Talk Radio Scoreboard for Major Markets: October 2014

[FredLeonard]

Your comparison is reasonable. It's good that you made the effort to fill it in instead of simply complaining that someone didn't do it for you. However, in all but a few markets, commercial talk outcumes public talk. I know you believe it's a superior product, but I disagree, it simply caters to a different audience.

I have not said its a "superior product." But if you are going to say any product is superior or inferior, then you have to offer your criteria for that assessment.

What I am saying is, if anybody is going to post a list of top ranked news/talk stations in major markets then they should include all of them. News/talk. Right-wing talk. Progressive talk. Lifestyle talk. Commercial or non-commercial. Not just a sub-format he happens to like or agree with.

 

[Avid Listener]

What I am saying is, if anybody is going to post a list of top ranked news/talk stations in major markets then they should include all of them. News/talk. Right-wing talk. Progressive talk. Lifestyle talk. Commercial or non-commercial. Not just a sub-format he happens to like or agree with.

My point, which zipped right over your head, is that the commercial talk stations on Gregg's list air MOSTLY talk format content. Talk dominates their total programming day. Even when they air the occasional infomercial or other non-talk programming, it's in off hours. Public radio stations only air the equivalent of commercial talk radio in morning and evening drive time. The majority of their programming is non-talk. That's why non-commercial radio stations are not an apples to oranges comparison to commercial talk radio.

Now, if you want to have ALL radio stations that air spoken word content, then call for ALL such stations. Include the dollar-a-holler brokered time stations, the fundamentalist preacher stations, the news and weather reporting stations. But if you're going to get petty about not comparing public radio to commercial talk radio, you're barking up the wrong tree. Those two entities are not truly comparable. Single number overall ratings, which are pretty much useless in any case, are even more useless in making the comparison you're trying to make.

The bottom line is that most public radio stations simple are not news/talk stations. They air some news/talk shows, but that doesn't make them news/talk stations.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio stations only air the equivalent of commercial talk radio in morning and evening drive time. comparison you're trying to make.

Actually, they're NOT the equivalent of commercial talk. Commercial talk, by and large, is one host talking for 4 hours. That's absolutely not what Morning Edition or ATC are.

 

[Avid Listener]

Actually, they're NOT the equivalent of commercial talk. Commercial talk, by and large, is one host talking for 4 hours. That's absolutely not what Morning Edition or ATC are.

I'm having enough trouble convincing Fred that public stations overall aren't competitive with commercial talk stations. His head would explode if asked to consider even more. Besides, though Morning Edition and All Things Considered are different from The Sean Hannity Show, the Rush Limbaugh Show, or any other The Host's Name Shows, there is a certain level of similarity. One could make a case that the drive time news shows are as different from the Host Name Shows as classical music is from pop music, both of the latter are still types of music. The public and commercial spoken word programs are different enough that they aren't interchangeable, but they are both parts of the world of spoken word programming. And, they both rely on what's in the news and current events as grist for their mills.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm having enough trouble convincing Fred that public stations overall aren't competitive with commercial talk stations.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Public stations aren't attempting to be competitive with commercial talk stations. But I don't think that's why the OP posts these lists.

 

[FredLeonard]

My point, which zipped right over your head, is that the commercial talk stations on Gregg's list air MOSTLY talk format content. Talk dominates their total programming day. Even when they air the occasional infomercial or other non-talk programming, it's in off hours. Public radio stations only air the equivalent of commercial talk radio in morning and evening drive time. The majority of their programming is non-talk. That's why non-commercial radio stations are not an apples to oranges comparison to commercial talk radio.

Now, if you want to have ALL radio stations that air spoken word content, then call for ALL such stations. Include the dollar-a-holler brokered time stations, the fundamentalist preacher stations, the news and weather reporting stations. But if you're going to get petty about not comparing public radio to commercial talk radio, you're barking up the wrong tree. Those two entities are not truly comparable. Single number overall ratings, which are pretty much useless in any case, are even more useless in making the comparison you're trying to make.

The bottom line is that most public radio stations simple are not news/talk stations. They air some news/talk shows, but that doesn't make them news/talk stations.

You may be "avid" but clearly, you're not listening. Once upon a time, public radio stations mostly followed the so-called "tent pole" format. News magazines in drive time, music in between and in the evening. That still happens on a few larger stations (like KCRW, which I did not list) and in smaller markets. It does not apply to any of the major market stations listed here. You right-wingers hate public radio. Fine, don't listen. But don't comment on something you don't listen to. I realize you all do this all the time: Denouncing books, movies, plays, TV shows - almost anything - you haven't seen because some preacher or talk show host told you to.

For the record, here is what public radio news and information stations air on weekdays....

Morning Edition
BBC World News
Diane Rehm/On Point/local talk show
Fresh Air
Here and Now/local talk show
All Things Considered

They are news/talk stations and you don't know what the ~!@$ you are talking about.

 

[Avid Listener]

For the record, here is what public radio news and information stations air on weekdays....

Morning Edition
BBC World News
Diane Rehm/On Point/local talk show
Fresh Air
Here and Now/local talk show
All Things Considered

They are news/talk stations and you don't know what the ~!@$ you are talking about.

I've been listening to Fresh Air for years. It is a spoken word format show, but it isn't a "talk" show. The same is true of Diane Rehm's show. The BBC World news is a news program, not a talk program, as is Here and Now. You might have a leg to stand on in demanding that public radio be included in Gregg's lists, but based on the programs you're citing as "proof", the public stations should be on his list of news stations, not his list of talk stations.

If anyone doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, it's whoever cannot discern that Gregg is posting two lists, one of news stations and another of talk stations. Public broadcasting includes some shows that fit the one list, and other shows that fit the other, and still more shows that fiit neither. So, though I don't totally agree with TheBigA that Morning Edition and All Things Considered don't share some commonality with commercial radio talk shows, public broadcasting stations' overall ratings numbers are meaningless in comparison to commercial stations who specialize in either talk or in news.

Since you feel the need to kvetch for the sake of kvetching, why not demand that Gregg consolidate the news and talk lists into a single news/talk list? Since he never reads the responses to the threads he launches, it would be a wasted effort, but then so is your whining about not including public radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

I've been listening to Fresh Air for years. It is a spoken word format show, but it isn't a "talk" show. The same is true of Diane Rehm's show. The BBC World news is a news program, not a talk program, as is Here and Now. You might have a leg to stand on in demanding that public radio be included in Gregg's lists, but based on the programs you're citing as "proof", the public stations should be on his list of news stations, not his list of talk stations.

If anyone doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, it's whoever cannot discern that Gregg is posting two lists, one of news stations and another of talk stations. Public broadcasting includes some shows that fit the one list, and other shows that fit the other, and still more shows that fiit neither. So, though I don't totally agree with TheBigA that Morning Edition and All Things Considered don't share some commonality with commercial radio talk shows, public broadcasting stations' overall ratings numbers are meaningless in comparison to commercial stations who specialize in either talk or in news.

Since you feel the need to kvetch for the sake of kvetching, why not demand that Gregg consolidate the news and talk lists into a single news/talk list? Since he never reads the responses to the threads he launches, it would be a wasted effort, but then so is your whining about not including public radio.

The more you try to dig in on this, the dumber you appear.

Exactly what is your definition of a "talk show?" Apparently, you have made up one that limits "talk shows" to ranting hosts and sycophantic callers. Fresh Air is NOT a talk show? Why? They talk. Because they talk about other topics in addition to politics? Because the host does not identify herself with a political agenda (although occasionally her agenda does come through)? Because they have guests? Because they don't take calls? On what basis are you excluding the show?

In case you don't know, and it appears you don't, there have been a lot of non-political talk shows in commercial radio and a lot of shows built around guest interviews - all airing on talk stations. In fact, when Rush started in syndication, the conventional wisdom in the industry was a show built around a host ranting with set-ups from callers - and no guests - would not work.

 

[TheBigA]

public broadcasting stations' overall ratings numbers are meaningless in comparison to commercial stations who specialize in either talk or in news.

So what? I doubt the OP posts these things as some kind of competition. Ratings are done for one reason: To set ad rates. Unless you're an advertiser, ratings information is ALL pretty meaningless. Especially when you break it out by format. Formats vary by market. So a country station in St. Paul probably doesn't sound like one in Miami. A fully-syndicated talk station is different from one that also includes local talk. So even in the commercial world, there are differences and variations within formats.

