10 WAYS SYNDICATION SET TALK RADIO BACK 20 YEARS

[jas2525]

First of all, they aren't doing as well as they did when the station WAS all local.

When was that? Not anytime in the last 20 years. They've run Rush and Hannity for years. I'd suggest a lot has changed in the overall radio marketplace since then.

WABC has NOT done better while all syndicated than they did all local. That is a FACT. And YES, it's been a long time since they've been all local, but they didn't change because local didn't work. You're implying that if they were all local now, they wouldn't do as well ---because the market is different. Nonsense. If there is ANY station in the country that is hurt by not being local, it's THAT one.

What you need , is a PD who has
A) Intuition, and
B) Balls

Current PD has neither. Last PD had no balls. One before that had both...and it showed in the numbers.

 

[TheBigA]

YES, it's been a long time since they've been all local,

Yes I know. That's what I said. But to say they aren't doing as well now as when the station was all local ignores the MANY YEARS in between when the station did very well with Rush and Hannity. This was a highly rated station for a long time, and Rush helped make them achieve that.

they didn't change because local didn't work.

Let me explain something: "Local" isn't a host. They changed because the hosts they had didn't work. Regardless of local or otherwise. And because they could get a heritage NY talent, who had been highly rated at a competitor, who happened to be syndicated. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Curtis & Kuby has run their course, and it was time for a change.

You're implying that if they were all local now, they wouldn't do as well ---because the market is different. Nonsense. If there is ANY station in the country that is hurt by not being local, it's THAT one.

I’m not implying anything. I’m saying the station simply cannot afford to be all local. They can’t hire the caliber of talent it would take that would beat syndication. Or they could hire a bunch of no-name newbies. But if they want to hire top name talent, someone who the public knows, who comes with a fan base, it will take more money than a local show in NYC can afford. Plus that local host will want to be syndicated beyond NYC. That’s simply the reality of dealing with top talent in 2011. It doesn't matter who the PD is. It doesn't matter if it's local or syndicated. What matters is WHO the talent is, and what they do. And right now, the reality is that in NY, it costs too much to run a 100% local AM talk station.

 

[TheBigA]

KGO SF and WGN Chicago are 100% local and usually lead the ratings in their markets. KFI LA, KIRO-FM Seattle and KTAR Phoenix are at least 50% local and do well. WPHT Philadelphia dropped Beck and Hannity to focus on more local programming.

All that's great, but for the past ten years I've been hearing that New York is different. New York ISN'T like Chicago or Philly. I've worked in New York, and I've watched as formats that were big in other cities die in the Big Apple. I watched talent that did well in Chicago or Miami get killed in New York. There are lots of reasons why the stations you name are successes, and a lot of it is heritage. They keep doing the same thing with the same hosts for 30 years, and they deliver the same results. WABC doesn't have that advantage. If they were to blow up Imus or someone else, the new host would be starting from scratch. That's not easy. Scratch doesn't work in New York. You need some kind of introduction. People need to trust you before they listen to you. Who could WABC hire that has that kind of trust? And would that person do a local show for local money. Those are the questions you need to answer. All the rest of it is just hooey. Rudy Guiliani wouldn't do it. I know because he was asked. He said no. That's a big no. So who's second string to Rudy?

 

[TheBigA]

If local talk programming can thrive in small and medium markets, there is no reason it can't do likewise in New York. WABC and WOR are ratings also-rans because they aren't talking to their market. CBS' three AMs (WFAN, WCBS & WINS) are profitable because they present news and sports programming that matter to the NY market.

And that's a good reason why a local talk station would have an uphill battle in NYC. Small and medium markets don't have WCBS and WFAN. So they can put crap on and it'll win. WFAN basically takes the place of a local talk station because it reaches basically the same demographic, and is far more entertaining than politics. So if WABC was going to attempt to do local talk, it would have to be better than WFAN.

So my question to you is who do you hire? What's your all star line-up, and can you do it with a $2 million talent budget? I don't think you can.

 

[jas2525]

They changed because the hosts they had didn't work. Regardless of local or otherwise. And because they could get a heritage NY talent, who had been highly rated at a competitor, who happened to be syndicated. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Curtis & Kuby has run their course, and it was time for a change.

WABC has been in the same ratings range for a very long time. They basically did the same with the hosts you claim "didn't work". What changed WABC were 2 things: First, a decision to take the station decidedly more conservative, even though a combination of interesting personalities (regardless of political persuation) did better than the station has done since), and also, as I said earlier, a decision to save money by adding syndication.

And as far as needing to start from scratch with lowly unknowns: You mean like Rush Limbaugh out of KFBK/Sacramento and Sean Hannity out of WGST/Atlanta?

By the way, Curtis & Kuby had better 25-54s than Imus.

A once great station that reflected NYC, now sounds like it could just as easily be licensed to Jasper, Wyoming.

Sad.

 

[TheBigA]

First, a decision to take the station decidedly more conservative, even though a combination of interesting personalities (regardless of political persuation) did better than the sation has done since), and also, as I said earlier, a decision to save money by adding syndication.

I'm not a defender of conservative hosts, so I'll leave that comment alone. Regarding the decision to save money, need I remind you the company that bought this station went through bankruptcy? You understand what that means with regards to the need to save money?

And as far as needing to start from scratch with lowly unknowns: You mean like Rush Limbaugh out of KFBK/Sacramento and Sean Hannity out of WGST/Atlanta?

Name a new talk host who has succeeded to their degree in the last few years. As I said earlier, the marketplace changed sinmce Rush & Hannity came on the scene. I don't know if either would have done as well if they started today.

It was once a great station when it played Top 40 hits. That time is gone too. I'd expand it to say the time for this station to grow and improve in the ratings, regardless of the location of the hosts, has passed. Going 100% local with the caliber of hosts their budget allows will not improve the stations numbers to the degree needed to improve revenues. That's why it hasn't happened.

 

[radioguy39nj]

If local talk programming can thrive in small and medium markets, there is no reason it can't do likewise in New York. WABC and WOR are ratings also-rans because they aren't talking to their market. CBS' three AMs (WFAN, WCBS & WINS) are profitable because they present news and sports programming that matter to the NY market.

And that's a good reason why a local talk station would have an uphill battle in NYC. Small and medium markets don't have WCBS and WFAN. So they can put crap on and it'll win. WFAN basically takes the place of a local talk station because it reaches basically the same demographic, and is far more entertaining than politics. So if WABC was going to attempt to do local talk, it would have to be better than WFAN.

Chicago, Seattle, SF and Philly have all-news stations. All except Seattle have strong, locally oriented sports stations. All those markets have strong local talk programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Chicago, Seattle, SF and Philly have all-news stations. All except Seattle have strong, locally oriented sports stations. All those markets have strong local talk programming.

All those markets have ESTABLISHED local talk. This station would be basically starting from scratch.

I'll ask it again: Who would you hire? What is your all-star local talk line-up that could compete with existing local AM product and attract larger audiences than they currently get for a minimum budget?

 

[TheBigA]

Let's talk about Philly for a moment. WPHT dropped syndication for more local talk. How's that working out? WPHT has a 2.2 share. WABC has a 3.6 share. Actually, WABC is doing pretty good considering all the comments here about their ratings. They're beating WFAN in 12+. The bad news is WABC's demos are older. They're just a tenth of a point behind WCBS and WINS, making them the #3 AM station in town. And I'm sure their costs are much much lower than those other stations. Their numbers aren't that bad. What kind of increase would be gained by 100% local talk? How would that help the aging demo problem? That's the real problem.

 

[jas2525]

Let's talk about Philly for a moment. WPHT dropped syndication for more local talk. How's that working out? WPHT has a 2.2 share. WABC has a 3.6 share.

Well that's a little misleading, I'm sure Unintentionally.

First of all, WPHT dropped the syndicated shows mentioned in the past 6-8 months. You know very well that changes, particularly in talk, don't show immediately. Second, WPHT's ratings are usually in that range! And WPHT DOES NOT have a rep for heritage talk. Comparing their recent numbers with newly dropped syndie shows to the much more established talker WABC is unfair.

Also, before WABC took a hard right turn in the late 90s, they had at one point a 5.8 share, good for 2nd in the market behind WLTW. They haven't come close to numbers like that since. You still wanna tout that stellar 3.6 of syndie righties round-the-clock?

The station wasn't change because the market demanded it, they changed to save money AND to suit the philosophical likes of then-PD Phil Boyce. Sorry if that sounds ridiculous, but that's what happened.

 

[TheBigA]

Comparing their recent numbers with newly dropped syndie shows to the much more established talker WABC is unfair.

If you're talking about blowing up WABC to become more like WPHT, then that's probably going to be the result, at least for the short term. The question is how long does a station stay with something new that's getting a 2 share? Citadel only owns 2 stations in NYC. CBS can afford to wait longer. By the way, WPHT has been the primary talker in Philly since WWDB flipped formats. So they have quite a bit of heritage in this format.

But the bigger picture here when you compare the 90s with today is the overall aging and declining ratings of the AM band. There is no escape to that. So my point is that any changes in a station won't play well with the aging demo, and simply making the station all local won't guarantee the ratings will return to where they were in the 90s, because those people have aged and some have even died. The past is done. We can't replicate the 90s again. We can only deal with current market and radio realities, which are different from where radio was 20 years ago. So you're suggesting blowing up a station that's getting great ratings for an AM in NY, to bring in unknown and more expensive local talent who won't be able to improve ratings or revenue. What's the point of doing that?

