If I was Tucker - and I'm not, so he can do as he damned well pleases - I wouldn't be signing on with ANY other companies at this juncture. He's 52 as I recall, and all he would do by signing on with another company would be to run the clock out under another boss. As we've seen with recent events, other bosses can be pretty fickle and vindictive, and in my estimation there just aren't any percentages in that at this stage of the game.
Instead, I'd start my own media company, so as to be my own boss and beholden to none. No one else to tell me what to do or how to do it. Tucker already knows how to do it, judging by the numbers he brought to Fox and then took away with his departure. He doesn't need to work for another fickle boss - he'd do just fine on his own.
All of these companies making offers to him, while gratifying, are really just in it to appropriate his audience into their own conglomerates. It's not so much Tucker they are after as it is his roughly 3 1/2 million strong audience.
He was making 19.2M per year at Fox, NYT figures notwithstanding - those lyin' word-fudgin' bastards. 20M per year isn't that much of a step up at that level of income, certainly not, to my mind, justification enough to put on a yoke for yet another fickle boss. Even with the sweetening of the offer with a presidency and board membership, not enough - presidents can be fired, boards can vote you down. Neither of those happen when you run your own company.
Personally, If I already had 100M or so in the bank, an offer to double that at the expense of my creative license would not be enough to phase me or sway me in the least. I know which was I would go, and that way would be into independence, even if it meant a pay cut. The article is correct about one thing - if one is in it for the money, that will show. If Tucker goes for the bucks, then we will see where his loyalties lie, and if he eschews the money to go independent, that, too which tell us a lot about the man beneath the image.
What's more, it will also give us some insight into how he really sees those in his audience - whether they are commodities to be sold, or individuals to be grateful to, shown by giving them more of what they wanted from an independent and non-beholden platform.
Let's run some numbers from the financial side of potentials - if Tucker started his own company he'd bring, let's say for argument, roughly 3 million viewers into it. If he charged a mere $1.67/month ($20.00/year) that would yield an income of 60M/yr, THREE TIMES what this offer extends, while at the same time not giving up his autonomy to another corporate entity. Where the hell is the downside in that?
Once you get close enough to the top of the heap, you actually DO have the potential to have your cake and eat it, too - you just order another cake when that one is gone!
.
Instead, I'd start my own media company, so as to be my own boss and beholden to none. No one else to tell me what to do or how to do it. Tucker already knows how to do it, judging by the numbers he brought to Fox and then took away with his departure. He doesn't need to work for another fickle boss - he'd do just fine on his own.
All of these companies making offers to him, while gratifying, are really just in it to appropriate his audience into their own conglomerates. It's not so much Tucker they are after as it is his roughly 3 1/2 million strong audience.
He was making 19.2M per year at Fox, NYT figures notwithstanding - those lyin' word-fudgin' bastards. 20M per year isn't that much of a step up at that level of income, certainly not, to my mind, justification enough to put on a yoke for yet another fickle boss. Even with the sweetening of the offer with a presidency and board membership, not enough - presidents can be fired, boards can vote you down. Neither of those happen when you run your own company.
Personally, If I already had 100M or so in the bank, an offer to double that at the expense of my creative license would not be enough to phase me or sway me in the least. I know which was I would go, and that way would be into independence, even if it meant a pay cut. The article is correct about one thing - if one is in it for the money, that will show. If Tucker goes for the bucks, then we will see where his loyalties lie, and if he eschews the money to go independent, that, too which tell us a lot about the man beneath the image.
What's more, it will also give us some insight into how he really sees those in his audience - whether they are commodities to be sold, or individuals to be grateful to, shown by giving them more of what they wanted from an independent and non-beholden platform.
Let's run some numbers from the financial side of potentials - if Tucker started his own company he'd bring, let's say for argument, roughly 3 million viewers into it. If he charged a mere $1.67/month ($20.00/year) that would yield an income of 60M/yr, THREE TIMES what this offer extends, while at the same time not giving up his autonomy to another corporate entity. Where the hell is the downside in that?
Once you get close enough to the top of the heap, you actually DO have the potential to have your cake and eat it, too - you just order another cake when that one is gone!
.