1360 Format Change

[meaculpa]

Regarding Pratte4Life's comment "Don't agree with your idea that WPTT wasn't a liberal station just because they devoted some time to Ingram."
'Scuze me? What?
OK Pratte. Please consider:
1. Two left leaning talk shows during the workday, when most people can't listen to the radio, &...
2. ...a third show at night when the station powers down so its diffiicult to hear anything....
Granted that this grand total of 3 liberal shows is 3 more than anywhere else on the radio. That makes wptt an anomaly for W.Pa.
3. Laura Ingram gets ALL of the drive time, to & from work, when the radio audience is greatest.

The station ain't liberal. It offered alternatives no other station provides. But to a rigidly 'conservative' thinker, the presence of the 3 liberal shows makes the station left-leaning.

 

[Pratte4Life]

The most listened talk shows in the country are on in the middle of the workday. Limbaugh and Hannity.

I don't know what to believe. I get from one guy I shouldn't pay any attention to what radio stations do after 6 p.m. because nobody buys time after then and few listen.

I'm now told by someone else that nobody listens from 7 a.m.-6 p.m., because everyone is working then.

Two of the three programs on at that time were liberal.

Furthermore, I know for a fact the complaints of Cullen listeners to get rid of Boortz is what caused his show to be taken off after only four months.

To repeat, and straight from station management's lips, they were trying to appease their liberal base audience- Cullen's audience. To do that, they rid themselves of all their promotion and a host that had received higher ratings than Rush Limbaugh (I'm told) when he went head-to-head with him in 2004, and sabatoged any hope of a listenership in the 7-9 a.m. hours, too.

How did Ingram's presence- for a grand total of less than eight months in afternoon drive- prevent people from tuning into Cullen or Hartmann?

Our definitions of what a liberal, or, if you prefer, progressive radio station are obviously different. I think two beats one, especially when the two features the only local host on your airwaves.

I'm curious as to what your definition is.

 

[Biz Listener]

I suspect that talk show listeners regard talk formats the way music fans regard music formats. If they think a station is a classic rock station, they expect to hear classic rock on it 24/7. If talk fans think a station is a liberal talk station, they expect liberal talk 24/7.

 

[meaculpa]

Pratte: "I'm now told by someone else that nobody listens from 7 a.m.-6 p.m., because everyone is working then."
That is not what I said.
Drive time, when you have nothing to do but listen to the radio, starts early morning 6-7am and ends 8-9am, no?
The second period of drive time starts when? 3pm at the earliest, right? Most people are home btwn 5 & 7pm.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_(broadcast) and scroll down to the section "Dayparts".

As for the middle of the day, that is where it gets confusing.
No, I can't explain why Limbaugh & Hannity have their shows in the middle of the day rather than earlier. I imagine that certain talents are more profitable in those mid-morning/day slots. The Wiki says there is a longer, sustained TSL (Time Spent Listening) in this time slot. Then factor in your audience.

I cannot verify your claim that Boortz was ousted by zealous Cullen fans, you have evidence of this? I am sincerely curious to know more of the story. I've been a fan of the station for little over a year now. Can you provide a link to the Boortz story? (I will search for it myself). If true, its pretty sad comment on those listeners I would agree.

 

[Parttimer]

You know, for a market the cynics say is dying, on a station the cynics say nobody listens to changing to a format nobody supposedly wants . . .

This thread is currently No. 2 on the Radio-Info hot topics.

Because people keep arguing about it like it matters.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Well Mea, as I said before, I do have some inside knowledge because I worked there.

And when I was there I asked a few questions of the powers that be because I'm interested in talk radio formats.

You want to identify drive times to 6-7 instead of 7-6, be my guest.

But even if you want to ignore the presence of Alan Colmes because he was on late at night, if you want to identify WPTT as something other than a Progressive Talk station because of the presence of Laura Ingram and Monica Crowley on the weekend (Hot Blonde Radio?), the fact was WPTT, in its current form, was looked upon by the radio listening audience in Pittsburgh as a place where you could go to hear liberal voices.

