Ask Phil: Can Progressive Talk Work?

[Phil Boyce]

Barooosk. It is difficult for me to communicate with somebody so twisted and unwilling listen to facts. All along I was trying to explain how conservative stations were begun, and how that was different from progressive talk...and why that meant conservative stations were more successful. If this guy does not want to listen, it is not because I did not attempt to wisen him up. I have found some people are so invested in their own opinions, that they just can't change. I am not going to worrty about it.

What are talking about. Are you making things up as you go along. First, before AAR launnced the only station that Amy Bolton was able to secure for Schultz was KTOX in Needles, CA.

I feel stupid for even talking to this moron. If you go back and look at what I said, it was that Shultz had succeeded on a local level and was rewarded with a syndication deal beause of it....before AA went on the air. I did not say he had a mess of stations...just that he was rewarded with syndication and it was not because of AA's success because they had not started yet.

It wasn't until AAR had ratings successes in Portland, OR, San Diego, Denver and other markets, that Schultz took off by jumping on the bandwagon.

that could have been. I was talking about how he got his syndication deal before aa went on the air, and you just proved it.

How could they have one good month when the Arbitron book measures three months. In fact, in April, 2004 , AAR barely showed up in Arbitrends. Lib talk ratings since that time have grown faster conservative talk ratings.

When you grow from a .5 to a 1 share, you have grown by 100%. That does not impress me. Just stop for a second and accept who you are talking to. I make my living looking at Arbitron numbers, and you come here and try to correct me. This is just stupid. Again, why do I bother. Yes, there are monthlies. I see them every month. Pull your head out and think for a second. Air America was on the air in April of 2004 on WLIB in NYC. They had a good first month and then lost half their listeners. It's a fact.

pb

 

[Radio_Realist]

When you grow from a .5 to a 1 share, you have grown by 100%.

And, as you pointed out, a 5 share is a win, even though that means 95% of the audience isn't listening to you. If a station can get one person out of every 20 to tune them in, they've won.

I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the piece of political wisdom that anyone who has ever run for even the lowest level municipal office knows as fact. Around 8 out of every 20 voters are going to automatically vote for the Democrat candidate for every office, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. And around 8 out of every twenty voters are going to automatically vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who the GOP nominates. That leaves 4 out of 20 voters, who are the ones who decide the outcomes of elections.

Conservative talk radio stations draw their 1 out of every 20 listeners from that pool of "8 out of 20" conservative/GOP voters. And any "winning" liberal talk radio station would have to draw their 1 out of 20 from the pool of 8 liberal/Democrat voters. Neither the conservative nor the liberal talk radio stations are going to pull many listeners from the 4 out of 20 who decide elections. So, any discussion of who won or lost the most recent election affecting whether or not people will listen to liberal talk radio is pointless.

Those broadcasters who saw that they could get 1 out of every 8 conservative voters out of every 20 voters at large targeted their broadcasting at that 5% of the total universe. And, they hit the mark and succeeded. But most of those who are attempting to make liberal talk radio succeed are targeting the 4 out of 20 undecided voters, so that they can be convinced to join the 8 out of 20 liberal/Democrat voters. But those people in the middle who actually decide elections usually don't care all that much about politics, and make their decisions on who to vote for on such things as who has a nicer smile, or who is promising to give them more goodies from the public treasury.

The people that liberal talk radio targeted are the ones who wouldn't listen to any sort of political talk on the radio, ever. You can't build a successful broadcasting business aiming liberal news/talk at people who switch the station whenever a five minute newscast interrupts their favorite music programming.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

If I remember right, Big Eddie was on at launch on KPOJ in Portland, OR.

So, he can rightfully claim his own part of that station's rating success, which prompted other Clear Channel stations (and those from other owners) to try the format on second-tier and third-tier AM stations floundering in other formats.

 

[kaufcom]

Before I proceed, let's review your latest series of personal attacks (before they get deleted by a moderator.) Drum roll please

Barooosk. It is difficult for me to communicate with somebody so twisted and unwilling listen to facts...I feel stupid for even talking to this moron...this is just stupid.

Then you latest attempts at arrogance and condescension

If this guy does not want to listen, it is not because I did not attempt to wisen him up... I make my living looking at Arbitron numbers, and you come here and try to correct me... Pull your head out and think for a second...why do I bother

Well, there's no doubt that conservative talk is more successful than liberal talk. About 90% of talk radio is dominated by conservative talk and you deserve a lot of credit for this. Like when you bumped Michael Jackson off KABC and replaced him with Sean. (Interestingly, the station has done poorly since that time.) KFI owns the L.A. market. This is a subject for a different thread. I was just taking issue with your attempt to praise conservative talk by damning liberal talk. All that nonsense about the "big Democratic Party donors" and the "liberal talking points." I thought it was a bit hypocritical given the facts that I presented.

Then I told you that Schultz was hardly a success story at the box. In fact, before the AAR launch in April, 2004 he was only two stations -- in Fargo, ND and Needles, CA. Then you went on the attack.

I feel stupid for even talking to this moron. If you go back and look at what I said, it was that Shultz had succeeded on a local level and was rewarded with a syndication deal beause of it....before AA went on the air. I did not say he had a mess of stations...just that he was rewarded with syndication and it was not because of AA's success because they had not started yet.

I trying to share with you my insights in what was going in April, 2004. I was involved in some of those meetings in Washington in late 2003 early 2004 which led up to Schultz' syndication deal and the AAR launch. The fact is Schultz had nothing but a syndication deal before the AAR launch. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time. CC was smart to pick up Schultz, (and later Miller) It gave them leverage over AAR.

I questioned your statement that AAR had only one good month (April, 2004) and it’s been all downhill from there. I noted that AAR actually did quite well in markets like San Diego, Portland, OR and Denver. Then you said.

When you grow from a .5 to a 1 share, you have grown by 100%. That does not impress me. Just stop for a second and accept who you are talking to. I make my living looking at Arbitron numbers, and you come here and try to correct me. This is just stupid. Again, why do I bother. Yes, there are monthlies. I see them every month. Pull your head out and think for a second. Air America was on the air in April of 2004 on WLIB in NYC. They had a good first month and then lost half their listeners. It's a fact.

Aha, now you’re saying that they had a good month on one station, followed by a bad month. Remember, what you said

I did not see a successful launch. They had one good month...April of 2004....and lost half their listeners by the next month and never got them back.

You didn’t say they did badly in just New York. Also, didn’t you tell a poster who was questioning a programming move you made on WABC that you have to give a show a few months and not panic when there are couple of bad books.

 

[Ultimajock]

Then I told you that Schultz was hardly a success story at the box. In fact, before the AAR launch in April, 2004 he was only two stations -- in Fargo, ND and Needles, CA. Then you went on the attack.

...Schultz was also on a Sirius Satellite channel before AAR. In fact, as I recall, he may have been the lead-in to (of all folks) Mike Church!...

 

[Phil Boyce]

OK, you said there are no such thing as monthly ratings, you said there are quarterlies. I then said I look at monthlies every month. You move on like nothing has happened. As soon as I knock down one of your theories, you move on to the next without missing a beat. Do you see why it is frustrating for somebody like me, who does this for a living, tries to have a conversation with you? It is a collossal waste of my time.

My original point that zoomed over your head is that Ed was syndicated by merit. Because somebody saw what he did locally and decided to take him national. It was done before AA went on the air. It is a fact...it is not disputable. You tried to say the only reason Ed was syndicated was because AA had success. In fact you ridiculed my position. I once again repeat...Ed had local success, grew organically, and was then given a syndicated opportunity.

I am not making any personal attacks. You use an anonymous name. I have no idea who you are, so it is impossible for me to attack you personally. I am the one revealing my identity, remember?

The fact is Schultz had nothing but a syndication deal before the AAR launch.

I am glad you finally agree with me. That is all I said he had. You were trying to argue that his syndication deal was the result of AA success, which you now admit was not possible. You won't admit you are wrong, it takes me finding your contradictory quotes to do that.

Aha, now you’re saying that they had a good month on one station, followed by a bad month. Remember, what you said

Do you want to listen to me, or attempt to prove me wrong? I was trying to respond to your claim that AA had initial success. I am not aware of any, except the first month in NYC, so I assumed that was what you were talking about. Stupid me, you are not even aware of that first monthly success in NYC and when I told you about it, you denied that Arbitron even offers monthly numbers.
[EDIT]

pb

[EDIT--personal attack.]

 

[fred flintstone]

Pb, your recollection is consistent with mine. Big Ed went into syndication in January, 2004. AAR launched the end of March.

Early success: AAR got a lot of attention and buzz early on. In radio, that is a type of success (certainly audience awareness is a necessary ingredient for success). If there is no such thing as bad publicity (Barnum), AAR did well, especially in contrast to I.E. America which had come and gone with hardly anyone noticing. AAR probably got some sampling, but early numbers - even in Portland - were not that good, as I recall (probably just as well, it took AAR a while to even begin getting their on-air act together).

Syndication by merit: Good phrase. The key point of difference between Democracy Radio (the group behind Big Ed and Stephanie Miller) and AAR.

 

[Phil Boyce]

[EDIT] I wanted to go back to his original comment about Big Ed so you can see what I mean:

You've gotta be kidding. Ed would still be yakking in Fargo if it wasn't for AAR's successful launch in April, 2004. Besides, it was Ed who did the deal with Democracy Radio which was little more than a front for the Democratic Party.

As Fred pointed out, big Ed was syndicated several months before AA went on the air, so he would NOT still be yakking in Fargo. It could be said that he benefitted from the AA launch by finding new affiliates who needed programming.

Then he completely switches his comment to this:

The fact is Schultz had nothing but a syndication deal before the AAR launch.

So you contradict your own post, by admitting he DID have a syndication deal before the AA launch...and we know he DID have some affiliates, so when you said he would still just be "yakking in Fargo without AA" is proven wrong, by your own admission. I get it...when you make a mistake, switch positions and act like you never said what you said in the first case. I will have to try that.

(I can't make personal attacks if the person is not a person but a screen name)

pb

[EDIT--inflammatory.]

 

[Phil Boyce]

Here is another gem from our friend Barooosk:

I was just taking issue with your attempt to praise conservative talk by damning liberal talk. All that nonsense about the "big Democratic Party donors" and the "liberal talking points." I thought it was a bit hypocritical given the facts that I presented.

I really did not try to praise conservative talk. I tried to explain how it grew naturally and organically and became such a hit. You have admitted there are many more listeners to conservative talk, and I was just trying to educate you on why that is the case. I did not damn Progressive talk, but I tried to explain how it started in a different way, and how that stunted it's growth. They did begin with big Democratic party donors. Those people who bank-rolled Air America also donated to the party and their own candidates. Rob Glaser, who lost 10 million dollars with his investment in AA (If you believe the bankruptsy filing) is just one of them. Nothing wrong with that, I am just trying to make my point.

These people who donated money or invested money to start Air America wanted a liberal alternative to traditional talk, and wanted to influence the election. You can't possibly deny that. The difference with Conservative talk is that it was started naturally....to get ratings and make money...with no true agenda other than that. Conservative oriented stations are owned by big companies who own all kinds of radio formats....not just one...as is the case with AA.

pb

 

[Phil Boyce]

This is what I posted:

Conservative stations in general were not started to carry out a political agenda. Conservative stations were started to win...get good ratings...make money. You may not like the politics coming out of the speaker, but their MO was pure. In the process they went out and found the best and most entertaining hosts they could find.

This is how Barooosk answered me:

That's interesting. Then how do explain that the Republican party and White House talking points wind up on Rush's, Sean's, and other conservative hosts every day?

Then I went on to explain that Rush establishes his own agenda…not the stations and he said:

What! I never accused the station managers and syndicators of taking talking points...Only the hosts. And Rush confirmed that with his statement. Right?

Rush never confirmed he was following anybody’s talking points. He said he was tired of carrying water…and I will leave it up to him to explain what he meant. I will just say it again...the hosts decide their own agenda. Nobody tells them what to say. This idea of some kind of conspiracy to follow mysterious talking points is a figment of somebody’s imagination.

I know it is hard for some people to think through their arguments before they form them, so let me do it for you. Rush began with one goal in mind….get ratings and win. Sean did the same. Nobody tells them what to say, but what they say obviously works. They are the two most listened to news/talk hosts in America.

pb

 

[kaufcom]

Firstly, I want to say how disappointed I am that the moderators deleted your personal attacks before I had the chance to see them. Secondly, I am flattered that you needed four posts to reply to last comment.



I will limit my reply to one post.

PB said

You said there are no such thing as monthly ratings, you said there are quarterlies. I then said I look at monthlies every month. You move on like nothing has happened. As soon as I knock down one of your theories, you move on to the next without missing a beat. Do you see why it is frustrating for somebody like me, who does this for a living, tries to have a conversation with you? It is a collossal waste of my time.

I never said there was no thing as monthly ratings. I just said that they were unreliable, especially when you are looking at one market for a new network that is launching it many markets.

Then you responded to my comment about Ed Schultz's syndication success.

My original point that zoomed over your head is that Ed was syndicated by merit. Because somebody saw what he did locally and decided to take him national. It was done before AA went on the air. It is a fact...it is not disputable. You tried to say the only reason Ed was syndicated was because AA had success. .

Once again, you are misquoting me. I never denied that Ed had his syndication deal before the AAR launch in April, 2004. (either by “merit” or “organic”). I simply said that prior to the AAR launch he was only carried on two stations – KFGO in Fargo and KTOX in Needles. Also, I didn’t say that Ed was syndicated because AAR had success. I said he was able to take advantage of the substantial AAR roll-out. Do you really think the many stations that picked up Ed in the second quarter of 2004 would have done it without AAR?

