"Duck Dynasty" Ratings Scam?

Over the past few days, the topic of "Duck Dynasty" has exploded to the point it is almost impossible to ignore it. As I'll explain in this post, I think it's nothing more than a scam on the part of A&E and the show's producers to hype ratings.

Disclaimer: The issues I'll be discussing are based on my views of general human behavior. They do NOT condemn or condone any specific viewpoints on politics, sexual orientation, race or political correctness. Please keep this in mind when posting replies; I do not want this thread degenerating into a political discussion.

Let's review: Phil (Duck Dynasty's dad) makes controversial comments in a magazine interview involving the gay and black communities. A&E responds by "suspending" Phil from the show. A firestorm erupts on both sides - those who support Phil's comments and those that think they were out of line.

It's the definition of being "suspended" that raises the red flags on A&E.

* Three other notable celebrities who made comments considered over the line recently (Paula Deen/Food Network, Alec Baldwin/CNBC and Martin Bashir/CNBC) were immediately pulled off the air by their respective networks. In contrast, A&E has been pumping up airings of "Duck Dynasty."

* Season four (set to air in January) has already been filmed and edited. Phil will be appearing in each episode.

For the foreseeable future, Phil's presence on the show will not change.

How this translates into a ratings scam:

* The people calling for a boycott of A&E will likely still watch Duck Dynasty. History shows that, when it comes to entertainment programming, people are far more likely to choose individual shows over what network they air on.

* I'm willing to guess that at least half the people who have signed online petitions or contacted A&E regarding the network's "suspension" of Phil have never watched the show - until now. For every viewer the show lost due to Phil's comments it will gain several more.

* Advertisers and ad agencies care only about the number of warm bodies with disposable income who tune in to any given show. An increased audience benefits both the network (the amount they can charge per ad) and the stars of Duck Dynasty (contract renewals, product merchandising).

My rant is this seems to be a scam - one that the media and many viewers have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

 

I don't do A&E.

Besides if I want to watch rednecks, I just go outside

 

Ditto. I have plenty to choose from in my neighborhood. :-D

 

I think you nailed it: the comment is only going to get more ratings.
People who watch the show already, are not going to stop watching because of this comment.
The only thing that's going to happen is more people will watch.

The issue about Ducks "right" to say what he wants via the 1st Amendment is a non-issue. He can say what he wants, A&E can kick him off TV for whatever reason they want.

 

I thought this was an interesting taking on it, too...
Duck Dynasty Controversy: It’s Corporate Greed Over Religious Views

 

very interesting, overly complex "plot" by GQ/Conde Nast to hurt Ducks.(which I find unlikely and more likely the Ducks said the comment cause that's who he is/believes.)

in lieu of facts about who watches Ducks, I conclude:

If you watched Ducks, you'll keep watching Ducks, you agree/dont care about the comment

if you never watched Ducks, you might start watching because of the comment and you want to know what happens

IE what gman863 View Post referred to happening

 

I think back to 'jumping the shark' back in the day. But, the duck folk have the highest rated cable program. Not saying they are not using it, but they don't need to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZGKI8vpcg

Why 'jump the shark' when you are at the top of your game?

Not trying to get HBT, but according to EEOC rules, you can't fire for religious views. I think duck dude has a great lawsuit.

Not 1A, is EEOC...

I am loving the realization that laws are laws. :-D

 

Simple. It is easier to generate a media explosion when you are a popular celeb. instead of in a downward popularity spiral.

This could be a tricky one. Legally, he's not an "employee" of A&E and is paid by the independent production company. If we assume this isn't a stunt, he and the production company would most likely sue to have any exclusive rights A&E has to the program terminated and move it to another network for at least as much per episode.

 

What if the Duck guy had used The N word and not some comments about gays/drunks/etc?

 

EEOC means Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, right?

you made me think of King of the Hill S2, episode 20
After Hank realizes that his new employee at Strickland Propane is a drug addict, he can't fire him, because drug addiction counts as a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act


I don't see any case, EEOC protects people against the discrimination that Ducks was showing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEOC

"The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.[3] In 2011, the Commission included "sex-stereotyping" of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals as a form of sex discrimination"

 

Really? Have another look shall we?

"The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.[3] In 2011, the Commission included "sex-stereotyping" of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals as a form of sex discrimination"[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

I missed what they said that shows a religion?

From what I understand Ducks said "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." -Phil Robertson "

I don't know what contract A&E has with Phil, but I don't see what you see?
What is EEOC going to say to A&E about them firing phil because of this comment.. IF this is the reason A&E is using to fire him, instead of, any other reason they want to pick, "Today is sunday, you are fired"

Any rights Ducks/phil has don't include having a TV show.

 

[/QUOTE]
If he had a morals clause, he's got nothing.

http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination

 

If he had a morals clause, he's got nothing.[/QUOTE]
exactly


I don't know what contract A&E has with Phil, but I don't see what you see?
What is EEOC going to say to A&E about them firing phil because of this comment.. IF this is the reason A&E is using to fire him, instead of, any other reason they want to pick, "Today is sunday, you are fired"

Any rights Ducks/phil have don't include having a TV show.[/QUOTE]

 

It is a bit ironic that he could be fired due to a morales clause. He was paraphrasing the Bible... :confused

Imagine A&E's surprise, they hire a bible thumper, and the guy goes out and thumps his bible...

 

Don't think anything is in the bible about the N word.

 

so the EEOC only covers Christians?

 

Think it is supposed to cover all religions or lack of religion. Where does the n word come into play?

 

It has nothing to do with those kind of morals, just the ones that get A&E bad publicity.

I've heard rumor that Ol' Phil was getting tired of the show. It could be his way out.

 

I was making a funny. You know, one of those play on words things. :-D

I did see where the Cracker Barrel stores took all the DD stuff that had Phil on them off the shelves. Apparently, their customers are big fans of the show, they apologized and put them back on the shelf.

I bet the 'necks' are giving A&E hell as well. Don't watch the show, but they must make some $, heck they sell Duck Commander duck calls at the local grocery store.

 

That's what I was trying to figure out.

 

If you figure it out Sgt. Tibbs, let me know.

 

I think he was pointing out that people would be far more reluctant to defend Mr. Robertson had he claimed a group other than homosexuals, like black people for example, were evil and ungodly. He does have a point. Not many rushed to Paula Deen's defense though the 1st Amendment also protected her words.

 

I would argue that many minorities expect special treatment. How many rappers are fired for using the 'n' word? What if he said stealing was a sin, and prisoners rioted in California?

I thought Mrs Dean got screwed. I have used language in the past that I am not proud of, but, I see life as a learning thing. For where I live, I work in a very diverse work group. Some of them I call a friend, even though they live a very different lifestyle.

People don't sin against me, or the Phil Robertsons of the world. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

The bible is pretty clear on things.

"I think he was pointing out that people would be far more reluctant to defend Mr. Robertson had he claimed a group other than homosexuals, like black people for example, were evil and ungodly"

He was quoting the bible, in which homsosexuality is a sin. To try to put is as a racial thing is just wrong. IMHO. Black people are a race, not a sexual orientation.

 

That's where I got stuck, too.

 

There is a group on facebook calling for a boycott of A&E and in less than 3 days it has almost 1.8 million "likes" and for the most part, and the people I have spoken to, it wasn't about the content of his speech but the fact A&E is "punishing" him for sharing his opinion/religious belief.

Most people are supporting him are doing so because they still believe in this crazy thing called the First Amendment. :-D This is exact same scenario as the Chic-fil-a "scandal" and people had the same reaction then.

 

The funny thing about all of this for me is that no one, including A&E, is saying he isn't free to speak. What they are saying is since his stated beliefs directly oppose what they stand for, he is no longer going to be paid by them.

