Air America vs Salem

[radiotower40]

I would still like an answer neither Salem or Air America seems to get decent ratings why is it that a posting for Salem vs Air
America is just a blog against Salem?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

I would still like an answer neither Salem or Air America seems to get decent ratings why is it that a posting for Salem vs Air
America is just a blog against Salem?

There's a big difference between Salem and Air America. Salem owns stations, AAR doesn't. And if the FCC chairman gets his way, the situation is only going to get worse for this industry.

 

[ajhenderson]

You're right on the ladder, Sean.

 

[HHH]

Sean:

To answer you question why I am homing in on Salem's talk network/stations:

Quite simply, because I have heard more than one Salem Talk personality beat up AAR as being a service that "nobody listened to".

Salem-Talk has generally horrible numbers as well and the Salem-Talk personalities know it.

The Salem-Talk personalities are lucky that they work for a company that put together a plan whereby failure in the ratings is evidently not a factor. But you would never know it by listening to them.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Sean:

To answer you question why I am homing in on Salem's talk network/stations:

Quite simply, because I have heard more than one Salem Talk personality beat up AAR as being a service that "nobody listened to".

Salem-Talk has generally horrible numbers as well and the Salem-Talk personalities know it.

The Salem-Talk personalities are lucky that they work for a company that put together a plan whereby failure in the ratings is evidently not a factor. But you would never know it by listening to them.

Actually, that was TR's question. I just replied like you did.

 

[radiotower40]

SEAN ,I guess do see your point now about Salem vs. AAR it does make it harder for AAR when they can't just buy a station and put their
hosts on them. I'm on the same page with you about the FCC, the media consolidation has got to stop somewhere.

 

[ajhenderson]

I understand your point TR. However, if you had a couple hundred million to buy a bunch of stations, you could probably build a very successful network, too. Money is always the difference.

 

[MrOtis]

If you string together enough low-rated stations, you still come up with a few listeners:

• Mike Gallagher (3.75+ million weekly listeners)
• Michael Medved (3.75+ million)
• Bill Bennett (3 million)
• Hugh Hewitt (1.5+ million)

Estimates from Talkers magazine based on Spring '07 ratings. That's enough to attract at least a few network advertisers.

But I agree with the general consensus: Salem runs its talk division to put out the neocon message rather than to make money, and I say that as a true conservative.

 

[kaufcom]

If you string together enough low-rated stations, you still come up with a few listeners:

• Mike Gallagher (3.75+ million weekly listeners)
• Michael Medved (3.75+ million)
• Bill Bennett (3 million)
• Hugh Hewitt (1.5+ million)

Estimates from Talkers magazine based on Spring '07 ratings. That's enough to attract at least a few network advertisers.

Yes, and Talkers also shows Ed Schultz, with 3.25 million listeners while claiming that Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, and Stephanie Miller are tied with 1.25 million apiece. That's interesting. A simple count of the affilliates each talker shows on their websites reveals that they are reaching about the same number of potential listeners. Are we to believe that Schultz' ratings are double those of Rhodes, Hartmann, and Miller. or is Talkers just pulling these numbers out to their arse?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

If you string together enough low-rated stations, you still come up with a few listeners:

• Mike Gallagher (3.75+ million weekly listeners)
• Michael Medved (3.75+ million)
• Bill Bennett (3 million)
• Hugh Hewitt (1.5+ million)

Estimates from Talkers magazine based on Spring '07 ratings. That's enough to attract at least a few network advertisers.

Yes, and Talkers also shows Ed Schultz, with 3.25 million listeners while claiming that Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, and Stephanie Miller are tied with 1.25 million apiece. That's interesting. A simple count of the affilliates each talker shows on their websites reveals that they are reaching about the same number of potential listeners. Are we to believe that Schultz' ratings are double those of Rhodes, Hartmann, and Miller. or is Talkers just pulling these numbers out to their arse?

