A recent report from Digiday doesn't bode well for the Alt-Right's favorite cesspool of misinformation and hate, Breitbart.com:
Today, Breitbart is facing traffic declines, advertiser blacklists, campaigns for marketers to steer clear and even a petition within Amazon for it to stop providing ad services.
There were just 26 brands appearing on Breitbart in May, down from a high of 242 in March, according to MediaRadar, which tracks ads on websites. Many conservative sites, including Townhall, The Blaze and National Review, have also had declines, although those declines are much less pronounced than Breitbart, according to MediaRadar.
While Breitbart still has its billionaire backer Robert Mercer, its days as a commercially viable entity are running out fast. The fact that the site has lost 90 percent of its advertisers in three short months is nothing short of catastrophic and a sure sign that the brand isn't just bad, it's positively toxic.
This obviously hasn't been lost on Breitbart, so much so that it actually fired one of its editors Katie McHugh after she tweeted that "There would be no deadly terror attacks in the U.K. if Muslims didn't live there,” after the London terrorist attack. No one in their right mind believes Breitbart gives two shits about offending Muslims -- this is a site that published Milo Yiannopolous, who had the following to say about Muslims on the site last year (and no, we're not linking to them):
Now, as you all know, I come from Britain. As a country, I believe it should serve as a warning sign for the United States, which must face its Muslim problem before it is too late. I myself am leaving the UK behind, as I no longer recognize much of my beloved London.
And then later in the same piece:
America Has a Muslim problem
America has a Muslim problem. Notice my wording carefully here. It isn’t a radical Muslim problem. It isn’t an ISIS problem, an Al Qaeda problem, a Taliban problem, or any of the Muslim terror groups that have sprung up in 2016. The terror attack on Saturday is an expression of mainstream Muslim values.
Why did Breitbart fire McHugh if it has shown no desire to curb anti-Muslim sentiment in the past? For the very obvious reason that the site is losing advertisers faster than Donald Trump is losing support from the public. They are beginning to realize that hate isn't commercially viable in the long run, so they are changing their tune in order to win back the advertisers no longer willing to associate with them.
The only downside to all of this is the amount of time it has taken advertisers to realize what they have been funding -- a lesson they should have perhaps learned before it propelled Steve Bannon and Donald Trump into the White House.