What will Fox News do with Glenn Beck?

Back in 2007 Don Imus set off a bomb when he called the women basketball team at Rutgers University "nappy headed hoes" during his daily broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC TV and was dismissed from both networks. Within no time Imus was back on the air on a different radio (Citadel) and TV (RFD-TV) network. Imus is about to upgrade his TV affiliation by joining the Fox Business Network. Imus rebuilt a significant amount of audience in no time and is bringing that crowd to Rupert Murdoch's business TV network.

Rupert Murdoch is one of the savviest people in media today, but his Fox News network is in a similar dilemma that MSNBC was in with Imus. Glenn Beck, host of the ever popular "Glenn Beck Show" told the Fox viewing public back in July (on the network's morning show, "Fox and Friends") that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture." It was really an off the cuff statement spoken in passing upon observing some of the President's choices, that led Beck coming to such a conclusion. Off the cuff? Maybe, but it has created a stir and has the network buckling down as it faces an onslaught of attack. An organization called the Color of Change has waged a boycott on the network and it has been effective in the financial arena. The Atlantic points out that "Lots of big companies who advertise on Fox have signed onto the boycott, orchestrated by Color of Change to protest Beck's proposition that President Obama is a racist, reportedly including Wal-Mart, Sprint, Travelers Insurance, General Mills, DirecTV, Geico, Progressive, Procter & Gamble, Radio Shack, Men's Wearhouse, GMAC Financial Services--at least 36 companies in all. (UPDATE: as commenter Mike Cee points out, Color of Change put the total at 46 after announcing 10 more yesterday.)" An hour long program would typically not have more than 40 sponsors, so this is a huge number by any standard.

I think that many advertisers who are currently on the Glenn Beck Show are not actual sponsors of his program, but of the network in general and are being placed in the "best times available" (BTA) which is one of the cheapest media buys. Many of these ad buyers are getting multiples of the exposure they are use to receiving at BTA. If this is the case, Fox News is probably losing money compared to what they normally enjoy for Glenn Beck's hour. However, I think everyone, even Beck and Fox News, are crying all the way to the bank. The LA Times points out in an article titled "UPDATED: As boycott continues, Glenn Beck's audience swells" that the TV host and Fox network "attracted 2.81 million viewers Monday, his third-largest audience since his show launched on Fox News in January, according to Nielsen Media Research data provided by the network. On Tuesday, nearly 2.7 million viewers tuned in, his fifth-largest viewership to date. And the conservative host got a plug from former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who urged people to watch his program in a post on her Facebook page." The Times went on to quote Palin, saying “"FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House,' she wrote Wednesday to her 800,000-plus supporters."

In light of the audience Beck is receiving and the "ink" the networking is enjoying in the media, this temporary lost in revenue is little more than a high priced advertising campaign that should pay the network off significantly over time. As long as Murdoch and his team take a strategic approach and stay with the host, the network should be all the better when the dust finally settles.

If Fox can't handle the heat, I think the ratings hungry MSNBC would be delighted to get Glenn Beck in what they might call "Don Imus Revenge."

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Companies that may Point to Recovery

There is no question that we are now in a recession and it is a severe one at that. Now the thing people will look for are indicators that the economy is improving. Some companies might provide the signs of when the economy is finally heading in the right direction (according to 247WallSt.com).

Target. The giant retailer is known as one who caters to people who are seeking a little more than what they can get from Walmart. That "little more" includes slightly higher prices (if, for no other reason than the fact that Target cannot buy at the volume of Walmart) and that has led to some economic slowdown for the store. So far Target sales has seen a noted drop this year. When Target begins to see an increase in sales, you might also see a turn around in the economy.

Starbucks. At the height of rapid economic growth, Starbucks was an economic pleasure palace for the happy middle class. However, with declining prosperity, people are bailing out on the coffee shop and many have remorse for the dollars they spent on a small cup of coffee. Part of the problem is plain out saturation. Even after closing hundreds of stores in 2008, I personally know an area in the very affluent Galleria section of Houston that has at least 4 locations in less than a square mile area. When these come back, the economy will be on the mend as well. You will likely see that after a turn around at Target.


