The New York Times and its "family discount" to MoveOn.org
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The rack rate for a full-page ad is $167,157, but if you were to talk to the director of public relations, the fee is $181,692. Yet, according to Jake Tapper at ABC News, MoveOn.org paid only $65,000 for its "Betray Us" ad, a whopping discount of over $100,000.
If I were a New York Times shareholder, I'd be more than a little irked at the suits for leaving $100,000 on the table, especially for a hit piece that politically blew up in their collective liberal faces. Not only that, it's not like MoveOn.org wasn't good for the full fee. In John Edwards' America, MoveOn.org and its benefactors are on the "have" side, and $167,157 is just a fraction of George Soros' folding money. Assuming the Times' brings in an average of 50 cents per paper, someone in the front office really should explain how such an "ad" could help this organization sell an additional 200,000 widgets. As I see it, Pinch Sulzberger Jr. is going to get financially pinched for this stupid act.
By way of Allahpundit, not all full-page ads are equal. If you have a message that the publisher doesn't want to hear, it'll cost ya.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | ThinkProgress is in compete denial about Al Qaeda in Iraq — Comments (1) »
The New York Times and its "family discount" to MoveOn.org 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
James Hanson, Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive, filed a complaint with the FEC about the special treatment the NYT's gave MoveOn.org. You can read his story and the complaint here
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/09/complaint-filed.html
I believe we should all contact "ALL" the Republican candidates and have them DEMAND the same discount. It may turn out that they have to comply and it will do my heart good to hear that they lose that much more income due to such a thoughtless and despicable act as libeling an American hero
like the general. Could I be so bold as to hope for a fine from the FEC? I pray so.
have the freedom to charge whatever they want, to whomemver they want, and offer discounts to whomever they want or charge others a full or extra fee. It's free enterprise. If shareholders have issue, they can sell their shares or vote on it during the next shareholder's meeting.
I don't think that this gets anywhere with the FEC. Stupid move on the part of the NY Times? Maybe, but I doubt it voilates any campaign finance laws.
I do not know, but I am fairly certain that not all price discrimination is legal. .
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
If you chaged some one more because they were Latino or a woman, or less becuae they were black, then that would probably be illegal. But is it illegal to chage someone more or less because of political views?
I am neither a lawyer, nor someone that plays one on TV, but if advertisements are covered by the UCC, the Robinson-Patman Act, or some anti-trust act then this might be a violation.
P.S. There are a lot of laws the prohibit price discrimination. Many go back to the early 20th century (anti-trust acts and such).
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/discrim.htm
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I doubt that the NY Times has violated any FEC regulations with their Moveon.org ad. However, the ad itself was an egregious assault on the General, and at best, the NY Times facilitated it's publication by not only allowing it, but also giving the deep discount for it. In that regard, I have myself and suggested to others to let their Public Editor know how you feel about what they did. The e-mail addy is public@nytimes.com. General Petraeus handled himself admirably at the hearings and with all subsequent interviews. He has no time to waste on this nonsense as he has much more important things to worry about. For those of us that admire him, and have the time, we should let our voices be heard.
I contacted the NY Times early this week to ask for full-page ad rates, and they quoted me between $85k and $227k. Since it was intended for advocacy purposes, I was informed that advocacy rates for full-page ads can run as low as $47k.
MoveOn.org is a non-profit and the ad was intended for advocacy, which is probably why they only had to pay $65k.
Beyond being red meat, I don't think there's any real substance to this story. The NY Times would probably give a right-leaning non-profit a similar rate for a pro-Petraeus ad.
I think it's time for massive retaliation against Clinton Inc. on her "suspension of disbelief" smirking condescension to Petraeus.
I hope Fred gets out of his rocking chair & starts to lumber into action. Rudy is already taking the kid gloves off. She needs a lot of beating about the head & shoulders.
Meanwhile, the nutroots are in their bubble-boy echo-chamber mode on MoveOn and simply want their Pavlovian lock-step solidarity unbroken by realists and non-fantasists—a dying breed in the Dem Party, sadly.
Estrich and other veterans of REAL campaigns disturb the nutroot stoned/slacker torpor or excite their meth-fueled thrashings and gnashing of teeth.
Reality is something the ultra-left Kossack-nutjobs resolutely ignore, and when it rears its head among them, they react by flight or fight.
it's pretty par for the course with the libs. Sadly, I wasn't even shocked when I found out the NYT gave them a discount. Can we expect anything else from a publication that thrives on giving out strategic war info on it's front page?