• 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

A new (?) sub-format: Caller Driven Radio

F

FloridaBear1776

Guest
Let's face it, if you're a locally owned AM station with a small signal, your options are limited.

If you pick up syndicated product, the good shows are already taken, leaving you with the fifth-rate Blanquita Cullums of the world of talk. If a syndicated show you pick up happens to get hot, a bigger station or company will take it away.

Local talk would seem to be the alternative, but it's expensive to find and hire good hosts. Even wannabe talk hosts fresh out of college (remember those?) might be too costly for the average also-ran AM. Brokered shows pay the bills, but drive what little audience there is away. It's sort of like eating your seed corn or not letting the fields lay fallow.

The alternative: Build a talk radio format around callers, not hosts. Hire
"moderators" as cheaply as possible to handle formatics in and out, sort of like C-Span, only with a little more interaction. The host would be the equivalent of a music-radio liner card reader. You don't need great talk show geniuses to get you in and out of calls and repeat phone numbers. Don't hire a board op if you can help it; instead spend a little money on delay systems.
Remember THE CALLER IS THE STAR.

That's not such a new idea. Most local talk radio stations before about 1985
were caller-driven. Those types of shows were driven out under the relentless whip of consultants promoting the cult of the host and making their unemployed DJ buddies into superstars, as well as the arrival of the earliest syndicated product (ABC Talkradio, Rush Limbaugh, Sun Radio Network, etc.)

The disadvantages: Potential for the callers to skew older, and the tendency for a few "regulars" to dominate the station.

The advantages: The "regulars" can be promoted the way you would a host. Promote them the way music formats promote their artists. Talk about their viewpoints, their idiosyncrasies, etc. Make them famous. These days, a regular caller isn't that much worse than the amount of talent you're likely to get for minimum wage, and best of all, the caller costs you NOTHING other than the cost of a phone call. Granted, you can't require exclusivity of a caller. But, your listeners are not going to hear your local callers on the station that runs Rush, Sean, Glenn and Savage all day.

There are some stations that employ this approach still today, such as KDWN in Las Vegas, but in those cases I don't think they deliberately set out to do so. Rather, these are the products of holdover ownership stuck in the 1970s.

My rules for a "caller driven" station:

The host may counterpoint and even argue with callers, but he can't hang up on a call unless another caller is waiting, or unless the caller says something indecent or libelous, or if there's a break coming up. The host can't filibuster or monologue, he has to have a caller on the line. If there is no call on the line, the host has to beg for calls until he gets one, read e-mails or play podcasts from listeners. The host cannot be the star under any circumstances.

Callers who want to debate can and should be conferenced together. If you get a really controversial caller who calls in all the time (say, a neo-Nazi, Communist, or someone who is obsessed with their own agenda), the station should emphasize that the way to answer that voice is with another voice.
"If you don't like what Bob the Bigot or Mike the Maoist is saying, call in now!" I have a feeling that most of your regulars won't come from that cutting edge though.

Callers would be told through on-air promos or other notification that they concede the station the right to use their voice and "handle" in promos and other station promotion. (This would preclude cases like the retired AFTRA announcer who called into a show once and got mad that his voice was used in a station promo.)

In short, run all local all day, but with the caller the star. They cost nothing, and the big station that runs syndicated all day can't steal them away very easily.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by FloridaBear1776 on 06/26/05 04:14 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Caller-Driven Radio: Callers Just Aren't That Entertaining

> The alternative: Build a talk radio format around callers,
> not hosts. Hire
> "moderators" as cheaply as possible to handle formatics in
> and out, sort of like C-Span, only with a little more
> interaction. The host would be the equivalent of a
> music-radio liner card reader. You don't need great talk
> show geniuses to get you in and out of calls and repeat
> phone numbers. Don't hire a board op if you can help it;
> instead spend a little money on delay systems.
> Remember THE CALLER IS THE STAR.

An interesting idea, shot down by one thing: Especially in small markets, the people who call regularly are NOT ALL THAT ENTERTAINING. ;) And you ARE pretty much limited to chronic regulars in this situation. Been there, done that, bought the box of T-shirts at a small Northeast Ohio talk station 15 years ago...

The "talent pool" among regular callers is limited, and most of them drone on about the same pet issues.

There are exceptions: WOR Radio Network syndicated night liberal host Lionel started as a regular caller on WFLA/Tampa many years ago, before becoming a host on that station and later, on WABC in New York City. But *exception* is clearly the word here.

While I'm thinking about it - doesn't talk WBEN/Buffalo feature a former regular caller as a weekend host?

-OA
 
> Let's face it, if you're a locally owned AM station with a
> small signal, your options are limited.
>
> If you pick up syndicated product, the good shows are
> already taken, leaving you with the fifth-rate Blanquita
> Cullums

Who? Do I want to know?

of the world of talk. If a syndicated show you pick
> up happens to get hot, a bigger station or company will take
> it away.

