It's not a 100% game

Criticise Jones for speaking his mind and attacking anyone who disagrees with him?

You reinforce why his core listeners choose to listen to him.

In the sporting world; whenever someone criticises Manly for being a team of silvertails, or Collingwood for being a team supported by bogans, it strengthens the 'us against the world' bond that their fans have with those clubs.

Collingwood have been particularly smart about how they have leveraged this. A few years ago they distributed a bumper sticker saying 'we hate you too' alongside the Pies logo in their colours. Their membership campaign in 2012 was ''it's us against them". Clever.

Because it's not about achieving 100%. And it works.

Almost every caller that Jones put to air following the Gillard story was gently rebuking but strongly supportive; "I think you said the wrong thing Alan, but you've apologised and I still love your show". Clearly the producers call-screened very well, however there is no doubt that the core fans were defending their under siege patriarch.

In the most recent official Nielsen radio survey, Jones and Sandilands Breakfast shares were well ahead of their competitor set.

Although, given share is not an indicator of 'share of listeners', but rather 'share of listening', given 2GB's older demographic profile the Jones figures are inflated by the impact of 'time spent listening'. Nevertheless, his ratings are spectacular - as are Sandilands (with Jackie O) on Sydney's 2Day FM - and neither has been, or will be, impacted adversely by the social media campaigns against them.

To be fair, these campaigns do have a short-term impact on revenue, and a corresponding positive impact on their competitors revenue.

However, the revenue always returns.

Every criticism reinforces why the core fans choose to engage with 'Brand Jones', 'Brand Sandilands', Collingwood, or Manly.

Every attack reinforces the core fans membership of the 'club'.