• 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

WLS Cuts Steve Cochran, Local Programing

Sticking with St. Louis as an example, do you really think the average adult in 2024 is as informed about their community and the world as one who in 1974 listened to KMOX all day, read both the Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat and came home and watched Walter Cronkite?

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. People used the media that was available to them at the time, which was very limited, and some might say was not as democratic as things are now. It was, for the most part, one establishment point of view. When you go back to the ratings in 1974 St. Louis, they were quarterly diaries, so therefore not very accurate. Even then, KMOX didn't do as well with adults under 35 as they did 35-49. So it was an older demographic even then. In the early 70s, radio usage wasn't as personal as it became later in that decade.

Are they better informed? It depends on what that means. They know what they want to know. They're not forced to hear opinions they don't like. So in that way, they know more about the things they're interested in.
 
Better informed by any definition does not mean knowing only what you want to know and hearing no opinions that don’t amplify your own thoughts.

Earliest ratings I have for KMOX are Spring 1976. They dominate 35-64, having 4 times the numbers of the 2nd station in that demo.

They are a strong number 1 in 18-49.

They are even number 3 in 18-34, only behind an AC and CHR. But they have better ratings in 18-34 than the two AORs, KSHE and KADI
 
Better informed by any definition does not mean knowing only what you want to know and hearing no opinions that don’t amplify your own thoughts.

I'm sure it would be much easier to be in radio at a time when there was no internet, no cell phones, and almost all of the radio stations were on AM. The big shares enjoyed by those stations would evaporate as more choices became available. And as I said, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
 
Earliest ratings I have for KMOX are Spring 1976. They dominate 35-64, having 4 times the numbers of the 2nd station in that demo.

They are a strong number 1 in 18-49.

They are even number 3 in 18-34, only behind an AC and CHR. But they have better ratings in 18-34 than the two AORs, KSHE and KADI
They were also heavy on sports, with the Blues and baseball Cardinals (I don't remember if they aired the football Cardinals or not).
 
They were also heavy on sports, with the Blues and baseball Cardinals (I don't remember if they aired the football Cardinals or not).
They did, though if there was a conflict with baseball, the football would go to KMOX-FM (103.3). Baseball always took precedence.

Also recall that, in those days, KMOX-FM wasn't particularly focused. It was still under Bob Hyland's control; he considered the AM station to be the main service.
 
In the 1960s-1980s, KMOX in St. Louis got 27-30 shares with Cardinals baseball and other sports, heavy news and what they called At Your Service, which was mostly talk about local issues and events.

I wonder why adults were interested in such programming in the past, but today‘s generation of under 55 adults would not be.
They grew up with news and informed talk being an increasingly attenuated presence on radio. At this point, I would posit that anyone 65 or under grew up primarily listening to FM, where news and informed talk (i.e. not just opinion that's not necessarily supported by facts) were much less of a presence than they were on AM.
Sticking with St. Louis as an example, do you really think the average adult in 2024 is as informed about their community and the world as one who in 1974 listened to KMOX all day, read both the Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat and came home and watched Walter Cronkite?
(The Globe? Ummmm.... As long as you didn't read the editorial page....)
When you go back to the ratings in 1974 St. Louis, they were quarterly diaries, so therefore not very accurate. Even then, KMOX didn't do as well with adults under 35 as they did 35-49. So it was an older demographic even then. In the early 70s, radio usage wasn't as personal as it became later in that decade.
This should not take away from the enormous success that KMOX was. Bob Hyland knew talent. He knew how to keep it away from KSD and other competitors. He had a well-staffed news department, led by John Angelides, that did both spot news and feature news, without the pretentiousness that NPR can have sometimes. In some ways, "Total Information", the morning and afternoon-drive news blocks presaged NPR's in-depth news programming. No, it did not appeal to younger folks other than for sports. (Of course, he had all the teams' broadcast rights locked up.) It didn't need to. In 1984, the Post-Dispatch estimated that KMOX had $16-18 million a year in revenue. Jack Carney, the hugely popular mid-morning personality who died late in 1984, was believed to be responsible for about a fourth of that. Bob Hyland was also extremely attentive to details and was known for being at the station at any hour of the day or night. He was often described as a "taskmaster" but the kind of taskmaster who was loyal to those who met his expectations. Aside from all that, he still had energy left over to maintain extensive and tight connections to the St. Louis business establishment. When he died in 1992, it was inevitable that the station wouldn't be what it once was.

In addition, listeners my age were listening to FM - KSHE and KADI and KWK-FM for the album rock; KSLQ for the hits. Aside from KMOX, AM ceased to be much of a factor. KXOK declined rapidly after KSLQ came about in 1972. Die-hard country listeners had WIL, but it did not have the best signal. KMOX's closest competitor should have been KSD. But, unlike KMOX, where CBS kept the radio and TV operations entirely separate from one another, KSD increasingly became an adjunct to the TV station. The radio news operation was smaller, and heavily leveraged KSD-TV's reporting. KSD programmed adult-contemporary music, until making a brief run at an all-news format. That was starting to have some success when the station was sold and, ultimately, became country KUSA.

So don't lump KMOX in with the rest of the AMs that have seen better days. It was something special, even if I didn't appreciate it fully at the time. It really was "The Voice of St. Louis".
 
And after the changes, the numbers will not be any better, probably worse. But, they will proudly wear the badge of the most conservative radio station in the country. They will more than likely have more listeners in down state Illinois than in the Chicago metropolitan area which goes against the market the ad buys are for.
Agencies look at the Chicago MSA book. They don't even look for or care about "down state" listening. If the numbers and the price look good, they buy a station.

The Chicago MSA consists of 11 counties, and Cook alone is just a tad over half of the population of the metro, so those other counties weigh nearly as much as the home county and a lot more than Chicago alone.
 
Great Article: Why Is Talk Radio So Right-Wing? (And How Can The Left Compete?). Written back in 2021. Do a search for it and read. It's an interview with Thom Heartmann which highlights the birth a conservative talk, the money and backing behind it.

Below is an interesting quote from the article:

"I met with the one of the two billionaires who owned that network in the offices of a United States Senator, and said “Why don’t you put”—and he had hundreds of right wing stations—and I said “Why don’t you put some left-wingers on?” I would offer myself, but just generically. And he simply said straight up, he said, “I’m never gonna put somebody on the air who’s gonna argue for raising my taxes.” This is a guy who owned 900 radio stations".
 
Great Article: Why Is Talk Radio So Right-Wing? (And How Can The Left Compete?). Written back in 2021. Do a search for it and read. It's an interview with Thom Heartmann which highlights the birth a conservative talk, the money and backing behind it.

The assumption that article makes is that radio has the power to change people's minds or opinions. If conservatives could hear Thom Hartmann, they'd change their views on politics and support Bernie Sanders. That's as false as saying if JoeU listened to Sean Hannity, he'd become a conservative. Radio doesn't have this kind of power, and people aren't that gullible. I doubt very much that anything I've said here will change the mind of JoeU. I know that going in.

The article also assumes that because Mitt Romney was once a partner in Bain that the investment company made programming decisions at iHeart. I see the same incorrect assumption being made about the George Soros investment in Audacy. Investment companies don't buy radio companies to promote political agendas. Two years ago, George Soros invested $80 million in the Latino Media Networks. Everyone (including station employees and Repubs in Congress) assumed that he would force talk show hosts to change their politics. It never happened.
 
The assumption that article makes is that radio has the power to change people's minds or opinions. If conservatives could hear Thom Hartmann, they'd change their views on politics and support Bernie Sanders. That's as false as saying if JoeU listened to Sean Hannity, he'd become a conservative. Radio doesn't have this kind of power, and people aren't that gullible. I doubt very much that anything I've said here will change the mind of JoeU. I know that going in.

The article also assumes that because Mitt Romney was once a partner in Bain that the investment company made programming decisions at iHeart. I see the same incorrect assumption being made about the George Soros investment in Audacy. Investment companies don't buy radio companies to promote political agendas. Two years ago, George Soros invested $80 million in the Latino Media Networks. Everyone (including station employees and Repubs in Congress) assumed that he would force talk show hosts to change their politics. It never happened.
I'm not quite sure I agree with the "not gullible" part but your point stands. Air America seemed to be built on the assumption that billionaire oligarcs got together in a smoke-filled room, plucked this Limbaugh guy out of the obscurity of Sacramento and forced people to listen. The truth is a former ABC executive was looking for a retirement project, and we have no idea what his politics were (he also picked up liberal Dr. Dean Edell). There was a market for conservative-leaning news and comment. Now of course we have media that's operates to give their viewers and listeners a completely alternative reality.
 
I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that owners of stations, particularly on an individual level would choose and prefer conservative talk for exactly the reason in the Hartmann article.

I've heard anecdotes about a certain GM or two in markets where Air America had a decent signal (in fairness, with iHeart stations) where they intentionally discouraged sales from pursuing or spending time courting those clients. Look, you can say money is money to sales but time is also money, and if resources and marketing aren't there, and you can stand a better chance selling the right wing talker, what are you gonna spend your time doing?

It's a moot point now, but when more stations were individually owned, and Limbaugh got popular, it is not a far fetched idea that many owners thought his show worked purely because of the politics. Over time, it was a self-selecting process, fewer liberals and moderates allowed on, or available, fewer on offer to stations, fewer owners, the deck was stacked against even the most talented of the ideology.

Look at comments by Ray Stevens, newly promoted to WLS Chicago mornings. He claims "WLS is a CONSERVATIVE radio station." Well, it may be now, but when Limbaugh was a big draw to WLS, they started the mornings with a conservative, his moderate wife, and went into the late nights with a pro-gun liberal, Jay Marvin. WLS was an entertainment station that happened to talk news and politics. Now it's a party mouthpiece and getting the ratings it richly deserves for that.

What it was in the 90s was entertaining. Agree or disagree, you laughed, you had a reaction. Now it's just an echo chamber where even the previous conservative host wasn't conservative enough.
 
Now it's just an echo chamber where even the previous conservative host wasn't conservative enough.

What's happened in the last ten years is that the format has built its own funding structure that ensures stations that carry the programming will make money regardless of the size or age of the audience. WLS is a perfect example. The station is one of the lowest rated stations in town, yet there is a financial base that makes money. You can't do that with any music format. It's become its own brokered system, with advertisers who agree with the perspective, and use their money to reach a loyal audience who will support them because they support the station. The only other example I know of is sports betting.
 
What's happened in the last ten years is that the format has built its own funding structure that ensures stations that carry the programming will make money regardless of the size or age of the audience. WLS is a perfect example. The station is one of the lowest rated stations in town, yet there is a financial base that makes money. You can't do that with any music format. It's become its own brokered system, with advertisers who agree with the perspective, and use their money to reach a loyal audience who will support them because they support the station. The only other example I know of is sports betting.
This, you never addressed:

You have to wonder if many past and present program directors and station managers sleep well at night knowing we are very close to becoming an Oligarchy because of their programing choices which were primarily handed down from on high.
 
You have to wonder if many past and present program directors and station managers sleep well at night knowing we are very close to becoming an Oligarchy because of their programing choices which were primarily handed down from on high.

They're preaching to the converted. They barely get a 1 share in Chicago. Our system is based on majority. A 1 share isn't a majority. There is no conservative talk station that gets a 51 share.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom