AAR is flat

[NewsVet]

Re: Lots of them?

> Bloomberg is probably a great example, although TV rather
> than radio. I'm also quite certain that Fox News Radio's
> operations are profitable after not too long in business.

So when it comes to radio, the only example to back up your "lots of them" claim is Fox News Radio? And I'm certainly not "quite certain" that it's profitable.

 

[ajhenderson]

> Sure, and if AAR is a viable format in Phoenix, another
> station will pick it up if/when KXXT drops it. That's the
> important thing to come out of this.

Technically, yes and no. This is the issue where XM nuts come to life... there are formats not on the air that would make money, but because the AM/FM spectrum is limited, only the ones that make the most money get on. When HD-FM becomes more widely accepted, we'll see formats we've never seen before. In Phoenix, the only prospect I can see is CC's KOY, which has ticked upward in 12+ numbers recently, but with a standards format that is dying everywhere. And CC hasn't flipped a station to libtalk in quite awhile.<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkwatch.blogspot.com
</P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Prove It

> The network, though...that's a different story. But then
> again, what network is profitable after such a short time?
> Hmm...lots of them actually.

Yeah, like Fox News which lost millions before finally becoming profitable?

I'd enjoy reading a list of networks that were financed by venture capitalists and investors that were instantly profitable, since you say lots of them were. Which ones?

> If AAR can keep expenses in
> check (i.e. not overpaying for 'talent'), and try to avoid
> paying for clearance if at all possible, then maybe they can
> make a go of it. I'm just afraid the problems from the past
> will haunt them well into the future.

AAR doesn't pay for clearances. What "problems from the past" will be "haunting them?"

 

[dampier]

Re: Lots of them?

> Bloomberg is probably a great example, although TV rather
> than radio. I'm also quite certain that Fox News Radio's
> operations are profitable after not too long in business.

Bloomberg was financed by Bloomberg who paid the bills there for quite sometime. Bloomberg Business Radio was not a license to print money. His TV channel isn't raking in huge bucks either, relegated to digital on virtually all cable systems are hardly setting the world on fire with ratings. Fox News Radio's division has languished for some time until CC and other big corporate radio found a news service that would take cash and not suck their inventory like the major radio networks do. But as corporate radio is now learning (along with the audiences who are forced to suffer), you get what you pay for. Fox News Radio is ABYSMAL in quality and scope. Any self-respecting station would pay cash for AP Network News over the lousy newscast Fox is still putting together.

Libtalk's model to build an entire format came because of resistance from stations to clear individual libtalk programs on a conservative talk dominated station. The only exceptions to this have been Lionel, which is a hybrid show anyway, and Alan Colmes which is sold to conservative stations as a way of riling up conservative audiences, totally evident from the liners which suggest people give Alan a piece of their mind by calling in.

AAR launched with Al Franken and Randi Rhodes as their star talent. Everything else seemed to be more of an afterthought and stations knew it and gave clearances accordingly. Randi got delayed on the east coast, but stations are willing to at least carry her show. How many are carrying Majority Report, Morning Sedition and Malloy. The former gets bumped for delayed Randi, MS gets replaced by local drivetime content, and the latter for live clearance of Lionel on many stations.

Does this matter? Not really. A lot of cable networks launched with infomercials and reruns and one or two original shows, slowly building their original content over time. With AAR, I see some of the shows now on the network won't survive 2006, and I still think the shows that won't be there will be Majority Report and Morning Sedition. Rhodes isn't going anywhere and Malloy seems content.

Change is not a bad thing in the broadcasting business.

 

[dampier]

Re: Lots of them?

> Didn't the Christian Science Monitor have a radio service,
> along with a cable channel at one time? Think they both went
> down, even though they had the Monitor and maybe the
> Church's money behind them.

Yes and they even built 500kw shortwave transmitters in multiple locations for a global radio service. The whole thing was a giant cash flush and nearly bankrupted the church. Major cutbacks ended the shortwave news service, and greatly reduced the TV programming as well.