CBS. It is now the only major broadcast TV network that largely has all its eggs in one basket (TV). Its competitors -- Fox (which owns radio, print, web platforms, and TV), ABC (Disney World and other entertainment venues), and NBC (whose parent company is GE, which seems to own everything) are far more diversified. The Stock Market has punished CBS' lack of diversification as its shares have dropped. When those shares rise, so will the economy's prospects because this form of broad base advertising is expensive and it will show businesses are believers in the prospects of growth. This too will come a little later in the recovery process, in my opinion.

Dell. The Dell Computer company, which was once considered a leader in its industry, is now considered one of the weakest. In spite of its efforts towards innovation and customization, it still finds itself limping behind. When Dell has a turn around, the economy as a whole will be enjoying serious recovery. Mind you though, Dell was struggling when the economy was fairly strong, so it too may take a while to catch up.

E*Trade. The weakest of the big three online trade companies has been among the longest to suffer. This company, too, is an indicator of how the economy is fairing.

With the current policies of the Obama Administration, it will be surprising to see these (or other businesses) improve. However, when their is a turn around, these five companies will be among those to watch.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

Will CBS 60 minutes Get a Pass on the Oil Boom?

This past Sunday 60 Minutes (CBS) did an "expose" about the forces behind the explosive increase in oil prices. Unfortunately, they limited their discussion to mere oil speculation and missed several other factors that drove prices up. A few of them include:

• The rapid drop in the value of the dollar since 2001. There has been a 40 percent drop since that time. This alone would lead to an increase in fuel costs.
  
• People seem to forget that the wars in the Middle East are in the heart of where oil is produced. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the possibility of disruption can lead to an increase prices.


• Since 2001 there has been a rapid increase in all commodities, not just oil. Some of those commodities have seen a bigger increase than oil. Is there collusion going on in all these industries or are there simply larger business pressures playing a role? 60 Minutes didn't even consider this possibility.
  
• 60 Minutes completely ignored the link between an expanding economy (which increased the demand for oil and therefore led to higher prices) and the recent recession (which has decreased demand and recently led to lower prices). This is something that would be covered in a high school economics class, but again ignored by 60 minutes.


• There was no mention in the dramatic change in geo-politics since September 11th, 2001, including the rise of al-Quada, the growing hostilities in the Middle East, the disdain of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela towards the US, and the Nigeria crisis that has led to a disruption of supplies. These are among the factors that 60 Minutes did not even consider.


• Then there is the rapid economic expansion of China and India that has only added to the demand on every commodity (as mentioned earlier), including oil. Again ignored by 60 minutes.


• High prices in fuel led to a dramatic decrease in travel in the US by several billions of miles. This has led to a decrease in demand and a decrease in prices. This further proves that there was more than mere speculation involved in the rise of fuel prices.

These are just a few of the things 60 Minutes didn't address. One can easily go on, unless you have an apparent agenda like CBS. So far, virtually everyone in the media has given the network a pass, with the rare exception of Eric Bolling at Fox Business. Currently he is one of the only serious financial journalists to address the poor reporting by CBS. Maybe most journalists simply didn't watch the CBS program or maybe they don't believe they should hold their fellow news journalists accountable. All I know, is that the news industry needs to be held to a higher standard.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

New York Times is Worth How Much?

The New York Times, which is really a national newspaper with a comparable circulation to USA Today, has been reported to have a remarkably low value, according to Business Week. How low did the New York Times go? On Wall Street, its trading value has plummeted to half of what it enjoyed from just a year ago to $12.48 per share. That means it only has a market cap of less than $1.8 billion.

Business Week states, to "put this in perspective, CBS recently acquired tech publisher CNET, a much weaker media brand, for $1.8 billion. Add in the company's $1.1 billion of debt, subtract $42 million for its cash on hand, and the company's total enterprise value—a valuation measure that totals up those items in such a fashion—is just $2.85 billion."

Newspapers are taking a beating every where. In 1993 the Boston Globe sold for over $1 billion. Last year it was being marketed for around half that ($500 to $600 million). Most newspapers have faced a crushing blow because of the Internet and the rise of the new media. The Wall Street Journal, which was sold by the Bancroft family to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp for $5 billion (roughly twice its value on the stock market) is a happy exception to what is going on in old media. The fact the Bancroft family -- which seemed very connected to its publication -- sold it at all, demonstrates how concerned they were about the future of their holding.

Increasingly newspapers are trying to make the shift to the web as their primary media vehicle. New York Times has even gone so far to say that it could be exclusively online in a few years. Unfortunately, many newer companies are well ahead of them in this game and brand loyalty simply isn't what it use to be. The only newspapers that have enjoyed an increase in advertising dollars in recent years are those that are free. Be the writing in the newspaper or on the Internet, the writing on the wall isn't very positive for many of the strongest names in print media.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Network News Mystique

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm a devoted viewer of news in general during the day and Fox News in particular. My posts at this blog reflect that fact. However, on those very rare days that I'm at home at 5:30 PM (Central), I begin looking for a network news channel like clockwork. In the past it was always NBC because I like the way Brian Williams presents. His liberal agenda, however, has me moving away from the network. Then, with the move of Katie Couric to CBS, I became very intrigued to watch that train wreck unfold. Now, more often than not, I'm tuning into Charlie Gibson (photo) of ABC News because it is slightly less biased than the other two.

The question is, with the several hours of news I see daily, why would I want to see the broadcast networks? It has come down to a few reasons:

* Creature of habit. Before there were so many cable news channels, people got their news from the networks at the end of the day. The younger a person is, the less likely this will be a factor.

* Entertainment quality. The networks spend significantly more on the 30 minutes of nightly news than the cable companies do on hours of their news programming. They use their best talent, with the best sets, and the finest graphics. If "good looking" broadcasts is important to you, than you probably still find yourself watching the network evening news.

* The "catch all" factor. When you cover the news 24/7 like they do on the cable channels and you find yourself watching them often, you often wonder if you are missing something because there is so much out there. That 30 minutes tells you all the major stories of the day (at least we hope).

* The major network "legitimacy." I think everyone wants to know what "the big networks" are saying. The stories they cover and the way they cover them often tells us the direction the news is going and the stories we can expect in the future.

In light of the fact that I'm typically disgusted by the liberal ideology pervasive in the "mainstream media" today, I'm surprised that I can still stomach it, let alone take extra steps to watch it. But through it all the major networks still have their own mystique.

What I Learned About Morning Television at the YMCA

I make an effort to go to the YMCA 3 or 4 times a week about ten weeks a year. Seriously, I go fairly often, but rarely in the morning. It is usually between 9 and 10 PM when my younger kids are in bed and the older ones are available to watch them. When I do go during the day it is usually after 9 or 10 AM because I have a hard time getting going earlier and I hate the pre-work crowd. This morning I found myself dressed for the gym at around 7:15 after dropping off my kids at school and a very busy day in front of me, so I decided to go ahead and get the Y behind me or I wouldn't likely be able to go at all.

These days I am focusing on the treadmills and as soon as I walked in I noticed that the long line of treadmills had many more bodies running, walking, and fainting on one side of the room over the other. I kind of felt left out, all that was left for me was the five empty treadmills at the end. I reminded myself that I should be happy I could get in at all and went straight to work. When I looked up at the TV screens I noticed that the channel nearest me was CBS (The Early Show), the channel after that was ABC (Good Morning America), CNN was next, and then finally, where the huge crowd was I found NBC. The ratings companies have said that the Today Show dominates the mornings, I began to think I had evidence of this on a very personal level. Almost everyone, even the poor soul next to me who looked like she was going to need to see a chiropractor from straining to watch NBC, was focused on Today.

I used my time to see what CBS and ABC had to offer. The first thing I noticed is that these shows are now virtual clones of Today. They have somewhat similar personalities, Harry Smith (photo above) from CBS seems to now be using Matt Lauer of Today's tailor. When the Today Show is outside with the crowd, so is CBS and ABC. When the Today Show team is on the couch, so are the the personalities at ABC and CBS. If I were one of the personalities on ABC or CBS, I would take it very personally. The only difference is that CBS puts a much stronger emphasis on local news than the others, other than that it looks like "NBC and the Wannabes."

Something I noted that was interesting is that Good Morning America is trying to incorporate Web 2.0 ideas into the show itself. They showed a video of some kid riding a skateboard inches from a police officer on a handrail. That police officer pushed the kid in the bushes near by because it wasn't safe for either one of them. The question, posed on the Web of course, was whether the response was appropriate. The hosts asked a guest to weigh in and they wanted the response of the audience to his comments. It was an interesting way to encourage audience interaction and it appears to be one that is used fairly often. It isn't, however, enough to make me stop watching Today.

I have said before, I don't really understand the attraction. I use to be a strong Good Morning America fan for years. Until I figure it out why I like Today, I'm going to either have to get to the Y early or make sure I go after the Today Show is over. With the continued expansion of the show through out the day starting in September, I might develop a huge weight problem.

Do Blogs Hurt Journalism?

I'm not much of a fan of the editorial bent of PBS, but I do love how thorough it is in its coverage. Tonight I saw a documentary on its program Frontline, where it discussed the impact that the Internet was having on journalism (it is significant and the network actually did a fine job demonstrating such). Over all, the future is very dim for paper and ink of newspapers in particular, according to the first episode in a series.

You would think that liberals would be thrilled because of all the ink that won't go into polluting the environment and all the trees that would be spared. Furthermore, since the blog is the new force that seems to be replacing traditional media (according to the program) and it is dominated by liberals, you would think PBS would be dancing in the streets! PBS seems to have a very different view.

Frontline argues that the only serious journalism is in traditional media and in newspapers in particular. For years the front page of the New York Times has provided the lead stories of the nightly news programs at CBS, NBC, and ABC. If newspapers keep getting smaller and editorial staffs keep getting leaner, who will write the truly "serious" stories?

Yet, the program pointed out that some of the most serious stories of the last year became that way because of blogs. In particular they mentioned the incredible story of former Rep. Mark Foley and his potential inappropriate relationships with young pages that many believe contributed to the huge problems Republicans faced in last November elections. There is also the story that CBS News' anchor Dan Rather had a deceptive and politically motivated source on his broadcast about the military service record of President George Bush that was driven by a blog. That story was so damaging that the veteran newsman was forced to resign after four decades at the network. These stories were powered largely by "unprofessional" bloggers and not the major media.

I'm not convinced that traditional journalism is any where close to dying at the hands of blogs. However, if they do die, I am actually very optimistic about the ability of the bloggers to find the stories that were covered by traditional journalism. Real people who live where the stories happen, not typical academicians who are often politically motivated and unschooled in the real world. Sure, the vast majority of the bloggers are ideologues. But at least their readers know it since I have seen very few who hide behind the mask of a so-called "objective media standards."

As a strong believer in the free market, I'm not at all surprised by the decline of the press at the hands of the Web. Newspapers had been taking a beating for years with the rise of Conservative talk radio in the 1980s. Before most had ever even heard of the "World Wide Web" newspapers were being sold and merged, left and right. When I was growing up it was common for their to be a morning and evening edition every day. We haven't seen those for years. The market provides what the people want. And, although disheartening to the liberals out there who really believe they know what is "best" for us, I believe that the market will also provide what we need. A largely unpaid and volunteer army of journalists that is committed to the truth as they see it; yet honest enough to admit when it is merely their opinion. If "professional" journalists had done that, they may not be on the brink of extinction today.