Much time is spent beating up Air America, and I agree the product is by and large bad. So because it doesn't do very well people like Phil Boyce (WABC) mouth off about how liberal talk doesn't work. Yet he and others have nothing to say about Salem Broadcasting who's stations draw awful numbers. In my market they even spend money on outdoor and it still doesn't help them. Why doesn't anyone beat them up? Their product sucks just as bad as Air America's. A talk show host's politics doesn't matter. It only matters what kind of show they do.
-
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
Air America vs Salem
- Thread starter kilohertz
- Start date
D
DaleGriffin
Guest
1. Salem does not have people on here clamoring for clearances for them, AAR and Ed Schultz do.
2. Salem owns a lot of the stations they are on.
3. In some markets they are the 3rd or 4th Conservative news/talk station, while AAR is the only.
4. They make money.
2. Salem owns a lot of the stations they are on.
3. In some markets they are the 3rd or 4th Conservative news/talk station, while AAR is the only.
4. They make money.
... and once you've heard the Bill Bennett anti-wake up show, it's easy to understand why.
... which makes it part of the worst aspect of consolidation: corporate cramdown. If Medved, Prager and Gallagher had to compete for clearances, their audiences and affiliate lists would be even smaller than they are now.
In others they are number two -- but it's still a HUGE gap between them and the Limbaugh/Hannity station. In others they fail to draw significant #'s despite having Hannity. Their largest share in the top 100 markets is in Sarasota, FL -- where Clear Channel abandoned the market with news-talk and there is no local Limbaugh affiliate and Hannity is on a small daytimer at the south fringe of the metro. I'm sure they're embarrassed at having such good numbers in Sarasota and will act quickly to rectify the situation. Salem's brand of conservatalk was run out of Miami on a rail and they dare not bring it back.
Their investors have questioned their strategy of buying marginal signals and pumping in conservatalk -- and Salem has bailed out of its Jacksonville stations -- although it sold those stations to relatives of company bigwigs to keep them in the closed club of Christian conservative ownership.
They don't have to beg to get stations for their bad talent because the own the stations their on. They still do not get any numbers. Go look at their 25-54. It is bad. Yes, they make money because they have very little overhead. But they could make a lot more if they had good programing. Being third or fourth and either not showing in the money demo or hardly showing doesn't say much. When you're sitting there with a .09 25-54 in markets like Chicago and LA you are nowhere near getting your hands on the big bucks. They are no better than Air America because they put political view point ahead of good radio.
Most of their money is made on nights and weekends when it's almost all brokered programming. WIND is Chicago is doing a little better then most Salem stations. They have been able to hire some local talent.
This is one reason why I disagree with KJCB and others who defend brokered programming. What kind of incentive do you have to improve the station if you make most of your money when the fewest people are listening?
2. Salem owns a lot of the stations they are on.
True
3. In some markets they are the 3rd or 4th Conservative news/talk station, while AAR is the only.
In liberal Boston, Salem's WTTT ("Boston's Conservative Talk") is still on the air. Clear Channel
dumped AAR/libtalk off WKOX/WXKS almost a year ago. (Even though WTTT has never shown up
in the 12 plus while WKOX/WXKS at least showed a fraction of a point)
4. They make money.
It's a miracle; you-who-know works in mysterious ways...
True
3. In some markets they are the 3rd or 4th Conservative news/talk station, while AAR is the only.
In liberal Boston, Salem's WTTT ("Boston's Conservative Talk") is still on the air. Clear Channel
dumped AAR/libtalk off WKOX/WXKS almost a year ago. (Even though WTTT has never shown up
in the 12 plus while WKOX/WXKS at least showed a fraction of a point)
4. They make money.
It's a miracle; you-who-know works in mysterious ways...
<< Their investors have questioned their strategy of buying marginal signals and pumping in conservatalk -- and Salem has bailed out of its Jacksonville stations -- although it sold those stations to relatives of company bigwigs to keep them in the closed club of Christian conservative ownership. >>
Their investors should have questioned why the hell they invested in radio stocks.
<< They don't have to beg to get stations for their bad talent because the own the stations their on. They still do not get any numbers. Go look at their 25-54. It is bad. Yes, they make money because they have very little overhead. But they could make a lot more if they had good programing. Being third or fourth and either not showing in the money demo or hardly showing doesn't say much. When you're sitting there with a .09 25-54 in markets like Chicago and LA you are nowhere near getting your hands on the big bucks. They are no better than Air America because they put political view point ahead of good radio. >>
It is true Salem's talk hosts would have next to no clearances if it weren't for... Salem. Yes the numbers are bad, although its a .9 is Chicago, not a .09 (impossible). Their strategy is to be superconservative, and the number of people who a) fall into that category AND b) are so devoted to "a" that they'll listen to boring radio, is small. No promotion doesn't help either, although they're getting better. There is a decent amount of ads for KRLA in the LA area, although I never saw anything for them in Phoenix when I lived there.
<< They have been able to hire some local talent. >>
And they are starting to be more flexible with non-Salem talent. For the longest time, it was Laura Ingraham, who I figured Ed Atsinger wanted to sleep with. Then she lost her hair and they started putting Mark Levin on a few stations, and now a wholesale addition of Dennis Miller. Granted, WW1 is probably paying, but at least the quality of his show is SLIGHTLY better than Prager or Medved.
<< This is one reason why I disagree with KJCB and others who defend brokered programming. What kind of incentive do you have to improve the station if you make most of your money when the fewest people are listening? >>
I do not necessarily think brokered programming is the answer. If I ran WIND in Chicago, there would be no brokered programming. That's a great signal and I'd try and model it around KFI here in LA. KFI, BTW, has no pay-to-play and bills $65 million a year. It's the stations with bad signals, no budget, etc. that should broker. People always talk about wanting non-corporate ownership of stations. I know a guy who owned a station in a top-20 market with a great signal. He decided to flip it to a news/talk format and had a lot of local hosts, very little syndication, and almost no brokered time on weekends. He bought billboards, sent people into the street, did everything he could to promote it. 18 months and a lot of money later, he had a 0.5 12+, no agency business, and not enough direct business to cover his expenses. In today's radio business, running a "real" format requires a lot of money and patience. CC will try to stomp you out. It's tough. If I were running Salem, I'd take some of their good major market signals and try to really compete with the market leader. I'm a radio guy and love the business and its history, but there are some, not all, cases where you have to face reality and realize that "selling out" (note the quotes) is the only way to even exist. It may be sad, but sometimes the truth is.
Their investors should have questioned why the hell they invested in radio stocks.
<< They don't have to beg to get stations for their bad talent because the own the stations their on. They still do not get any numbers. Go look at their 25-54. It is bad. Yes, they make money because they have very little overhead. But they could make a lot more if they had good programing. Being third or fourth and either not showing in the money demo or hardly showing doesn't say much. When you're sitting there with a .09 25-54 in markets like Chicago and LA you are nowhere near getting your hands on the big bucks. They are no better than Air America because they put political view point ahead of good radio. >>
It is true Salem's talk hosts would have next to no clearances if it weren't for... Salem. Yes the numbers are bad, although its a .9 is Chicago, not a .09 (impossible). Their strategy is to be superconservative, and the number of people who a) fall into that category AND b) are so devoted to "a" that they'll listen to boring radio, is small. No promotion doesn't help either, although they're getting better. There is a decent amount of ads for KRLA in the LA area, although I never saw anything for them in Phoenix when I lived there.
<< They have been able to hire some local talent. >>
And they are starting to be more flexible with non-Salem talent. For the longest time, it was Laura Ingraham, who I figured Ed Atsinger wanted to sleep with. Then she lost her hair and they started putting Mark Levin on a few stations, and now a wholesale addition of Dennis Miller. Granted, WW1 is probably paying, but at least the quality of his show is SLIGHTLY better than Prager or Medved.
<< This is one reason why I disagree with KJCB and others who defend brokered programming. What kind of incentive do you have to improve the station if you make most of your money when the fewest people are listening? >>
I do not necessarily think brokered programming is the answer. If I ran WIND in Chicago, there would be no brokered programming. That's a great signal and I'd try and model it around KFI here in LA. KFI, BTW, has no pay-to-play and bills $65 million a year. It's the stations with bad signals, no budget, etc. that should broker. People always talk about wanting non-corporate ownership of stations. I know a guy who owned a station in a top-20 market with a great signal. He decided to flip it to a news/talk format and had a lot of local hosts, very little syndication, and almost no brokered time on weekends. He bought billboards, sent people into the street, did everything he could to promote it. 18 months and a lot of money later, he had a 0.5 12+, no agency business, and not enough direct business to cover his expenses. In today's radio business, running a "real" format requires a lot of money and patience. CC will try to stomp you out. It's tough. If I were running Salem, I'd take some of their good major market signals and try to really compete with the market leader. I'm a radio guy and love the business and its history, but there are some, not all, cases where you have to face reality and realize that "selling out" (note the quotes) is the only way to even exist. It may be sad, but sometimes the truth is.
Truth be told I wonder why some of their stations don't do better than they do. Even with Savage and Ingraham on their stations they barely bust the book. Not a fan of their home grown stable of talent though...Bennet, Prager, Medved and Hewitt are a big reason why these stations do not perform...but from the top down at Salem they are committed to propagating a conservative agenda and their talent does that (just not very well).
In Biblethumper radio, you don't need big ratings to get big revenue. It's the nature of the beast. ;D
Here's a great couple of quotes:
Sean Hannity some months ago: "Air American failed because they were pushing an agenda. You should never push an agenda in talk radio".
Sean Hannity today: "We'll take a break and be right back as the 'Stop Hillary Express' continues on the Sean Hannity Show"
Just what is Mr. Hannity's definition of an "agenda"?
By the way, some smart remarks about Salem. They can't cut it in the marketplace either, but lots and lots and lots of money and o & o stations that you are willing to "sacrifice to the cause" sure can make a difference, eh?
And, I might add, one of the all-time great laugh-out-loud moments came when I heard Hugh Hewitt on Salem talk about how AAR failed due to "poor ratings". Must be nice when Sugar Daddy papers over market failure with cash, eh Hugh??
Sean Hannity some months ago: "Air American failed because they were pushing an agenda. You should never push an agenda in talk radio".
Sean Hannity today: "We'll take a break and be right back as the 'Stop Hillary Express' continues on the Sean Hannity Show"
Just what is Mr. Hannity's definition of an "agenda"?
By the way, some smart remarks about Salem. They can't cut it in the marketplace either, but lots and lots and lots of money and o & o stations that you are willing to "sacrifice to the cause" sure can make a difference, eh?
And, I might add, one of the all-time great laugh-out-loud moments came when I heard Hugh Hewitt on Salem talk about how AAR failed due to "poor ratings". Must be nice when Sugar Daddy papers over market failure with cash, eh Hugh??
Do you think PPM'S will help or hurt talk stations? No matter if you lean toward Air America or Salem you have to admit neither
one ever seems to get decent ratings in most parts of the country even with billboards and decent advertising.
one ever seems to get decent ratings in most parts of the country even with billboards and decent advertising.
>>Just what is Mr. Hannity's definition of an "agenda"?
It's called pushing a political agenda AND making lots of money while doing so. Nice work if you can get it...
Hannity would probably tell you, "the secret is to make it entertaining, to push an enjoyable show rather
than pushing nothing but an agenda". Certainly the libtalkers feel they can do so but for various reasons
they haven't matched the success of a Rush, Sean, or Glenn.
It's called pushing a political agenda AND making lots of money while doing so. Nice work if you can get it...
Hannity would probably tell you, "the secret is to make it entertaining, to push an enjoyable show rather
than pushing nothing but an agenda". Certainly the libtalkers feel they can do so but for various reasons
they haven't matched the success of a Rush, Sean, or Glenn.
Speaking of which, I saw Glenn Beck's new deal referred to as the third highest paying talk host behind Rush and Hannity. Is it just me or did Hannity sign a new $5 million/yr, 5 year deal a little under 3 years ago? How is $5 higher than $10? Where I am going wrong?
D
DaleGriffin
Guest
HHH said:
Yes, lower cost requires less revenue to be profitable. Your right HHH that is the difference.
Dale:
It is not just "lower cost requires less revenue to be profitable".
This is a case of a company (Salem) that is willing to fund a whole network and many, bigger-potential o & o stations REGARDLESS OF POOR RATINGS.
My main point is that AAR did not have the luxury of a deep-pockets company that is willing to sink obscene amounts of money into the network and buy dozens of major stations in big cities to clear the programming of a service that is a commercial failure. Salem-talk pulls virtually no ratings anywhere.
But, again, when I heard Hugh Hewitt on Salem crowing about AAR's "failure in the marketplace", it just made me wonder what McDonald's Mr. Hewitt would be working at today if Big Daddy Warbucks Salem didn't pick up his tab.
It is not just "lower cost requires less revenue to be profitable".
This is a case of a company (Salem) that is willing to fund a whole network and many, bigger-potential o & o stations REGARDLESS OF POOR RATINGS.
My main point is that AAR did not have the luxury of a deep-pockets company that is willing to sink obscene amounts of money into the network and buy dozens of major stations in big cities to clear the programming of a service that is a commercial failure. Salem-talk pulls virtually no ratings anywhere.
But, again, when I heard Hugh Hewitt on Salem crowing about AAR's "failure in the marketplace", it just made me wonder what McDonald's Mr. Hewitt would be working at today if Big Daddy Warbucks Salem didn't pick up his tab.
D
DaleGriffin
Guest
HHH said:
They pay one stable of talent with almost zero local talent. It's not charity, the ratings may suck, but they are making money. Money is all that matters.
Well, Salem itself makes money--mostly, I understand--through the religious-instruction stations and their brokerage fees, not the talk stations.
But I sincerely doubt that the extrated Salem talk station unit--both on the network revenue side and their O & Os local revenue side--is operating in the black. I am sure that costs are simply absorbed into the company at large because of the stated "mission" of the company with this talk network. They have bought key stations to guarantee clearance because they know that this whole thing can't cut it in the marketplace.
KRLA in Los Angeles, WTTT Boston, WHK Cleveland and other Salem O & Os have never shown any revenue in any of the industry billing reports that I have seen. They have no ratings, even with the above stations which all have substantial signals over their markets.
Yet, they are on a "mission from God". Take a look at the KRLA website (for example) and tell me you don't see an agenda.
The only difference between AAR and Salem-Talk is that the Salem sugar daddies made sure that failure in the markeplace--both in ratings and revenue--would not be an issue. Must be nice, eh?
Once again, Hugh Hewitt's crowing about AAR's commercial failure some months ago was a real laugh-out-loud moment. It was like a trust-fund brat putting down someone for having money trouble.
But I sincerely doubt that the extrated Salem talk station unit--both on the network revenue side and their O & Os local revenue side--is operating in the black. I am sure that costs are simply absorbed into the company at large because of the stated "mission" of the company with this talk network. They have bought key stations to guarantee clearance because they know that this whole thing can't cut it in the marketplace.
