The Rights weak spot. Advertisers. Its all about Money

[tomhagen]

[Major Nikon]

1. Their weak spot is they are assholes and they can't learn from other assholes' fuckups

It's not as if BillO and Limbaugh didn't go down for the same reason.

[grumpyduck]

2. It's not just the right

It's television and the media. It's all about bringing an audience to an advertiser. That's the business they're really in, and many of them make no bones about it. You watch the show or read online or in a mag, you see the ads.

The problem for them is that if you take away enough ads (enough sponsors, as they used to be called), you may lose the show due to lack of companies who pay for it. And then there's the trickle effect: some advertisers pull the ads if they feel the positive response (and the free advertising they'll get from other media outlets) may offset the possible lack of revenue from the pulled ads.

BTW, the concept of "bringing an audience to an advertiser" is not something I came up with just now. The news director for a Fox News program said that to me, in those exact words, just over twenty years ago.

[Botany]

3. Laura Ingraham is a vile nasty person .... in college she took pleasure in outing gay and ...

... lesbian students and I think in one case that led to a suicide. We need to keep the
pressure up and thank the sponsors who pulled their ads from her show.

[appalachiablue]

5. Ingraham anti-gay actions at Dartmouth College are incredibly vile for sure.

Laura Ingraham's Long History of Vicious Behavior: DARTMOUTH OUTING EDITION:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/29/1753002/-Laura-Ingraham-s-long-history-of-vicious-behavior-Dartmouth-outing-edition

[dalton99a]

9. +1

[Mr. Ected]

4. The greatest risk is the retributive boycotts from the right

They may want to go after Rachel's advertisers, for example, or Ari's, or Chris'.

Then again, they'd have to have cause....and our side seldom goes over the imaginary line that would activate a rabid response.

I agree with the OP. The right thrives on hate, misogyny, hyperbole, and misdirection; their methodology is not fact-based, but rather the triggering of emotional responses from their audience. It leaves them vulnerable to a justifiable backlash and many companies would not wish to be associated with such characters if called on it.

Vote with your Dollar. This isn't about politics. It's about capitalism.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Oddly, they are less organized and effective on boycotts. And they have so many to boycott

... that they are left with few choices.

I think Keurig suffered more from progressives fed up with disposable coffee pods than they suffered from the RW boycott.

[erronis]

7. Maybe because many of them just don't really exist - except in some polling

Maybe because many of them are paid to say what they say, just like dump's early inflated crowds with a very narrow camera pan.

Maybe most people are actually fairly reasonable. Some are zealots in one form or another and of course they capture the airwaves and attention.

Maybe those that want to boycott dump's enemies can't do the mental calculations to figure out who's who in this very interconnected world.

Maybe those can't get their lard-asses up out of the (presidential) lazy-boy to do squat except tweet and issue Archie Bunker ad hominens.

[Mr.Bill]

10. There are more of us than there are of them.

They are a minority.

[SergeStorms]

11. Rachel, Chris, Ari et al.

do one thing before opening their mouths to speak; they think! You'll always get, at the very minimum, a kernel of truth from which the story will continue to develop. Not so with the right-wing conspiracy nuts and hate mongers.

These knee-jerk, right-wing fear mongers seldom do anything similar. Just like their "president", they don't engage the brain before opening their mouths. They make up stories knowing full well that their viewers will believe any ridiculous statement they barf out at them. Their only goal is to titillate or enrage their viewers. For them, there has to be a visceral reaction conveyed to their viewers, or they've failed in FOX's mission statement.

Once again, the difference between right and left is intellect. The right depends upon their viewers to be uneducated, incurious, and subject to the more base instincts of human beings. They're only slightly more refined than Neanderthals, and FOX uses that in their "reporting".

[Major Nikon]

12. They have been trying that all along and it never works

The biggest problem they have is Rachel isn't an asshole so they don't have anything they can demonstrate that's going to motivate people to turn against her advertisers.

With Ingraham, and Limbaugh, and BillO, all you have to do is shine a bright light on their assholery.

[erronis]

8. So if I were an advertiser would I rather offend the LWNJ or the RWNJ? Easy

The LWNJ (which includes me) is reasonably well-educated, reasonably able to spend discretionary income, much more pleasant to deal with (no weapons, minimal BO.)

The RWNJ is probably not as RW as portrayed via the RW media. They may even be given a bit of financial assistance ("We'll buy you TWO McCheetoBuggers if you'll stand behind DJMcDump and look angry.&quot

The RWNJ/teaparty will run its course after the repuglicans/Mercers/Kochs/etc. have extracted their billions-of-pounds-of-flesh from the US economy. The remnants will have ZERO money to spend - probably going onto non-existent welfare/Medicare.

The LWNJ will feel a lot of pain but will know how to deal with the situation as rationally as is possible.

Long-winded, I know. But marketing types, even those that cater to the RWNJ, understand who will likely survive this catastrophe.