1360 Format Change

[talkjim]

"Conservative talk didn't really exist until Limbaugh succeeded out of left field."

Baloney. One of the most frequently-repeated talkradio myths. And while I am not accusing this particular poster, this myth is often used by those opposed to re-introducing the fairness doctrine...which they falsely claim prevented any conservative talk. The name Joe Pyne ring a bell? He was a rather large right-wing presence in both American TV and radio in the 60's. He even had a nationally syndicated radio show--however in those days, it was of course not satellite-fed. Bob Grant was big on several New York stations prior to Limbaugh. There are numerous other examples.

"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."

Those "fingernails on a chalkboard" were good for a win in men 25-54, ARB, AQH over Sean Hannity in the fall of 2005, when Randi was on WLIB, a city-grade signal in New York, but far less established than WABC, which carries Hannity. She also had far less outside promotion, didn't have a nightly TV show on which to promote the radio show, and had a weaker lead-in than Hannity.

She might well have continued to beat the highly-predictable and redundant Hannity, but we'll never know because of course Air America left WLIB for the weaker-signaled WWRL. There are numerous other progressive talk success stories that I have documented on these boards time and again.

In spite of your inclination to be dismissive, Lynn Cullen has been a revenue-generating presence in Pittsburgh talkradio for twenty years--first at the old WTAE, and more recently at WPTT, where the station manager is on record as saying that if he had more hosts who performed as well as she, the station wouldn't be changing format. How many people get a compliment like that in major markets these days?

I say again--there is an institutional bias against progressive talk in the modern commercial radio industry. There is an unwillingness to take a chance on it--even in markets in which it's a natural. Admittedly, part of the reason is the sub-standard performance of the first incarnation of Air America--by the way Randi was certainly a notable exception to that characterization--she performed very well from the beginning.

The great negative irony confronting progressive talk is that even though the format has had four years to grow, improve and develop on a national basis, it is still judged largely on the basis of Air America's mistakes of four years ago. Isn't it about time to turn the page?

 

[Inventor989]

Lynn Cullen is a nice person, knows Pittsburgh, and her shows were more than just "progressive talk". (I used to see her in the halls at WTAE back in the day.) I'm sure she will find another outlet for her talents. To compare her with the vulgar Randi Rhodes and the rest of the Air America/MoveOn.org/Daily Kos Marxist rabble just because she has a liberal bias is demeaning to her.

As for bemoaning the "institutional bias" of the industry, now that's baloney. What about the former KGW in Portland (5kw ND at 620)? What about 1530 in Cincinnati (50kw)? Not exactly WPTT, eh? Portland worked. Cincinnati didn't. Portland is still on the air, Cincinnati is gone. And rightly so.

Progresive talk works in those towns that have a population that is drawn to it. Once you leave the coasts and come to "flyover country", there aren't enough ultra-left elitist morons in these places to support it. Not even in Cleveland or Akron, where there's Democrat control. Simple as that.

I grew up in the belly of the liberal beast, New York City. I'm old enough to remember Joe Pyne and Alan Burke. And I remember that they were nowhere to be heard on New York radio in the 60s. I knew of them from their syndicated TV shows that cleared on Metromedia's WNEW-TV (after 10pm as I recall). Radio was, indeed, missing conservative voices during those "fairness doctrine" years, at least in NYC. The only conservative I remember is Barry Farber, and he kept his conservative views way under the radar in those days. Not until Bob Grant did anyone deliver anything like a conservative viewpoint on NY radio.

"Didn't really exist" may be an overstatement, but Limbaugh kicked down the walls of the liberal media ivory tower, and he revived AM radio in the process. Like it or not, that's a "fact of reality", as Michael Savage would say.

When someone comes along with the talent to entertain and inform as Limbaugh does, maybe liberals will break down the "institutional bias" against liberal talk. Unfortunately for liberals, this is still a capitalist country. Radio stations are businesses. Money talks. Success talks louder. That sounds more like survival than "institutional bias" to me.

 

[jbo]

Can't believe a blue city in a blue state won't have a single progressive voice in an election year.

Anyone who thinks radio is about the politics instead of the show doesn't get it.

 

[jbo]

Progresive talk works in those towns that have a population that is drawn to it. Once you leave the coasts and come to "flyover country", there aren't enough ultra-left elitist morons in these places to support it. Not even in Cleveland or Akron, where there's Democrat control. Simple as that.

Anyone who thinks radio is about the politics instead of the show doesn't get it.

 

[talkjim]

Inventor, you and I know each other well, and you know that I have great respect for your highly-evolved radio intuition--you are truly one of the great Zen masters of this business. But a response is nonetheless in order:

First of all, thanks for joining in on the kudos for Lynn Cullen. We all should be doing a ton of that these days at this moment of transition in Lynn's career--which I fully expect will continue. Lynn and I both filled in twenty years ago at WTAE--she was hired fulltime, and I would never say that it was anything but the wisest decision--Lynn would do well anywhere, and especially in Pittsburgh. As I pointed out above, she's also generated revenue in this market for twenty years, so if she isn't re-hired somewhere, might it be another example of the institutional bias against progressive talk? It does happen.

By the way, although she does a far different style than Lynn, I also have high regard for Randi Rhodes. I will again point out that in the fall 2005 New York ARB, Randi topped Hannity in 25-54 men. I admittedly delight in mentioning this fact as often as I can, because it blows the theories of all kinds of self-styled experts who tout the natural supremacy of conservative talkradio. Randi's also nothing close to a Marxist, and I say again Inventor--you need to get away from that kind of labeling--it's false, it does nothing to foster a substantive discussion and it obscures the valid points that you do in fact make.

Inventor, you make my point when you bring up 620 in Portland, because it took until the year 2004, after 15 years of a conservative monopoly in Portland talkradio, for KPOJ to be signed on, and did it ever very quickly turn that market on its head. Today, KPOJ is the only one of four commercial talkers in Portland to be Top 10, 25-54. During those 15 years, there were often as many as four stations simultaneously airing conservative talk, when it was clear that there was a demand for something else--and that's where the "institutional bias" that I refer to came into play, and Portland is far from being the only example. Another textbook case example is underway at the moment in Albany, New York, where there are three AM stations having a daily contest to see who can lean furthest to the right, and only one has any semblance of ratings--all this in a market where progressive talk has scored big ratings in the past, and where conservative talk shows have traditionally scored below national averages--it's a natural progressive market, but don't try to tell that to radio executives there. I call it "institutional bias".

Yes, Inventor, this is a capitalist country. But that's not the same as saying that it's always a country in which executives make strategic decisions--especially radio executives. Cultural and lifestyle issues, and yes, even politics, to the exclusion of financial reward, sometimes drive executive-level decision making in radio and other busineses as well. I've heard you at times rant very eloquently about the "monkey-see, monkey-do" mentality that permeates this business, and there is no shortage of monkey cages in the news/talk community--easily enough for at least one zoo.

 

[Parttimer]

"Conservative talk didn't really exist until Limbaugh succeeded out of left field."

Baloney. One of the most frequently-repeated talkradio myths. And while I am not accusing this particular poster, this myth is often used by those opposed to re-introducing the fairness doctrine...which they falsely claim prevented any conservative talk. The name Joe Pyne ring a bell? He was a rather large right-wing presence in both American TV and radio in the 60's. He even had a nationally syndicated radio show--however in those days, it was of course not satellite-fed. Bob Grant was big on several New York stations prior to Limbaugh. There are numerous other examples.

Actually I'm just not old enough to remember Joe Pyne. No other agenda.

 

[talkjim]

Sorry to take up still more space--I should probably be paying rent here. But let me briefly mention progressive talk's latest success story, and while it doesn't involve Pittsburgh, it might give inspiration to someone here.

