The thing I look for when starting a new format is unified listener passion. If you find something that unites a large group of people in a passionate way, it will work as a radio format. Right now, that's sports. I was just looking at the trending topics right now on Twitter, and most of them had to do with sports. Of course, we have a lot of great sports events now, with the NBA playoffs and baseball. But I often look at trending topics on Twitter for an idea of what people are talking about.
-
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
Stephanie Miller on Talk Decline
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
The thing I look for when starting a new format is unified listener passion. If you find something that unites a large group of people in a passionate way, it will work as a radio format. Right now, that's sports. I was just looking at the trending topics right now on Twitter, and most of them had to do with sports. Of course, we have a lot of great sports events now, with the NBA playoffs and baseball. But I often look at trending topics on Twitter for an idea of what people are talking about.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Of course you picked the ONE market in the top 50 that is hands-down THE worst for non-Spanish talkradio. The total combined market share is a whopping 1.2
Last edited:
Then 50 kW 1150 am in LA... Covers vastly better than any talker except KFI and it did worse than even the Salem station.
Miami had huge talk shares in the 80s and 90's and into the last decade... WQAM was the market's top biller for over a decade and before that WINZ and WNWS did very well, with WIOD often doing well... And still the Hispanic population was very close to a majority the whole time.
And market 14 has only one English talker... When it shows, it is at a 0.1 level
Last edited:
And how long has that been a viable frequency routinely sampled by a sizable cume?
People don't generally scan the AM dial looking for format changes anymore.
If anything, it's not about politics but about how the current emphasis on politics has become a barrier for under-50's listeners coming in to the format.
It 's just as viable as any good LA signal. When AA launched, they did quite a bit of cross promotion and outdoor and direct mail...
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Isn't it amazing that in threads about music format radio, if you talk about music, one particular participant always kvetches that it's about RADIO, not music? And then in a thread about news/talk, which is about political talk about things in the news, he kvetches the same way about talking about the content of the broadcasts in that format?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I have news for you. They also don't scan the FM dial searching for new formats.
There was absolutely NOTHING in your post that dealt with radio or news/talk radio. It was strictly an ideological rant, and off topic. Previous moderators would have sent you a warning email.
However, it clearly demonstrates why it's impossible to discuss politics on talk radio today, and why the format is failing.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
David, I don't think it's the emphasis but the approach - the strident, dogmatic, self-righteous and often incendiary approach. Same thing that turns a lot of people (over and under 50) to whole political process, itself. OK, some people don't want Hitler cited as an example. It's the same approach Long, McCarthy and Nixon used to gain power with appeals to hate and anger. For some reason, radio - or rhetoric; the spoken word - more than other media, is an effective tool for demagoguery.
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
I've moved the political rants to the Anything But Broadcasting board here: http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?661918-Moved-from-NEWS-TALK-Stephanie-Miller-on-Talk-Decline.
There wasn't really any flaming, but the discussion got off-topic. If you want to continue the political disagreement ... continue it there. Keep posts relevant to News/Talk radio here. Just keep in mind if the conversation degrades either here or there, you will be subject to a temporary ban.
There wasn't really any flaming, but the discussion got off-topic. If you want to continue the political disagreement ... continue it there. Keep posts relevant to News/Talk radio here. Just keep in mind if the conversation degrades either here or there, you will be subject to a temporary ban.
Speaking of refusing to get controversial, it was said if the Fairness Doctrine came back, stations would avoid controversial subjects for fear of having to grant "equal time" (though callers, you would hope, would be welcome to rebut the host...) to other sides (and there's more than just two sides to every story, just as some people are fiscal conservatives but social liberals so you can't just pin down people as totally left or totally right).
Sports talk radio may be hotter than political talk in many places. Boston has 4 sports talk stations (one is all ESPN, but there's local & national on the other 3..well, one barely has any local, but...). It has only one full time poli-talker (though
some stations have individual shows, and there's some talk on the NPR stations incl local...)
Sports talk radio may be hotter than political talk in many places. Boston has 4 sports talk stations (one is all ESPN, but there's local & national on the other 3..well, one barely has any local, but...). It has only one full time poli-talker (though
some stations have individual shows, and there's some talk on the NPR stations incl local...)
>>You are forgetting 4) Liberal / progressive talk fails to generate ratings.
Even Air America, which had investments from "angels" like George Soros, and which assembled a credible lineup of liberal and progressive hosts could not generate ratings. Even in the best success case, Portland, OR, initial good ratings performance quickly fell and in other markets where there was a good signal put on the format, there was never enough listening for the format to be salable.
Libtalk failed even in places like Boston though maybe some on the Left depend on the NPR stations in town, which have done well. Jeff Santos had to buy time on WWZN (now WUFC) 1510 and it flopped though the owner wound up taking $ to air sports networks (Yahoo, NBC) that prob also draw few listeners but got commercial dollars. It doesn't show in the ratings but something pays the electric bills, and it wasn't Steph Miller.