Kind of like what Hobby Lobby is doing by refusing to cover birth control on its insurance plans because it goes against its morals.

 

Have you ever laughed at a "You might be a redneck if.." joke? Has anyone ever contemptuously dismissed you as "another ignorant, gun-toting redneck"?

What if a tree fell in the forest an no one saw it?

Fortunately, neither of us are celebrities trading upon our personalities for fame and fortune. Fame can turn into infamy at a moment's notice.

Too bad many of those reading it are not.

"I think he was pointing out that people would be far more reluctant to defend Mr. Robertson had he claimed a group other than homosexuals, like black people for example, were evil and ungodly"

No one claimed it was a racial thing. It was an analogy, poorly worded I'll admit. He was pointing out it is still acceptable to to demonize homosexuals the way it was once acceptable to demonize black people. They even used the Bible to do so. Look up the Mark of Cain and the Mark of Ham.


A&E knew who they were getting and he was warned about being controversial. He kept out of hot water for a long time only to skip the boiling pot and leap right into the fire. I can't imagine that this guy who built a multimillion dollar business and carefully crafted backwoods image didn't see this coming. I doubt it was an accident.

 

Oh, you just HAD to make this comparison! I'll end up staying away from Chick-Fil-A for weeks now that I've drawn the visual of a bearded hillbilly wearing the "Eat Mor Chikn" sign. :-D

 

While they aren't actually saying it, they are trying to silence him with this suspension.

Hey, that's your prerogative but you can't tell me you don't see the similarities.

 

I don't think so. They're not preventing him from going on every talk show in the world and saying whatever he wants. They're just not going to keep him on their payroll while he does it. He can make a choice, just like a lot of grownups: Do what your employer tells you to and keep your job, or do what you want to even though it goes against what they told you and lose it. Happens every day to regular people and no one bats an eye.

 

I can agree to a point, I feel that you should follow your employers rules. However, we don't know the terms and conditions of their contact plus they KNEW he is a bible believing/preaching Christian when they hired him, to "fire" him for expressing said beliefs would be rather silly, not to mention hypocritcal imo.

I do think they are trying to silence him by intimidation, like do and say what we want or we will fire you but that's only my opinion and I could be way wrong considering, again, we don't know the terms of their contract.

 

I guess I look at it the same way I do when I have to work a political or religious event which is decidedly NOT what I believe or stand for. I'm there to do my job, not to express my political opinions. If I do choose to express my opinions, I will be sent home by my employer with no pay. And that was before we were a "right to work" state and while I am protected by a union contract.

You're right, we have no idea what the terms of his employment are. But I don't recall the show ever needing to make a mention of how they feel about gay marriage, or homosexuality, or anything like what he talked about in the interview. And as we all know, what you do outside of work can, and often does, come back and bite you in the butt in regards to keeping your job. Especially if you do it when representing your employer, which like it or not is what he (and others) are doing when they give interviews.

 

I recall hearing lots about the chic-fl-a
Then I saw a clip on Tosh.O and I never heard about it, but it's hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_sOTJ53JI
(you gotta watch the background)

 

Is A&E still a network? I thought that went away when MTV stopped playing music. I thought they were on NBC...

 

You have a good point. Both Phil and A&E have some serious decisions to make over the next several months.

Referring back to my original post, if the show is renewed on A&E past season four (already taped and set to start airing next month with Phil in it), it points to either a faked ratings scam to boost viewers or A&E backing down and putting profits ahead of their alleged views against what Phil said.

If A&E and Phil get into a standoff (Phil being banned from future new shows), I suspect the Duck Dynasty producers will sue A&E to void any current contracts and move the show to another network.

On the legal issue of canning Phil due to his anti-gay comments, I'm not sure the courts will be on his side. About 40 years ago when things were a lot more conservative, Anita Bryant was dumped as the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice for making similar statements. As I recall, she either did not sue or had no luck doing so.

The Court of Public Opinion (a.k.a. Nielson Ratings) will ultimately decide the fate of the show. Lip service from either side will not phase advertisers. What the audience numbers show will.

 

I think it's simpler than that.

It's like sports/weather/celebrity gossip: it all gives us something in common. IE
http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/heath.jpg

 

Yes, and yes.

Pretty sure that happens all the time. Do we need to post sentries in the forests? Not to get too HBT, but it seems to me Christians are not allowed to speak freely as much as a moose limb would be able to. Think about what martin bashir said about Palin, and it took them a long time to finally get rid of him.

I believe another person was trying to introduce the 'n' word into this thread, that is what I was posting about.

 

The "racial" thing refers to the thoughts he gave in the same interview about black people being happy during segregation. Many people also found this controversial.

 

A little OT, but I avoid giving my $ to companies I disagree with. Now, I don't spend hours researching every company I buy stuff from, and I am not going to overly inconvenience myself over it, but I do 'vote with my wallet'. I stopped watching TV and going to movies because I don't support Hollyweird and such. They can do/say whatever they want, that is the free market. I just choose not to pay them.

If a store does not allow me to carry a weapon on their property, fine, they have that right. I also have the ability to shop elsewhere.

I do get a kick out of taking the liberal customer's $, and buying guns and ammo with it. :-D

 

I agree controversial, but he was talking about his experience. Not overt racism. And A&E said they pulled him off of the show because they are LBTG champions. Not because of racial aspects. If he said something overtly racist, I don't think he would have 1/4th of the support he has now.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647

Who would have thunk they would re instate the biggest cable show. :-D

 

I wonder how many rushed out to buy their DD gear just in time for Christmas, just in case the show ended?

 

As I noted in the original post, this thing reeked of a ratings scam from the beginning. Had A&E been serious about Phil's comments being offensive they would have yanked the show immediately - not run prime time marathons for a solid week. Keep in mind that, when Paula Deen was yanked from Food Network for her racially charged comments made decades ago, her programming was among the network's highest rated shows (much like "Duck Dynasty" is to A&E).

If you are still suspicious that such a stunt could be pulled off between stars, producers and networks, look for and watch the movie "Quiz Show" on DVD or Netflix. It's clean, entertaining and shows how major broadcast networks did the same thing by rigging the outcome of the top rated game show "Twenty One" in the 1950s.

 

What!? You mean hollyweird might lie to us to get more ratings? No way. You will never convince me of that.

Just Playin, they have their Duck Commander stuff for sale, show or no show. They are not hurting for cash without A&E. But I am sure the extra $ from the show is nice.

 

I'm not buying the ratings scam theory . . . it's too clunky and naive. If they wanted to pump up the ratings on a show (that didn't even need it, for that matter), they could have staged some kind of family rift or fight (cue the soap opera organ music) which "could kill the show!" and gotten far more return for their effort; and without risking the ire of anyone on either side of the PC issue.

I think A&E (and by A&E I mean whatever person or persons whose job it is to monitor such things) had a series of knee-jerk reactions to threatening communications from special interest groups about what was said in the GQ interview. Then came major backlash from their actions and they were forced, by market concerns, to back out of it.

Sometimes people say stupid things, and sometimes other people have stupid reactions to what was said. Doesn't have to be any more complicated then that, in my opinion.

 

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_755_14-images-that-powerful-people-dont-want-you-to-see_p14/

http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr332/bilbo5555/ducks.jpg

 

Anyone seen that they have either Duck Commander or Duck Dynasty wine now? A chardonnay and a red blend. Now, I am not a famous person, but, if I were to sell something with my name on it, it would be something I use and like. Thought they were big non drinkers.

http://tfewines.com/our-wines/duck-commander.php

Looked at a bottle the other day, it ain't non alcoholic wine. I am thinking they will pimp anything for a $.

 

I wonder if it's made by this company?

http://fatbastardwine.com/

:-D