Stephanie Miller on Talk Decline

[davideduardo]

The "geniuses" who program radio have spent recent decades trying to narrow their focus (and, hence, their appeal) - not broaden it.

I see, so playlists were broader in the last half of the 50's when every market had one or more Top 40 stations with 20 shares... even 30 and 40 shares... and played a total of 40 songs and a couple of "pick hits" of the week?

How much smaller than 40 songs are the lists today?

 

[flybynight]

You've described why NPR member stations are among the top 5 rated in so many markets. Morning Edition and All Things Considered the shows people listen to if they want to find out about current events -- not Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh or Dana Loesch.

During the Clinton years, I liked talk radio -- newsy local morning show, Dr. Laura, Rush, sports/comedy centered PM show, 2 hours of sports in the evening. But that programming model doesn't exist anymore.

Talkradio the way you describe it never stopped working. The braintrusts mistakenly thought it would do better by pandering to a part of the core audience that was not going anywhere anyway. All they succeeded in doing was blowing off longtime fans of the format and keeping the extreme ideologues.

 

[flybynight]

Talk radio no longer has a congregation; just a choir to preach to. When talk radio had some diversity in opinion and content, hosts had to entertain (not repulse) people who didn't agree with them. Even Rush once practiced that style of talk radio. No more.

I couldn't agree more. They've unnecessarily painted themselves into a corner.

 

[TheBigA]

I couldn't agree more. They've unnecessarily painted themselves into a corner.

For now, it's still a very big corner, and it's really the only corner that will work given the radio business model and the habits of listeners. Commercial radio COULD go after NPR, and provide a nationalized 24/7 news and information service (as it did 40 years ago), but it would be very expensive, and would only work in certain selected regions where significant interest exists. Commercial radio companies could attempt to revive something like NBC Talknet with information talkers rather than politics, but the statistics say it wouldn't do a thing to help talk radio's aging demographics. THAT is the key thing: Come up with a talk format that will appeal to people under 50, and the world will beat a path to your door. Except that there IS a talk format that IS attracting young listeners, and it's Sports Talk.

 

[Avid Listener]

Congratulations. You missed the point entirely.

As someone attempting to communicate, the burden of making the point understandably lies with the person attempting to make the point. FredLeonard drew similar conclusions to what I posted. So, if you missed the target, it's your fault, not the target's. Instead of getting snarky, why not just own up to the fact that you didn't make the point very well, and attempt to do better next time?

 

[Avid Listener]

You've described why NPR member stations are among the top 5 rated in so many markets. Morning Edition and All Things Considered the shows people listen to if they want to find out about current events -- not Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh or Dana Loesch.

Unless, of course, you want to find out about current events that do not forward the liberal agenda, in which case on NPR you'll simply hear nothing.

During the Clinton years, I liked talk radio -- newsy local morning show, Dr. Laura, Rush, sports/comedy centered PM show, 2 hours of sports in the evening. But that programming model doesn't exist anymore.

Ah yes, D. Laura Schlessinger. There's a paragon of virtue to emulate!

 

[Avid Listener]

It should also be noted that the people who had the kind of attention spans required to actually listen to talk radio back when there was more to talk radio than just right wing political commentary are now too old for broadcasters to care about. Instead, they are going after the new generations who are the proper age demographic, most of whom have the attention span of a labrador retriever. If you want to count on finding an audience of Gen Xers, Gen Yers, or Millennials who can pay attention to someone talking for longer than a 60 second sound bite, you are going to fail. That audience just wants background noise.

 

[TheBigA]

Unless, of course, you want to find out about current events that do not forward the liberal agenda, in which case on NPR you'll simply hear nothing.

Except that they don't, as we've discussed at length elsewhere. To you, the middle sounds liberal. We already know that. But to everyone else, it's still the middle.

 

[FredLeonard]

I see, so playlists were broader in the last half of the 50's when every market had one or more Top 40 stations with 20 shares... even 30 and 40 shares... and played a total of 40 songs and a couple of "pick hits" of the week?

How much smaller than 40 songs are the lists today?

"Top 40" has as much to do with actual playlist length as "22 minutes" has to do with an all news station's cycle.

