Is Bill O'Reilly finally on his way out? - Yes! He's outta here!
It's hard to land a hosting gig anyplace if you aren't going to have advertisers.
mikescott said:
My guess is O'Reilly winds up on some cable network or talk radio with another big paycheck.
ml1 said:
It's hard to land a hosting gig anyplace if you aren't going to have advertisers.
mikescott said:
My guess is O'Reilly winds up on some cable network or talk radio with another big paycheck.
Give it a couple of months. advertisers come back. O'Reilly has an enormous following and many people have short memories. or he could go on Sirius/XM where driving up the number of monthly subscribers would work out just fine if they do not find enough advertisers.
Possible. We'll never know the truth, but it sounds like the Murdochs' need to look clean and respectable to seal the Sky TV deal was a bigger factor here than the advertisers.
As someone wrote in The Atlantic, referring to the values of the O'Reilly show and the Sky TV deal:
"You know what’s worth more than $446 million? $14 billion."
I thought he already has a radio show. I don't think he's in danger of losing that.
But I can't see a commercially-supported TV network bothering to give him a job. He doesn't fit with the other programming at competing news networks, and would alienate the audiences of their other shows. And the aspect of his large audience that goes unnoticed by a lot of people is that it's old. Really old. Like median age 75 kind of old. A large segment of his audience is literally going to be dead in a few years. And even today, it's not an audience that most advertisers, aside from lubricated catheters and assisted-living insurance, are trying to reach.
So why would any other network take on the headache of Bill O'Reilly? I could be wrong certainly, and he could pop up again on TV, but I doubt it. He's an unpleasant person generally, from all the stories about him. And what woman would want to work anywhere near him now?
Who wants this guy as a co-worker, especially when he's making disgraceful advances to the women?
mikescott said:
ml1 said:
It's hard to land a hosting gig anyplace if you aren't going to have advertisers.
mikescott said:
My guess is O'Reilly winds up on some cable network or talk radio with another big paycheck.
Give it a couple of months. advertisers come back. O'Reilly has an enormous following and many people have short memories. or he could go on Sirius/XM where driving up the number of monthly subscribers would work out just fine if they do not find enough advertisers.
After his multi-million dollar payout from Fox.
Fabulously rich guy with an ego that won't let him retire.
Some cable station that needs more viewers will be happy with his audience and will use his show to promote other shows on their network. It will mean far less money for O'Reilly but I don't see him just giving up and not finding another gig.
find a job where you bring in $120 million in revenue to the company every year and I'm sure you'll have a pretty sweet golden parachute.
Gilgul said:
Why can't I find someone who will pay me $25 million to not work?
Ailes and O'Reilly and Trump are great examples of the complexity of sexual assault/harassment. How many hookers could any of them purchase with their millions and stay within legal bounds? 5 a day? It sure isn't as simple as sex or attraction or kink. Major league a$$holes, all 3. Complicated, but still a$$holes.
So happy another obnoxious alpha male has crashed and burned. Alpha males are at the root of most of our troubles.
I'm of the opinion that the term "alpha male" should always go in ironic scare quotes. Guys who truly are "alphas" don't need to say that they are, or think of themselves that way. The guys who refer to others as "betas" are usually pretty pathetic characters.
ligeti said:
So happy another obnoxious alpha male has crashed and burned. Alpha males are at the root of most of our troubles.
ligeti said:
So happy another obnoxious alpha male has crashed and burned. Alpha males are at the root of most of our troubles.
You have to remember that Ligeti wants to see more small ball in MLB. Of course, the real problem is that Ligeti can't hit it out of the infield, but let's stay on topic.
And this
article confirms many networks are interested in O'Reilly.
networks that reach 35 million homes or fewer aren't typically on national ad buys. So yeah, he could end up at some podunk TV network.
If he ends up at a fully distributed news network that's in nearly all cable/satellite homes, I will be surprised.
mikescott said:
And this
article confirms many networks are interested in O'Reilly.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/bill-...
yeah, that might be true, but still will be a nice payday for him he can bring enough new viewers to a small network.
Actually, here is the medium age for the three cable show networks, as per the NYT today: "Fox News prime-time viewer is 66, a few years older than for MSNBC (64) and CNN (59), according to Nielsen." So, in fact, not much difference between #1 and #2. In addition, 9 years average younger than imagined. There are plenty of viewers median age 66 with substantial amounts of retirement and working income to spend, and while they may not be the ideal market, they actually buy other things besides lubricated catheters and assisted living insurance, even when 75, believe it or not. Before you can blink an eye, you might find yourself moving towards that age bracket, and then find such well-meant sarcastic attempts at stereotyped humor to be "ageist" and insulting. Nevertheless, I agree that O'Reilly will have a hard time finding a job in the main stream media, fortunately, although his Factor podcast is about to begin tomorrow.
ml1 said:
But I can't see a commercially-supported TV network bothering to give him a job. He doesn't fit with the other programming at competing news networks, and would alienate the audiences of their other shows. And the aspect of his large audience that goes unnoticed by a lot of people is that it's old. Really old. Like median age 75 kind of old. A large segment of his audience is literally going to be dead in a few years. And even today, it's not an audience that most advertisers, aside from lubricated catheters and assisted-living insurance, are trying to reach.
O'Reilly's audience was older than the overall Fox audience. Pretty close to 75 median age
Ok, good point, the average age of his audience was 72 from the article you cite, not 75 as you thought, nor 66, which is the median age for Fox News. However, you haven't addressed your insulting and inaccurate comments describing the main focus of advertising in that age group as "lubricated catheters and assisted-living insurance." In fact, the Factor had a very lucrative group of top-money advertisers pouring huge profits into O'Reilly, perhaps the most in the business, which was why it was so difficult for the company to get rid of him until they abandoned ship.
ml1 said:
O'Reilly's audience was older than the overall Fox audience. Pretty close to 75 median age
ml1 said:
I'm of the opinion that the term "alpha male" should always go in ironic scare quotes. Guys who truly are "alphas" don't need to say that they are, or think of themselves that way. The guys who refer to others as "betas" are usually pretty pathetic characters.
ligeti said:
So happy another obnoxious alpha male has crashed and burned. Alpha males are at the root of most of our troubles.
Is "dickboys" too crass? Seems to sum it up for me.
that article was from three years ago. The median age was a lot closer to 75 than 66. And yes, he brought in tons of revenue up until the latest controversy. But at some point in the next few years, Fox was going to have to figure out what to do with a 70 year old host whose audience is literally dying off. Add that to sponsors pulling out now, and the PR headaches, and the Ailes debacle, and you can understand why the Murdoch sons decided to rip the bandaid off now.
and fwiw, I don't mean it as an insult that most advertisers aren't trying to reach a 70+ median age audience. They just aren't.
Jasmo said:
Ok, good point, the average age of his audience was 72 from the article you cite, not 75 as you thought, nor 66, which is the median age for Fox News. However, you haven't addressed your insulting and inaccurate comments describing the main focus of advertising in that age group as "lubricated catheters and assisted-living insurance." In fact, the Factor had a very lucrative group of top-money advertisers pouring huge profits into O'Reilly, perhaps the most in the business, which was why it was so difficult for the company to get rid of him until they abandoned ship.
ml1 said:
O'Reilly's audience was older than the overall Fox audience. Pretty close to 75 median age
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
My money is on Bannon.