KRLA in Los Angeles, WTTT Boston, WHK Cleveland and other Salem O & Os have never shown any revenue in any of the industry billing reports that I have seen. They have no ratings, even with the above stations which all have substantial signals over their markets.
Yet, they are on a "mission from God". Take a look at the KRLA website (for example) and tell me you don't see an agenda.
The only difference between AAR and Salem-Talk is that the Salem sugar daddies made sure that failure in the markeplace--both in ratings and revenue--would not be an issue. Must be nice, eh?
Once again, Hugh Hewitt's crowing about AAR's commercial failure some months ago was a real laugh-out-loud moment. It was like a trust-fund brat putting down someone for having money trouble.
HHH:
The mission from God thing is crap. I think you've mentioned before that this is so. They are a for-profit company pretending to care about Christianity to rake in money. That doesn't make them bad per se, but anything who thinks they are a charity is wrong. Sure, they don't air liberal programs and they won't sell time to Brother Stair, but they'll happily sell time to every infomercial selling a worthless (and in rare instances, dangerous) health product.
KRLA has actually being going up. They are still a non-entity here, especially with their godawful night signal. WTTT is an example of one of their worst performers, even with Hannity, but the signal is bad and the market is over-talked.
Salem's talk operation does account for about 10% of its profit. It was in their annual report. Christian talk/teaching is 50%, with CCM and their web and print operations making up the balance. If you've ever been to a Salem cluster, it's luxurious while very depressing. They are based mostly in high-class buildings with nice finishes, etc., but no one's there. Metro news and traffic and automated talk. Except on the weekends, when they charge above-market rates to sell time. $2700/hr for KRLA? KLAA has just as good a signal and is 1/3 that. KLSX on FM is little more than twice as much. So, yes, the talk operation makes money. I agree that Hugh Hewitt could never survive in the free market, but that does not make Salem News/Talk a failure. It makes it a division of a company that realized it could put out a cheap crap product and dump it on a bunch of marginal AMs that they buy at moderately low prices.
In reality, you could do a hostile takeover of SALM and make a nice amount of money. The market cap is somewhat under $200 million. Even after adding a stock premium and paying off the long term debt, you'd have assets worth more than what you'd pay. Imagine if you had signals like KKLA in Los Angeles, WFIL in Philadelphia, etc., etc., and operated them like a real radio company.
The mission from God thing is crap. I think you've mentioned before that this is so. They are a for-profit company pretending to care about Christianity to rake in money. That doesn't make them bad per se, but anything who thinks they are a charity is wrong. Sure, they don't air liberal programs and they won't sell time to Brother Stair, but they'll happily sell time to every infomercial selling a worthless (and in rare instances, dangerous) health product.
KRLA has actually being going up. They are still a non-entity here, especially with their godawful night signal. WTTT is an example of one of their worst performers, even with Hannity, but the signal is bad and the market is over-talked.
Salem's talk operation does account for about 10% of its profit. It was in their annual report. Christian talk/teaching is 50%, with CCM and their web and print operations making up the balance. If you've ever been to a Salem cluster, it's luxurious while very depressing. They are based mostly in high-class buildings with nice finishes, etc., but no one's there. Metro news and traffic and automated talk. Except on the weekends, when they charge above-market rates to sell time. $2700/hr for KRLA? KLAA has just as good a signal and is 1/3 that. KLSX on FM is little more than twice as much. So, yes, the talk operation makes money. I agree that Hugh Hewitt could never survive in the free market, but that does not make Salem News/Talk a failure. It makes it a division of a company that realized it could put out a cheap crap product and dump it on a bunch of marginal AMs that they buy at moderately low prices.
In reality, you could do a hostile takeover of SALM and make a nice amount of money. The market cap is somewhat under $200 million. Even after adding a stock premium and paying off the long term debt, you'd have assets worth more than what you'd pay. Imagine if you had signals like KKLA in Los Angeles, WFIL in Philadelphia, etc., etc., and operated them like a real radio company.
- Status