Talk:Loss leader
This is a strange page. The concept defined in the opening sections (consumer products sold below cost or given away for free to entice customers to make further purchases) is the accepted definition of a loss leader, though not particularly on mission. The stuff about radio syndication & superbowl ads is interesting, & should be covered by RW somewhere, but really doesn't fit meaningfully within this definition of loss leader products. In the Rush Limbaugh case, the programme is given to stations for free with contractual obligations (hence not really for free). In the advertising case, well, if we're applying the concept that broadly then all advertising could be considered a loss leader since it's something a company or organisation pays for without a guaranteed immediate return of any kind. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see the mission element here. SophieWilder
12:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think this falls under item 4, how news media treat authoritarianism and fundamentalism (with kid gloves because of the threat of divestment by the Plutocrats.) Perhaps the part about how this works in radio and television should be put first, and the more in-depth explanation of retail be the after-thought? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's probably some meat in the "syndication stifles debate" idea, but the main thrust of this article is just about loss leaders as a marketing concept - I'm still not convinced that we need it. SophieWilder 19:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the syndication stuff is nothing to do with "loss leaders" as conventionally defined, and only applies here if we redefine the concept so broadly as to be meaningless. I suggest the stuff about Limbaugh et al be merged into conservative talk radio, and the stuff about organisations using advertisement revenue to influence tv coverage be put in advertising (which could also mention that talk radio stuff in passing too). That just leaves the opening section, which is actually about loss leaders in practice but doesn't really serve the missions, so it can most likely be zapped. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the syndication stuff is nothing to do with "loss leaders" as conventionally defined, and only applies here if we redefine the concept so broadly as to be meaningless. I suggest the stuff about Limbaugh et al be merged into conservative talk radio, and the stuff about organisations using advertisement revenue to influence tv coverage be put in advertising (which could also mention that talk radio stuff in passing too). That just leaves the opening section, which is actually about loss leaders in practice but doesn't really serve the missions, so it can most likely be zapped. Weaseloid
- There's probably some meat in the "syndication stifles debate" idea, but the main thrust of this article is just about loss leaders as a marketing concept - I'm still not convinced that we need it. SophieWilder
- I think this falls under item 4, how news media treat authoritarianism and fundamentalism (with kid gloves because of the threat of divestment by the Plutocrats.) Perhaps the part about how this works in radio and television should be put first, and the more in-depth explanation of retail be the after-thought? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)