I've always heard that on average, only 1% of listeners participate in talk radio shows that are primarily based on taking calls. Is this number accurate?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1% of listeners
- Thread starter radioguy555
- Start date
F
fred flintstone
Guest
The numbers I've seen vary slightly: 1% - 1.5% - 2% of listeners have ever called a talk show.
Participated? Talk shows are for listeners - not callers (except in the smallest markets, with horrible results). As Rush says the purpose of callers is to make the host look good, to give the host something to play off of. Callers are like volunteers from the audience in a magic show who agree to come on stage and have a silver dollar pulled out of their ear. Talk shows are not a forum for callers to express themselves.
Participated? Talk shows are for listeners - not callers (except in the smallest markets, with horrible results). As Rush says the purpose of callers is to make the host look good, to give the host something to play off of. Callers are like volunteers from the audience in a magic show who agree to come on stage and have a silver dollar pulled out of their ear. Talk shows are not a forum for callers to express themselves.
"The callers are there to make the host look good."
Rush popularized that phrase, but he didn't invent the attitude. His hackdown call screening techniques
were invented by consultants years before he went national. They helped turn "two way talk" into one and a quarter way talk.
Callers can be creative -- otherwise how would so many of them have become hosts? (Mike Trivosonno, Lionel, et. al.). A live and local station with lots of callers -- and plenty of CHRONIC callers -- would be a good alternative to the slick syndication that dominates the AM dial.
If you want to hear how playing up local callers can make for good talk radio, listen to this clip. All of the
people on the phone are chronic callers.
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/AK/WFLA-The_Lassiter_Group.mp3
Rush popularized that phrase, but he didn't invent the attitude. His hackdown call screening techniques
were invented by consultants years before he went national. They helped turn "two way talk" into one and a quarter way talk.
Callers can be creative -- otherwise how would so many of them have become hosts? (Mike Trivosonno, Lionel, et. al.). A live and local station with lots of callers -- and plenty of CHRONIC callers -- would be a good alternative to the slick syndication that dominates the AM dial.
If you want to hear how playing up local callers can make for good talk radio, listen to this clip. All of the
people on the phone are chronic callers.
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/AK/WFLA-The_Lassiter_Group.mp3
F
fred flintstone
Guest
First off, this clip is almost 20 years old.
The clip is a panel of four regular callers, invited to be guests on that day's show. These are people who demonstrated they were good for the show on several occasions - and screeners were instructed to keep putting them.
This clip demonstrates my point. Callers are put on to forward the show. The show is not put on to provide a platform for callers.
This issue is not whether there should be more live-local talk radio. This issue is the proper role of the caller in talk radio. Local or syndicated, the show is not about the caller. Which is why good talk radio needs a large pool of callers to select from. For that reason local-live talk radio can only work effectively on major market stations with good cumes. In smaller markets, chronic callers are all you get - and they are exactly that, chronic.
The clip is a panel of four regular callers, invited to be guests on that day's show. These are people who demonstrated they were good for the show on several occasions - and screeners were instructed to keep putting them.
This clip demonstrates my point. Callers are put on to forward the show. The show is not put on to provide a platform for callers.
This issue is not whether there should be more live-local talk radio. This issue is the proper role of the caller in talk radio. Local or syndicated, the show is not about the caller. Which is why good talk radio needs a large pool of callers to select from. For that reason local-live talk radio can only work effectively on major market stations with good cumes. In smaller markets, chronic callers are all you get - and they are exactly that, chronic.
Yes, the clip is 18 years old (1988).
You would have to go back that far because that was before the Rush-clones and consultants took over talk radio and imposed an anti-caller attitude.
How do you think the host discovered those four callers? By rigid screening? No.
I do know a little bit of background about this show. Several of those callers were banned for a time, partly by the host's preference and partly because a consultant had told them "Keep regular callers off; screen for 25-54's, preferably female." Of course, this being an AM station in a retirement community, few such people were listening on a regular basis and those few that were wouldn't call in to discuss heavily consulted topics. Then, after the consultant and his PD were fired, the host invited those callers back, and his career took off.
How do you think those callers would have reacted to a host who declared, "You exist to make me sound good!" They never would have called in the first place. The caller has to get something out of the equation other than host-worship. Otherwise, you miss the kinds of callers who can set a show on fire and you get dittoheads who say "Great show, Rush (Sean, Glenn, Savage, Al, Ed)." I would recommend you stop taking online courses from the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and enroll instead at the Miami School of Advanced Talk Radio. Begin studying the real talkmasters -- Neil (not Boortz), Bob, Lionel, and to some extent Randi, although I think she has forgotten a lesson or two from the Professor.
You would have to go back that far because that was before the Rush-clones and consultants took over talk radio and imposed an anti-caller attitude.
How do you think the host discovered those four callers? By rigid screening? No.
I do know a little bit of background about this show. Several of those callers were banned for a time, partly by the host's preference and partly because a consultant had told them "Keep regular callers off; screen for 25-54's, preferably female." Of course, this being an AM station in a retirement community, few such people were listening on a regular basis and those few that were wouldn't call in to discuss heavily consulted topics. Then, after the consultant and his PD were fired, the host invited those callers back, and his career took off.
How do you think those callers would have reacted to a host who declared, "You exist to make me sound good!" They never would have called in the first place. The caller has to get something out of the equation other than host-worship. Otherwise, you miss the kinds of callers who can set a show on fire and you get dittoheads who say "Great show, Rush (Sean, Glenn, Savage, Al, Ed)." I would recommend you stop taking online courses from the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and enroll instead at the Miami School of Advanced Talk Radio. Begin studying the real talkmasters -- Neil (not Boortz), Bob, Lionel, and to some extent Randi, although I think she has forgotten a lesson or two from the Professor.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Thank you for a courteous response.
I have heard talk radio in the South and I have not been impressed.
Based on your own description, these callers were sceened. At one point the PD imposed difference screening criteria. Later those criteria changed and these callers were screened back in. But these callers were never given unfettered access. The producers of the program always controlled who got on.
Possibly you should listen to local talk radio outside the top 50 markets - without call screening. Listen to hosts begging people to call. Listen to "chronic callers" with nothing to say - and nothing else to do - calling in just to let the host know they are out there. Listen to chronic callers with the same chronic rants. Listen to people taking shows off topic. Listen to people who call in and ask what the topic is.
Also what happens with unscreened calls and unfettered access for "chronic callers" is the retirement communities do take over the show and you end up with an audience the station can't sell. Talk radio already skews old. If the format is to survive - and not go the way of oldies and standards - it needs to keep its sights on the audiences advertisers will pay to reach.
Radio is a business. Maybe you are a "fan" and somehow find it distasteful that radio stations sould be concerned with profit and loss (and millions of small investors who have a portion of their life savings in broadcasting stocks). Maybe you are one of those "chronic callers" and you think talk radio really is about you.
I have heard talk radio in the South and I have not been impressed.
Based on your own description, these callers were sceened. At one point the PD imposed difference screening criteria. Later those criteria changed and these callers were screened back in. But these callers were never given unfettered access. The producers of the program always controlled who got on.
Possibly you should listen to local talk radio outside the top 50 markets - without call screening. Listen to hosts begging people to call. Listen to "chronic callers" with nothing to say - and nothing else to do - calling in just to let the host know they are out there. Listen to chronic callers with the same chronic rants. Listen to people taking shows off topic. Listen to people who call in and ask what the topic is.
Also what happens with unscreened calls and unfettered access for "chronic callers" is the retirement communities do take over the show and you end up with an audience the station can't sell. Talk radio already skews old. If the format is to survive - and not go the way of oldies and standards - it needs to keep its sights on the audiences advertisers will pay to reach.
Radio is a business. Maybe you are a "fan" and somehow find it distasteful that radio stations sould be concerned with profit and loss (and millions of small investors who have a portion of their life savings in broadcasting stocks). Maybe you are one of those "chronic callers" and you think talk radio really is about you.
Let's see..WLW. Ken the anti-semite, Nan, Martin the guy who always talks about drugs, the late General Kabaka Aba. These folks can be entertaining, but you can bet they're only there to be foils for the hosts. Sounds like the original poster may be looking for Herb Jepco in the 1970s....old ladies calling in about nothing?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"Possibly you should listen to local talk radio outside the top 50 markets - without call screening. Listen to hosts begging people to call. Listen to "chronic callers" with nothing to say - and nothing else to do - calling in just to let the host know they are out there. Listen to chronic callers with the same chronic rants. Listen to people taking shows off topic. Listen to people who call in and ask what the topic is."[i/]
But I cannot believe that is something that is unavoidable. I've heard boring local hosts who can't inspire good conversation, but that only proves that the specific local host isn't very good. It doesn't prove that the concept of a small-market local talk show isn't good. Even without a screener, getting a boring caller off the air is a skill some hosts have and some hosts don't.
"If the format is to survive - and not go the way of oldies and standards - it needs to keep its sights on the audiences advertisers will pay to reach."
Everyone who programs music format radio knows that it's not just playing music, it's finding the right music to play. Talk radio is no different. Bad hosts only prove that bad hosts don't work. Get a good host, and your show will be successful and will produce the kind of audience that advertisers want.
The problem is that finding good talk hosts sometimes means looking outside the box. And looking outside the box is something that radio people have forgotten how to do.
But I cannot believe that is something that is unavoidable. I've heard boring local hosts who can't inspire good conversation, but that only proves that the specific local host isn't very good. It doesn't prove that the concept of a small-market local talk show isn't good. Even without a screener, getting a boring caller off the air is a skill some hosts have and some hosts don't.
"If the format is to survive - and not go the way of oldies and standards - it needs to keep its sights on the audiences advertisers will pay to reach."
Everyone who programs music format radio knows that it's not just playing music, it's finding the right music to play. Talk radio is no different. Bad hosts only prove that bad hosts don't work. Get a good host, and your show will be successful and will produce the kind of audience that advertisers want.
The problem is that finding good talk hosts sometimes means looking outside the box. And looking outside the box is something that radio people have forgotten how to do.
Most of the attempts to look outside the box have failed. Stations like WLS in Chicago hired every former politician they could find and they all failed. We could mention Mario Cuomo and Oliver North. Bill Bennett? Ya gotta be kidding. Then of course there's AAR. WLW held on-air auditions and never found anyone. They use a frequent caller who is a bus driver as a sidekick on Saturday mornings, but only let hom solo host once.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
"Outside the box" now would be somebody with radio experience.
And, respectfully, good talk radio does not require "thinking outside the box." It requires remembering the basics of good radio and staying focused on the audience. It also requires time to develop a show, a format and an audience and not bailing after the first book.
And, respectfully, good talk radio does not require "thinking outside the box." It requires remembering the basics of good radio and staying focused on the audience. It also requires time to develop a show, a format and an audience and not bailing after the first book.
""Outside the box" now would be somebody with radio experience."
No doubt. I can't believe how many even syndicated shows I hear with hosts going to break with "we'll be back after a few quick messages"... can anybody even tease a segment any more?
No doubt. I can't believe how many even syndicated shows I hear with hosts going to break with "we'll be back after a few quick messages"... can anybody even tease a segment any more?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"good talk radio does not require "thinking outside the box." It requires remembering the basics of good radio and staying focused on the audience. It also requires time to develop a show, a format and an audience and not bailing after the first book."
Based on what I hear on the radio, those things you list are pretty much "outside the box".
"Most of the attempts to look outside the box have failed."
But you only mentioned bringing in celebrities from other fields as examples, plus that one bus driver.
What about the station that hired some guy from a baseball team's front office? If more stations would do like fred flintstone suggested, especially in small market stations, and would take the "time to develop a show, a format and an audience and not bailing after the first book", then maybe more good talk show hosts capable of doing good local shows in larger markets would be available.
How long did WLS give any of their political celebrity hosts to develop their shows?
And remember, I was talking about doing talk radio outside the top 50 markets. The failures in Chicago have little to do with what could work in small market stations if done properly.
Based on what I hear on the radio, those things you list are pretty much "outside the box".
"Most of the attempts to look outside the box have failed."
But you only mentioned bringing in celebrities from other fields as examples, plus that one bus driver.
What about the station that hired some guy from a baseball team's front office? If more stations would do like fred flintstone suggested, especially in small market stations, and would take the "time to develop a show, a format and an audience and not bailing after the first book", then maybe more good talk show hosts capable of doing good local shows in larger markets would be available.
How long did WLS give any of their political celebrity hosts to develop their shows?
And remember, I was talking about doing talk radio outside the top 50 markets. The failures in Chicago have little to do with what could work in small market stations if done properly.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Local-live talk radio is not financially viable in small markets.
The format is not cheap to produce, especially with good talent.
And the audience is not large enough to provide a decent base of callers.
Outside the top 50 markets, syndication is the only viable option.
Before satellite distribution and cheap long distance with good sound quality made national talk radio feasible, few stations attempted the talk format.
Many of the stations that did try it relied on "public service" type interviews (with occasional questions from the audience - sort of like NPR's "Talk of the Nation"), swap shop programs, household hint swapping programs, but nothing like modern talk radio. Often, talk stations were actually "full service" stations and continued music programs or play by play sports in some dayparts - with only part-time talk programming.
The format is not cheap to produce, especially with good talent.
And the audience is not large enough to provide a decent base of callers.
Outside the top 50 markets, syndication is the only viable option.
Before satellite distribution and cheap long distance with good sound quality made national talk radio feasible, few stations attempted the talk format.
Many of the stations that did try it relied on "public service" type interviews (with occasional questions from the audience - sort of like NPR's "Talk of the Nation"), swap shop programs, household hint swapping programs, but nothing like modern talk radio. Often, talk stations were actually "full service" stations and continued music programs or play by play sports in some dayparts - with only part-time talk programming.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"Local-live talk radio is not financially viable in small markets.
The format is not cheap to produce, especially with good talent."
How much more does a talk show host willing to work in a local market cost compared to a disc jockey willing to work in a small market? How much more do you have to pay a talk host than you have to pay a disc jockey?
"And the audience is not large enough to provide a decent base of callers."
Is there some reason why a live-and-local talk show in a smaller market has to be nothing but phone-in callers chatting? Can't a live-and-local show include interviews and other spoken word content besides just callers chatting about things?
It seems to me that authors plugging books are happy to spend time being interviewed by local talk show hosts, especially when their publishers are picking up the costs. And small town America usually has much more going on in terms of live and local entertainment like strawhat theatre and other such events with people who'd be very cooperative about doing radio interviews.
Could it be that the real reason why live-and-local talk doesn't work in small markets is that station operators in small markets are too lazy to try anything other than pushing the button on a satellite feed?
The format is not cheap to produce, especially with good talent."
How much more does a talk show host willing to work in a local market cost compared to a disc jockey willing to work in a small market? How much more do you have to pay a talk host than you have to pay a disc jockey?
"And the audience is not large enough to provide a decent base of callers."
Is there some reason why a live-and-local talk show in a smaller market has to be nothing but phone-in callers chatting? Can't a live-and-local show include interviews and other spoken word content besides just callers chatting about things?
It seems to me that authors plugging books are happy to spend time being interviewed by local talk show hosts, especially when their publishers are picking up the costs. And small town America usually has much more going on in terms of live and local entertainment like strawhat theatre and other such events with people who'd be very cooperative about doing radio interviews.
Could it be that the real reason why live-and-local talk doesn't work in small markets is that station operators in small markets are too lazy to try anything other than pushing the button on a satellite feed?
A
AKLes
Guest
Radio_Realist said:Is there some reason why a live-and-local talk show in a smaller market has to be nothing but phone-in callers chatting? Can't a live-and-local show include interviews and other spoken word content besides just callers chatting about things?
Been there, done that. A long time ago when talk radio was new. At a small local station.
Also occasionally work with a powerful station based in a remote community right up to now.
The caller base IS a major problem. This comes into focus when the small community is within easy listening range of a larger market. Potential callers from the larger market are not much on calling into shows where the primary sphere of influence is the smaller community. Especially when there are national syndicated shows on their big-town stations. A lot of it is interia; they aren't listening to partipate. They ARE listening to be entertained.
Also in the suburban markets many of the residents, likey a majority, are new to the community and identify with the larger city nearby. Though they don't vote in "Big Town", they can tell you who is mayor and how much trouble that mayor is in and the issues of that community. Unless their car is stolen from their suburban driveway they really don't care about what's going in in "Small Town" and aren't interested in hearing about it on local radio.
Notice that the "local" talkers in the big towns have an in-town larger listener base and make good use of toll-free numbers to encourage those small-towners who would like to participate to do so. Intriguing how many suburbanites jump into the fray when something controversial in "Big Town Where They Don't Live or Vote" comes down.
In the remote community, definitely too small a potential caller base to sustain anything constant. It works, and works really well, for one to two hours one day a week. But it does require a toll-free number to draw in those in smaller villages up to 200 miles away. In this kind of market, with no signals from "Big Town" (there being none), state issues ARE local issues and do draw in the more distant listeners. But again, a small base means frequent repeat callers and those breed boredom with the non-participant listeners. They might stay tuned because there's no other game around....but more likely they just turn the radio off and may not turn it back on until they want to catch some special favorite element like weather or other things that are unique to remote places...even fish reports.
Every now and again a smaller market will develop a really good talker. But, when they do, that talker isn't going to be there long. It's "off to Big Town" where the money is and the talk is more interesting.
My contention is that a small market station can afford to tackle local issues and stir the pot a portion of the time but can't make a living off exclusively that. Interviews? Nearby Big Town will get the good ones and small towns will get the folks pimping health-nut cook books.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.