. The rate is based on number of viewers.

Well to be fair the #'s don't dictate the rate. The rate is determined by supply and demand. If no one is wanting to advertise then they can't charge higher rates. The point the article is making is that the smaller companies can't afford to pay big bucks (like Apple) so the rate has to be lower or they will go with only fox commercials to fill the void.

40 posted on 03/29/2010 11:35:09 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson