Big A exactly! Sir is wrong. When the Libs listen to the same station they agree with each other and it becomes boring. The libs like to listen to conservative radio and get their opinions in. On the other hand conservatives can't stomach listening to the liberal bull. No sure why that is but its the case.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
KB 1520 to ESPN
- Thread starter JimH
- Start date
By nature, conservatives are fairly closed-minded and don't like to have their positions challenged---so they aren't willing to consider other opinions, which is likely why they can only handle listening to those who espouse the same opinion.
Liberals tend to be more open-minded and will consider other opinions, which is why they will listen to those who share different opinions.
Last edited:
WECK? Really? Lots of lazy arguments today.
WECK has a piss-poor signal that people haven't paid attention to for years preceding any foray into talk. KB has an outstanding signal....that nobody has paid attention to for years preceding their recently departed format. See a pattern?
Lets put Rush AND Hannity on WECK or KB and not tell a sole about the change. By your estimation, they should have no problem attracting an audience.
Last edited:
S
stevensonair
Guest
Has anyone attempted to study what percentage of the rated audience of conservative talk are in fact, liberals who are entertained by the opposition? I'd be interested how many liberals voluntarily tune in and regularly listen to Limbaugh and company, and I've never seen research on it.
Also, as always, NPR programming is often long form journalism and some talk that has an audience profile comprised almost equally of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents. It's far from a "progressive talk" format. NPR does not = progressive talk.
Also, as always, NPR programming is often long form journalism and some talk that has an audience profile comprised almost equally of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents. It's far from a "progressive talk" format. NPR does not = progressive talk.
Sounds like excuses to me. If programming is good enough, it shouldn't need a great signal or promotion. Word of mouth is the best advertisement. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Good Lord. Forget about making the horse drink, it'll never even see the water in the first place with your philosophy.
Guess what? It's not the 1960s or 1970s anymore. Nobody is scanning the AM dial looking for new stations or format switches. Your reasoning hasn't been accurate, particularly for AM, for more than two decades.
Talk about excuses, lol.
Last edited:
Why does Rush do well in Buffalo? He's sandwiched between a lot of local content and backed by the only commercial news department on the old-line full-service station in town. Hannity? He's on after 7PM, which TheBigA has identifid as throwaway time in radio anyway. WBEN goes from 3rd to 7th in his target audience when Hannity's on, so even promotion and placement don't help him. Put those two on 'KB, and they might break a 1 share because they've been on in town on one of the market leaders for so long.
Would any of the "progressive" hosts fare well on WBEN as an alternative viewpoint? Nobody knows, and likely never will. Ron Dobson was relatively centrist, and there were complaints that he wasn't conservative enough. Those of you who point out that people tune into hosts who reinforce their point of view are correct. I suspect that the number who tune in to talk stations to "hear the other side" is miniscule. And, yes, Liberals are every bit as jingoistic as Conservatives.
What may be true is that younger audiences may be listening more on-line and on-demand, which is why they didn't show up in 'KB's audience. Or they simply don't listen to blather from either viewpoint - which I find more likely.
Lastly, NPR is hardly "Liberal". Virtually every study conducted has determined that NPR is more centrist than any other media outlet these days. Will both sides be represented? Generally, yes. Will they presented with equal fervor by equally talented presenters? Sometimes. At least they try to get multiple points of view on the air.
Would any of the "progressive" hosts fare well on WBEN as an alternative viewpoint? Nobody knows, and likely never will. Ron Dobson was relatively centrist, and there were complaints that he wasn't conservative enough. Those of you who point out that people tune into hosts who reinforce their point of view are correct. I suspect that the number who tune in to talk stations to "hear the other side" is miniscule. And, yes, Liberals are every bit as jingoistic as Conservatives.
What may be true is that younger audiences may be listening more on-line and on-demand, which is why they didn't show up in 'KB's audience. Or they simply don't listen to blather from either viewpoint - which I find more likely.
Lastly, NPR is hardly "Liberal". Virtually every study conducted has determined that NPR is more centrist than any other media outlet these days. Will both sides be represented? Generally, yes. Will they presented with equal fervor by equally talented presenters? Sometimes. At least they try to get multiple points of view on the air.
Good post Rox, but I question how many people in this internet-smartphone-video age still turn to radio for news? That's not a statement just a question. The last time a major store broke, where did you first find out about it?
I'd like to hear a talk host open for discussion and then let the listeners defend their positions, calling them on their BS when they were wrong but not taking sides. A bit harder to do than just blathering.
I will never understand Rush who preaches distrust of the media when he is also the media.
I'd like to hear a talk host open for discussion and then let the listeners defend their positions, calling them on their BS when they were wrong but not taking sides. A bit harder to do than just blathering.
I will never understand Rush who preaches distrust of the media when he is also the media.
Using that logic, put progressive talk on WYRK and all you'll do is alienate the country audience. Watch a station go from first to last. A great signal isn't going to fix bad programming.
What Entercom is doing is creating a companion station for GR. They tried doing it for WBEN but it didn't work. Lots of sports content available, so it might work this time. Plus they'll be able to promote it on GR.
That's backwards reasoning.
Yes, a good signal isn't going to fix bad programming, however, a bad signal or an off-the-radar station like KB is definitely going to hurt any/all programming ratings potential.
You said if programming is good, people will find it. Not any more, especially on AM. Completely outdated assertion.
And yet Cumulus took a former religious radio station like WFME with a weaker signal, and is now getting close to a 2 share in New York with country music. In just 6 months with little or no promotion, and an incomplete air staff. That's about what the format did 20 years ago when it was on a World Trade Center signal. If you build it, sometimes they will come. The question is how hungry are the people in Buffalo for more local talk? And if they're hungry, is their demographic sellable? Merlin put local news on an FM signal in NYC, and no one cared. Then again, they have two great choices on AM. So it can be a complicated situation. My point about KB is that this new station will likely be programmed as a companion to GR, with cross-promotion that may give it more attention. And sports talk DOES have a younger demo than talk.
Last edited:
The major problem with KB was there was NO local content. No local news No traffic, No weather updates, No local promotion. WBEN has local talent, and probably the best news dept in the market. WBEN has built up the reputation if you want local information on the radio we're it. Nobody else has it. As far as Rush & Hannity goes, yes they have a built in audience. Every angry, old, white guy with access to a radio listens to them because they love the preaching to the choir. They don't want to hear any other opinions -period.
As far as KB goes, it virtually dead to Entercom. If they can make a few bucks off ESPN to pay the power bill then they are happy. No other thought will be given. Same as 950 kc in Rochester.
As far as KB goes, it virtually dead to Entercom. If they can make a few bucks off ESPN to pay the power bill then they are happy. No other thought will be given. Same as 950 kc in Rochester.
First of all, WFME was an FM station. Secondly, there was PLENTY of press about "Country coming back to NYC" when Nash FM went on the air. Is anybody surprised that country got a 2-share in NYC, with no competition, little local content, and little promotion?
WWKB going sports is simply designed to lock down ESPN sports content to make it unavailable to Cumulus. They can also park the Buffalo Bisons there, and take a run at local college basketball, depriving WECK or WHLD of a possible revenue source.
This is what is wrong with the same companies owning multiple stations. It becomes a chess game, not a business and certainly doesn't serve the public.
WKBW and WGR had the same ownership in the '30's and '40's. The FCC broke it up. Did anyone ever think there might have been a good reason. Yes I know there are many more media outlets today...still.
WKBW and WGR had the same ownership in the '30's and '40's. The FCC broke it up. Did anyone ever think there might have been a good reason. Yes I know there are many more media outlets today...still.
Had Cumulus wanted ESPN Radio, they would not have ended their deal with Disney and started CBS Sports Radio. There was absolutely NO chance that Cumulus was going to want ESPN. Not in Buffalo or anywhere. Especially now that they also have NBC Sports Radio under their umbrella.
Last edited:
The role of government was very different then. Back then they also forced NBC to divest itself of the Blue Network. That would never happen today. Today, the FCC is in the business of SELLING spectrum, not regulating it. And as you say, the media environment was very different. AM radio is on the edge of extinction. If Entercom sold KB, things wouldn't be dramatically different. They certainly wouldn't revive oldies or any music format on the station. Those days are over.
Last edited:
In a free market, competition forces a company to do their best.
Radio is not a free market. There are only so many stations allowed, and relaxing ownership regs has only served to furnish the biggies with the power to manipulate the playing field in such a way that the value of competition and quality are moot.
Not true. In a free market, the battle is PRICE, not quality. That's why in a free market, there are more Toyotas sold than Cadillacs. More McDonalds hamburgers than Longhorn steaks. In a free market, amateur videos on YouTube are more popular than documentaries on PBS. So quality is never the motivation.
In radio, the competition is over spot price. The goal is to give advertisers the most audience for the money. Viewing radio strictly as OTA ignores the real marketplace that the Justice Department and the FCC have created. If you think there's no competition in radio, you aren't paying attention.
Last edited:
- Status