> The alternative: Build a talk radio format around callers,
> not hosts. Hire
> "moderators" as cheaply as possible to handle formatics in
> and out, sort of like C-Span, only with a little more
> interaction. The host would be the equivalent of a
> music-radio liner card reader. You don't need great talk
> show geniuses to get you in and out of calls and repeat
> phone numbers. Don't hire a board op if you can help it;
> instead spend a little money on delay systems.
> Remember THE CALLER IS THE STAR.

A delay system would be absolutely key for this format. As would a list of people who just can't control what comes out of their yaps, both in the "potty-mouth" sense and the "rambling about absolutely nothing" sense.


>
> The disadvantages: Potential for the callers to skew older,
> and the tendency for a few "regulars" to dominate the
> station.

To fix the age problem, have a youth-targeted show. In areas where no NCE station offers high school and college students the opportunity to speak their minds, it would be a welcome change of pace and generate free publicity.

To spread out the pool of regulars, take a cue from C-SPAN and have topics, albeit very general ones. If someone's becoming a bit too ubiquitous in discussions of say, education, lay off that topic for a few days. Or have a lockout period as C-SPAN also does, but it should be far shorter. 3 days, maybe, not 30 . . .

>
> The advantages: The "regulars" can be promoted the way you
> would a host. Promote them the way music formats promote
> their artists. Talk about their viewpoints, their
> idiosyncrasies, etc. Make them famous.

People love to hear themselves talk. Even host-centered shows have their regular callers who develop relationships with them.

These days, a regular
> caller isn't that much worse than the amount of talent
> you're likely to get for minimum wage,

If they can speak comprehensible English, remember the name of the station, and avoid the Seven Words, they're probably better than most. :) Not to mention, if a caller isn't feeling well, you won't have a David Paul-style flameout and be forced to fill 30 minutes with promos.

and best of all, the
> caller costs you NOTHING other than the cost of a phone
> call. Granted, you can't require exclusivity of a caller.
> But, your listeners are not going to hear your local callers
> on the station that runs Rush, Sean, Glenn and Savage all
> day.

No, because listeners in many markets can't even call in because the shows aren't live there.

>
> There are some stations that employ this approach still
> today, such as KDWN in Las Vegas, but in those cases I don't
> think they deliberately set out to do so. Rather, these are
> the products of holdover ownership stuck in the 1970s.

WYDE (101.1 FM/1260 AM) in Birmingham falls into the same category, didn't exist until 1999 and is actually the top talker in the market. It is more host-centered than your concept, but still far more caller-based than national syndicated shows or the competitors' local shows.

Not necessarily my bag, but I appreciate Crawford's commitment to serving the community with the station.

>
> My rules for a "caller driven" station:
>
> The host may counterpoint and even argue with callers, but
> he can't hang up on a call unless another caller is waiting,
> or unless the caller says something indecent or libelous, or
> if there's a break coming up. The host can't filibuster or
> monologue, he has to have a caller on the line. If there is
> no call on the line, the host has to beg for calls until he
> gets one, read e-mails or play podcasts from listeners. The
> host cannot be the star under any circumstances.

Begging for calls would just drive people away. Perhaps they should read community announcements or something similar. . .

>
> Callers who want to debate can and should be conferenced
> together. If you get a really controversial caller who calls
> in all the time (say, a neo-Nazi, Communist, or someone who
> is obsessed with their own agenda), the station should
> emphasize that the way to answer that voice is with another
> voice.
> "If you don't like what Bob the Bigot or Mike the Maoist is
> saying, call in now!" I have a feeling that most of your
> regulars won't come from that cutting edge though.

No, their obsessions are more likely to be controversial in a more local sense. Some of the most heated discussions I've heard on WYDE have been about highway and zoning issues, which actually affect people in the area, as opposed to race, foreign policy, etc.

>
> Callers would be told through on-air promos or other
> notification that they concede the station the right to use
> their voice and "handle" in promos and other station
> promotion. (This would preclude cases like the retired AFTRA
> announcer who called into a show once and got mad that his
> voice was used in a station promo.)

Don't most stations (including music stations) already do this to avoid the legal hassles?
 
> THE CALLER IS THE STAR.
>
> That's not such a new idea. Most local talk radio stations
> before about 1985 were caller-driven.

Sounds like the recipe for Herb Jepko's "Nightcap".<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
> Let's face it, if you're a locally owned AM station with a
> small signal, your options are limited.
>
> The alternative: Build a talk radio format around callers,
> not hosts. Hire
> "moderators" as cheaply as possible to handle formatics in
> and out, sort of like C-Span, only with a little more
> interaction. The host would be the equivalent of a
> music-radio liner card reader. You don't need great talk
> show geniuses to get you in and out of calls and repeat
> phone numbers. Don't hire a board op if you can help it;
> instead spend a little money on delay systems.
> Remember THE CALLER IS THE STAR.

Realistically, how many AMs with small signals cover enough geographic area to contain a critical mass of callers (let alone <u>interesting callers</u>)? Having the same 10 callers on expressing the same opinions all the time is not a recipe for success. I've heard talk stations with big signals begging for callers (especially on weekends or off-hours)...what's some 1000W station on 1240 gonna do? How does one establish such a station? People don't just tune across the dial anymore, you need to be able to hit the ground running...tough to do with your proverbial small-signal AM that's probably had 10 (poorly executed) formats in the last 12 years.

Also keep in mind that less than 5% of your audience will EVER call. If you don't have much audience to begin with...well you know the story.

Interesting concept, but you'd need some heritage and a decent signal to make it even come close to flying.
 
Aren't That Entertaining... compared to what?

> An interesting idea, shot down by one thing: Especially in
> small markets, the people who call regularly are NOT ALL
> THAT ENTERTAINING. ;) And you ARE pretty much limited to
> chronic regulars in this situation. Been there, done that,
> bought the box of T-shirts at a small Northeast Ohio talk
> station 15 years ago...

Compared to what? Compared to Limbaugh... ok. Compared to brokered or fifth-rate syndicated product... I'd say caller-driven radio is better.

Remember, there are two types of entertaining radio: Entertainingly well-done radio, such as a smooth syndicated talk show ... or entertainingly BAD radio... such as an excruciatingly self-absorbed caller. Too much of radio falls in between, shallow, passion-sapping mediocrity. That is NOT entertaining.
A chronic regular (and why do we apply this pejorative to people willing to fill our airtime for free?) is the equivalent of musical format trainwrecks.
Now we have a format (Jack) built around musical trainwrecks. It's time to
attack the assumptions that consultants have been selling us for 20 years about radio as they constructed the cult of the host. Small stations handicapped by poor signals should be the leaders in this, rather than brokering all their time and hoping that some bigger fool will pay eight figures for their signal.

>
> The "talent pool" among regular callers is limited, and most
> of them drone on about the same pet issues.

If you put callers on, more people will call as they hear callers', as opposed to hosts' voices. Especially if the only way you can knock a caller you don't like off the air is to call in. I disagree with that "rule of thumb" that says one person calls in for every hundred or every thousand listeners. I think that ratio is a lot smaller for small stations and small markets. It's a rule of thumb, that's all, just something that a consultant or a PD invented long ago to explain something that couldn't be substantiated through research or explained. I think people just need to be habituated back into the idea of calling their local radio station after years of hearing nothing but computer-satellite-fed talk or format-du-jour. Psychics and "swap shop" shows are good ways to rebuild the caller base.

> There are exceptions: WOR Radio Network syndicated night
> liberal host Lionel started as a regular caller on
> WFLA/Tampa many years ago, before becoming a host on that
> station and later, on WABC in New York City. But
> *exception* is clearly the word here.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by FloridaBear1776 on 06/27/05 08:59 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Aren't That Entertaining... compared to what?

> Compared to what? Compared to Limbaugh... ok. Compared to
> brokered or fifth-rate syndicated product... I'd say
> caller-driven radio is better.

Maybe marginally so. For one, just about anything is more entertaining than 90% of most brokered talk.

> A chronic regular (and why do we apply this pejorative to
> people willing to fill our airtime for free?) is the
> equivalent of musical format trainwrecks.
> Now we have a format (Jack) built around musical
> trainwrecks. It's time to
> attack the assumptions that consultants have been selling us
> for 20 years about radio as they constructed the cult of the
> host. Small stations handicapped by poor signals should be
> the leaders in this, rather than brokering all their time
> and hoping that some bigger fool will pay eight figures for
> their signal.

At least with the musical trainwrecks, you know the songs were performed by actual singers or groups with enough talent or appeal to get signed by a recording label.

With the "caller-driven radio" format you propose, you are throwing open your radio station to be programmed by people who may or may not hold any interest. (Hey, didn't KYCY/1550 in San Francisco do much the same recently? :D) For every Lionel calling talk radio programs, there are a hundred people with no entertainment value whatsoever.

I worked for a station in a mid-to-small sized Ohio town that basically did this, 15 years ago. Most of the regulars were those who had the same agenda as the unusual woman who owned the station, who only had a talk format because she could call in and gripe about local politicos she didn't like. We had one guy we nicknamed "The Senator" because he droned on and on about topics like a lawmaker holding a filibuster...his favorite topic: the misdeeds of a certain major fast food chain. It turns out he was so obsessed with them because he sued them for slipping on their bathroom floor, and wasn't happy with the settlement they offered.

