Some things are measurable and provable. Some things aren't. The fiscal effects of a bad law are measurable. So yeah, it's pretty easy to see the "right" answer to fiscal policy issues. Social stuff is the side that isn't measurable.
-
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
Some things are measurable and provable. Some things aren't. The fiscal effects of a bad law are measurable. So yeah, it's pretty easy to see the "right" answer to fiscal policy issues. Social stuff is the side that isn't measurable.
Like ratings. And yet there are those (and we've seen them in this thread and others) who prefer to believe their own assumptions than to accept the measurable and provable facts.
Like how ultra rightwing talk has clearly run it's course, and how less-than-extreme talk never stopped working, but was abandoned for the Limbaugh clone-fad which didn't garner much better numbers than what many of those big sticks were already getting?
Yes, measurable AND provable.
So give us an example. Last I checked every single one of the most listened to shows on commercial radio were conservative talk. Dave Ramsey being the exception.
Talk as a format doesn't have huge numbers. But what gets the numbers they do get are the shows you hate so much. The people who don't like talk are listening to music. Not to whatever tripe you think they should be listening to.
Last edited:
Well if we're thinking of the same person, that guy is a lunatic.
I get the feeling you've only been acquainted with the format and the ratings for a very short time. Probably less than 5 years. It would explain a lot.
Throughout the late 80's and most of the way through the 90's, many talk stations aired a variety of talk shows, many local, all over the country. After Limbaugh came on the national scene in 1988 and his popularity started to pick up, particularly in the early 90's, more and more programmers (as PD's typically do) started looking for cheap imitations---or Rush clones, if you will. Many of these new hires even had similar sounding voices and deliveries as Rush, but usually nothing close to his charisma. Still, the requisite ideology was veering much more towards what Rush does thanks to, as usual, many PD's misunderstanding of what made Rush good. Hint: It wasn't his ideology as much as it was his personalty and his presentation. THAT is what set him apart.
During that time, many of the heritage talk stations in the top 50 markets especially, had done at least as well without pandering to any extreme ideology. However, slowly, but surely, thanks to the systematic displacement of host after host for a Rush clone, we gradually saw the P1's shift from a more advertiser friendly mix (although always heavily male) to a much older and more heavily male demo. Additionally, there was not so much of a wedge driving non-believers to the curb as there has been in recent years.
Many programmers were keenly aware of the dangers that lied ahead if they continued on that course. I know because I spoke to many of them during those days. A common concern was that eventually, this type of branding would catch up with them and it would be hard to repair once the image of the station had been cemented as...well...what we have been hearing for the last 10 years. Interestingly enough, the number I often heard was "ten years from now", which was when many believed the other shoe would drop. But it was easier to do nothing. The ratings were okay, so why rock the boat? That's not next week or next month or next year's problem, right? I'm not guessing at what happened, I witnessed it. And here we are.
Still, while the format has done okay up until recent years, this notion that many of this country's biggest stations did much better with ultra right wing talk than they had done with more of a variety of opinions, is flat out wrong.
SMALL MARKET GUY, you keep regurgitating this idea that because you think the biggest shows, in aggregate, are conservative, then that's an indication that there's been no decline. First of all, that list you keep referencing is not any indication of any ratings patterns---and many of those shows air on a million tiny turnkey stations that all add up. Not exactly an indicator of how a show performs in any given marketplace.
Also, they're not all conservative. Still, you're trying to make this about MY preferences. Well, I actually like Savage---and last time I checked, he's more conservative than most on that list. I also liked Dr. Laura when she was on OTA radio. It had nothing to do with ideology. Personality is the key, not ideology. Most of today's talk hosts are talking point vomiting robots. Worst of all, they're predictable and boring--and the ratings declines reflect that.
You are poorly informed. Stop being lazy and go look at the ratings of the top 50 markets in the country. Take a good look at the incredible decline of many of those once-heritage talkers over the last few years. It's stunning, actually.
Last edited:
More like 30, but you keep shoveling what you're shoveling. You'll be able to grow a garden soon.
And learn to read. I acknowledged that the current stations don't get a big portion of the audience. But when old fashioned "non-partisan" talk is tried, it fails. It just does. People don't respond anymore. Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it's how things are.
You can't claim to like Savage then rail against partisan radio. If you want to rail against POORLY DONE partisan radio, we can maybe find some common ground. Because there sure is a LOT of it around. But even poorly done, it does better than the alternatives.
I admit this ship may have sailed permanently.
Mainstream talk listeners have mostly tuned out the format thanks to the idiocy that has ensued in recent years. They may never return.
Sure I can, and I do. Savage is an individual personality, not marching in lock step with the talking point parrots. Rush coins a new word and within a day or so, they're all repeating it. It's pathetic. Savage is a much more rounded and interesting personality, irrespective to some of his extreme positions. Personality first. THAT is what makes a station good.
The alternatives were doing much better than what you see in today's ratings books. In some markets conservative talk performed better in the last ten years than it had previously, but that was the exception, not the rule. In most markets the veering of the format to the far right either replaced mainstream talk listeners with much more conservative ones---or in many cases, since the conservatives were already listening, the veering to the right only served to blow off people who felt the format was too insulting and/or divisive.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Radio doesn't exist in a vacuum. People still like to hear the sound of pleasant conversation in the background that they can mostly ignore, but can perk up and pay attention to if the topic becomes interesting. At one time, non-political talk radio served those people. Now, television shows like Oprah, Ellen, Rachel, Katie, The View, and all the rest fill that niche to the point where it is no longer profitable for radio to compete to serve that segment.
My immediate response to reading the quote-back is that I want to amend it to say: "SOME people still like to hear the sound of pleasant conversation...... " I am part of that group. But through years of observing the conversation around me as I go about my days, in the workplace, in the coffee shop on the town square, in political committee meetings, sitting in a church discussion group, attending lectures on the college campus... I conclude we have to take the word MOST out of your statement.
It would appear the MOST people veer off into listening to music. Some of them have a love for music. Some of them have a NEED for music. (The foot-tappers, etc.) But many have to use music as an escape lest listening to talk (live among fellow office workers or on the radio) will lead to anger, nervousness, ulcers. Only SOME people still like to hear the sound of pleasant conversation.
Isn't that what the radio audience surveys tell us?
You want to know who to blame for non-political talk dying?
Janet Jackson.
The alternative to political talk from the late 80s to the early 00s was Hot Talk. The FCC's crackdown a few years back killed that.
The days of big 50,000 watt stations having "balanced" lineups goes back even further than that. And with the number of alternative ways to consume media out there now, radio has to be a niche medium. Identify your target and serve that target. AM radio's target is older white men. Who tend to be more conservative. As for the idea of talk's audience dying off, that's another misconception. The last time I checked, we're ALL getting older.
I have the luxury of working in a market where the listener base is a good 10-15 years younger than your average news talk station. I can do non-political stuff and do very well at it. But on those slow news days that all small markets have, it's always a nice fallback to do political talk. It's easy. (Another reason it's so popular. Radio people can be lazy, if you haven't noticed.)
Apples and oranges.
TV shows like you mention have been around since the 70's and really took off during the 80's (Donahue, Oprah, Geraldo, etc.)
Radio is consumed in a different manner than television. There are many situations where a radio is far more convenient and appropriate.
"Hot Talk" was mostly garbage Howard Stern imitators who deserved to be canned. They were awful. Real "hot talk" was done by guys like Tom Leykis who used to be #1 in PM drive in Los Angeles. He did politics and many other subjects in an interesting, up-tempo, in-your-face, humorous way. That's what "hot talk" really should've been, but the idiots in programming trying to clone Stern misunderstood what made Stern great. It wasn't the strippers, it was the funny banter that surrounded that nonsense. But of course, like the PD's who hired Rush clones based on ideology instead of personality, you had PD's putting guys on the air who were just dirty, offering little else.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I have less faith in the accuracy of radio audience surveys than I have in official statements made by government officials. In other words, almost none. However, if even one out of every five listeners who wanted to hear non-controversial, non-political talk switched to getting their daily dosage of that commodity from all the new television talk shows, a 20% drop in listeners (and ratings) would spell doom for almost any format, wouldn't it?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I did some additional research on that 16% figure. Factoring in the margin of error, and taking into account all possible answers, one in five Americans believe Obama was born in Africa, another one in five believe he was born in the US, and the other three are more concerned about whether or not Kim Kardashian will get her figure back after her baby, and if she and Kenye will stick together.
Having done in-house surveys to track public surveys (with the purpose of spotting trends before they impacted ratings) I would say that you have no justification or reason to dismiss ratings that way. While there is a margin of error, it is acceptable to stations and, most important, the ad agencies that use the ratings... and that is all that matters.
Nope. A station could have that happen for a variety of reasons such as loss of a key morning show talent, a new competitor or just a book to book wobble. And a lot would depend on whether all the loss was in a key demo, or just in 12+... I have seen stations go down in 12+ yet go up in the sales demos.
Last edited:
I looked at 12+ in the Spring books from '99 to 2007 and the highest I found the Leykis show to be was 9th in 2004. In all other books it was not in the top 10 in 12+.
As I mentioned, I was referring to when Leykis was doing PM drive at KFI/Los Angeles between 1988-1993. He was all about current events and did a great, high energy, entertaining show. He did actual "hot talk" and dominated in the ratings.
Unfortunately, years later in syndication, he went the T&A route that many of the "hot talk" stations foolishly decided to take. They, like him, didn't fair well overall.
P.S. Be careful about quoting 12+ when discussing the talk format. If there's any demo that is least relevant to a format, it's 12+ for newstalk---although Leykis did well there too.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
In the insular world of media, perhaps that's all that matters. I've worked in advertising. Smoke and mirrors also matter in that field.
I looked at Spring of 1991 in the paper book, and in 12+ that shift was in a three way tie for 13th. In 25-54, it was in a tie for 18th.
Since Arbitron printed the trending of the four prior books, I can say that in that early 80's window the Spring 91 book was typical.
At the time, in 12+ and every sales demo, KABC beat KFI in afternoons. So did KFWB and KNX.
- Status