"Top 40" is not around any more. During the so-called "top 40" era (an arbitrary label and not the actual number of songs on station's playlist) playlists got shorter during the 60s, most notably on stations following the Drake-Chenault version of the format). More important, playlists were more diverse in musical styles. "Top 40" stations played MOR, country and R&B cross-overs plus Oldies. Fewer stations. Bigger shares. The game was to please all of the people, some of the time. When broadcasters were forced to stop simulcasting on FM, the result was more choices in the market (and new formats). Then the game was to please some of the people, all of the time. Further, with stations competing directly for the "top 40" audience, stations tried to minimize tune-out by playing stuff that was "too different."

Much the same happened in talk radio. Up to the early 90s, talk stations included hosts with various political viewpoints as well as sports, personal advice, financial advice... When Rush started on WABC, his show aired between Lynn Samuels and Joy Behar. KABC back in the day had room for Joe Pyne and Michael Jackson.

 

[TheBigA]

Up to the early 90s, talk stations included hosts with various political viewpoints as well as sports, personal advice, financial advice... When Rush started on WABC, his show aired between Lynn Samuels and Joy Behar. KABC back in the day had room for Joe Pyne and Michael Jackson.

And if they went back to that kind of mix, it wouldn't do a thing to bring down the average age for the format. They might as well bring back radio drama.

 

[davideduardo]

"Top 40" has as much to do with actual playlist length as "22 minutes" has to do with an all news station's cycle.

In the early days of Top 40, the format was pretty much 30 to 50 songs played in a tiered scale of repetition. That's the whole reason why it was called Top 40.

"Top 40" is not around any more.

Yes it is. In a clever move, Bob Wilson of R&R called his Top 40 chart "contemporary hit radio" as he tried to make his chart look cooler than the Billboard Hot 100. But CHR is Top 40. It's about 20 or so core currents mixed with a smattering of recurrents and gold.

If I look at Z-100 in New York, and exclude songs from any kind of specialty show (mix shows, weekend specials, etc) we come up with 30 songs played 10 times or more, and a half-dozen played over 100 times in a week. There are recurrents that add about 60 more songs to the playlist, but some only play a couple of times a week. That's today's expanded Top 40 as redefined in the Drake era.

During the so-called "top 40" era (an arbitrary label and not the actual number of songs on station's playlist) playlists got shorter during the 60s, most notably on stations following the Drake-Chenault version of the format).

Actually, that is not true. First, we are still in the top 40 era as CHRs are very strong in all the major markets.

And Drake took the 40 song or so list and started adding flashbacks in a programmed way and expanded the playlists.

More important, playlists were more diverse in musical styles. "Top 40" stations played MOR, country and R&B cross-overs plus Oldies.

Untrue. We still have country crossovers, hip hop, EDM, ballads, pop, alternative and even rock songs in the Top 40. Possibly more diverse than ever before.

Fewer stations.

No, just fewer rated stations. New York has the same number of viable stations as it did in 1965... maybe less. There are no new full signal AMs and no new major FM. What changed is that FM found its way to ratings in the late 60s and the FMs started fragmenting the market.

The game was to please all of the people, some of the time. When broadcasters were forced to stop simulcasting on FM, the result was more choices in the market (and new formats). Then the game was to please some of the people, all of the time. Further, with stations competing directly for the "top 40" audience, stations tried to minimize tune-out by playing stuff that was "too different."

Top 40 was already fragmenting in the late 60's with harder rock. In most markets, it did not get played on the AM Top 40's so when many FMs were forced to stop simulcasting, the owners picked formats that they thought would not compete with the big money making AMs. The game was to protect the cash flow. So they put the hippie music on FM.

Much the same happened in talk radio. Up to the early 90s, talk stations included hosts with various political viewpoints as well as sports, personal advice, financial advice... ABC back in the day had room for Joe Pyne and Michael Jackson.

And when KFI put on a group of much more focused hosts, little by little they killed KABC which did not adapt to changing preferences.

 

[Avid Listener]

During the so-called "top 40" era (an arbitrary label and not the actual number of songs on station's playlist) playlists got shorter during the 60s, most notably on stations following the Drake-Chenault version of the format). More important, playlists were more diverse in musical styles. "Top 40" stations played MOR, country and R&B cross-overs plus Oldies. Fewer stations. Bigger shares. The game was to please all of the people, some of the time. When broadcasters were forced to stop simulcasting on FM, the result was more choices in the market (and new formats). Then the game was to please some of the people, all of the time. Further, with stations competing directly for the "top 40" audience, stations tried to minimize tune-out by playing stuff that was "too different."

