And In The Category Of Repetition...

[Radio_Realist]

So I repeat the simple question: what company did the research and for whom?

I won't mention the company's name, as I might want to work for them again. The research was a broad-based project to determine which media are the most effective for selling products to as many different market segments as could be identified. The company then sold its expertise to firms looking to sell products to consumers.

Some of the research was conducted under contract by the psychology department of a major university located in the Eastern part of the country. Some of the research was conducted by psychologists and statisticians who worked for the company. It consisted of using batteries of tests, surveys, and other methods to go beyond mere demographics into "psychographics", or dividing markets based on attitudes and lifestyles.

For example, it was discovered that males aged 18 to 35 who were interested in certain types of spectator sports had very different buying patterns from makes aged 18 to 35 who weren't interested in spectator sports at all, but who were avid participants in "adventure" sports. Arbitron ratings that simply indicated how many males between 18 and 35 tuned in weren't helpful in determining how to reach specific sub-sets of that demographic group. But the research the company I worked for was helpful at achieving that goal.

There are some market segments best reached by direct mail. Others are best reached through TV commercials. Others are best reached by radio. This research was designed to find out which media were best for every identifiable market segment. The divisions were based on other research into what psychographic characteristics are most important in determining who is likely to buy a given product.

And all products have different potential markets. We had a client who was trying to sell a kitchen product that did not save time in preparing food, but it produced excellent results at doing what it was intended to do. Our research determined what characteristics identified those who were likely to want to buy a "gourmet craftsman" type appliance because they enjoyed spending time cooking. We then found which media were best for reaching those buyers.

What was discovered about liberal voters seldom wanting to listen to liberal talk radio was serendipity. It wasn't the only goal of the research. We simply wanted to be prepared offer clients the best possible advice. If they were selling a product that liberals were more likely to want to buy than conservative (based on our research), then we needed to know what media were best for reaching liberals. And, by learning which media were best, we also discovered which media weren't as good.

The company I worked for was not the only marketing research and consulting company in the nation, it wasn't even the largest. I don't pretend that I was deeply involved in conducting the research. My job was using the research to develop marketing campaigns. Just as a music format station's music director relies on the results of market research to decide which songs to play, I relied on the research to help decide which media to use. And based on the research, radio was already becoming a less than desireable advertising medium back in the 90's. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy listening to the radio when the programming isn't boring. But it does mean that I could seldom recommend it to clients.

 

[Steven21]

This would be funny if someone didn't actually believe it. Actually most liberals I know (of which I am produly one) would be happy to listen to anyone who has an original thought. Most conservative talk shows are all about fear and how to sell it to the listening public. I have no time nor intellectual patience to listen to that kind of drivel. Give me someone who thinks and I'm happy to listen and I could care less if that individual is liberal, conservative or a druid. Unfortunately (as I have already indicated and hate to repeat myself) most conservative talk show are all about appealing to fear...fear of your taxes going up, fear of hordes of foreigners invading our shores, fear of tomorrow. It is a pretty pitful one-note samba.

That is why many liberals don't listen to talk radio....no substance.

so, why dont liberals listen to 'substance filled ' liberal talkers in the numbers that Limbaugh gets?

and, please dont trot out these well worn strawman arguments:

1 no signal
2 no promotion
3 evil station owner

another well meaning but misguided poster offered this:

"If you don't believe that many conservative hosts look to Limbaugh for guidance"

if anything, most nationally syndicated hosts ( besides Hannity ) are trying to 'distance' themselves from Rush. That's why Beck ( the 3rd banana ) says 'it's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong'. That's why BOR proclaims he's an 'independant'. That's why Boortz calls himself 'libertarian'. That's why Savage screams " I'm not a republican!".

Rush doesn't hide the fact that he is carrying the water for the GOP.

Arguments can be made that this is a red herring, but there is no denying how they describe thier shows. If anything, these hosts want to sound less like Limbaugh then the current 'Big Dog' on the left, Ed Schultz, who is the best of the lot in 'progressive mimicry'. Take the politics out of the mix, and the cadence, the boisterousness, and the inflection of these to ( IMHO) sound the same.

MISGUIDED?