 

[radioguy39nj]

In many markets, talk stations have either completely migrated to FM or are simulcasting their talk format on AM and FM. Most of those migrants have seen increases in ratings as well as younger demos. The fact that NY has 50 kW AM blasters that get out far doesn't change the fact that AM demos are too old. Sports stations have done likewise. All news is on FM in DC and SF and both are #1 in their markets.

BTW, I'm not saying a NY talk station has to go 100% local. I'm thinking 50-75% local. Overnight syndication (10 PM - 6 AM) is fine. FM is a must. I agree, it won't work on AM regardless of the talent.

The stations I mentioned in earlier posts are established, but they have had on-air turnover. Listeners in those markets are hearing some voices they aren't familiar with.

Only one station in every market can have Limbaugh and Hannity on its airwaves. The NY market isn't a hotbed for conservative talk, but WABC wins because it doesn't have any viable competition. IMHO, you don't need an all-star lineup to impact WABC. You need knowledgeable, entertaining and informative hosts who know about New York and the greater tri-state area.

 

[TheBigA]

IMHO, you don't need an all-star lineup to impact WABC. You need knowledgeable, entertaining and informative hosts who know about New York and the greater tri-state area.

Like who? We keep speaking in generalities. Who can attract more than a 3.6 share in NYC?

 

[jas2525]

Comparing their recent numbers with newly dropped syndie shows to the much more established talker WABC is unfair.

If you're talking about blowing up WABC to become more like WPHT, then that's probably going to be the result, at least for the short term. The question is how long does a station stay with something new that's getting a 2 share? Citadel only owns 2 stations in NYC. CBS can afford to wait longer. By the way, WPHT has been the primary talker in Philly since WWDB flipped formats. So they have quite a bit of heritage in this format.

Where did I say "blow up" WABC? Where did I say make it more like WPHT? Two absurd statements that I didn't (and wouldn't) make.

I don't think having SOME actual local emphasis would do anything but help WABC. Call me crazy...but how about, ummmm, I don't know...AM & PM Drive? At least?

And pinning the 2.2 of WPHT on their latest changes is ridiculous and you know it.

Speaking of WPHT: Heritage? Really? WWDB changed formats in Nov. 2000. So ten years is now considered enough time to establish yourself (WPHT) as a "heritage" station? Nonsense. That station has never gotten more than a 2 or 3 share.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't think having SOME actual local emphasis would do anything but help WABC. Call me crazy...but how about, ummmm, I don't know...AM & PM Drive? At least?

Fine. Who would you hire who would get better numbers than Imus or Hannity? Who would be satisfied with local money with no promise of syndication? Give me a credible name.

Putting a warm local body in a chair won't necessarily attract ratings or sponsors. That's what radio is all about. Give me names.

 

[radioguy39nj]

I don't think having SOME actual local emphasis would do anything but help WABC. Call me crazy...but how about, ummmm, I don't know...AM & PM Drive? At least?

Fine. Who would you hire who would get better numbers than Imus or Hannity? Who would be satisfied with local money with no promise of syndication? Give me a credible name.

Putting a warm local body in a chair won't necessarily attract ratings or sponsors. That's what radio is all about. Give me names.

Malzberg on WOR beats Hannity in PM Drive. He's not 100% local, but he's on far fewer stations than Hannity. This allows Malzberg to be a bit more "local" since he doesn't have to tailor himself for an audience in middle America.

 

[TheBigA]

Malzberg on WOR beats Hannity in PM Drive. He's not 100% local, but he's on far fewer stations than Hannity. This allows Malzberg to be a bit more "local" since he doesn't have to tailor himself for an audience in middle America.

Malzberg is under contract to WOR. They aren't giving him up. Who could WABC hire that would beat him? For less money than Hannity?

The other side of the coin is WABC gives up Hannity, and they will have to compete against him AND Malzberg.

 

[jas2525]

The other side of the coin is WABC gives up Hannity, and they will have to compete against him AND Malzberg.

Uh, where exactly is Hannity going to go to air against who WABC would hire and WOR? The Apple? lol

Even there was a viable third station for him in PM drive, if Hannity isn't on after Rush, he's nothing.

You really think the Hannity show is THAT compelling that WABC couldn't possibly find someone capable of drawing more people by focusing much more on NYC?

I'd listen to a 100 yr old Bob Grant before Hannity. Hannity is boring and not local.

 

[TheBigA]

Uh, where exactly is Hannity going to go to air against who WABC would hire and WOR? The Apple? lol

He isn't going anywhere. Because there is no one WABC could hire that would do better for less.

 

[jas2525]

Uh, where exactly is Hannity going to go to air against who WABC would hire and WOR? The Apple? lol

He isn't going anywhere. Because there is no one WABC could hire that would do better for less.

Bob Grant at EIGHTY would do better locally than Hannity is doing now. Guaranteed.