Christian Science believes that informing the masses is part of the church's mission, and they've done a credible job in doing this, unlike the religiously inspired efforts of groups like the 700 Club which has gone off into the deep end of the pool. The Salem Witch Trials Network didn't like the evil heathen news they were getting (they even didn't like USA Radio News - geez) so they launched their own. It's everything you expected and less.

 

[thebroker]

Re: Lots of them?

I'm not even entirely sure why I bother with this stupid News/Talk board. It is frankly a waste of my time. It seems impossible for anybody, especially someone who is conservative, to make any valid points without being picked to death.

I love talk radio...I'm even programming it on two of my personal stations. However, I haven't the time nor the desire to split hairs with folks who'll never see my point of view.

Since nobody publishes a list of what networks are profitable and which aren't, I suppose there will never be a definitive answer to just how many get into the black in the first year. Common sense, though, says that plenty of those which aren't as well-financed MUST become profitable fairly quickly.

I have long contended that AAR is a flawed business model, and I think reality is proving this. The network is based more on political viewpoint than ability to generate cash flow. If it were run more as a real radio network and less as a rhetoric machine, perhaps it would be more successful financially.

 

[Tom_]

Re: Progressive talk

> Profitable? Which affiliates in which markets? And what is
> the source of your information?

I can't discuss.

>If progressive talk stations are profitable in any
>markets it is because they are getting local sales.

That's what I meant.

 

[thebroker]

Re: Prove It

> AAR doesn't pay for clearances. What "problems from the
> past" will be "haunting them?"


If AAR doesn't pay for clearances, then please explain why they just had to settle with Multicultural for failing to pay their time-brokerage bills. Leasing time on stations in major markets in order to get your content on air IS, in fact, paying for clearance. Period, paragraph.

As for problems from the past, I'm honestly surprised anybody would ask what those are. Are they not glaringly obvious? Let's start with being jerked off the air not long after launch, continue to the Boys & Girls Club mess, and finish with the Multicultural lawsuit where AAR was accused of trying to shirk their financial responsibilities. Those seem like three darned good examples of problems from the past to me. And I have no intention of debating whether or not these problems really are problems. To most of us who have even a minute amount of radio business experience, they in fact ARE.

Of course, I have no doubt that when I return from Thanksgiving vacation next week, there will be a half-dozen replies to this post from folks explaining away those past problems and blaming them on right-wingers. Then the discussion will turn to politics rather than radio. Happens every time when intelligent radio people attempt to discuss talk radio. We get bombarded by snippy comments from people who have certainly never owned stations, and most likely have never programmed talk radio.

As I said, I'm not even entirely sure why I even visit the News/Talk board. The climate here is markedly different than the rest of Radio-Info where, for the most part, real radio professionals come to discuss the business based upon our experiences and expertise.

 

[Tom_]

Re: Lots of them?

> I'm not even entirely sure why I bother with this stupid
> News/Talk board. It is frankly a waste of my time. It seems
> impossible for anybody, especially someone who is
> conservative, to make any valid points without being picked
> to death.

Or even a politically independent person who posts here.

> I have long contended that AAR is a flawed business model,
> and I think reality is proving this. The network is based
> more on political viewpoint than ability to generate cash
> flow. If it were run more as a real radio network and less
> as a rhetoric machine, perhaps it would be more successful
> financially.

This is definitely a valid consideration.

 

[Tom_]

Re: Ed Schultz and Air America

How would you compare the syndication strategy and financial status of Ed Schultz to Air America?

> No, they aren't posted online for public viewing, but they
> are available. KAGAN and Inside Radio both publish billing
> figures in several of their various publications, and I
> subscribe to most of them.
>
> To quote billing numbers from these very proprietary and
> expensive publications just wouldn't be in good form, but
> I'll say this much: The numbers are ugly. Very ugly.
>
> Then again, the only expenses an all-automated AAR has are
> power bill, licensing, and the like. No payroll to speak of
> if the station is part of a cluster. So, it wouldn't be
> incredibly difficult for the format to technically be
> profitable for local affiliates.
>
> The network, though...that's a different story. But then
> again, what network is profitable after such a short time?
> Hmm...lots of them actually. If AAR can keep expenses in
> check (i.e. not overpaying for 'talent'), and try to avoid
> paying for clearance if at all possible, then maybe they can
> make a go of it. I'm just afraid the problems from the past
> will haunt them well into the future.
>

 

[Tom_]

Re: Prove It

> Of course, I have no doubt that when I return from
> Thanksgiving vacation next week, there will be a half-dozen
> replies to this post from folks explaining away those past
> problems and blaming them on right-wingers.

Yes there probably will be, unfortunately. You know, as well as most people here do, that radio programming decisions are made to a greater extent on ratings and revenue than political ideology. Rush is entertaining and that's why he's on 500+ stations. Ed Schultz is entertaining and on +/-105 stations. And what people on both sides on this board don't understand is that there are liberals programming conservative stations and conservatives programming liberal stations. Program directors have to deliver ratings for management and this may mean broadcasting programs that they disagree with.


> Then the
> discussion will turn to politics rather than radio. Happens
> every time when intelligent radio people attempt to discuss
> talk radio. We get bombarded by snippy comments from people
> who have certainly never owned stations, and most likely
> have never programmed talk radio.

Just keep posting your knowledge for those of us who listen to both sides. Programmers of progressive talk stations should pay attention to the criticism on these forums in order to improve their ratings.

 

[thebroker]

Re: Ed Schultz and Air America

> How would you compare the syndication strategy and financial
> status of Ed Schultz to Air America?

I think this is a really good question.

In my opinion, the Ed Schultz show, which is syndicated by Jones, is run as a business, not as a rhetoric machine. They grow their affiliates and clearance list not to spread Ed's viewpoint, but to become more profitable. I truly believe advertisers recognize the value in advertising with a professional syndication company.

Also, I believe credibility is a major factor with the Schultz show. And by credibilitly, I mean not so much the credibility of the host, but of the syndicator. Let's look at it from an advertiser's standpoint. If I'm presented the choice of advertising with Jones on the Ed Schultz show, or with AAR on the Al Franken show, I'm going to choose Jones hands-down. And here's why: Jones has a fantastic reputation, and plenty of credibility. AAR, on the other hand, has had their share of issues. I believe even their "affiliates program" (the source of probably TOO MUCH debate on this board) has made them lose credibility in the minds of potential advertisers.

Essentially, my point is this: When I'm presented with several options for my advertising dollars, do I go with Jones/Schultz, who runs a professional, traditional syndication network, or with AAR/Franken, who has been the subject of a good bit of bad press and doesn't exactly do business like a 'normal' talk radio network? My bet is that the advertiser goes with Jones/Schultz over and over.

I've heard that AAR actually has a sales agreement with Jones. However, I do not know this to be fact, nor do I know the details. Still, even with Jones selling both, there's a certain stigma attached to AAR.

Many advertisers (I'm thinking specifically GEICO, Glaxo Smithkline and several major insurance and financial companies) refuse to advertise on 'controvertial' programming. Therefore, talk radio as a whole is already at a disadvantage in selling national spots sometimes. To add additional problems to the mix, as is the case with AAR, makes the sell even harder.


That's just my view, though.

 

[thebroker]

Re: Prove It

> Program directors have to
> deliver ratings for management and this may mean
> broadcasting programs that they disagree with.


And, what's one of the cardinal rules of radio? "Thou shalt program thy stations based upon ratings and revenue, rather than upon thy personal emotions." This is applicable to music radio as it is to talk.

