• 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

AAR is flat

K

kaufcom

Air America Radio Network launched on April 1, 2004. In the first 13 months of existence the liberal radio network grew to 61 affiliated stations serving a potential of just over 100M radio users (the so-called 12+ group)-- that's about 7.7 million new potential listeners each month! In the next six months AAR has added 14 stations and lost three -- WLTQ in Charleston, SC; WHJJ in Providence, RI and WHAT in Philadelphia. The bottom line is that AAR is still available to just about 100,000 potential radio listeners. The rumor is that they will be losing their coverage on KTTX in Phoenix before the end of the year. -- That’s another 2.8 million potential listeners.

What is happening to AAR?

Have the hit the wall?

Are they just taking a pause before gaining coverage again?

Or are they starting to fade?

No growth in six months in either coverage or ratings. This is not good.
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>
 
> Air America Radio Network launched on April 1, 2004. In the
> first 13 months of existence the liberal radio network grew
> to 61 affiliated stations serving a potential of just over
> 100M radio users (the so-called 12+ group)-- that's about
> 7.7 million new potential listeners each month! In the next
> six months AAR has added 14 stations and lost three -- WLTQ
> in Charleston, SC; WHJJ in Providence, RI and WHAT in
> Philadelphia. The bottom line is that AAR is still
> available to just about 100,000 potential radio listeners.
> The rumor is that they will be losing their coverage on KTTX
> in Phoenix before the end of the year. -- That’s another 2.8
> million potential listeners.
>
> What is happening to AAR?
>
> Have the hit the wall?
>
> Are they just taking a pause before gaining coverage again?
>
> Or are they starting to fade?
>
> No growth in six months in either coverage or ratings. This
> is not good.
>

Political talk radio is flat on both ends of the spectrum. The election is over.

Though, with all that is going on currently (Iraq, economy, Plame leak, Bush's horrendously low approval rating, etc.), at least this does give them some material to work with.

Keep in mind, they did build up a network of 70 or so stations in less than a year and a half. I think the next phase, besides adding a few more affiliates, is solidifying the product.

As for the lost affiliates, WHAT is a black-oriented talk station with horrendous signal coverage. They aired only Franken and Rhodes, and it made for a bad combination. No way was this ever going to succeed. WHJJ aired three shows from AAR, and I think they made a mistake transitioning from an almost all-local talker. Their audience didn't like the move. A better plan would have been for a smaller station to pick up syndicated liberal talk. WHJJ is more of a traditional talker, and shouldn't have made such a drastic move. WLTQ is and will always be a ratings dog in a small red state market. And KXXT is involved in a pending sale with a religious broadcaster. With the success this station has had (and we're talking in relative terms here, since it's a mediocre signal in a heavily talk-saturated market), if KXXT drops liberal talk, I'm sure somebody else will pick it up.

Again, don't read too much into any of the recent happenings. I think AAR is doing just fine, considering most people didn't think they'd even make it this far.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
I don't have perfect pitch either. Few people do.
From their voices, I'd guess Franken and Rhodes are probably sharp.

Potential listeners is a very hypothetical number. AAR likes to quote potential listeners but for the most part they are on low-powered stations that reach only a portion of potential listeners in a given market. The percentage of the populatrion that can receive a listenable signal from a station carrying AAR is much smaller than the numbers AAR tosses around. But their cume is way more than 100,000.

Political talk has peaked (as FI said). Maybe it's because the election is over. Maybe people have gotten tired of the constant verbal cat-fighting.

Advertisers may be losing interest, as well (just as has happened with Oldies and Adult Standards). The audience for political talk skews old. At one point AAR was claiming they did better in the money demos than traditional talk. Apparently they do - but not by much. Median age for progressive talk (according to a speech by Danny Goldberg) is 49, versus 56 for traditional talk (Katz Media).

Almost all progressive talk stations are on AM. Almost all have a poor signal. Even with a good signal, many people NEVER listen to AM (especially post-boomers). Progressive talk has the worst radio real estate and its about location-location-location.

Sports talk is also on AM, often on poor signals, and often with poor ratings. Even so, sports talk stations can make money. The audience may be small but they get young males advertisers will pay a premium to reach. 12+ numbers mean nothing if progressive talk has demos not much better than traditional talk. From all appearances, progressive talk has weak billings in most markets. It's about demos, demos, demos.

Good news, sort of: There are signs talk radio is opening up on FM. Clear Channel has moved some of their stronger traditional talk programs to FM (like Rush, Beck, etc) to FM in a few markets hoping to get a younger audience. If Rush and others leave stronger AM stations, that may provide an opening for progressive talk to upgrade stations. However, they will still be on AM and AM will be even less desirable as radio real estate.

Progressive talk still has not found their killer app. Rush was the killer app for traditional conservative political talk radio. But nobody on progressive talk is in the same league as Rush. And Rush did it 15 years ago and a lot has changed in radio since then.

