Air America Lineup Changes

[kolakid1]

With the reorganization of AA's morning shows, do you think that will energize their ratings? Morning Sedition is being disbanded with Mark Riley from Sedition going solo from 5 to 7am and Rachel Maddow, currently on from 5 to 6am, moving into her new 2 hour slot from 7 to 9am. Springer, Franken and the rest appear to remain where they are.

Will you miss Morning Sedition? With the changes, will you now listen more or less?

 

[mwebster]

> With the reorganization of AA's morning shows, do you think
> that will energize their ratings?
No
> Will you miss Morning Sedition?
No
> With the changes, will you now listen more or less?
Neither more nor less.

AAR's ratings are about as good as they are ever going to get with their current business model. Their numbers are comparable to Salem, and ESPN Radio. Turn-key networks are a way for marginal stations to operate cheaply enough that they have a tinker's prayer of seeing black in. This is all there is. What you see is what you get.

Even with good talent they won't do much better in the Arbitons. Setting aside ideology (which is asking the impossible for some of you) Salem has better talent plus better signals most places, and they still can't do better than acey-ducey 12 plus numbers.

 

[Marc0n1]

So, every day at 7am, AAR is going to switch from one kind of morning show to a completely different kind of morning show,in the middle of the average American's morning drive time.

As this goes against the grain of everything we know about people's morning listening habits, is it (a) a brilliant step ahead by innovative radio programmers, or (b) another enormous blunder by people who never seem to run out of ways to show that they fundamentally don't understand the medium?

Discuss.

 

[Gnarlodious]

> Will you miss Morning Sedition?
Nope, not a bit. Too bombastic for me.

> With the changes, will you now listen more
Yep. Rachel maddow is very listenable. Good changes, AAR!<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>

 

[mr_arbitron]

>>
> Will you miss Morning Sedition? With the changes, will you
> now listen more or less?
>

Won't help ratings "overall" These lineup juggles don't do anything for the Left coast.. nobody's listening at 3am. Err Amerika should produce a Left Coast type morning show<P ID="signature">______________
We send you a $1 every other day. Please fill out your diaries.

Please help Err Amerika: http://larslarson.com/LinksNStuff/LarsSpoofs/Attachment_GetAttachment.aspx?id=1466&fd=0
</P>

 

[robbbc]

> So, every day at 7am, AAR is going to switch from one kind
> of morning show to a completely different kind of morning
> show,in the middle of the average American's morning drive
> time.
>
> As this goes against the grain of everything we know about
> people's morning listening habits, is it (a) a brilliant
> step ahead by innovative radio programmers, or (b) another
> enormous blunder by people who never seem to run out of ways
> to show that they fundamentally don't understand the medium?
>
>
> Discuss.
>

Since most people (especially upscale/middle class college educated types working 9-5) don't listen to their Radio morning show until they get into the car, which is after 7 in the east and after 6 central time I don't think this is an issue. Since many of the radio stations playing AAR are low power at night and don't power up til as late as after seven, especially this time of year, it doesn't matter much. Riley should know his days are numbered- this is just a temporary situation. As soon as AAR can wrangle out of his contract he will be on his way to the Radio One Black Talk network or some such. Maddow's show will go to three (maybe 4) hours and that is that- no major paradigm shift in radio here. As for not fundamentally understanding radio, I think that was a point some time ago but they are making progress. They have Thom Hartmann in the wings and Maddow is a real talent- the first one AAR has really "found". Malloy and Seder are good for their timeslots and Rhodes is much better than Big Eddie. Other than Riley at the "ass-crack" of dawn (as Maddow used to put it when she was there) and Springer, whose days are numbered as well, the lineup is good.

 

[johndavis]

> Since most people (especially upscale/middle class college
> educated types working 9-5) don't listen to their Radio
> morning show until they get into the car, which is after 7
> in the east and after 6 central time I don't think this is
> an issue.

I also don't expect Riley to be doing comedy 5a - 7a. I expect it to be pretty much a news block with some interviews; not a big change when you cross from 6:59 to 7:05.<P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>

 

[kolakid1]

> I also don't expect Riley to be doing comedy 5a - 7a. I
> expect it to be pretty much a news block with some
> interviews; not a big change when you cross from 6:59 to
> 7:05.
>

I believe I heard them mention that very fact: less comedy, more callers and a more NPR-ish feel to the Mark Riley show.

Rachel Maddow does have her news guy/foil and does some minor comedy stuff, but, she is more monologist stylistically.

I actually feel that Rachel will eventually replace Mark with her own 4-hour Morning show. She's great...I like her approach.

 

[doc9464]

> > I also don't expect Riley to be doing comedy 5a - 7a. I
> > expect it to be pretty much a news block with some
> > interviews; not a big change when you cross from 6:59 to
> > 7:05.
> >
>
> I believe I heard them mention that very fact: less comedy,
> more callers and a more NPR-ish feel to the Mark Riley show.
>
>
> Rachel Maddow does have her news guy/foil and does some
> minor comedy stuff, but, she is more monologist
> stylistically.
>
> I actually feel that Rachel will eventually replace Mark
> with her own 4-hour Morning show. She's great...I like her
> approach.
>

Regrettably i think Maddow will eclipse Riley. Id wanted Riley to try to bring Franken in line on his show...since Katheryn moved to her book writing career.

 

[Tom_]

Re: RATINGS: Stephan, Miller, Press vs. Air America Mornings

> AAR's ratings are about as good as they are ever going to
> get with their current business model. Their numbers are
> comparable to Salem, and ESPN Radio. Turn-key networks are
> a way for marginal stations to operate cheaply enough that
> they have a tinker's prayer of seeing black in. This is all
> there is. What you see is what you get.
>
> Even with good talent they won't do much better in the
> Arbitons. Setting aside ideology (which is asking the
> impossible for some of you) Salem has better talent plus
> better signals most places, and they still can't do better
> than acey-ducey 12 plus numbers.

How would you compare Air America to the morning shows of Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, and Doug Stephan?

Some progressive stations already run Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, and Doug Stephan *INSTEAD* of one of the various morning Air America programs.

Are these stations getting better morning drive ratings with Miller, Press, and Douglas Stephan???

How about the 6a-10a ratings of stations w/ local morning shows (e.g. JayMarvin/Denver, ThomHartmann/Portland, Charles Guiette/Phoenix, Nancy Skinner/Detroit - now off the air)?

 

[Tom_]

Re: Upscale College Educated listeners shouldn't be anyone's target demo.

> Since most people (especially upscale/middle class college
> educated types working 9-5) don't listen to their Radio
> morning show until they get into the car, which is after 7
> in the east and after 6 central time I don't think this is
> an issue.

"Upscale college educated people" shouldn't be any network's target demo. I doubt this is Air America's target demo. Indeed, most talk listeners do not hold a bachelor's degree. Most listeners are certainly not upscale in terms of income. And most talk listeners are not even liberal. See the Talkers Magazine research project link for statistics: http://www.talkers.com/talkaud.html

What counts in generating ratings is passion and entertainment value. If it is true that mostly upscale college folks listen to "Air America" and liberal talk radio in general, then liberal talk radio will never get the ratings than it COULD get. Liberal talk programs need to appeal to EVERYBODY - conservatives, blue collar union Democrats, farmers, truck drivers, etc. etc.

Programmers should generally assume that listeners know very little about current politics or history. Entertainment value and passion are the keys to keep people listening. People want to be entertained while they are informed. NPR, PBS, Pacifica programs, and certain Air America programs (esp. the Majority Report) have less entertainment value. In contrast, Randi Rhodes (AAR), Mike Malloy (AAR), Ed Schultz (Jones), Alan Colmes (FOX), and others present liberal viewpoints with high energy and passion. (And the most passionate of all in my view would be Ray Talliaferro/KGO n/t 810.)

Anyway, the majority of the traditional talk radio demographic would tune the dial if they ran across "Democracy Now" or "The Majority Report" since the discussions are too intellectual.

As for signals:

> Since many of the radio stations playing AAR are
> low power at night and don't power up til as late as after
> seven, especially this time of year, it doesn't matter much.

However, a signal that still covers the city of license at night (but not the suburbs) will reach the area of highest population density. The station will continue to generate ratings at night.

From April-September, probably all lower 48 US stations go to daytime operations at or before 6am.

 

[mwebster]

Yes it should

Clearly, you have never worked in an ad agency.
And apparently you haven't worked in broadcasting either.
Money matters. You can't pay bills with ratings.
You can't sell with the 12+ AQH share "beauty contest" numbers which get posted online.
The reason they get posted online is because they don't mean much. Arbitron makes stations pay for the real numbers - the numbers that mean something to advertisers.

Appeal to "EVERYBODY." Get real. People listen to talk radio that supports their existing viewpoints. People who listen to conservative talk radio are conservative. People who listen to liberal talk radio are liberals. Would you tell a music station to play music that appeals to EVERYBODY?


>
> "Upscale college educated people" shouldn't be any network's
> target demo. I doubt this is Air America's target demo.
> Indeed, most talk listeners do not hold a bachelor's degree.
> Most listeners are certainly not upscale in terms of
> income. And most talk listeners are not even liberal. See
> the Talkers Magazine research project link for statistics:
> http://www.talkers.com/talkaud.html
>
> What counts in generating ratings is passion and
> entertainment value. If it is true that mostly upscale
> college folks listen to "Air America" and liberal talk radio
> in general, then liberal talk radio will never get the
> ratings than it COULD get. Liberal talk programs need to
> appeal to EVERYBODY - conservatives, blue collar union
> Democrats, farmers, truck drivers, etc. etc.
>
> Programmers should generally assume that listeners know very
> little about current politics or history. Entertainment
> value and passion are the keys to keep people listening.
> People want to be entertained while they are informed. NPR,
> PBS, Pacifica programs, and certain Air America programs
> (esp. the Majority Report) have less entertainment value. In
> contrast, Randi Rhodes (AAR), Mike Malloy (AAR), Ed Schultz
> (Jones), Alan Colmes (FOX), and others present liberal
> viewpoints with high energy and passion. (And the most
> passionate of all in my view would be Ray Talliaferro/KGO
> n/t 810.)
>
> Anyway, the majority of the traditional talk radio
> demographic would tune the dial if they ran across
> "Democracy Now" or "The Majority Report" since the
> discussions are too intellectual.
>
> As for signals:
>
> > Since many of the radio stations playing AAR are
> > low power at night and don't power up til as late as after
>
> > seven, especially this time of year, it doesn't matter
> much.
>
> However, a signal that still covers the city of license at
> night (but not the suburbs) will reach the area of highest
> population density. The station will continue to generate
> ratings at night.
>
> From April-September, probably all lower 48 US stations go
> to daytime operations at or before 6am.
>

 

[dampier]

> AAR's ratings are about as good as they are ever going to
> get with their current business model. Their numbers are
> comparable to Salem, and ESPN Radio. Turn-key networks are
> a way for marginal stations to operate cheaply enough that
> they have a tinker's prayer of seeing black in. This is all
> there is. What you see is what you get.

Listeners don't listen to business models, they listen to talk shows. AAR stations at least show up in the ratings books - there are a lot of Salem stations that barely measure at all. The local traffic/traveler advisory station on 1610 run by the DOT probably draws more listeners than some Salem outlets.

AAR has lots of room for growth. Some of their weaker shows are never going to do better than a lot of weak conservative shows. Answer - replace the low rated shows.

Then, promote the lineup. The current guerilla marketing word of mouth promotional nonsense isn't working. A lot of that is the fault of affiliates who are, as mwebster says, using AAR as a turnkey solution away from sports/financial/conservative talk or standards music they were playing before.

Our local AAR affiliate is learning. They are doing slightly better with AAR than they were with the second tier conservative shows they aired before, but the whole thing is run as an afterthought by Entercom. They fired the last local show host a few months ago. At least they've discovered that when the AAR show is weak, they can replace it with something else (ie. dumping Springer for Stephanie).

Will an AAR affiliate ever achieve number one as a turnkey outfit alone? No way.

> Even with good talent they won't do much better in the
> Arbitons. Setting aside ideology (which is asking the
> impossible for some of you) Salem has better talent plus
> better signals most places, and they still can't do better
> than acey-ducey 12 plus numbers.

Pot to kettle on the ideology, and nakedly so when you actually suggest Salem has "better talent" than AAR. Show me some numbers that show Janet Parshall doing anything close to what KPOJ is seeing with some of their AAR hosts. Is there a Salem host anywhere that beat, say, Randi Rhodes in her original market? Where is Hugh Hewitt in the last book?

Speaking generally to the AAR critics, I always find it amusing when the anti-AAR campaign people start accusing AAR of buying its way on the dial or being some George Soros secret operation, or putting shows on with no regard for the ratings while they remain silent about operations like Salem which do precisely that and carry their own political agenda and a schedule that has plenty of brokered airtime.

If AAR followed Salem by giving huge sums of cash to DeLay to deregulate the industry so they could buy up hundreds of radio stations and throw their programming on them, get involved with local political groups to force through liberal agendas on all sorts of issues, run a schedule that includes more than 50 bought and paid for radio shows, and have its own lobbying firm to dole out cash, we'd never hear the end of it.

Salem is a Christian radio network. In some of their shows, the Godtalk is kept down, but only until the phone calls start rolling in and the listeners, who are overwhelmingly Christian conservatives, bring God right back in. There's nothing wrong with this at all, but the reason Salem isn't drawing huge audiences is that listeners quickly realize it is religion, and there are a lot of conservatives that won't listen to religious talk either.

 

[Tom_]

Re: MODERATE Democrats: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes: Most Successful in terms of Affiliate counts

> Clearly, you have never worked in an ad agency.
> And apparently you haven't worked in broadcasting either.

My goodness...please don't attempt to guess what my affiliation(s) are or are not. It just looks like we have different sources for our research with differing conclusions. With all due respect to your sources here's where I would disagree:

Most traditional talk radio listeners conservative. Air America and other liberal networks *MUST* get this existing conservative demographic in order to get the big ratings of the conservative talkers. Look at Ed Schultz, a MODERATE Democrat (moderate = key word!), with about 106 affiliates, and nearly 2 million listeners according to Talkers Magazine, more than any other progressive host (in the fall '05 Talkers Survey just released). Look at Alan Colmes, who when compared to TODAY, was the most successful liberal talker in terms of affiliates in the 1990's on DAYNET, with well over 100 affiliates.

> Appeal to "EVERYBODY." Get real. People listen to talk
> radio that supports their existing viewpoints.

With all due respect, people listen to talk radio for its entertainment value. Rush has 14.75 millions listeners because he is incredibly entertaining.

> People who
> listen to conservative talk radio are conservative.

Plenty of liberals listen to conservative talk.

People
> who listen to liberal talk radio are liberals.

Again, with all due respect, plenty of conservatives listen to liberal talkers.

Would you
> tell a music station to play music that appeals to
> EVERYBODY?

No. But at least at this point, it is provincial to think that syndicated talk radio has somehow reached the point where there are two well delineated audiences based solely on political ideology or level of education. Of course there is some difference, more conservatives will listen conservative shows than to liberal shows. This would especially be the case with the extremes in the industry, like Michael Savage and Air America. I'm not sure where this idea has come from that only college educated people listen to liberal shows.

I hope we can agree to respectfully disagree. I have a high regard for your posts on this forum.

 

[Tom_]

Re: Salem Radio Network Talk Shows

> Salem is a Christian radio network. In some of their shows,
> the Godtalk is kept down, but only until the phone calls
> start rolling in and the listeners, who are overwhelmingly
> Christian conservatives, bring God right back in.

Michael Medved (3p-6p EST) and Dennis Praeger (NOON-3p EST) are both Jewish. Their shows are primarily political, not religious.

> But the reason Salem isn't
> drawing huge audiences is that listeners quickly realize it
> is religion, and there are a lot of conservatives that won't
> listen to religious talk either.

Why do you think this is the case? Are U referring to the network's "Christian Teaching" stations or their "news/talk" stations?

Seems to me that Medved and Praeger have traditional conservative talk shows, just like all the other conservatives on other networks.

 

[954]

Re: Salem Radio Network Talk Shows

> Seems to me that Medved and Praeger have traditional
> conservative talk shows, just like all the other
> conservatives on other networks.

Except that it's more intelligent, less bombastic,
and less self-centered than the competition.
<P ID="signature">______________
<A href='http://happyholidays.atspace.com/holidaymusic.html'><font color='#990000'>
Happy Festivus, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Saturnalia, and Happy Kwanzaa </font></A> from 954</P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Salem Radio Network Talk Shows

> Michael Medved (3p-6p EST) and Dennis Praeger (NOON-3p EST)
> are both Jewish. Their shows are primarily political, not
> religious.

Michael Medved is on the front lines of the "culture war." While B'nai Brith was concerned about Mel Gibson's Jesus snuff film, Medved was having multiple orgasms over every line in it.

Dr. Laura is Jewish as well, but if you tow the line, your audience won't care. It's not about their personal religious beliefs, it's about the political agenda contained in each and every show and the religious agenda being pushed by the owners.

Medved's column in USA Today has gotten so tiresome, every one of them brings pleas from readers about why the newspaper keeps running his rehashed liberal Hollywood conspiracy theories which have changed little over the years. Now he's doing the same dog and pony show on radio.

I've heard Medved's show. There isn't exactly a parade of Orthodox Jewish callers. It doesn't change the fact Salem is a conservative Christian talk outfit with a political agenda.

> Why do you think this is the case? Are U referring to the
> network's "Christian Teaching" stations or their "news/talk"
> stations?

The "teaching" stations are mostly paid dollar a holler stuff. We're talking about news/talk affiliates, primarily because this is a news/talk board. Janet Parshall is an excellent standardbearer of the perfect storm of religion and politics Salem airs. She's the Amy Grant of political talk radio - religious but can pass for secular when she has to.

> Seems to me that Medved and Praeger have traditional
> conservative talk shows, just like all the other
> conservatives on other networks.

I think most listeners would recognize fundamental differences between Sean Hannity or Michael Savage and Michael Medved. Wait, they already have. Medved's all-culture-war format isn't ratings gold.

 

[dampier]

Re: Yes it should

> Would you tell a music station to play music that appeals to
> EVERYBODY?

Yes. It's called Jack. Someone paid big money to get that tidbit of advice.

In the world of political talk radio, the advertising business comes down to finding clients that will sponsor the format, withstanding the potential boycotts, protests, and angry calls and letters the opposing point of view is sure to generate to the consumer affairs department or CEO of said sponsor.

 

[dampier]

Re: MODERATE Democrats: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes: Most Successful in terms of Affiliate counts

> Most traditional talk radio listeners conservative. Air
> America and other liberal networks *MUST* get this existing
> conservative demographic in order to get the big ratings of
> the conservative talkers. Look at Ed Schultz, a MODERATE
> Democrat (moderate = key word!), with about 106 affiliates,
> and nearly 2 million listeners according to Talkers
> Magazine, more than any other progressive host (in the fall
> '05 Talkers Survey just released).

Moderate libtalk has been a failure over the years it has been tried. It usually turns into hand-wringing mush (Michael Jackson being one good example) and drives everyone away.

Schultz got placement on stations because his show was one of the first standalone syndicated shows that didn't require a network commitment (AAR) and which got launch bonuses paid in some markets for live clearance. Franken got commitments because he is a "name" and also the designated hitter for AAR. But watch Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller. I particularly expect the latter host to see some major ratings spikes in the coming year. Neither of those hosts are moderate.

> Look at Alan Colmes, who
> when compared to TODAY, was the most successful liberal
> talker in terms of affiliates in the 1990's on DAYNET, with
> well over 100 affiliates.

When you have few choices, you took what you could get. That explains Tom Leykis. Unfortunately for him, he deserted political talk altogether for this hot talk/zoo aging frat party for the under 45 demo which has alienated everyone.

> Plenty of liberals listen to conservative talk.

We didn't have a choice before. Now that AAR and Jones is here, I don't spend much time on conservative talk radio at all. But people do sample opposing formats.

 

[doc9464]

Re: Salem Radio Network Talk Shows

> > Seems to me that Medved and Praeger have traditional
> > conservative talk shows, just like all the other
> > conservatives on other networks.
>
> Except that it's more intelligent, less bombastic,
> and less self-centered than the competition.
>

I've heard both and I would say they are of of "the same ilk" as most talk show hosts....a full and hearty ego (both), bombastic nature Medved), and very concentrated self centered-ness(both) (LOL)

Medved is throwing up the same dish every day....social issues (then he whines about them) and Praeger can't seem to gather or sustain the energy to be "bombastic"....they both act like legends in their own minds...