It seems the "misguided" one is the person who believes CALLING yourself something other than republican actually MEANS you're something other than the same, tired old song and dance. The examples you gave of those trying to "distance" themselves from Rush, have A LOT more incommonwith him than not. They also appeal to more or less the same crowd as does Rush.

I suspect you also believe FOX News is "fair and balanced" ...just because they said it!

Nice work.

 

[evnlee]

This would be funny if someone didn't actually believe it. Actually most liberals I know (of which I am produly one) would be happy to listen to anyone who has an original thought. Most conservative talk shows are all about fear and how to sell it to the listening public. I have no time nor intellectual patience to listen to that kind of drivel. Give me someone who thinks and I'm happy to listen and I could care less if that individual is liberal, conservative or a druid. Unfortunately (as I have already indicated and hate to repeat myself) most conservative talk show are all about appealing to fear...fear of your taxes going up, fear of hordes of foreigners invading our shores, fear of tomorrow. It is a pretty pitful one-note samba.

That is why many liberals don't listen to talk radio....no substance.

so, why dont liberals listen to 'substance filled ' liberal talkers in the numbers that Limbaugh gets?

and, please dont trot out these well worn strawman arguments:

1 no signal
2 no promotion
3 evil station owner

another well meaning but misguided poster offered this:

"If you don't believe that many conservative hosts look to Limbaugh for guidance"

if anything, most nationally syndicated hosts ( besides Hannity ) are trying to 'distance' themselves from Rush. That's why Beck ( the 3rd banana ) says 'it's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong'. That's why BOR proclaims he's an 'independant'. That's why Boortz calls himself 'libertarian'. That's why Savage screams " I'm not a republican!".

Rush doesn't hide the fact that he is carrying the water for the GOP.

Arguments can be made that this is a red herring, but there is no denying how they describe thier shows. If anything, these hosts want to sound less like Limbaugh then the current 'Big Dog' on the left, Ed Schultz, who is the best of the lot in 'progressive mimicry'. Take the politics out of the mix, and the cadence, the boisterousness, and the inflection of these to ( IMHO) sound the same.

MISGUIDED?

It seems the "misguided" one is the person who believes CALLING yourself something other than republican actually MEANS you're something other than the same, tired old song and dance. The examples you gave of those trying to "distance" themselves from Rush, have A LOT more incommonwith him than not. They also appeal to more or less the same crowd as does Rush.

I suspect you also believe FOX News is "fair and balanced" ...just because they said it!

Nice work.

Steven, you missed the point.

I gave you quotes from some of Rush' main competitors. I'll agree with you that Hannity seems like Rush Jr, but the others are clearly TRYING to distance themselves from Limbaugh.

To give Rush credit, he proclaims what he is, and he unabashedly does his program with full disclosure. I can respect the man for that.

Whether or not those I quoted are in fact 'the same' as Limbaugh, it's clear in their words that they are trying to appear as if they are different, which destroys your argument that Rush creates the 'talking points' and they follow in lockstep. That's 'misguided', my friend.

And, No I don't believe Fox is 'fair and balanced'. Tell me, do you think CNN is 'fair and balanced'?

 

[Radio_Realist]

it's clear in their words that they are trying to appear as if they are different,

And that is a problem for conservatives. The foundation of the conservative political philosophy is that there are defining core beliefs, and all evaluations of events in politics are based on those beliefs. Get three people who share common core beliefs, and odds are that given the same set of facts, all three will come to similar conclusions.

The foundation of the liberal political philosophy is that there are no core beliefs or values, and that all opinions (except those of conservatives), regardless of content, are equally valid and correct. It is therefore much easier for liberal talk show hosts to sound different from each other. When one need not worry about being right or wrong, but must only consider if an opinion manages to ridicule the current President, then it's much easier to appear to have diverse opinions.

 

[justareporter]

And here burried in the text are the magic words:
I don't pretend that I was deeply involved in conducting the research. My job was using the research to develop marketing campaigns. Just as a music format station's music director relies on the results of market research to decide which songs to play, I relied on the research to help decide which media to use.

I never had a whole lot of use for media buyers. As a general rule they wouldn't know good broadcasting if they heard it. Their love is cost per thousand.

As for the research, I still ge the dodge about the who, what, when, where and why. As an example a large university could be Liberty university in Lynchburg, VA...and I would have no faith in research done there.

If you are going to claim to have research and claim that it was done by a responsible university and claim it is viable then you gotta be able to put up or drop out.

Or to put it another way, "show me the money."

 

[Steven21]

And here burried in the text are the magic words:
I don't pretend that I was deeply involved in conducting the research. My job was using the research to develop marketing campaigns. Just as a music format station's music director relies on the results of market research to decide which songs to play, I relied on the research to help decide which media to use.

I never had a whole lot of use for media buyers. As a general rule they wouldn't know good broadcasting if they heard it. Their love is cost per thousand.

As for the research, I still ge the dodge about the who, what, when, where and why. As an example a large university could be Liberty university in Lynchburg, VA...and I would have no faith in research done there.

If you are going to claim to have research and claim that it was done by a responsible university and claim it is viable then you gotta be able to put up or drop out.

Or to put it another way, "show me the money."

You cannot possibly be implying that Radio_Realist is a conservative kool-aid drinking non-broadcaster, can you?

Nah, I'd never believe it.

 

[evnlee]

As an example a large university could be Liberty university in Lynchburg, VA...and I would have no faith in research done there.

so, LU had 8900 total enrollment in fall 2006. That's a 'large univeristy'?!

With this kind of attention to detail, you are definitely in the right business.

 

[Radio_Realist]

As for the research, I still ge the dodge about the who, what, when, where and why.

I'm not going to tell you which university the company used, only that it that regularly conducts contract psycological research for private industry and the government. So, you're not going to find out who and where. I'm also not going to tell you the name of the company, or the names of the PhD's on the company's staff who did additional research, and who coordinated the contracted research.

I will tell you this much. Some of the work was done on the 4th floor.

As for the what and when and why, that was answered. It was a comphrensive and on-going project of testing conducted over the late 1990's and early 2000's. It continues to this day, and is on-going even as we speak.

And I was very clear in answering why. It was done in order to provide data on how to better sell products to consumers of those products. This data was sold for significant amounts of money.

 

[justareporter]

Okay...I'll take the bullet for Liberty University. I didn't realize they were so small. My oopsy.

As for the research...as a reporter given the absolute paucity of facts to back up the assertions...I wouldn't believe it ever was done.

No facts means all fiction.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I wouldn't believe it ever was done.

Do you believe that music format radio stations test songs to determine which ones they'll play?

Have you ever worked in any industry other than broadcasting?

Have you no experience at anything other than being "just a reporter"?

 

[evnlee]

Okay...I'll take the bullet for Liberty University. I didn't realize they were so small. My oopsy.

No facts means all fiction.

Dan Rather would be proud!

(JAR, you should do a little research and find out what Rather thinks about the 'Fairness Doctrine'.)

JAR~ how come you claim others 'dodge' questions, but you never answer any yourself?

Do you think CNN is 'biased' or 'fair and balanced'?

Why did you get into 'journalism'?

If it's not a reporters 'job' to keep people 'tuned in' so that advertisers can sell products, then how can any decent 'reporter' get his message out ( besides blogging) on a media platform without compromising 'journalistic ethics'? What if a reporter comes across a story that would damage his employer? Is this 'reporter' supposed to bite the hand?

eagerly awaiting your instruction. :

 

[Radio_Realist]

OK, "just a reporter", since it's clear you're accustomed to only reporting information, and not actually digging for it, I suggest that you consult this website:

http://www.greenbook.org/

It lists almost every marketing research company that's out there. The company I worked for was one of them.

As for the methods used, simply read all the text books ever written on the subject of psychological research and testing with emphasis on the factors that influence the sale of products to consumers. Within those tomes, you'll find all the methods that the company I worked for employed.

If you expect me to distill the methods used by the PhD's on the staffs of the company I worked for and the contractors who did additional research for the company into a few paragraphs that can be posted in here, you will be disappointed.

And speaking of dodging, if you expect any further details, I'll consider posting them after you post your real name, and the names of all the radio stations you've worked for, including the one (or ones) where you held a management position.

If you aren't willing to put up, then perhaps you should shut up.

 

[justareporter]

To the meatier questions:

I think CNN, MSNBC, etc strive to be as "fair and balanced" as possible. I do not think the same of FOX.

I don't know what Mr. Rather thinks of the fairness doctrine and could quite frankly care less.

I got into journalism to be a reporter. We tell stories and tell people what they need to know. J 101.

If reportes tell their stories well they and (in the case of TV) they have a good lead-in, good anchors and a myriad of other "intangibles" will have listeners/viewers.

If a reporter comes across a story that would damage his employer he has an obligation to notify his employer, give them an opportunity to comment and then run the story. A good employer knows full disclosure is always in their best interest...becuase the competition will always get it and then it looks worse.

As for Mr. RR ... his prostests and obviously angry tone clearly indicate his willingness only to dodge a question rather then to answer one.

If you set yourself up as an expert you need to be able to bring your CV to the table.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If you set yourself up as an expert you need to be able to bring your CV to the table.

First, I set myself up as having access to data obtained by experts, which isn't quite the same. Beyond that, I repeat this challenge:

And speaking of dodging, if you expect any further details, I'll consider posting them after you post your real name, and the names of all the radio stations you've worked for, including the one (or ones) where you held a management position.

If you aren't willing to put up, then perhaps you should shut up.

 

[justareporter]

Okay, thi sis no longer a discussion of issues about broadcasting.

And speaking of dodging, if you expect any further details, I'll consider posting them after you post your real name, and the names of all the radio stations you've worked for, including the one (or ones) where you held a management position.

If you aren't willing to put up, then perhaps you should shut up.

I'll do one better....just not bother. I'll allow the tranparency of your arguments (or lack thereof) speak volumes.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I'll allow the tranparency of your arguments (or lack thereof) speak volumes.

Let's examine how this translates to news/talk radio.

If I were a caller, I have made an assertion that isn't all that outrageous, nor outside the realm of the reasonable, and that a large number of people would regard as quite plausible. I said that most people who vote for liberal candidates prefer listening to music or non-political talk programming. Had I turned that statement around and said "Most people who enjoy listening to music or non-political talk programming tend to vote liberal", I doubt if that would have raised an eyebrow.

A conservative host who had a statement like that made by a caller would, if he disagreed with the statement, simply disagreed with the statement.

But a liberal talk host, like the liberal posters in this thread, can't (or won't) deal with the argument itself. They demand to know the source of the information behind the opinion. They can't refute the argument, so they resort to attempting to refute the credentials of the person expressing the opinion.

That's why liberal talk radio usually fails. And that's why conservative talk radio usually succeeds.

Conservative talk hosts might well seem to all be singing off the same page of the hymn book, which seems to liberals as "repetition" or "marching in lockstep". But that illusion only exists because conservatives address the issues themselves, and when people who share core values look at the same issues, their core values leads them to similar conclusions.

Liberals don't enjoy that same ability to agree with each other since liberalism requires the rejection of the concept of the existence of "core values". Therefore, liberal talk hosts cannot refute ideas or concepts that they disagree with, they must instead attack those who espouse those ideas and concepts. As long as the liberal talk show hosts build the content of their shows using the same techniques that justareporter demonstrates in this thread, it should come as no surprise that liberal talk show hosts lose in most of the markets they are in.

 

[justareporter]

Good luck.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Good luck.

When one has logic and reason on one's side, one doesn't need luck. It's the liberal position that those who are successful are merely lucky people who won life's lottery. The conservative position is that one makes one's own luck by working hard, and/or by working smart.

Again, you demonstrate why conservative talk show hosts enjoy far more success than their liberal counterparts.

 

[evnlee]

Good luck.

When one has logic and reason on one's side, one doesn't need luck. It's the liberal position that those who are successful are merely lucky people who won life's lottery. The conservative position is that one makes one's own luck by working hard, and/or by working smart.

Again, you demonstrate why conservative talk show hosts enjoy far more success than their liberal counterparts.

touche!

 

[Radio_Realist]

touche!

Thank you.

There's even more in this exchange that illustrates why conservative talk show hosts enjoy more ratings success than their liberal counterparts. When a conservative is confident that he is correct, he will continue with dogged determination. Since liberal talk show hosts are never confident that they are correct, they get distracted if an exchange goes badly for them, so they declare "victory", and skulk away.