Will progressive talk every influence elections? Not really. Like conservative talk, they preach to the already converted. Political talk radio does not reach undecided or swing voters. If it did, there would be less political advertising on TV and non-talk stations.

Will progressive talk get an audience? Only bey being good talk radio first and liberal second. KGO and KIRO get strong numbers with liberal hosts (although not exclusively liberal) by doing radio that is interesting and entertaining, and by not being too political or too driven by ideology.

Will progressive talk make money? Maybe, in some markets. But they will have to re-invent the format to appeal to younger demos (see above).
 
> Air America Radio Network launched on April 1, 2004. In the
> first 13 months of existence the liberal radio network grew
> to 61 affiliated stations serving a potential of just over
> 100M radio users (the so-called 12+ group)-- that's about
> 7.7 million new potential listeners each month! In the next
> six months AAR has added 14 stations and lost three -- WLTQ
> in Charleston, SC; WHJJ in Providence, RI and WHAT in
> Philadelphia. The bottom line is that AAR is still
> available to just about 100,000 potential radio listeners.

100,000?

> The rumor is that they will be losing their coverage on KTTX
> in Phoenix before the end of the year. -- That’s another 2.8
> million potential listeners.

What you left out is that the station was acquired by an evangelical Christian group that owns several religious-formatted stations. Any format change there is not coming from an issue of ratings but ideology of the new owners.

> What is happening to AAR?

Nothing, it's chugging right along.

> Have the hit the wall?

No.

> Are they just taking a pause before gaining coverage again?

Probably.

> No growth in six months in either coverage or ratings. This
> is not good.

That's your characterization about coverage and ratings.
 
> > The bottom line is that AAR is still
> > available to just about 100,000 potential radio listeners.

Actually, this should of been 100,000,000. This number equals the number of radio listenerss (12+) in the radio markets served by AAR affiliates. Arguably not all radio listeners are able to receive a clear signal from their local AAR station. However, I would estimate that more than 90% can.

> > The rumor is that they will be losing their coverage on
> > KTTX in Phoenix before the end of the year. -- That’s another
> > 2.8 million potential listeners.

> What you left out is that the station was acquired by an
> evangelical Christian group that owns several
> religious-formatted stations. Any format change there is
> not coming from an issue of ratings but ideology of the new
> owners.

I wasn't characterizing the reason for coverage loss. Just pointed out that a loss is pending.


> > No growth in six months in either coverage or ratings.
> > This is not good.
>
> That's your characterization about coverage and ratings.

No it's not a "characterization" of the problem it is a description of the problem. Let's take a look:

Month Net Homes Total Homes
4/1/04 3,021 3,021
5/1/04 3,088 6,109
6/1/04 400 9,530
7/1/04 3,490 9,998
8/1/04 5,542 15,540
9/1/04 17,272 32,812
10/1/04 11,196 44,008
11/1/04 1,308 45,316
12/1/04 477 45,793
1/1/05 12,868 58,661
2/1/05 10,927 69,588
3/1/05 6,123 75,712
4/1/05 16,355 92,067
5/1/05 8,894 100,960
6/1/05 86 101,047
7/1/05 3,024 104,071
8/1/05 5,197 109,268
9/1/05 -4,204 102,043
10/1/05 -797 98,158

Fact is there have been virutually no growth in six months.

<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>
 
> > > The bottom line is that AAR is still
> > > available to just about 100,000 potential radio
> listeners.
>
> Actually, this should of been 100,000,000. This number
> equals the number of radio listenerss (12+) in the radio
> markets served by AAR affiliates. Arguably not all radio
> listeners are able to receive a clear signal from their
> local AAR station. However, I would estimate that more than
> 90% can.
>
> > > The rumor is that they will be losing their coverage on
> > > KTTX in Phoenix before the end of the year. -- That’s
> another
> > > 2.8 million potential listeners.
>
> > What you left out is that the station was acquired by an
> > evangelical Christian group that owns several
> > religious-formatted stations. Any format change there is
> > not coming from an issue of ratings but ideology of the
> new
> > owners.
>
> I wasn't characterizing the reason for coverage loss. Just
> pointed out that a loss is pending.

Yes, while I would argue that AAR is not dying (although it is a little behind projections, which many businesses are), I get tired of the politicos that take time out of their picketing and blogging dayjobs to come here and, without facts attached, make broad statements and insinuate that anyone with a legitimate radio perspective is wrong. Having been here since AAR started, I realize these people are never going away. Fact is, "KXXT" here in Phoenix may or may not be going away. But it doesn't matter. Clearances matter. If you're not on in Phoenix, your advertisers aren't paying for Phoenix. Enough said.<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkwatch.blogspot.com
</P>
 
Re: AAR programming is progressively profitable for local affiliates

AAR is increasingly profitable in some markets, due to increased listeners in the target demos that advertisors look at.