There are lots of variations between public radio and commercial radio. In the diary days, Arbitron didn't include non-commercial radio in it's free ratings release. It was available, but only by subscription. When they went to PPM, they decided to include it. So the information is available, and spoken word is a very important element in non-commercial radio. Are their stations comparable to the commercial stations? In a way, yes, and in a way, no. That's what makes them unique.

 

[Avid Listener]

Exactly what is your definition of a "talk show?"

Amazingly enough, I agree with TheBigA on this one. "Commercial talk, by and large, is one host talking for 4 hours." To that I would also add, "usually about topics pertaining to new or current events". "Talk radio" is a very specific radio format. All talk radio is "spoken word" programming, but not all spoken word programming is talk. Fresh Air is a audio magazine format interview and review show.

 

[Avid Listener]

So what? I doubt the OP posts these things as some kind of competition.

I have no idea why Gregg launches two new threads every month with these numbers. It's not like he takes the time or puts forth the effort to explain anything, or to participate to any significant degree in any discussions. But then, I don't care why he posts them. Regardless of the reason for them, reducing an entire station's broadcasting month to one single number is pretty much meaningless. Comparing news stations to talk stations is meaningless times two.

 

[umfan]

The posts serve as a catalyst for discussion. I have no idea why this irks you to such a degree. It's not as if these threads cause a red light and siren to activate in your home forcing you to read the thread. If it bothers you, ignore it. I like the fact that he does it.

 

[Gregg.]

Here's what I posted in response to questions about Commercial Talk stations vs. NPR stations, only a month ago, Nov. 1:

>>>Just for the record, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I LIKE NPR. I also liked Progressive Talk when it was available in my market. Most of my listening to Talk these days is to WNYC.

But I don't think WNYC and other NPR stations are in the same category as commercial Talk stations. NPR is filled with news shows and long-form interviews. Morning Edition, All Things Considered, The Takeaway, The World and Here & Now are news shows. Terry Gross does long-form interviews on Fresh Air. Diane Ream takes phone calls only AFTER a long interview. During the course of the day, only a handful of listener calls air on an NPR station. Contrast that to commercial Talk stations, which are mostly about talking to callers. Yes, someone is going to say Rush talks at length to himself and John Bachelor takes no phone calls. But I still think commercial Talk and NPR are two different formats.

NPR member stations' success is NOT based on ratings. I'm sure it helps that KQED and WAMU score so well in their cities' ratings. But the whole point of public radio is listener contributions. A program's worth to a station is measured at fundraising time by how many dollars that show pulls in. That's why NPR programs aim so much higher than commercial Talk stations. They're trying to get people who have the money and appreciation to contribute, even if those audiences originally were smaller than were listening to the commercial stations. I'm sure there have been shows on Public Radio that got decent ratings but didn't make the phones ring during pledge week and they were moved to a lesser time slot.

I'm glad to see NPR stations in many markets are now doing better in the ratings than commercial Talk stations. But I don't see them being the same format. Same for News stations that run talk shows, such as WBZ, KGO and KRLD. They're All-News on weekdays, so I list them on the All-News scoreboard, not the Talk Radio Scoreboard. If Tampa and Orlando were top 10 cities, I also would omit WHPT and WTKS. They're commercial Talk stations, but they're Hot Talk. The hosts are more likely to talk about Kim Kardasian or chat with a comedian playing a local club than discuss the midterm elections or ISIS. I consider Hot Talk a different format, just as Public Radio is a different format.

If AC and Hot AC are different formats, certainly NPR stations and commercial Talk stations are also in different formats. So that's why I omit public radio stations from the Talk Radio scoreboard. <<<

 

[Ravens]

You know the usual suspects are going to ignore all that yet again, right?

 

[FredLeonard]

I don't ignore it. I just don't buy it.

(1) No stations' success is based on ratings. It's based on revenue. Stations use ratings as one tool to generate revenue: Commercial stations and public radio stations. Besides, Gregg bases his "scoreboard" on "beauty contest" rankings which have very little to do with any stations' success. And "underwriting" (or sales) is the greatest source of public radio revenue today - not listener donations.

(2) There are commercial talk shows based primarily on what Gregg calls "long-form interviews." At one point, this was the dominant style in commercial talk radio.

(3) Gregg says he liked progressive talk but it sounds like he would have excluded them if he'd been doing this list a few years ago. Likewise, he includes NJ101.5 which is not right-wing political call-in talk, a la Rush. They will lambast politicians but don't have a political viewpoint and they are just as likely to talk about the Kardasians or comedians. This suggests what Gregg includes is pretty arbitrary.

(4) Gregg's standard appears to be: It has to be on a commercial station. It has to be about politics. It has to emphasize a right-wing viewpoint. And it has to be primarily call-ins. Fine. Then he should label his "scoreboard:" The Commercial Right-Wing Political Call-In Talk Radio Scoreboard.

(5) Three things Gregg should keep in mind: Public radio is not a format. Public radio is not a format. Public radio is not a format. Most of these major markets have multiple public radio stations. In New York, two are news and information. One is classical, one is jazz and one is alternative/acoustic. Other markets may not have so many, but these formats are found on public radio stations around the country.

(6) All the public radio stations I included were listed by Nielsen as news/talk.

 

[Jul]

Here's what I posted in response to questions about Commercial Talk stations vs. NPR stations, only a month ago, Nov. 1:

>>>Just for the record, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I LIKE NPR. I also liked Progressive Talk when it was available in my market. Most of my listening to Talk these days is to WNYC.

But I don't think WNYC and other NPR stations are in the same category as commercial Talk stations. NPR is filled with news shows and long-form interviews. Morning Edition, All Things Considered, The Takeaway, The World and Here & Now are news shows. Terry Gross does long-form interviews on Fresh Air. Diane Ream takes phone calls only AFTER a long interview. During the course of the day, only a handful of listener calls air on an NPR station. Contrast that to commercial Talk stations, which are mostly about talking to callers. Yes, someone is going to say Rush talks at length to himself and John Bachelor takes no phone calls. But I still think commercial Talk and NPR are two different formats.

NPR member stations' success is NOT based on ratings. I'm sure it helps that KQED and WAMU score so well in their cities' ratings. But the whole point of public radio is listener contributions. A program's worth to a station is measured at fundraising time by how many dollars that show pulls in. That's why NPR programs aim so much higher than commercial Talk stations. They're trying to get people who have the money and appreciation to contribute, even if those audiences originally were smaller than were listening to the commercial stations. I'm sure there have been shows on Public Radio that got decent ratings but didn't make the phones ring during pledge week and they were moved to a lesser time slot.

I'm glad to see NPR stations in many markets are now doing better in the ratings than commercial Talk stations. But I don't see them being the same format. Same for News stations that run talk shows, such as WBZ, KGO and KRLD. They're All-News on weekdays, so I list them on the All-News scoreboard, not the Talk Radio Scoreboard. If Tampa and Orlando were top 10 cities, I also would omit WHPT and WTKS. They're commercial Talk stations, but they're Hot Talk. The hosts are more likely to talk about Kim Kardasian or chat with a comedian playing a local club than discuss the midterm elections or ISIS. I consider Hot Talk a different format, just as Public Radio is a different format.

If AC and Hot AC are different formats, certainly NPR stations and commercial Talk stations are also in different formats. So that's why I omit public radio stations from the Talk Radio scoreboard. <<<

WHYY is the number 1 talker in Philly. WPHT is 2nd.

 

[Avid Listener]

The posts serve as a catalyst for discussion. I have no idea why this irks you to such a degree. It's not as if these threads cause a red light and siren to activate in your home forcing you to read the thread. If it bothers you, ignore it. I like the fact that he does it.

Perhaps you could slow down and read what I've written more carefully. I did not say that Gregg shouldn't post the information that he posts. The are a catalyst for discussion. What I have said is that they would be a BETTER catalyst for discussion of a long-term topic if he posted them as posts in a single thread. Do you see the difference between what I've been saying and you responded to. Your response suggests that I am against Gregg posting that data. But I am NOT against Gregg posting the data. I'm glad he posts the data. I simply wish he wouldn't launch a brand new thread every month in order to post his data. Whenever a discussion gets going about one month's thread, instead of moving that interesting and in-depth discussion forward to spur on even more discussion, he launches a whole new thread. The usually kills the old thread and the discussions all go back to square one.

You might disagree with my opinion that Gregg should consolidate his posts of raw data as posts in a single continuing thread. But don't imply that I don't want him posting the data at all. That's a false accusation. What bothers me is that I want to engage in discussions on the topic including reading what others have to say. I just don't want it all chopped up into little monthly pieces.

 

[davideduardo]

(1) No stations' success is based on ratings. It's based on revenue. Stations use ratings as one tool to generate revenue: Commercial stations and public radio stations.

That needs clarification. If you are competing for transactional dollars, ratings determine revenue potential. But only stations in the top tier of ratings performance will get any transactional business from agencies and large direct clients who buy based on ratings as the principal metric. All other stations sell based on other considerations such as reaching a specific niche audience or being listener supported.

Besides, Gregg bases his "scoreboard" on "beauty contest" rankings which have very little to do with any stations' success. And "underwriting" (or sales) is the greatest source of public radio revenue today - not listener donations.

But... 12+ number trends do show how classes of stations are performing over time. And they are the only numbers available to most people on this type of forum.

(2) There are commercial talk shows based primarily on what Gregg calls "long-form interviews." At one point, this was the dominant style in commercial talk radio.

That may be too broad a statement. Pyne, Ballance, and many others going back to the late 60's were not interview based and got much larger radio numbers than the "interviewers" like Larry King.

(3) Gregg says he liked progressive talk but it sounds like he would have excluded them if he'd been doing this list a few years ago. Likewise, he includes NJ101.5 which is not right-wing political call-in talk, a la Rush. They will lambast politicians but don't have a political viewpoint and they are just as likely to talk about the Kardasians or comedians. This suggests what Gregg includes is pretty arbitrary.

The fact that Gregg includes NJ101.5 shows his perspective is fairly broad since that station plays music on weekends. I think the real reason that progressive talk is not an issue is that there are practically no commercial progressive stations at present and any that might "lean" progressive are so low in ratings (or no-shows) that they are irrelevant to the big picture, just as Spanish language talk stations are so insignificant as to not be a factor, either.

(4) Gregg's standard appears to be: It has to be on a commercial station. It has to be about politics. It has to emphasize a right-wing viewpoint. And it has to be primarily call-ins. Fine. Then he should label his "scoreboard:" The Commercial Right-Wing Political Call-In Talk Radio Scoreboard.

Too broad again. Many stations, like KFI in Los Angeles or KTAR in Phoenix have little phone activity, but are in excellent positions in their markets Many stations among the leaders have shows that are not political in significant dayparts... WSB being one of those and KFI again being an example.

As to the distinction between commercial and non-commercial stations, that is an age-old topic. Up until the PPM came on the scene, non-commercial stations were not part of the public top line radio ratings releases. So there is a historical basis for segregation of the two classes of stations. I'd personally prefer to have them all combined, though, as it gives better perspective on the audience preferences as opposed to the economic model of the operation.

(5) Three things Gregg should keep in mind: Public radio is not a format.

Here I agree entirely.

(6) All the public radio stations I included were listed by Nielsen as news/talk.

No, those stations are listed by the website you got the ratings data from list them as News / Talk. Nielsen does not pass the format descriptors along with the ratings data in the public releases so the sites put their own description. In fact, looking at the stations you included, about half had NO FORMAT LISTING in the subscriber-only "Station Information Packet". Quarterly SIP filings are requested by Nielsen, but many, many non-commercial stations don't seem to consider doing this to be necessary so Nielsen shows them as "No Winter SIP on File" (or whatever the next "season" is). The Nielsen SIP includes operating schedule, network affiliations, simulcast operations and format as well as station name or short slogan.

 

[FredLeonard]

While Michael Jackson did take calls, I'd consider his show "interview based" on the same station back in the day as Pyne.

Pyne's syndicated show during this period was "interview based," as was Barry Gray's. The Mutual overnight show (Jepko, Nebel, King) also took calls but relied heavily on interviews during most hours. Outside of New York and LA, pre-Rush, most local talk shows were also largely interview-based. And lest we forget, NPR's Talk of the Nation was interview based (but also took calls).

By Gregg's definition above, Ballance would be considered "hot talk" - but not as hot as those pictures of Dr. Laura.

 

[TheBigA]

There were also a lot of advice shows. Bruce Williams, Sally Jessy Raphael, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Toni Grant, various lawyers and gardening experts. They took calls and gave advice. All, for the most part, gone.