In general, tho, consider this: who's calling your mythical caller-driven station in the middle of the day? If you're LUCKY, it'll be salespeople on the road, someone at work sneaking a call in, or someone who works a different shift. If you're not lucky, it's a guy over 80 talking about his petunias and old car license plate collection.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be interesting, but I don't think it'd be even remotely equivalent to the Variety Hits/"Jack" phenomeon. And though it would certainly be more interesting than infomercials about colon cleaning, the callers aren't paying any money, and few advertisers would be interested in such a "chronic caller" format.

IMHO, of course.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
My NEW blog is at Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Re: Aren't That Entertaining... compared to what?

> I think people just need to
> be habituated back into the idea of calling their local
> radio station after years of hearing nothing but
> computer-satellite-fed talk or format-du-jour. Psychics and
> "swap shop" shows are good ways to rebuild the caller base.

GAAAKKK!!

A psychic may be a fun guest on the morning show, but to be able to bring in a sustainable audience is stretching it a bit. Remember we're talking about a signal-challenged AM here.

I have no use for swapshop-type shows. Just plain bad radio. The same handful of callers selling the same junk every week. People too lazy to have a yard sale or too cheap to take out an ad in the local pennysaver paper.
 
Re: Aren't That Entertaining... compared to what?

We'll find a spot in Cincinnati, and it'll be Ken Hoop ("he hate3s blacks, he hates jews") droning on and on about Iraq and Israel, Kabaka Aba about the Cincy police, Lisa the black racist, maybe Sensible Don (though he's a part time WLW host), and Nan.


> > Compared to what? Compared to Limbaugh... ok. Compared to
> > brokered or fifth-rate syndicated product... I'd say
> > caller-driven radio is better.
>
> Maybe marginally so. For one, just about anything is more
> entertaining than 90% of most brokered talk.
>
> > A chronic regular (and why do we apply this pejorative to
> > people willing to fill our airtime for free?) is the
> > equivalent of musical format trainwrecks.
> > Now we have a format (Jack) built around musical
> > trainwrecks. It's time to
> > attack the assumptions that consultants have been selling
> us
> > for 20 years about radio as they constructed the cult of
> the
> > host. Small stations handicapped by poor signals should be
>
> > the leaders in this, rather than brokering all their time
> > and hoping that some bigger fool will pay eight figures
> for
> > their signal.
>
> At least with the musical trainwrecks, you know the songs
> were performed by actual singers or groups with enough
> talent or appeal to get signed by a recording label.
>
> With the "caller-driven radio" format you propose, you are
> throwing open your radio station to be programmed by people
> who may or may not hold any interest. (Hey, didn't
> KYCY/1550 in San Francisco do much the same recently? :D)
> For every Lionel calling talk radio programs, there are a
> hundred people with no entertainment value whatsoever.
>
> I worked for a station in a mid-to-small sized Ohio town
> that basically did this, 15 years ago. Most of the regulars
> were those who had the same agenda as the unusual woman who
> owned the station, who only had a talk format because she
> could call in and gripe about local politicos she didn't
> like. We had one guy we nicknamed "The Senator" because he
> droned on and on about topics like a lawmaker holding a
> filibuster...his favorite topic: the misdeeds of a certain
> major fast food chain. It turns out he was so obsessed with
> them because he sued them for slipping on their bathroom
> floor, and wasn't happy with the settlement they offered.
>
> In general, tho, consider this: who's calling your mythical
> caller-driven station in the middle of the day? If you're
> LUCKY, it'll be salespeople on the road, someone at work
> sneaking a call in, or someone who works a different shift.
> If you're not lucky, it's a guy over 80 talking about his
> petunias and old car license plate collection.
>
> I'm not saying it wouldn't be interesting, but I don't think
> it'd be even remotely equivalent to the Variety Hits/"Jack"
> phenomeon. And though it would certainly be more
> interesting than infomercials about colon cleaning, the
> callers aren't paying any money, and few advertisers would
> be interested in such a "chronic caller" format.
>
> IMHO, of course.
>
> -OA
>
<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>
 
Not a sustainable audience...

The psychic is just there to get the existing audience to call in. Psychics are known call-draws and have been forever and ever since talk radio was born. Ditto the swap shop. Neither requires exercising much brain power. Once people have broken the ice, it becomes easier to get them to call on serious topics.

> GAAAKKK!!
>
> A psychic may be a fun guest on the morning show, but to be
> able to bring in a sustainable audience is stretching it a
> bit. Remember we're talking about a signal-challenged AM
> here.
>
> I have no use for swapshop-type shows. Just plain bad
> radio. The same handful of callers selling the same junk
> every week. People too lazy to have a yard sale or too
> cheap to take out an ad in the local pennysaver paper.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom