CEO Opens Up About Impact Of Cutting Ties With Limbaugh

Carbonite CEO: Limbaugh Ad Pullout Hurt Company, But 'Things Would Have Been Worse Had We Not Done That'

One of the many companies that pulled advertising from Rush Limbaugh's radio show said on Wednesday that the decision had hit his business hard, but that he knew it was the right one to make.

David Friend, CEO of Carbonite, made the comments in a call with investors after the company released its second quarter financial results. Carbonite, a software company, was the sixth advertiser to drop its spots on Limbaugh's show in the wake of his infamous comments about law student Sandra Fluke.

At the time, Friend released a statement condemning Limbaugh for calling Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" due to her advocacy of birth control.

"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady," the statement read in part. "Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency."

But he stood firm by his choice, saying, "I'm not regretful of the decision, I think things would have been worse had we not done that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 ... 38332.html

Well, when it's the right thing to do to distance yourself from a bigot, then it's the right thing to do... When you have a partisan slime who regularly oversteps the bounds of decency, then even if it costs you a few bucks in the short term, sometimes it's worth it in the long term to divorce yourself from the source of the filth.

Sounds like a juicy rationalism to me.

FredHayek wrote: Sounds like a juicy rationalism to me.

That's because Huffington Post and Lady Jazzer are not giving you the WHOLE story...

Carbonite CEO admits dropping Limbaugh hurt growth more than expected [/b][/i]

At the time I examined Carbonite’s SEC filings, and how Carbonite had built its business model based on high growth driven, in significant part, by the promotion of Carbonite by Limbaugh. I predicted that Carbonite had shot itself in the foot, and put political correctness before the interests of its shareholders.

...

On August 1 Carbonite released its 2d Quarter 2012 results, the first full quarter after dropping Limbaugh in March. The results shocked Wall Street, as Carbonite did not meet its growth targets, causing multiple analysts to drop the target price. The stock dropped 15% in a day. (h/t reader W)

...

Most important, in a conference call held on August 1, the CEO David Friend admitted that dropping Limbaugh damaged Carbonite’s growth, and is likely to do so for at least one or two more quarters.

3:10) CEO Friend: ”There were four factor that contributed to this slower growth. First, in March we stopped working with one of our top producing radio endorsers. While we recently contracted with three new radio personalities, it takes 3-6 months to ramp up new radio hosts so we probably won’t see the full effect of this for another quarter or two.”

(24:15) Q: “I guess I’m a little surprised that you were caught by surprise by the radio host change ’cause I know we’ve talked and I guess my impression was that it wouldn’t be that impactful but I guess it was quite impactful.

CEO Friend: “Yeah, I’d say it turned out to be a bigger issue than we had anticipated. Because you know at the time there was a lot of noise, I mean we had a huge spike in web traffic around that time just because of all the interest in the whole subject. And it took close to a month for that to sort of die down. And meanwhile our metrics were, we really couldn’t see what was going because there was so much noise around the website that we had no idea what the ultimate impact was going to be. It turned out to be a bigger hole in our revenue than we had thought when we initially did this. However, I don’t think there was any, I’m not regretful of the decision, I think things would have been worse had we not done that.

http://p2.viavid.com/player/index.php?id=100887

HuffPo picked up on this post, and emphasizes Friend’s claim that things would have been worse. Interesting that some HuffPo commenters are not buying that line.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/ca ... -expected/

ANYTIME [/b][/i] Lady Jazzer posts ANYTHING [/b][/i] you need to do your homework. Chances are she's lying and spinning like a top.

(this comment was formatted with Lady Jazzer Scare Fonts (tm))

rofllol 'Wack-a-Troll' is a fun game is it not?

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Rush Limbaugh Ad Boycott Cost Cumulus Radio 'Millions,' CEO Says

The head of one of the biggest radio companies in the country said Monday that the advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh cost him "millions" in 2012.

Lew Dickey, the CEO of Cumulus, was speaking to financial analysts about his companies' results. The boycott -- which saw scores of advertisers leave after Limbaugh called law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her birth-control advocacy -- had "hit us pretty hard."

Dickey said that Cumulus had lost "a couple of million bucks in the first quarter and a couple of million bucks in quarter two." He claimed that the losses accounted for one percent of the 3.5 percent loss in revenue that Cumulus suffered over this period.

It's the first time any sort of monetary figure has been given about the impact of the boycott. Cumulus is also a relatively small player where Limbaugh is concerned, airing his show on just 38 stations around the country. Dickey's comments could mean that companies that have a bigger stake in Limbaugh's show were hit harder.

For his part, Limbaugh has claimed that the boycott had a negligible impact, and that many of the advertisers who left his show have been clamoring to return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 ... 02390.html

Gee, I guess our favorite neo-nazi, and drug addict, is losing more than he will admit to. And the sponsor boycotts continue... Perhaps hitting them in the pocketbook will get their attention...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Sounds like a juicy rationalism to me.

That's because Huffington Post and Lady Jazzer are not giving you the WHOLE story...

Carbonite CEO admits dropping Limbaugh hurt growth more than expected [/b][/i]

At the time I examined Carbonite’s SEC filings, and how Carbonite had built its business model based on high growth driven, in significant part, by the promotion of Carbonite by Limbaugh. I predicted that Carbonite had shot itself in the foot, and put political correctness before the interests of its shareholders.

...

On August 1 Carbonite released its 2d Quarter 2012 results, the first full quarter after dropping Limbaugh in March. The results shocked Wall Street, as Carbonite did not meet its growth targets, causing multiple analysts to drop the target price. The stock dropped 15% in a day. (h/t reader W)

...

Most important, in a conference call held on August 1, the CEO David Friend admitted that dropping Limbaugh damaged Carbonite’s growth, and is likely to do so for at least one or two more quarters.

3:10) CEO Friend: ”There were four factor that contributed to this slower growth. First, in March we stopped working with one of our top producing radio endorsers. While we recently contracted with three new radio personalities, it takes 3-6 months to ramp up new radio hosts so we probably won’t see the full effect of this for another quarter or two.”

(24:15) Q: “I guess I’m a little surprised that you were caught by surprise by the radio host change ’cause I know we’ve talked and I guess my impression was that it wouldn’t be that impactful but I guess it was quite impactful.

CEO Friend: “Yeah, I’d say it turned out to be a bigger issue than we had anticipated. Because you know at the time there was a lot of noise, I mean we had a huge spike in web traffic around that time just because of all the interest in the whole subject. And it took close to a month for that to sort of die down. And meanwhile our metrics were, we really couldn’t see what was going because there was so much noise around the website that we had no idea what the ultimate impact was going to be. It turned out to be a bigger hole in our revenue than we had thought when we initially did this. However, I don’t think there was any, I’m not regretful of the decision, I think things would have been worse had we not done that.

http://p2.viavid.com/player/index.php?id=100887

HuffPo picked up on this post, and emphasizes Friend’s claim that things would have been worse. Interesting that some HuffPo commenters are not buying that line.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/ca ... -expected/

ANYTIME [/b][/i] Lady Jazzer posts ANYTHING [/b][/i] you need to do your homework. Chances are she's lying and spinning like a top.

(this comment was formatted with Lady Jazzer Scare Fonts (tm))

Sounds like he is in trouble with the stockholders and this is just his rationalization. I don't think that the stockholders will buy his excuse for loss of revenues.

Blazer Bob wrote: I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Rush Limbaugh Ad Boycott Cost Cumulus Radio 'Millions,' CEO Says

The head of one of the biggest radio companies in the country said Monday that the advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh cost him "millions" in 2012.

Lew Dickey, the CEO of Cumulus, was speaking to financial analysts about his companies' results. The boycott -- which saw scores of advertisers leave after Limbaugh called law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her birth-control advocacy -- had "hit us pretty hard."

Dickey said that Cumulus had lost "a couple of million bucks in the first quarter and a couple of million bucks in quarter two." He claimed that the losses accounted for one percent of the 3.5 percent loss in revenue that Cumulus suffered over this period.

It's the first time any sort of monetary figure has been given about the impact of the boycott. Cumulus is also a relatively small player where Limbaugh is concerned, airing his show on just 38 stations around the country. Dickey's comments could mean that companies that have a bigger stake in Limbaugh's show were hit harder.

For his part, Limbaugh has claimed that the boycott had a negligible impact, and that many of the advertisers who left his show have been clamoring to return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 ... 02390.html

Gee, I guess our favorite neo-nazi, and drug addict, is losing more than he will admit to. And the sponsor boycotts continue... Perhaps hitting them in the pocketbook will get their attention...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Sounds like a juicy rationalism to me.

That's because Huffington Post and Lady Jazzer are not giving you the WHOLE story...

Carbonite CEO admits dropping Limbaugh hurt growth more than expected [/b][/i]

At the time I examined Carbonite’s SEC filings, and how Carbonite had built its business model based on high growth driven, in significant part, by the promotion of Carbonite by Limbaugh. I predicted that Carbonite had shot itself in the foot, and put political correctness before the interests of its shareholders.

...

On August 1 Carbonite released its 2d Quarter 2012 results, the first full quarter after dropping Limbaugh in March. The results shocked Wall Street, as Carbonite did not meet its growth targets, causing multiple analysts to drop the target price. The stock dropped 15% in a day. (h/t reader W)

...

Most important, in a conference call held on August 1, the CEO David Friend admitted that dropping Limbaugh damaged Carbonite’s growth, and is likely to do so for at least one or two more quarters.

3:10) CEO Friend: ”There were four factor that contributed to this slower growth. First, in March we stopped working with one of our top producing radio endorsers. While we recently contracted with three new radio personalities, it takes 3-6 months to ramp up new radio hosts so we probably won’t see the full effect of this for another quarter or two.”

(24:15) Q: “I guess I’m a little surprised that you were caught by surprise by the radio host change ’cause I know we’ve talked and I guess my impression was that it wouldn’t be that impactful but I guess it was quite impactful.

CEO Friend: “Yeah, I’d say it turned out to be a bigger issue than we had anticipated. Because you know at the time there was a lot of noise, I mean we had a huge spike in web traffic around that time just because of all the interest in the whole subject. And it took close to a month for that to sort of die down. And meanwhile our metrics were, we really couldn’t see what was going because there was so much noise around the website that we had no idea what the ultimate impact was going to be. It turned out to be a bigger hole in our revenue than we had thought when we initially did this. However, I don’t think there was any, I’m not regretful of the decision, I think things would have been worse had we not done that.

http://p2.viavid.com/player/index.php?id=100887

HuffPo picked up on this post, and emphasizes Friend’s claim that things would have been worse. Interesting that some HuffPo commenters are not buying that line.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/ca ... -expected/

ANYTIME [/b][/i] Lady Jazzer posts ANYTHING [/b][/i] you need to do your homework. Chances are she's lying and spinning like a top.

(this comment was formatted with Lady Jazzer Scare Fonts (tm))

I would add that usually you can Google the story and get the unedited facts without having to give the Huff & Puff another click. 95% of the time they are just reposting a story they found somewhere else.