Franken (AAR), Rhodes (AAR), and Schultz (Jones) provide competition for Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage in the equivalent dayparts.
 
> Almost all progressive talk stations are on AM. Almost all
> have a poor signal. Even with a good signal, many people
> NEVER listen to AM (especially post-boomers). Progressive
> talk has the worst radio real estate and its about
> location-location-location.

No, it's about promotion-promotion-promotion. If I was going to start a talk station, I'd spend $10 mil for a 25kW or 50kW AM with zero ratings and a smaller night pattern, and then spend $5 mil promoting the crap out of it (TV, billboards, print, transit, bathroom ads), rather than buying (or in CC's case, having to flip) a relatively successful $125 mil FM.

> Sports talk is also on AM, often on poor signals, and often
> with poor ratings. Even so, sports talk stations can make
> money. The audience may be small but they get young males
> advertisers will pay a premium to reach. 12+ numbers mean
> nothing if progressive talk has demos not much better than
> traditional talk. From all appearances, progressive talk
> has weak billings in most markets. It's about demos, demos,
> demos.
>
> Good news, sort of: There are signs talk radio is opening up
> on FM. Clear Channel has moved some of their stronger
> traditional talk programs to FM (like Rush, Beck, etc) to FM
> in a few markets hoping to get a younger audience. If Rush
> and others leave stronger AM stations, that may provide an
> opening for progressive talk to upgrade stations. However,
> they will still be on AM and AM will be even less desirable
> as radio real estate.

No, CC is moving because the markets they want to compete in have no good AM signals. In Pittsburgh, only KDKA reliably reaches the market 24/7. The rest of the AMs are moderate in quality like bottomfeeder KQV, or have 4-watt night patterns, one of them whose night tower site is dozens of miles outside of the city. Minneapolis isn't quite so bad, but it's hard to cover that city without a 50kW low-dial-position blowtorch.

> Will progressive talk get an audience? Only bey being good
> talk radio first and liberal second. KGO and KIRO get
> strong numbers with liberal hosts (although not exclusively
> liberal) by doing radio that is interesting and
> entertaining, and by not being too political or too driven
> by ideology.

I do agree with these comparisons in that in demonstrates that good radio must come first, but these are localized operations that focus on local issues and deal with issues from a Seattle or Bay Area perspective. Besides, there is a built-in ratings floor on KIRO or KGO. Syndicated Bernie Ward, talented as he may be, and when KGO kicks him out to stay all local, he'll wind up on the Quake getting 1/10 of his current ratings. No one would care anymore.

> Will progressive talk make money? Maybe, in some markets.
> But they will have to re-invent the format to appeal to
> younger demos (see above).

This reinvention isn't too difficult. Fire the bloggers, speechwriters, and labor bosses, and bring in a radio expert. As bad as Fox News Radio/Talk sounds, they hire people from major market radio stations to work for them, most recently Mike Elder of WRKO/Boston (who, yes, should be ashamed of his job there, but nevertheless). Tom Athans and the whole bloody bunch of pencil-pushing liberals running AAR need to be shown the door, along with the entire crew responsible for Morning Sedition and The Majority Report. Then get some real talent who has actually seen a microphone before.<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkwatch.blogspot.com
</P>
 
Prove It

> AAR is increasingly profitable in some markets, due to
> increased listeners in the target demos that advertisors
> look at.
>
Last year's spin. Even AAR has acknowledged they only do a little better in the money demos than do conservative talkers.

Profitable? Which affiliates in which markets? And what is the source of your information? If you cite ratings, then you really don't understand how the radio business works.

Profits comes from revenue (minus expenses). Revenue comes from ad sales, not listeners.

AAR is only in one market (New York). Any profits in other markets go to Clear Channel and other station owners - not AAR. If progressive talk stations are profitable in any markets it is because they are getting local sales.

No more wishful thinking, please!
 
Re: Prove It

> AAR is only in one market (New York). Any profits in other
> markets go to Clear Channel and other station owners - not
> AAR. If progressive talk stations are profitable in any
> markets it is because they are getting local sales.

Correct. Well, almost... AAR does take 4 minutes/hour of national inventory. The more markets they're in, the more they get for national buys. And last time I heard from anyone there, MediaAmerica has a boatload of daypart and ROS spots available for AAR.<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkwatch.blogspot.com
</P>
 
> Yes, while I would argue that AAR is not dying (although it
> is a little behind projections, which many businesses are),
> I get tired of the politicos that take time out of their
> picketing and blogging dayjobs to come here and, without
> facts attached, make broad statements and insinuate that
> anyone with a legitimate radio perspective is wrong.

Since this is my reply in this thread that brought your reply, let's investigate.

I don't disparage the intent of the author to make his viewpoints. But there was more to the story:

1) The 100,000 figure was in need of correction because it was a typo.
2) The "broad statements" didn't originate with me. In fact, I provided even more detailed "facts" and "radio perspective" about the matter of Phoenix by pointing out what was behind the rumor.
3) Listener figures for the talk format in general aren't setting the world on fire at the moment regardless of the politics.
4) I don't picket nor blog.

A "legitimate radio perspective" is the ultimate eye of the beholder turn of phrase. :)

> Fact is, "KXXT" here in Phoenix may or may
> not be going away. But it doesn't matter. Clearances matter.

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.
 
> As for the lost affiliates, WHAT is a black-oriented talk
> station with horrendous signal coverage. They aired only
> Franken and Rhodes, and it made for a bad combination.

Rhodes doesn't do that bad with black audiences - her close association with members of the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't hurt, and she does have a lot of black callers to her show. As to Al Franken, well... how many people in Compton listen to Prairie Home Companion either? :)

> WHJJ aired three shows
> from AAR, and I think they made a mistake transitioning from
> an almost all-local talker.

Is this the station that actually gave a talk show to a former Survivor competitor? Yeah, I'm sure listeners will be clamoring for that. That was just bizarre.
 
Re: Prove It

The original post said AAR (i.e., progressive talk radio) is profitable in some markets. "Some markets" indicates the station is in the black. I have not seen anything from any progressive talk station claiming they are profitable. Portland sounds like they have a pretty good spot load (including Thom Hartmann's local show in morning drive)and they may well have turned the corner. But that is supposition. I have not seen Clear Channel claim profitability.

When you say "spots available," the sounds like avials - unsold inventory. With amortized start up costs and capital expenses plus current operating costs, I would not expect them to be profitable at this point. No disgrace there.

What matters is the extent to which local stations are getting sales. And sales figures, unfortunately, don't get posted online like 12+ ratings.
 
I think you miss the point. WHAT was a local Urban talk format before noon. Gospel and preachers after six. On a poor signal that is adequate only in the city. Just as progressive talk programs are handicapped in a mixed schedule with conservative talk, these programs were handicapped with a mixed schedule here. Block programming hasn't worked since the 50's.

And you can not tell anything about audience composition by the calls that get on the air.

I have not heard the Survivor contestant in Providence. Have you? Until I hear the show (the station does not stream), I won't make a judgement. But Survivor is no more bizzare on a talk show host's resume than a lot of others in talk radio (including progressive talk radio). Stand up comedian sounds pretty bizzare, too.

From an outsider, WHJJ was originally not a good candidate for the progressive talk format. Providence is a market with a strong attachment to local and regional hosts. They should have followed a model more like KGO or KIRO with some liberal-leaning but non-idelogical local hosts and that seems to be what they are headed toward. It looks like they hit the panic button when they lost their strongest local host and made a bad decision.

The problem progressive talk faces is appealing to people like you and getting others to listen. You guys want somebody of your political persuasion who will out-Rush Rush (maybe even out-Hannity Hannity) and you deride somebody like Colmes who can speak to those not in the choir.
 
Re: Prove It

> What matters is the extent to which local stations are
> getting sales. And sales figures, unfortunately, don't get
> posted online like 12+ ratings.


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.
 
> The problem progressive talk faces is appealing to people
> like you and getting others to listen. You guys want
> somebody of your political persuasion who will out-Rush Rush
> (maybe even out-Hannity Hannity) and you deride somebody
> like Colmes who can speak to those not in the choir.

"You guys?" Actually I just want entertainment first... which is why I favor Stephanie Miller. Colmes is less than useless because he is so castrated on a channel dominated by conservatives that the one token liberal on Fox can't stand up and make the strong arguments that I suspect he is capable of making. He's gutless until he stands up to Hannity and takes some equal control of the show, which is so aptly called by Franken HANNITY and colmes.
 
Lots of them?

>
> 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.

Lots of them!!?? Please give us some examples. The only startups I've been associated with were NBC's News and Information Service, which folded after two years, and the Fox News Channel, which lost something like $130 million in its first two years.
 
Re: Lots of them?

> >
> > 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.
>
> Lots of them!!?? Please give us some examples. The only
> startup networks I've been associated with were NBC's News
> and Information Service, which folded after two years, and
> the Fox News Channel, which lost something like $130 million
> in its first two years.
>
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.
 
> He's gutless until he stands up to
> Hannity and takes some equal control of the show, which is
> so aptly called by Franken HANNITY and colmes.

Make that HANNITY(and colmes).
 
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.

I sincerely hope you haven't construed that comment of 'lots of them actually' as a stab at AAR...it wasn't meant to be that at all. If you'll notice, I suggested that AAR could be successful in the long run by being perhaps a bit less ambitious at the outset.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom