New Buffalo FM?

[TheBigA]

Who said go back to 25 years ago? Nice spin.

All I'm asking for is proof that doing what you say will work. You say it will, but you have no proof. I've asked this from you time and time again, and you keep changing the subject.

 

[flybynight]

All I'm asking for is proof that doing what you say will work. You say it will, but you have no proof. I've asked this from you time and time again, and you keep changing the subject.

Many big stations were doing fine before they veered wingnut echo chamber. They weren't tanking and just changed to get big numbers. That's not what happened at all. Weren't you paying attention to the format over the years, or are you a Johnny-come-lately who's doing Monday morning quarterbacking? You keep ignoring history. Get back to being less predictable and more entertaining to more than an aging niche.

You also continue to do nothing but criticize my suggestion, while offering no solution at all.

 

[TheBigA]

You also continue to do nothing but criticize my suggestion, while offering no solution at all.

I'm not criticizing it. Just asking for proof that what you want will work now. Which once again you haven't provided.

 

[flybynight]

I'm not criticizing it. Just asking for proof that what you want will work now. Which once again you haven't provided.

You keep asking for proof and I keep providing it, and you keep ignoring it.

Many talk stations were doing at least as well before the wingnut brigade took over. How many different ways can I state that? You either have a short memory or really have little perspective on the evolution of the format over the last two decades.

They followed a fad---as is common in radio---and systematically veered the format into a narrow niche that is costing them now. Focusing less on echo chamber talk did work before and it very well may work again. Of course thanks to shortsightedness, the patient may already be in an irreversible death spiral. But they better do something.

 

[TheBigA]

You keep asking for proof and I keep providing it, and you keep ignoring it.

You call it proof. But it's simply telling me how things used to be. That's not proof of anything. It's like buying a stock based on past performance. That doesn't work.

I'm asking for proof that returning to the way talk radio once was will bring back past results. Can you guarantee that if I bring back radio the way it was done before, that the previous success will return as well. That's all I'm asking. It shouldn't be tough, given that there are 15,000 radio stations, and about a quarter of them are doing some form of talk. You mean no one besides you thinks it's a good idea? That's the difference between fact and opinion. When you can point to others now who say that you are right. That's all I'm asking for.

 

[flybynight]

You call it proof. But it's simply telling me how things used to be. That's not proof of anything. It's like buying a stock based on past performance. That doesn't work.

I'm asking for proof that returning to the way talk radio once was will bring back past results. Can you guarantee that if I bring back radio the way it was done before, that the previous success will return as well. That's all I'm asking. It shouldn't be tough, given that there are 15,000 radio stations, and about a quarter of them are doing some form of talk. You mean no one besides you thinks it's a good idea? That's the difference between fact and opinion. When you can point to others now who say that you are right. That's all I'm asking for.

I'm not about to start listing the people I have talked to and do talk to on this subject, as many haven't stated this on the record. Even if I did, you'd find some way to discredit them anyway, so what's the point.

Your idea to stay the course is death to the format. You have no ideas. I'm suggesting trying something that has worked---and never stopped working before many stations were taken in the direction that they went.

Again, I'm suggesting trying what has worked. You suggest doing nothing. Your way is leading to guaranteed failure.

 

[TheBigA]

Your idea to stay the course is death to the format.

Show me where I said that.

 

[flybynight]

Show me where I said that.

I haven't seen you suggest doing anything else.

 

[TheBigA]

I haven't seen you suggest doing anything else.

So then it's not my idea.

 

[davideduardo]

Many of this nations biggest talk stations were doing fine before they followed the fad and went all-Limbaugh all the time. That is a fact.

Two thing that you are ignoring happened:

First, since that time that many of the "big" talkers were so dominant* the rest of the 25-54 demo that had some use for AM aged out of the demo.

Second, in the top 50 markets** PPM arrived, hurting the exaggerated TSL that talk listeners wrote into their diaries.

* Can you say "KGO" boys and girls?
** About 30% of radio revenues are generated in the top 10 markets; PPM now covers 48 of the top 50 markets.

 

[flybynight]

Two thing that you are ignoring happened:

First, since that time that many of the "big" talkers were so dominant* the rest of the 25-54 demo that had some use for AM aged out of the demo.

And younger demos, many of which used to check out newstalk from time to time, became increasingly alienated, more-so than ever before. Many talk programmers were always very conscious of not playing to the negative stereotype that AM newstalk has had. Eventually though, they just surrendered to it, which in turn jettisoned any real potential to capture/replace younger demos.

Second, in the top 50 markets** PPM arrived, hurting the exaggerated TSL that talk listeners wrote into their diaries.

PPM has certainly impacted talk negatively, but the ratings of many of those larger market talkers were already starting to wane by then. Most of the real damage to the format, transitionally speaking, was between 1995-2005. During that period, talkradio's current course was set, guaranteeing eventual irrelevance.