The very industrious and creative Nicole Sandler, morning hostess/producer at CC's WINZ/Miami, in the newly-issued spring ARB, has topped sister news/conservative talk WIOD in men, 25-54. Before someone else points it out, I concede that the numbers for neither station are huge--I know firsthand that it's no understatement to say that Miami is the toughest major market for all radio and perhaps especially for news/talk: a huge number of stations in a place where many people try to make a life out of avoiding the things that are talked about on news/talk stations. Only about half of the market speaks English these days, and Miami's AM stations are jammed from Cuba (in fairness we jam them too).

All that being said, Nicole has achieved a milestone, and I take pleasure in noting it here.

 

[FreddyE1977]

"Conservative talk didn't really exist until Limbaugh succeeded out of left field."

Wouldn't he have come out of right field? ???

 

[Biz Listener]

Regarding Lynn Cullen, when she was in her prime, she was quite good. The last times I heard her, she was a shadow of her former self. She is, sadly, past her sell-by date. It happens.

As for there being conservative talk shows before Limbaugh, that is true enough. There were. But Rush turned conservative talk from a hold-over from the olden days of radio into a whole new format that a station could profit from all day long. Rush made news/talk into a viable alternative to CHR, MOYL, or any of those other music format acronyms. That's an important pioneering move in broadcasting.

Rush Limbaugh is to news/talk radio what Alan Freed or Porky Chedwick were to music format radio. There were "imaginary ballroom" programs of DJ's playing records way back in the 1920's. But the pioneers of Top 40 radio brought about a major change in the way record programs worked. Rush did the same thing for news/talk.

As for the "success" of liberal talk/radio, there's not a type of programming that can't find a niche audience somewhere. There's not a program or host out there that might not strike paydirt in a market here or there. Isolated examples of success here and there which are totally atypical do not refute the obvious fact that liberal news/talk radio has not, and will not, ever enjoy the nationwide, mass-market success that conservative news/talk radio has achieved. One or two liberal hosts enjoying success in a handful of cities is like saying that "The Prairie Home Companion" proves that old-style radio variety shows are the big new trend for the future.

And calling liberal news/talk "progressive" doesn't change anything. If conservative news/talk stations would try to adopt a new name to replace "conservative", it would just as damn-fool stupid as trying to change the word "liberal" to "progressive". Please, spare us the blather. If you're a liberal and are ashamed to call yourself by that term, then just shut up. Changing the name of liberal news/talk isn't going to work any better than getting different hosts or more stations or anything else. There just aren't enough people out there who want to listen to liberal news/talk. Accept it.

 

[talkjim]

First of all, Biz Listener, let's lay an obvious fact on the table. You don't like progressive talk, you don't like progressive hosts, you are not progressive and you don't want progressive talk to succeed. Fair enough--you are entitled to all of those points of view. But let's be clear--you do come into the discussion with a bias. So do I, but I'm careful in all my posts to cite particular examples and a lot of ratings data.

And yes, I do refer to myself and the format as "progressive"--to me it's a much more descriptive term than "liberal". I never really understood the meaning of that term. The word "conservative" is often used in non-political terms and so is "progressive"--guess that's why I like it. And I don't mean to get your boxers in a bunch, Biz Listener, but I am going to continue to use "progressive" rather than "liberal" even if you don't like it.

"Isolated examples of success here and there which are totally atypical do not refute the obvious fact that liberal news/talk radio has not, and will not, ever enjoy the nationwide, mass-market success that conservative news/talk radio has achieved."

Four and a half years ago, when there were virtually no nationally distributed progressive shows, people like Biz Listener told me that such shows "would not work...period". When Randi Rhodes beat Sean Hannity in men 25-54, in the fall 2005 New York ARB, I was frequently told that it was an "anamoly"--usually after the traditional talk types tried to tell me that it didn't happen. Now when I mention documented, verifiable progressive talk success stories in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Palm Beach, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Albany, Fargo and elsewhere, I am told that these are "isolated examples". In other words from "will not work" to "anamoly" to "isolated examples" in less than five years....about the same length of time it took the Fox News Channel to turn a profit. And many of these successes have occurred on stations with limited signals, very little in the way of promotion, and a notable absence of support services--news, traffic and weather--all of which are found in spades on numerous large conservative talk stations. But nonetheless, progress is being made, kids.

And even though Biz Listener and others like him find it upsetting, I'm going to say again that in very few markets has progressive talk been given a fair test. That means a competitive city-grade signal, decent support services, and at least one well-produced local show each weekday.

We also haven't even begun to talk about the forecast for the future of talkradio--I have yet to hear anyone forecast growth for conservative talk in an ever-more diverse American culture. But that is fodder for another discussion.

 

[Biz Listener]

First of all, Biz Listener, let's lay an obvious fact on the table. You don't like progressive talk, you don't like progressive hosts, you are not progressive and you don't want progressive talk to succeed. Fair enough--you are entitled to all of those points of view. But let's be clear--you do come into the discussion with a bias. So do I, but I'm careful in all my posts to cite particular examples and a lot of ratings data.

No, I don't like liberal news/talk radio. I'm not real fond of conservative news/talk radio either.

And yes, I do refer to myself and the format as "progressive"--to me it's a much more descriptive term than "liberal". I never really understood the meaning of that term. The word "conservative" is often used in non-political terms and so is "progressive"--guess that's why I like it. And I don't mean to get your boxers in a bunch, Biz Listener, but I am going to continue to use "progressive" rather than "liberal" even if you don't like it.

OK, suit yourself. But while you're at it, please start referring to conservatives as "patriots". It's a more descriptive term, and patriots prefer it.

"Isolated examples of success here and there which are totally atypical do not refute the obvious fact that liberal news/talk radio has not, and will not, ever enjoy the nationwide, mass-market success that conservative news/talk radio has achieved."

Four and a half years ago, when there were virtually no nationally distributed progressive shows, people like Biz Listener told me that such shows "would not work...period". When Randi Rhodes beat Sean Hannity in men 25-54, in the fall 2005 New York ARB, I was frequently told that it was an "anamoly"--usually after the traditional talk types tried to tell me that it didn't happen. Now when I mention documented, verifiable progressive talk success stories in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Palm Beach, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Albany, Fargo and elsewhere, I am told that these are "isolated examples". In other words from "will not work" to "anamoly" to "isolated examples" in less than five years....about the same length of time it took the Fox News Channel to turn a profit. And many of these successes have occurred on stations with limited signals, very little in the way of promotion, and a notable absence of support services--news, traffic and weather--all of which are found in spades on numerous large conservative talk stations. But nonetheless, progress is being made, kids.

And even though Biz Listener and others like him find it upsetting, I'm going to say again that in very few markets has progressive talk been given a fair test. That means a competitive city-grade signal, decent support services, and at least one well-produced local show each weekday.

We also haven't even begun to talk about the forecast for the future of talkradio--I have yet to hear anyone forecast growth for conservative talk in an ever-more diverse American culture. But that is fodder for another discussion.

Tell ya what, when you can drive from New York to LA and always be able to pick up nationally syndicated liberal news/talk stations the whole way, then liberal news/talk has arrived. But don't hold your breath.

As for the future of patriotic news/talk radio, it has about hit saturation. I don't see it ever being real popular with illegal aliens. But then, give that broadcast radio is about on its last legs, the future doesn't look bright for any radio format.

 

[Parttimer]

And even though Biz Listener and others like him find it upsetting, I'm going to say again that in very few markets has progressive talk been given a fair test. That means a competitive city-grade signal, decent support services, and at least one well-produced local show each weekday.

And why would you gamble the well-being of a good facility on a format with such a poor track record? That gets managers fired.

 

[talkjim]

"OK, suit yourself. But while you're at it, please start referring to conservatives as "patriots". It's a more descriptive term, and patriots prefer it."