Much the same happened in talk radio. Up to the early 90s, talk stations included hosts with various political viewpoints as well as sports, personal advice, financial advice... When Rush started on WABC, his show aired between Lynn Samuels and Joy Behar. KABC back in the day had room for Joe Pyne and Michael Jackson.

People seem to forget that back in the Top 40 era, most station owners had only one or two stations (an AM and an FM) per market. That was back when someone like Clear Channel couldn't slice up the entire market with one station per meerket segment. With every station competing with all the other stations in town, there was less willingness to leave out any listener. So, back in the day, a talk station might have a variety of talk hosts over the course of a day. Based on how talk stations are programmed nowadays, it seems like station managers want a core group of dedicated (one might even say "avid") listeners who like a particular kind of news commentary and want to hear that content no matter what time of day they turn their radios on. Just as someone who wants to hear one of the dozen oldies rotated all day long on the oldies station can hear that no matter when he tunes in, someone who wants to hear right wing talk, or sport talk, or whatever other kind of talk can simply turn to that station. There is no longer any need to look at a watch or clock to see who might be on the air. Any time, day or night, tune in to a typical news/talk station and you'll hear the same thing that you would hear at any other time.

 

[davideduardo]

People seem to forget that back in the Top 40 era, most station owners had only one or two stations (an AM and an FM) per market. That was back when someone like Clear Channel couldn't slice up the entire market with one station per meerket segment. With every station competing with all the other stations in town, there was less willingness to leave out any listener.

No, not really. In fact, none of what you say is right.

In the earliest two decades of Top 40, namely from 1952 to the late 60's, FM was not a factor. There were fewer stations getting any significant ratings.

Let's take a market like Cleveland... back then a Top 10 market, and look at the post-network period of Top 40 from perhaps 1958 to the mid-60's... there were 8 viable stations as none of the FMs registered in Pulse or Hooper. There were two r&b, three MOR and three Top 40's. Three formats. While the players flip-flopped, for a considerable period there were just those three broad format options to choose from.

FM caused, over time, format options to appear and fragmentation happened. But that was well into the 70's. In the meantime, most markets had some version of everyone wanting to have the top young station, the top older station or a niche station if the signal could not compete.

Consolidation allowed owners to create an array of different formats so that they could match one or more to any agency buy. The result is seen with far fewer direct format battles and more strategic positioning, possible because a cluster can level revenues by offering a variety of sales targeted combinations rather than having all the eggs in one basket.

I found this to be true in the mid to late 60's when I built a cluster of 9 stations in a single market. Instead of needing to be #1 with each station, I needed to dominate individual salable hills... and did so by offering very different formats on each signal to cover a broad spectrum efficiently.

 

[flybynight]

Based on how talk stations are programmed nowadays, it seems like station managers want a core group of dedicated (one might even say "avid") listeners who like a particular kind of news commentary and want to hear that content no matter what time of day they turn their radios on. Just as someone who wants to hear one of the dozen oldies rotated all day long on the oldies station can hear that no matter when he tunes in, someone who wants to hear right wing talk, or sport talk, or whatever other kind of talk can simply turn to that station. There is no longer any need to look at a watch or clock to see who might be on the air. Any time, day or night, tune in to a typical news/talk station and you'll hear the same thing that you would hear at any other time.

This commonly suggest analogy is actually inaccurate.

Programming a talk station based on a political ideology is like programming a rock station with only Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin. Yes, plenty of the core will listen, but they'd listen to a broader playlist anyway. All you do by catering just to the LZ & PF niche does is guarantee you eventually bow off those who aren'[t obsessed with just those groups.

Talkradio is about interesting and compelling conversation on hot topics of the day. They didn't need to veer it to one extreme. The format was not, I repeat NOT failing when these stations started their march to the far right abyss.

 

[TheBigA]

The format was not, I repeat NOT failing when these stations started their march to the far right abyss.

That's one way of looking at it. It may not have been failing, but there's no question that conservative hosts took the format to a level that it had not been before. If you go back 20 or so years and read the radio trades, you'll see articles about how conservative talk "saved AM radio." Conservative hosts put the non-conservative hosts out of business. That is a fact. If it wasn't for Rush, Larry King never would have left talk radio. Michael Jackson never would have retired. Although they were both getting older. One by one, the legends of talk left the format because they were getting killed in the ratings, and the stations wanted more of the thing that was helping them win. But sure, had Rush and crew not been so successful, the format would have continued to plod on with a level of mediocrity until the audience died or aged out of the demo, which is exactly where we are now.

 

[Avid Listener]

This commonly suggest analogy is actually inaccurate.

Programming a talk station based on a political ideology is like programming a rock station with only Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin. Yes, plenty of the core will listen, but they'd listen to a broader playlist anyway. All you do by catering just to the LZ & PF niche does is guarantee you eventually bow off those who aren'[t obsessed with just those groups.

Talkradio is about interesting and compelling conversation on hot topics of the day. They didn't need to veer it to one extreme. The format was not, I repeat NOT failing when these stations started their march to the far right abyss.

I don't buy your analogy. But, I will accept that once a handful of talk hosts began to enjoy high levels of success with a particular schtick, extreme right-wingedness, others jumped on the bandwagon. A more apt comparison would be that if heavy metal bands were having really great success, then pretty soon most bands would start playing heavy metal. Radio management has always been especially good at jumping on bandwagons, even if they were premature, or if they missed the point of why the people they were looking for clones of were successful.

You're probably right that they didn't need to veer to the extreme right. You're probably right that the format was not failing. But, that didn't stop the folks who ran radio from mistaking political alignment for interesting presentation, nor did it stop the folks running radio from "fixing" something that wasn't yet broken.

 

[flybynight]

That's one way of looking at it. It may not have been failing, but there's no question that conservative hosts took the format to a level that it had not been before. If you go back 20 or so years and read the radio trades, you'll see articles about how conservative talk "saved AM radio." Conservative hosts put the non-conservative hosts out of business. That is a fact.

That kind of assertion 20 years ago is EXACTLY what led to the commonly held misconception that "conservative" talk" saved AM radio. They misplaced the credit. It wasn't that hosts were "conservative", it's that they were entertaining---at least some of them, particularly Rush at that time. What followed those type proclamations from the trades, as you describe, was an ongoing tidal wave of Rush clone hires who didn't get much better ratings than what many talk stations already had.

If it wasn't for Rush, Larry King never would have left talk radio. Michael Jackson never would have retired.

Tame delivery is what led to the winding down of Michael Jackson. He was not exciting to listen to. Nothing to do with ideology. Larry King got jealous of the success Rush was having and decided to move his *overnight* show to early afternoon. I literally remember my reaction when I heard this move was in the works. I immediately knew it wouldn't work---not because of ideology, but because Larry's show was waaaaay too laid back for middays. It was the perfect late night show.

Many of the theories I continually hear or read these days is this reverse-engineered Monday morning quarterbacking---ALL starting with the premise that only conservative talk would have worked, so all the details of the format's evolution over the last 25 years are custom-fit to add up to that result. I, however, was very involved with the format throughout all of that time and either dealt with or worked with many of the names steering the format during those years.

The thoughts I express to you here are vivid recollections of what I was witnessing firsthand. Many I knew at that time realized the format was getting derailed and recognized the long-term damage it would cause. Unfortunately, even those who knew better went with the fad-flow and ended up going "all-in", as they say.

 

[TheBigA]

Unfortunately, even those who knew better went with the fad-flow and ended up going "all-in", as they say.

Regardless, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And bringing back the way it used to be won't fix the aging demos. That's why all of your vivid recollections won't make any difference to the future of the format. No one's going to spend any money, because they won't get any of it back.

 

[Ultimajock]

I don't know about you, but the easiest way to end a family gathering is for someone to bring up a controversial issue. Last Sunday was Easter, and while sitting at the Easter dinner table, someone brought up health insurance. Within a few minutes, everyone was looking for their spouses, saying it's time to go. That situation wouldn't have happened 20 years ago.

...substitute "Vietnam," "Watergate" or "Civil Rights" for "health insurance," and it did happen 40-50 years ago. Didn't keep Howard Miller, Barry Gray or Joe Pyne from voicing personal opinions about the subjects on the air, or getting advertisers to pay for those opinions' being transmitted...

 

[flybynight]

Regardless, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And bringing back the way it used to be won't fix the aging demos. That's why all of your vivid recollections won't make any difference to the future of the format. No one's going to spend any money, because they won't get any of it back.

My reference to my "vivid recollections" was meant to address all of you revisionist historians who like to rewrite how the format got to where it is.

As far as the future of the format: Your position is always to do nothing. How courageous.