As far as the time slots, if memory serves WPTT bounced Cullen and Hoerth around at various times. When Jerry Bowyer was there, he usually hosted the morning hours, then if memory serves Cullen came on mid-day and then Hoerth in afternoon drive.

Bowyer did afternoon drive after that through 2005. I do not remember the exact time slots of Cullen and Hoerth then.

I want to say there was a time when Hoerth was on in the morning drive you speak of and Cullen was in the afternoon drive you speak of. I think that's when they had Boortz.

But if memory serves Hoerth did everything he could to get out of the mornings- he didn't like getting up that early- so when Boortz was dropped Cullen took over his time slot and Hoerth went back to the afternoon.

 

[meaculpa]

"How did Ingram's presence- for a grand total of less than eight months in afternoon drive- prevent people from tuning into Cullen or Hartmann?"
Who said this??? Can you show me where in this thread anybody said this?

"Our definitions of what a liberal, or, if you prefer, progressive radio station are obviously different. I think two beats one, especially when the two features the only local host on your airwaves.
I'm curious as to what your definition is."

Two beats one? Ok, your math is correct, but your point is...? Are you saying that having 2 politically similar POVs back-to-back is what defines the political identity of the broadcaster?

How about the number of lib vs conservative political talk hosts? Cullen & Hartmann(daily) + (the not audible) Colmes (daily) = 3.
Conservative talk hosts: Ingram (daily), Crowly (Sunday), Gallagher (Sat & Sun 2x), Anderson (Sunday nights so not audible) = 4.

My point is people see what they want to see no matter the breakdown. I see a station that, having a successful local talker like Cullen with her audience, attempts to roll that over into another lefty show, Hartmann's, which as Ron Morris says "sells alotta soap". Then they can afford to lose that audience because now its "drive time" and the Ingram show's audience is starting to commute home and can catch the start of the show if they missed its morning drive time run. A strategy that was apparently not profitable enough.

I define it as a station trying to make a buck by mixing it up. You chose to see is a "liberal station".

 

[meaculpa]

Sorry Pratte, I posted after your last post. Hey, if you worked there then I have to say it is a disappointment that Cullen's listeners would pressure the station. Boortz isn't a hate-talk guy like Savage, the only legit reason I would mobilize to get someone off the air. I've heard him on a few occasions & he seemed okay to me. I like hearing different POVs on the economy & policy both domestic & foreign. So that is as I said a sad comment on any audience.

I do get your definition's basic point, 1360 is a refuge for the minority audience that calls itself 'liberal'. Buts seems an ironic point since I cannot think of a 'conservative' station that has a liberal talker in the morning & afternoon drive slots.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I agree with what you say, though I would argue that KDKA often has hosts that present liberal viewpoints (Chris Moore, Rob Pratte, Rick Bergman. It may be of interest to you that the local Republican Party is now gunning for Marty).

Now, I think where this conversation is leading to are a few standard arguements that are as common to talk radio as "Should the American League get rid of the DH rule?" or "Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame?" are to baseball fans.

Namely- "Why aren't there more liberal talk shows?" or "Can liberal talk make it?"

To the latter, I say sure! Heck, if Jim's stat is correct NPR has 11 million listeners. That is comparable to the audience for Limbaugh and Hannity and more than Michael Savage, who I believe is the third-most listened to talk show in the country.

Twenty years ago WTAE had a great talk lineup that was hardly right-leaning. Cullen did mornings, Larry King was on overnight, Hoerth may have been more conservative politically than those two but was hardly a Limbaugh type and his show dealt more with talking about how great Martin Scorcese pictures were (which is hardly something you'd hear from a nationally syndicated right wing talk show host), and Phil Musick was usually sympathetic to the completely Democrat city politicians.

To take it further, though Myron Cope was more of a political conservative, Bruce Keidan, wasn't, and Stan Savran considered running for Congress as a Democrat recently. So if you believe that political issues are advanced through sports (and they often are- witness Title IX, tobacco advertising in NASCAR, Ole Miss fans waving Confederate Flags, the "Redskins" nickname, Jackie Robinson breaking segregation barriers, etc.), then 11 of the 15 sports talk hours were hosted by left-leaning hosts.

In many ways, I think the sadness for Cullen's demise is this really does represent the end of that great lineup, which amazingly lived on with Cullen and Hoerth on WPTT for nearly a decade after it was deemed no longer profitable at 400 Ardmore Blvd.

Either that, or a percentage of our left-leaning posters simply can't understand why there hasn't been a nationally prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio since Larry King was on overnight.

 

[Biz Listener]

Either that, or a percentage of our left-leaning posters simply can't understand why there hasn't been a nationally prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio since Larry King was on overnight.

Maybe people who vote liberal don't like to listen to talk radio. Maybe people who vote liberal would rather listen to music.

 

[pocket-radio]

Why pay a $30,000.00 salary for a well know local talk show brand when
The business network is just about free compared to what he was paying previously.

From past experience, Renda care’s nothing about his people or community. People are simple pawns to be used and taken advantage of in his mad dash for the cash. He only cares about making more money and making his little ego bigger. The little general believes his own bull.

Renda Broadcasting is famous for over paying for weak signals and bringing back one tried failed formats. A real radio genius. What's next oldies?

Dumping people from the payroll to favor cost nothing syndicated programs are red flags and signs Renda Broadcasting is struggling. Life can’t be good in Rendaville.

Renda Broadcasting is excited to go all business. Translation by cutting more people from the payroll (their most important assests) Tony makes more money.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Sorry to hear about this. I enjoyed Ms Cullen and Mr Hoerth while passing through Pittsburgh a few years ago and actually thought it would be nice to have a station like WPTT where I lived.

Might as well turn it off, Business Talk Radio is a sure sign they have given up on the station. Please Renda just turn it off or sell it to someone who wants to do radio. The Internet or podcasts are much better at business talk.

Business Talk Radio=zzzzz

 

[Pratte4Life]

Either that, or a percentage of our left-leaning posters simply can't understand why there hasn't been a nationally prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio since Larry King was on overnight.

Maybe people who vote liberal don't like to listen to talk radio. Maybe people who vote liberal would rather listen to music.

Maybe Biz!

I have my theories, but is there any definitive answer?

 

[argentarius]

Either that, or a percentage of our left-leaning posters simply can't understand why there hasn't been a nationally prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio since Larry King was on overnight.


Alan Colmes is on several hundred stations nationally. Would he not meet your qualifications for a "national prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio"? What about Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes. Neither are on in Pittsburgh, but both are exteremely well known and prominent nationally, are they not?

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

For all their success within the sub-format, the liberal talk hosts are not on the same playing field affiliate-count wise.

Ed Schultz is on around 100 affiliates and change. I don't know how many stations Alan Colmes is on, but many listeners to "liberal talk" stations don't consider him even in the format due to his FOX News affiliation. Randi's on about 40 stations these days via Nova M, and that could be a high count.

Even Stephanie Miller, one of my favorite hosts on that side of the ledger, is on about 50 or 60 stations.

Meanwhile, in the conservative talk arena, Rush broke 600 stations long ago. Hannity's on a few hundred, and even Ms. Ingraham is probably well into a 3-digit affiliate count. (I'm pulling this out of my head, so all of these numbers could be wrong.) Michael Savage is also in that firmament, and Mark Levin is getting there if he's not already.

The core difference, of course, is that very few of the liberal hosts get cleared on stations generally running conservative shows. Alan Colmes picks up more of those stations than he does "liberal talk" stations, due to his affiliation with FNC and his late night time slot.

In general, though, the "liberal hosts" rarely clear on "non-liberal talk" stations, and those numbers (of "liberal talk"-only stations) have been dwindling. Ms. Miller has a couple or three of those out of format clearances, and Big Eddie has probably about a dozen in his list. Randi has one, her past and now-current again home base of WJNO/1290 (which also carries Ed after her from 7-10 PM). It's the only station in her list that precedes her afternoon drive show with Rush!

 

[talkjim]

OMW you are a highly accurate observer and reporter on media in general and talkradio in particular, but the fact is that WJNO as of several months ago is no longer clearing Ed Schultz evenings--they are carrying a delayed feed of Hannity. Sorry to see Ed go in West Palm but that's the reality.

 

[Biz Listener]

Either that, or a percentage of our left-leaning posters simply can't understand why there hasn't been a nationally prominent liberal talk show host on commercial radio since Larry King was on overnight.

Maybe people who vote liberal don't like to listen to talk radio. Maybe people who vote liberal would rather listen to music.

Maybe Biz!

I have my theories, but is there any definitive answer?

I am convinced that there is no definitive answer. I am convinced that no one inside or outside radio knows for sure. Noboby knows why overall, liberal news/talk stations don't perform to expectations. Sure, there are the isolated hosts here and there who do OK. There are a handful of markets where a liberal news/talk station pulls numbers similar to conservative news/talk stations.

But if all the theories about lack of clearances or weak sticks or whatever held any water, by now someone in the higher strata of radio management would have figured out how to work around those things and bring liberal news/talk radio to some sort of parity with conservative news/talk. But, with well over a decade of trying, that still hasn't happened.

So that hints to me that there must be some deeper reason why liberal news/talk doesn't fly. I know that more people like rock music than like polkas, which is why rock stations get better ratings that polka stations. So I propose the theory that people who vote liberal tend to not want to listen to talk radio, even if it's liberal talk.

I can't prove that it's right. No one else can prove that it's wrong. It doesn't need to be proven right or wrong. It doesn't really matter if that theory is right or wrong. The ratings results for liberal news/talk stations over the past ten years or more are what you'd expect if the theory was correct. So, for the sake of idle chat in an internet forum, that theory holds enough water that it should at least be considered as possible.

I've never seen any other explanation that makes more sense than that one does. Given the number of rich and powerful people in the world who want to see liberal talk radio catch on, if any of the other theories wwere true (hosts are good enoug, not enough exposure, needs more advertising, whatever), then someone like George Soros would have thrown enough money at those problems to make them go away.

 

[Parttimer]

Conservative talk didn't really exist until Limbaugh succeeded out of left field. Once that worked, they had a formula to follow and it has worked for others as well.

There are no such success stories for lib talk, so there's no road map to follow. Until someone breaks through with the right mix of personality and content we'll have to assume that the content is the issue.

Or maybe no one who took the liberal agenda was all that good. You still have to be entertaining. I mean, Randi Rhodes is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Same goes for Lynn Cullen.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

OMW you are a highly accurate observer and reporter on media in general and talkradio in particular, but the fact is that WJNO as of several months ago is no longer clearing Ed Schultz evenings--they are carrying a delayed feed of Hannity. Sorry to see Ed go in West Palm but that's the reality.

Thanks for the update! I wasn't aware Big Eddie had been spiked in West Palm.

 

[Biz Listener]

There are no such success stories for lib talk, so there's no road map to follow. Until someone breaks through with the right mix of personality and content we'll have to assume that the content is the issue.

Or maybe no one who took the liberal agenda was all that good. You still have to be entertaining. I mean, Randi Rhodes is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Same goes for Lynn Cullen.

I'm reminded that one of the conservative descriptions of liberalism includes the principle that liberals will never admit that something just plain won't work. It's always because it wasn't the right this, or wasn't the right that, or it wasn't tried long enough, or not enough money was thrown at the problem.

Broadcasters have been trying to replicate the success of conservative news/talk with liberal news/talk since back when Clinton was President. It isn't so much an issue of liberal politicians wanting a voice, it's that if conservative news/talk stations make a big pile of money, getting liberal news/talk stations to do as well would generate a second big pile of money. If, after over a decade of trying and failing, isn't it time to just accept that liberal news/talk just ain't gonna fly? And then they can move on to searching for some other format that will work on the inferior sound quality of the AM band?