It's an interesting idea, Biz, but the problem is that we have a conflict here: a patriot by definition is someone who loyally supports his own country, and the main item on the conservative talk show agenda in recent years has been support for the war in Iraq, which in the eyes of most Americans, and our allies abroad, has weakened our position in the war on terror by inspiring more terrorism and diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan, which after all, is the nation that attacked us on 9-11. It's also true that there is a major hypocrisy issue here, because virtually all of these talk hosts, while bellowing daily support for the military, never served.

So with all due respect, I'll take a powder when it comes to referring to conservatives as patriots.

 

[talkjim]

"And why would you gamble the well-being of a good facility on a format with such a poor track record? That gets managers fired."

A very interesting observation, Parttimer. Your assumption would be correct in the case of most formats with poor track records. But in this case, the poor track record includes a progressive talk win over Sean Hannity in men 25-54, ARB, AQH, in Sean's home market (which just incidentally, last I checked, happens to be the nation's largest market). The poor track record also includes a recent 12 plus showing in Chicago for the suburban WCPT (Chicago's Progressive Talk), that was just shy of the 12 plus showing of the CBS talk station anchored by market legend Steve Dahl. WCPT by the way also pulled this off with no pre-sunrise authorization and no local weekday programming. The abysmal track record to which you refer, Parttimer, also includes KPOJ/Portland--the only one of four talk stations in the market to achieve a Top 10, 25-54 showing. And there is more, but why waste a lot of space on poor track records?

Call me crazy but it strikes me as a possibility that poor track records such as these might even keep a manager employed.

 

[Parttimer]

1) You obviously have done some homework.

2) The subjective part of this is the number of wins that make it less of a risk than most people currently perceive it to be. You have a few success stories, but if I read between the lines I'd almost guess that you were a consultant who sells the format.

I'm not buying. Not yet, anyway.

And I still think it's more about the talent of the people who happen to have been from this mindset than the subject matter. There just hasn't been a star-quality show out there to break through.

 

[Parttimer]

The poor track record also includes a recent 12 plus showing in Chicago for the suburban WCPT (Chicago's Progressive Talk), that was just shy of the 12 plus showing of the CBS talk station anchored by market legend Steve Dahl. WCPT by the way also pulled this off with no pre-sunrise authorization and no local weekday programming.

So I looked up the WCPT numbers. They have yet to crack a 1.0 12+. The fact that a CBS station didn't do much better is irrelevant. Look at what a CBS talk FM did with Pittsburgh radio legend Scott Paulsen.

These are the kind of numbers that have 1360 shutting off the lights.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

WCPT was a suburban rimshot daytimer until recently. And a really, really bad rimshot, too, licensed to Crystal Lake, IL, well northwest of the Loop.

It moved from 850 to in-market 820 (licensed to Willow Springs, IL, antenna much closer to the Loop) a while back. Still a daytimer - look at that frequency! Hello, WBAP! Still a small station, though a much better signal...daytime. No signal at night.

But oddly enough, 850 had a history of garnering modest ratings before liberal talk...as standards WAIT, where just like with the liberal talk format, those with nowhere else to turn for their programming struggled through the static.

 

[Biz Listener]

"OK, suit yourself. But while you're at it, please start referring to conservatives as "patriots". It's a more descriptive term, and patriots prefer it."

It's an interesting idea, Biz, but the problem is that we have a conflict here: a patriot by definition is someone who loyally supports his own country, and the main item on the conservative talk show agenda in recent years has been support for the war in Iraq, which in the eyes of most Americans, and our allies abroad, has weakened our position in the war on terror by inspiring more terrorism and diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan, which after all, is the nation that attacked us on 9-11. It's also true that there is a major hypocrisy issue here, because virtually all of these talk hosts, while bellowing daily support for the military, never served.

So with all due respect, I'll take a powder when it comes to referring to conservatives as patriots.

Tell you what, if you'll agree to call liberals "liberals", I'll continue to call conservatives "conservatives".

very interesting observation, Parttimer. Your assumption would be correct in the case of most formats with poor track records. But in this case, the poor track record includes a progressive talk win over Sean Hannity in men 25-54, ARB, AQH, in Sean's home market (which just incidentally, last I checked, happens to be the nation's largest market). The poor track record also includes a recent 12 plus showing in Chicago for the suburban WCPT (Chicago's Progressive Talk), that was just shy of the 12 plus showing of the CBS talk station anchored by market legend Steve Dahl. WCPT by the way also pulled this off with no pre-sunrise authorization and no local weekday programming. The abysmal track record to which you refer, Parttimer, also includes KPOJ/Portland--the only one of four talk stations in the market to achieve a Top 10, 25-54 showing. And there is more, but why waste a lot of space on poor track records?

Call me crazy but it strikes me as a possibility that poor track records such as these might even keep a manager employed.

OK, you're crazy.

A competent and careful manager plays the odds. Any manager who picked a music format for a station that failed in 9 out of 10 markets but who hoped that his station would be the exception to the rule would be called a fool. The few isolated examples of success with liberal news/talk stations are usually the result of some broadcaster with a personal agenda and the money to indulge his whims. The are some Charles Foster Kane's operating radio stations who'll take chances on losing their money to broadcast what they want to broadcast because it's their money and they want to spend it however they want to spend it.

But no one who is making a business decision on what format is most likely to bring economic success to a business is going to bet their job that their station in their market will be one of the rare exceptions. Listing a few atypical examples of stations that have had success with liberal news/talk radio is like arguing that buying lottery tickets is a good investment because you can name a few people who actually won.

 

[OldSchoolWoman]

I am an old school rock ribbed inflexible Liberal Democrat with the same views I held in 1965. The wars just change. I never listen to talk radio. When I come to Pittsburgh, I prefer music on WSHH ( a seemingly successful Renda property) and lately BOB. I get my talk fix from MSNBC and Jon Stewart. ;D

 

[talkjim]

"1) You obviously have done some homework."

Thanks, Parttimer. I do appreciate you saying that.

"2) The subjective part of this is the number of wins that make it less of a risk than most people currently perceive it to be. You have a few success stories, but if I read between the lines I'd almost guess that you were a consultant who sells the format."

Nope-not a consultant. Have a full-time on-air gig outside of the talkradio realm, but do contribute on a regular basis to a locally-produced progressive show, and without trying to break my arm patting myself on the back, I did achieve some impressive ratings doing progressive talk in the late 80's/early 90's before the word came down on high throughout the industry that there was to be only right-wing talk on the radio. I haven't submitted to a psychological study recently, but I'll concede that my involvement in this format could be my way of acting out latent Paul Revere/Che Guevera fantasies.

I don't run around babbling about the fairness doctrine, and I don't see that right-wing radio has had much fundamental effect on elections or on the political process, but it does bother me that if you dropped into many points in this nation from Mars, you could come away with the idea that there is only one way to think politically. That, I find troubling.

And by the way, here is something that I find to be particularly and grossly unfair, and it's why I continue to confidently make the argument that there is an institutional bias against progressive talk in this business--even when it achieves success. Consider again Randi Rhodes' win in 25-54 men over Sean Hannity in the Fall 2005 ARB in New York. Can you imagine what the industry reaction would have been if that win had been pulled off by another conservative? That host would have overnight been signed up to appear daily on a minimum of 100 stations--many in major markets. But because it was a win staged by a progressive host, the industry's reaction was for the most part to deny reality and pretend that it didn't even happen. Case closed.

"So I looked up the WCPT numbers. They have yet to crack a 1.0 12+. The fact that a CBS station didn't do much better is irrelevant. Look at what a CBS talk FM did with Pittsburgh radio legend Scott Paulsen."

I didn't mention the Chicago situation in order to make the case that WCPT has monster numbers--it doesn't. My point is that it's nothing short of astounding that a suburban AM without pre-sunrise authorization in the huge Chicago market would draw anything even close to a 1.0 (12 plus). To me, it says a whole big bunch about the power and potential of this format. Based on the WCPT numbers, think for a moment about what this format might do on a signal like WLS--not that we are likely to find out anytime soon.