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: Prove It

> > AAR doesn't pay for clearances. What "problems from the
> > past" will be "haunting them?"
>
>
> If AAR doesn't pay for clearances, then please explain why
> they just had to settle with Multicultural for failing to
> pay their time-brokerage bills. Leasing time on stations in
> major markets in order to get your content on air IS, in
> fact, paying for clearance. Period, paragraph.
>
> As for problems from the past, I'm honestly surprised
> anybody would ask what those are. Are they not glaringly
> obvious? Let's start with being jerked off the air not long
> after launch, continue to the Boys & Girls Club mess, and
> finish with the Multicultural lawsuit where AAR was accused
> of trying to shirk their financial responsibilities. Those
> seem like three darned good examples of problems from the
> past to me. And I have no intention of debating whether or
> not these problems really are problems. To most of us who
> have even a minute amount of radio business experience, they
> in fact ARE.
>
> Of course, I have no doubt that when I return from
> Thanksgiving vacation next week, there will be a half-dozen
> replies to this post from folks explaining away those past
> problems and blaming them on right-wingers. Then the
> discussion will turn to politics rather than radio. Happens
> every time when intelligent radio people attempt to discuss
> talk radio. We get bombarded by snippy comments from people
> who have certainly never owned stations, and most likely
> have never programmed talk radio.
>
> As I said, I'm not even entirely sure why I even visit the
> News/Talk board. The climate here is markedly different than
> the rest of Radio-Info where, for the most part, real radio
> professionals come to discuss the business based upon our
> experiences and expertise.
>

The original business model consisted of buying time at 'brokered' stations, in addition to the normal syndicator model. The three stations they bought time on were WLIB (which they are still working with), KBLA in Los Angeles and WNTD in Chicago. This gave the network clearances in the top three markets. Unfortunately, problems arose between AAR and Multicultural, which owns KBLA and WNTD. Should be noted that KPOJ, owned by Clear Channel, was also one of the original stations and it' success became the model for future progressive talkers.

As of today, WLIB is the only station remaining from the 'pay for time' beginnings, and I'm not sure if the agreement with the station's owners is the same as it was on day one. And there's nothing wrong with this kind of arrangement. It is fairly common in AM radio. Westwood One paid even more just to clear Bill O'Reilly in some markets. WW1 pays more stations than AAR does just for O'Reilly.

As for your last paragraph, if you come around trying to egg on flame wars, then why are you surprised when you get caught up in one? If you can't take it, then don't come around dishing it out. Plain and simple.

<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[thebroker]

Re: Prove It

I'm not saying that paying for clearance is a BAD idea, or that AAR is the only one to do it. In fact, the practice is probably more prevalent in conservative talk than in lib-talk. And, its not limited just to talk. I know lots of lesser-known colleges would never get their football/basketball on the air anywhere without paying for clearance. My point is that perhaps it isn't sustainable long-term for a growing talk radio network. If you can't turn your clearances into revenue, but continue having to pay for the clearances anyway, something's gotta give somewhere. Obviously, in light of the last post, AAR is getting away from this. It will make them more solvent, I think, and is a smart move.

I don't come around trying to start fights. I come to see the viewpoints of others and learn as much as I can. And, give my own opinion when I feel qualified to do so. The fights, however, seem to stem most often from people having an emotional objection to what I've come to know as the realities of the radio business.

 

[dampier]

> Technically, yes and no. This is the issue where XM nuts
> come to life... there are formats not on the air that would
> make money, but because the AM/FM spectrum is limited, only
> the ones that make the most money get on. When HD-FM becomes
> more widely accepted, we'll see formats we've never seen
> before. In Phoenix, the only prospect I can see is CC's KOY,
> which has ticked upward in 12+ numbers recently, but with a
> standards format that is dying everywhere. And CC hasn't
> flipped a station to libtalk in quite awhile.

Just watch the low rated sports talk, standards, business, or ethnic format stations in the market. That will be where any AAR affiliate will likely come from at this point. Rimshot stations may also take it. That's how Limbaugh's show arrived in Rochester during his first few years before it ended up on the blowtorch WHAM.

 

[dampier]

Re: Ed Schultz and Air America

> Also, I believe credibility is a major factor with the
> Schultz show. And by credibilitly, I mean not so much the
> credibility of the host, but of the syndicator. Let's look
> at it from an advertiser's standpoint. If I'm presented the
> choice of advertising with Jones on the Ed Schultz show, or
> with AAR on the Al Franken show, I'm going to choose Jones
> hands-down. And here's why: Jones has a fantastic
> reputation, and plenty of credibility. AAR, on the other
> hand, has had their share of issues.

This is nonsense. If you are advertiser, you are going to look at the numbers, not these phantom "issues" I've yet to see ennumerated. If advertisers cared about credibility, they wouldn't be advertising on a lot of controversial talk radio like Savage. If they like the numbers and the show has the right demo for them, their ads will go on the air. Some advertisers steer clear of political talk altogether, but do so across the board.

> I believe even their
> "affiliates program" (the source of probably TOO MUCH debate
> on this board) has made them lose credibility in the minds
> of potential advertisers.

The advertisers don't have a clue that even exists, and why should they care about it. Again, it's the numbers and the demo. Gotomypc could care less is AAR asks $75 for a coffee mug.

> Essentially, my point is this: When I'm presented with
> several options for my advertising dollars, do I go with
> Jones/Schultz, who runs a professional, traditional
> syndication network, or with AAR/Franken, who has been the
> subject of a good bit of bad press and doesn't exactly do
> business like a 'normal' talk radio network? My bet is that
> the advertiser goes with Jones/Schultz over and over.

The "bad press" is the domain of right wing blogs, the Murdoch and right wing press and a handful of right wing columnists. Yeah, Sherwin Williams is going to pick Schultz because The Unequalizer is bashing Al Franken. Let's be real here.

> I've heard that AAR actually has a sales agreement with
> Jones. However, I do not know this to be fact, nor do I know
> the details. Still, even with Jones selling both, there's a
> certain stigma attached to AAR.

Bull.

> That's just my view, though.

That's all it is.

 

[dampier]

Re: Prove It

> > AAR doesn't pay for clearances. What "problems from the
> > past" will be "haunting them?"
>
> If AAR doesn't pay for clearances, then please explain why
> they just had to settle with Multicultural for failing to
> pay their time-brokerage bills. Leasing time on stations in
> major markets in order to get your content on air IS, in
> fact, paying for clearance. Period, paragraph.

They brokered time. That's different from what we've traditionally discussed in here about paying for clearance, which Jones does in certain markets to clear Schultz's show live. Everyone knows AAR brokers time on WLIB - it's the only station they do pay for time on. When you used the plural, I assumed you were suggesting AAR is paying for placement on multiple stations. They haven't for more than a year now.

> As for problems from the past, I'm honestly surprised
> anybody would ask what those are. Are they not glaringly
> obvious?

Not to people who don't have an axe to grind.

> Let's start with being jerked off the air not long
> after launch

The network was never jerked off the air. They lost affiliates in Chicago and Los Angeles because of the former CEO's hijinks. CEO is gone and now the network is back on the air in both cities.

> continue to the Boys & Girls Club mess,

It's a mess only to the right wing blogs and press. It's not an issue with anyone else, despite the hysterical rantings and efforts some have made to make it so.

> and finish with the Multicultural lawsuit where AAR was accused
> of trying to shirk their financial responsibilities.

Ohmygod. A LAWSUIT in the broadcasting business over money?!?! Oh, I feel the vapors. I am going to faint I am so shocked and stunned that someone would ever file a lawsuit in this industry. Call the networks... interrupt the programming! Cancel the advertising! DON'T SIGN THAT CONTRACT!!!!! AIGH!!!!

Please.

> And I have no intention of debating whether or
> not these problems really are problems. To most of us who
> have even a minute amount of radio business experience, they
> in fact ARE.

Assuming that anyone who holds a contrary position must not actually have any experience in the radio business?

> Happens
> every time when intelligent radio people attempt to discuss
> talk radio. We get bombarded by snippy comments from people
> who have certainly never owned stations, and most likely
> have never programmed talk radio.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that the only people who must know anything about this business must agree with your views and that only they must be "intelligent."

> The climate here is markedly different than
> the rest of Radio-Info where, for the most part, real radio
> professionals come to discuss the business based upon our
> experiences and expertise.

Having involvement in the radio business in and of itself does not give you gold star street cred in this forum. Sorry. Views and opinions expressed win me over based on the actual facts, not on suggestions of credibility based on a claimed resume.

 

[dampier]

Re: Prove It

> Yes there probably will be, unfortunately. You know, as
> well as most people here do, that radio programming
> decisions are made to a greater extent on ratings and
> revenue than political ideology. Rush is entertaining and
> that's why he's on 500+ stations. Ed Schultz is
> entertaining and on +/-105 stations. And what people on both
> sides on this board don't understand is that there are
> liberals programming conservative stations and conservatives
> programming liberal stations. Program directors have to
> deliver ratings for management and this may mean
> broadcasting programs that they disagree with.

Who doesn't understand this? I don't think that's an issue with anyone in here. We're all smart enough to realize that radio shows live or die based on ratings. If nobody listens, it doesn't matter if you are right - your show is gone.

But there are people in here (and blogs) who equate the loss of an AAR station as a rejection of the ideology presented on the station. There are also people here who will attempt to make a scandal out of something that happens every day in this industry and is, in fact, no big deal.

My attitude has always been that AAR lives or dies based on the quality of its shows which is turn will or won't draw listeners. You'll see me reply to threads which attempt to suggest that AAR is somehow different - that a money dispute is a major scandal, that the activities of a former CEO somehow means the on-air talent is tainted by hypocracy, that the loss of even one station must be evidence the entire thing is falling into the sea. Now we're being told advertisers won't touch a station that would sell a listener a coffee mug or t-shirt for $75. That's ridiculous.

I'm perfectly content to discuss the business of radio and the ratings and the quality of the talent, and the business model of AAR. But I'll also be right there to call people who see AAR's liberal point of view as some sort of threat that must be brought down at all costs.

> Just keep posting your knowledge for those of us who listen
> to both sides. Programmers of progressive talk stations
> should pay attention to the criticism on these forums in
> order to improve their ratings.

That comes down to one thing. To paraphrase Clinton, "it's the shows, stupid." Pitching coffee mugs, brokering time, cash infusion from the former CEO have nothing to do with this one single important issue - AAR will live or die based on the quality of their programming and its ability to draw listeners. Everything else is secondary.

 

[dampier]

Re: Lots of them?

> I'm not even entirely sure why I bother with this stupid
> News/Talk board. It is frankly a waste of my time. It seems
> impossible for anybody, especially someone who is
> conservative, to make any valid points without being picked
> to death.

Now you admit you are conservative? Who cares. If you make "valid points" you should be comfortable enough to see them withstand some scrutiny and elaboration. You seem confused that this is, in fact, a two-way message forum and just because you throw an idea on the table doesn't mean nobody else gets to look at it and discuss its merits.

> I love talk radio...I'm even programming it on two of my
> personal stations. However, I haven't the time nor the
> desire to split hairs with folks who'll never see my point
> of view.

So people who hold a different point of view couldn't possibly also be correct? You only have time for the people who agree with you or are on the verge of doing so?

Here are some new questions - which shows do you carry on your stations, why did you choose them, and do you add new shows based entirely on how they perform in the ratings or do the shows need to be in line with your personal politics?

> Since nobody publishes a list of what networks are
> profitable and which aren't, I suppose there will never be a
> definitive answer to just how many get into the black in the
> first year. Common sense, though, says that plenty of those
> which aren't as well-financed MUST become profitable fairly
> quickly.

That's different from what you were telling us earlier in the thread when you claimed there were a lot of stations that were profitable right out of the gate. When we asked for a list, you suggested two - Bloomberg and Fox News Radio which you said you "thought" must be profitable. That's speculation. You made a statement and got annoyed when people asked you for more information about it.

> I have long contended that AAR is a flawed business model,
> and I think reality is proving this. The network is based
> more on political viewpoint than ability to generate cash
> flow. If it were run more as a real radio network and less
> as a rhetoric machine, perhaps it would be more successful
> financially.

It seems to work for the Salem Witch Trials Network, but you are silent on them.