Soros was said to have paid money for NPR to hire reporters...fair and balanced ones, I'm sure
(and yes here I'm talking news not talk, but whatever)
Even Air America, which had investments from "angels" like George Soros, and which assembled a credible lineup of liberal and progressive hosts could not generate ratings. Even in the best success case, Portland, OR, initial good ratings performance quickly fell and in other markets where there was a good signal put on the format, there was never enough listening for the format to be salable.
Libtalk failed even in places like Boston though maybe some on the Left depend on the NPR stations in town, which have done well. Jeff Santos had to buy time on WWZN (now WUFC) 1510 and it flopped though the owner wound up taking $ to air sports networks (Yahoo, NBC) that prob also draw few listeners but got commercial dollars. It doesn't show in the ratings but something pays the electric bills, and it wasn't Steph Miller.
Soros was said to have paid money for NPR to hire reporters...fair and balanced ones, I'm sure
(and yes here I'm talking news not talk, but whatever)>>Even in San Francisco, a politically liberal town, KGO saw it's ratings plummet as the hosts and the audience got older. That's what we're talking about here. The audience for AM talk, regardless of the approach, is too old. Refocusing from conservative talk to a broader approach won't solve the demographic problem.
Definitely an older audience, for both cons. talk and prog talk. I'm 52 and enjoy Howie Carr in Boston (admittedly I don't listen to as much poli-talk as I used to, kind of burned out). He does make some money for RKO and an 11 station network across New England (may self-syndicate later this year when RKO contract ends). Most of his affiliates are on the
"Ancient Modulation" band, though some may have an FM simulcast (low power; he has full power FMs in Maine and Cape Cod;
WRKO is also on the HD2 of WEEI-FM 93.7, for the few who have HD radios) But yes, older listeners...has hurt talk though some $ can still be made.
Definitely an older audience, for both cons. talk and prog talk. I'm 52 and enjoy Howie Carr in Boston (admittedly I don't listen to as much poli-talk as I used to, kind of burned out). He does make some money for RKO and an 11 station network across New England (may self-syndicate later this year when RKO contract ends). Most of his affiliates are on the
"Ancient Modulation" band, though some may have an FM simulcast (low power; he has full power FMs in Maine and Cape Cod;
WRKO is also on the HD2 of WEEI-FM 93.7, for the few who have HD radios) But yes, older listeners...has hurt talk though some $ can still be made.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Raccoon you know more about the biz than to make such patently false statements.
Talk radio operated for a quarter century WITH the fairness doctrine and did not avoid controversy. The fairness doctrine was never applied to talk radio, considered entertainment programming. The fairness doctrine applied to station editorials.
Funny, the most successful progressive hosts never worked for Air America Radio. Air America Radio failed because it was badly managed, badly produced, badly programmed, shoved onto weak sticks which did not have ratings before (and have not had ratings since), and because broadcasters would not or could not sell it properly and advertisers labeled it "controversial" and would not buy it.
It did not fail because it was progressive. It's mistaking was trying to do right-wing style talk with progressive opinions. Progressives are better able to think for themselves. They don't respond well to the dogmatic approach of Rush and his ilk. Progressives are civil and they don't respond to the insulting approach of Rush and his ilk, either. And progressives read, unlike listeners to right-wing talk.
Talk radio operated for a quarter century WITH the fairness doctrine and did not avoid controversy. The fairness doctrine was never applied to talk radio, considered entertainment programming. The fairness doctrine applied to station editorials.
Funny, the most successful progressive hosts never worked for Air America Radio. Air America Radio failed because it was badly managed, badly produced, badly programmed, shoved onto weak sticks which did not have ratings before (and have not had ratings since), and because broadcasters would not or could not sell it properly and advertisers labeled it "controversial" and would not buy it.
It did not fail because it was progressive. It's mistaking was trying to do right-wing style talk with progressive opinions. Progressives are better able to think for themselves. They don't respond well to the dogmatic approach of Rush and his ilk. Progressives are civil and they don't respond to the insulting approach of Rush and his ilk, either. And progressives read, unlike listeners to right-wing talk.
Can't disagree with any of that.
As an aside, gotta love this tidbit:
"In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."
The FD was invoked to guarantee the public was exposed to a variety of viewpoints. With the advent of Fox news and today's talkradio, it's laughable to think that exposing people to other opinions would somehow "hurt" the public interest. Allowing people to go and live down an information rabbit hole has been faaaar more detrimental to the public interest, as it has rendered some to be stubbornly dogmatic on even the most trivial of issues.
Last edited:
Posts like this are why no one takes you seriously. You claim progressives are civil in the same paragraph where you insult conservatives.
- Status