B
bierkenstock
Guest
Air America Radio and Salem Radio Network appear to have some things in common:
<ul>
[*]Both are owned by for-profit corporations. Piquant LLC (is privately held). Salem Communications (SALM)is publicly held and trades on the NASDAQ.
[*]Both offer programming driven by particular perspectives.
[*]Salem owns 104 stations and provides three formats (Political talk, Religious talk, Religious music). AAR has an LMA for one station and offers one format (Political talk).
[*]Both talk networks operate as "full service networks" under a business model of delivering formats more than individual programs.
[*]Both talk networks tend to be heard on lower power, "under-performing" AM radio stations, some of which use the network in question as a low-cost, turn-key programming solution.
[*]For the most part, talk stations affiliated with either network offer little local content and have little local presence.
[*]With few exceptions, neither networks' talk stations are strong ratings contenders.
[*]Both talk networks have hired at least some hosts based on political credentials rather than broadcast experience.
[*]Both talk networks have received unwelcome attention after hosts made ill-advised comments which have generated controversy and criticism.
[/list]
Both Salem and AAR exist to advance the owners' agenda. Political issues may carry more weight in decision-making than programming considerations (and in the case of Salem, religious issues, as well). This is not at all unsual in radio. In the era before corporate radio, local owners often used radio stations to play the music they like, to give themselves greater visibility and postion in the community, and to promote their own viewpoints. All that still happens but not as much with corporate owners whose primary concern is the bottom-line.
But of the two, Salem appears to be the more bottom-line oriented company (not surprising given the legal requirements for publicly-held corporations). They have experienced radio managers who have targeted a specific market segment, which they attempt to serve. AAR has said their purpose it to influence the outcome of elections. Which raises the question, how would AAR be different with experienced radio managers targeting a given market segment and focused on the bottom-line? And how would Salem be different as a completely secular company?
<ul>
[*]Both are owned by for-profit corporations. Piquant LLC (is privately held). Salem Communications (SALM)is publicly held and trades on the NASDAQ.
[*]Both offer programming driven by particular perspectives.
[*]Salem owns 104 stations and provides three formats (Political talk, Religious talk, Religious music). AAR has an LMA for one station and offers one format (Political talk).
[*]Both talk networks operate as "full service networks" under a business model of delivering formats more than individual programs.
[*]Both talk networks tend to be heard on lower power, "under-performing" AM radio stations, some of which use the network in question as a low-cost, turn-key programming solution.
[*]For the most part, talk stations affiliated with either network offer little local content and have little local presence.
[*]With few exceptions, neither networks' talk stations are strong ratings contenders.
[*]Both talk networks have hired at least some hosts based on political credentials rather than broadcast experience.
[*]Both talk networks have received unwelcome attention after hosts made ill-advised comments which have generated controversy and criticism.
[/list]
Both Salem and AAR exist to advance the owners' agenda. Political issues may carry more weight in decision-making than programming considerations (and in the case of Salem, religious issues, as well). This is not at all unsual in radio. In the era before corporate radio, local owners often used radio stations to play the music they like, to give themselves greater visibility and postion in the community, and to promote their own viewpoints. All that still happens but not as much with corporate owners whose primary concern is the bottom-line.
But of the two, Salem appears to be the more bottom-line oriented company (not surprising given the legal requirements for publicly-held corporations). They have experienced radio managers who have targeted a specific market segment, which they attempt to serve. AAR has said their purpose it to influence the outcome of elections. Which raises the question, how would AAR be different with experienced radio managers targeting a given market segment and focused on the bottom-line? And how would Salem be different as a completely secular company?