Let's not forget Lionel and Alan Colmes with 1.25 million apiece. But the main point to be considered is that all six of these hosts can be heard on stations around the country with conservative talkers such as Rush, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly.

 

[ropertex]

Last year, Salem bought the right-wing-nut website townhall.com from the Heritage Foundation. Longtime users don't seem to understand that it's being used to promote "the nation's most popular conservative talk radio hosts... Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt" and why posts praising Rush and Hannity are being deleted.

 

[radiohawkins]

LOL

 

[jaymarvin]

I love this: Salem has spent a good chunk in outdoor here pushing Hannity and Ingram and they still can't get it done on a station with a pretty good signal. Air America is having trouble because some of the hosts don't have a clue how to do good radio, and the format is on stations with signal problems. Plus they still don't get that it's not about putting a Dem in the White House it's about getting numbers.

 

[b344077]

Finally, Progressive talk is on a station with a dominant signal (all be it a daytimer) in Chicago. Let's see if that makes a difference.

5K is not 50K but it has tremendous dial presense.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

I would think that if liberal talk is gonna work anywhere, it should work in a town with a strong pro-labor, pro-Democrat legacy...like Chicago.

This, of course, assumes (as Jay Marvin said) the hosts understand that they are there to present entertaining and compelling radio, and that pushing the agenda isn't enough...

 

[bub]

I agree. Pay for play is the easy way out. Turns your weekends in to an audio whore house. Sad.

With very few exceptions, Pay for play is sharecropper radio.
With very few exceptions, Pay for play is a glorified amateur hour.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

It is also radio's roots.

Through radio's Golden Age, sponsors owned the programs. Ad agencies hired talent and created and produced the shows. Stations and networks provided production facilities and air time. The only shows stations and networks produced themselves were sustaining (unsponsored).

It's only when radio realized they could better controlling their own schedule (formatting the station) and by selling minutes and half minutes instead of hours and half-hours that radio got into the content in with both feet.

Now marginal stations or stations with marginal time periods can do better by letting talent or producers pay them and let people who want to be on the radio worry about selling time. Infomercials. Preachers. Talk shows having trouble getting cleared. People who want to do their own radio show.

 

[smedge2006]

Through radio's Golden Age, sponsors owned the programs. Ad agencies hired talent and created and produced the shows. Stations and networks provided production facilities and air time. The only shows stations and networks produced themselves were sustaining (unsponsored).

Uh... I realize that Colon Plunger infomercials and the Jack Benny program share the same business model, but we're talking a vast difference in quality here. The Colon Plunger shows are only unintentionally entertaining!

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Through radio's Golden Age, sponsors owned the programs. Ad agencies hired talent and created and produced the shows. Stations and networks provided production facilities and air time. The only shows stations and networks produced themselves were sustaining (unsponsored).

Uh... I realize that Colon Plunger infomercials and the Jack Benny program share the same business model, but we're talking a vast difference in quality here. The Colon Plunger shows are only unintentionally entertaining!

The actual title was "The Lucky Strike Program starring Jack Benny." Earlier, "The Jello Program starring Jack Benny." Back then there were limits on how much time could be devoted to sales pitches. Generally network programs had three minutes of commercials: A cow-catcher (after the intro, before the show started), a middle commercial (often integrated into the plot) and a hitch-hike (after the good-night). The distinction between a sponsored show and an infomercial is not quality (which is in the ear of the beholder) but the fact that infomercials are ALL sales pitch (and also that reputable advertisers don't use them; blue chip advertisers mostly don't use radio any more, so infomercials are the lowest of the low.)

At one time, radio didn't not allow any kind of reference to "personal" issues such as the colon (or its by-product). While advertising for over-the-counter drug products was common, Preparation-H was verboten.

But since we started talking about Salem, they make their money from brokered religion. These stations subsidize their money-losing news/talk network. What are these "religious" programs other than "preachomercials," mostly designed to promote the sponsoring "ministry" and raise money. These shows are pledge drives on steroids (and sadly they do a much better job raising money than public radio ever dreamed of).