Opt out day and the end of TSA pat-downs

Um. Advertising is essentially selling a readership. If you have a large one - and a highly literate, intelligent one like The New Yorker has is worth a pretty penny if that's who you want to market to - you'll find someone who wants to advertise with you.

Slightly unrelated example: a ton of advertisers pulled their commercials from MTV show The Jersey Shore after it received flack for the way it was portraying Italian-Americans. But because so many people watch the show MTV has no problems lining up the infomercials that target to the show's demographic.

OBVIOUSLY there are other factors in advertising, but you don't go out of business if you maintain a huge audience - that was my point. I didn't say there aren't advertisers who don't pull their ads in protest. I didn't say all companies can afford to pay for ads in every magazine no matter what. I'm not going to have another futile argument with you, so go ahead and nitpick; I won't be responding.

@BroadwayBK: I'm not nitpicking. I am merely asking you to keep an open mind and look at it from another perspective. Case in point. Glenn Beck is considered a famous TV host. Well, since he has been accused of racism, and doing other unmentionable things on his program, all the major advertisers pulled their ads from his show. His show is still on TV, but he isn't making money for the network. So, the network is considering pulling his show.

Magazines and newspapers can survive even without major advertising. They just have to depend on subscriptions for income, at least till advertising picks up.

You do have great points, however, when it comes to advertising. But, if a newspaper's subscriber-base falls off, advertisers will also ease up with their advertising. Why pay ads that aren't going to be seen.

I studied advertising while in college and covered this fully. It was part of my English degree program.

YOU are asking ME to keep an open mind? Also, what are you talking about? And why am I bothering?

Glenn Beck's audience has been dwindling away for the past year, so besides offending citizens and subsequently putting off advertisers he has that working against him. And what is my point? Oh yeah, that audience directly correlates with advertising. They didn't teach you that in your college English program that apparently implements in-depth marketing studies?

You suggested that The New Yorker may suffer from some huge drop in advertisers and I'm suggesting - again - that your suggestion is absurd. All of the media we've so far mentioned - The New Yorker, Jersey Shore and the lovely Glenn Beck - are all incredibly reliable in that you know what you are going to get from each one before you get it. It's highly unlikely that The New Yorker is going to suddenly scare all of its advertisers off without running the risk of losing its audience. It's highly likely that Glenn Beck is going to continue to spurn hatred within his rabid following.

Also, the fact that a company would pull an ad from a show says more about their target demographic than anything else. It's more likely that a company fears offending its buyers than it is that they are actually offended by an offensive program. Again, it's all directly related to who is watching.

Your point seems to be that someone who advertises with The New Yorker might decide they don't want to anymore. Is that right? Obviously that can happen. OBVIOUSLY. It's also obvious that if a paper's readership drops off, they may see a subsequent drop-off in ad revenue. This is not only obvious but it goes along with what I said in the first place.

Excuse me while I go and pound my head against a brick wall for a while.