I think you may be on to something here. If you can't get sponsors who want to run (and pay for) ads that run during Tucker's show, it doesn't matter how good his ratings are. The revenue comes from the advertising. Of course the advertising fees are based on ratings, but if the program is deemed too toxic to be associated with, the rati…
I think you may be on to something here. If you can't get sponsors who want to run (and pay for) ads that run during Tucker's show, it doesn't matter how good his ratings are. The revenue comes from the advertising. Of course the advertising fees are based on ratings, but if the program is deemed too toxic to be associated with, the ratings don't matter.
I suspect a loss, or threat of a loss, of advertisers, combined with the ongoing legal exposures (Dominion was just the latest one, there are more, potentially more damaging ones coming), caused the brass at Fox to decide it was time to rip the band-aid off.
Of course, an equally, or perhaps more, meaningful step in the right direction would be to replace Suzanne Scott, coiner of the phrase "respect the audience", which ironically, means the exact opposite.
I think you may be on to something here. If you can't get sponsors who want to run (and pay for) ads that run during Tucker's show, it doesn't matter how good his ratings are. The revenue comes from the advertising. Of course the advertising fees are based on ratings, but if the program is deemed too toxic to be associated with, the ratings don't matter.
I suspect a loss, or threat of a loss, of advertisers, combined with the ongoing legal exposures (Dominion was just the latest one, there are more, potentially more damaging ones coming), caused the brass at Fox to decide it was time to rip the band-aid off.
Of course, an equally, or perhaps more, meaningful step in the right direction would be to replace Suzanne Scott, coiner of the phrase "respect the audience", which ironically, means the exact opposite.