You keep hammering away on this ratings thing! You even posted a comment on another thread with more insults.

On another thread, I made the mistake of mentioning WLIB's first monthly rating on the air. Baroosk ridiculded me, saying there is no such thing as monthlies, [I never said that] they are quarterlies. If I was a college professor, being ridiculed by a student in my class, who made such a lame ass assertion, he would be failed on the spot and sent back to remedial radio 101. It is just a sin how dumb some of the posters are on this board. I am not trying to act like a know it all, but dear God, think about what you say. I have no problem being challenged, but what is hard for me to do is debate people who have made NO attempt to understand what I am saying.

When I questioned your claim that AAR was banked by heavy Democratic donors, here’s what you said

They did begin with big Democratic party donors. Those people who bank-rolled Air America also donated to the party and their own candidates. Rob Glaser, who lost 10 million dollars with his investment in AA (If you believe the bankruptscy filing) is just one of them. Nothing wrong with that, I am just trying to make my point.

Now you know that Rob Glaser had nothing to do with the AAR launch. He didn’t get involved for at least a year after the launch. The original backers of AAR were sleazy Evan Cohen, who was a Republican from Guam and Sheldon Drobny who wrote a book called The Road to Air America where he extensively complains about how Democratic donors shunned the AAR deal.


Then you went on to say

These people who donated money or invested money to start Air America wanted a liberal alternative to traditional talk, and wanted to influence the election. You can't possibly deny that. The difference with Conservative talk is that it was started naturally....to get ratings and make money...with no true agenda other than that. Conservative oriented stations are owned by big companies who own all kinds of radio formats....not just one...as is the case with AA.

You re right about this one. I agree with you that conservative talk probably started for financial reasons, especially after the early success of Rush. But that was 20 years ago. In the past half dozen years conservative talk has been manipulated by the Republican Party to support their positions and provide them with a safe access to the public – e.g. the so-called “radio days” at the White House and the Pentagon. And Rush’s statement that he was "no longer going to carry water for those who don't deserve it,"

I think that AAR will probably fold within the next couple of months and lib talk will be distributed by companies like Jones Radio, that are pure syndication operations.

Then you went to Rush's defense claiming he was no pitching Republican party talking points

Rush never confirmed he was following anybody’s talking points. He said he was tired of carrying water…and I will leave it up to him to explain what he meant.

Are we getting into a semantics argument here?

Can I propose that we drop the ratings argument and Democratic donors issue. If you want to make another comment on these issues, you get the last word.

 

[fred flintstone]

In all fairness,
Pb seems to appreciate Ed Schultz as a talk show host.
Democracy Radio got Big Ed into syndication.
And (according to Randi, at least) DR's money came from the Democrats.

Democracy Radio gave us Ed and Steph.
I.E. America gave us Hartmann, Malloy, Collins and Stephan.
I wouldn't say political (or union) seed money doesn't mean good radio shows won't come about as a result.

AAR's problem was not where their money came from?
AAR had a lot of problems but number one was incompetence. Number two was internal politics (not political money).

 

[kaufcom]

In all fairness,
Pb seems to appreciate Ed Schultz as a talk show host.
Democracy Radio got Big Ed into syndication.
And (according to Randi, at least) DR's money came from the Democrats.

Fred, I'm surprised that you mis-stated my position on this subject. I said that while Democracy Radio relied on Democratic donors, AAR did not. Here's my post

The original investors in Air America Radio, were certainly liberals, e.g. Sheldon Drobny, Evan Cohen, Doug Kreeger, but they hardly could be characterized as "huge Democratic investors." The so-called huge Democratic investors backed your favorite lib talker Ed Schultz, who was backed by Democracy radio.

 

[fred flintstone]

In all fairness,
Pb seems to appreciate Ed Schultz as a talk show host.
Democracy Radio got Big Ed into syndication.
And (according to Randi, at least) DR's money came from the Democrats.

Fred, I'm surprised that you mis-stated my position on this subject. I said that while Democracy Radio relied on Democratic donors, AAR did not. Here's my post

The original investors in Air America Radio, were certainly liberals, e.g. Sheldon Drobny, Evan Cohen, Doug Kreeger, but they hardly could be characterized as "huge Democratic investors." The so-called huge Democratic investors backed your favorite lib talker Ed Schultz, who was backed by Democracy radio.

That's my understanding, too. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I intended to offer DR as evidence party seed money can grow good shows. Pb seemed to say the problem with AAR's programming came (at least partly) from political backing. AAR's backing may have been politically motivated. But DR's political backing was overt and, regardless, they produced Ed and Steph.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Fred says

AAR's problem was not where their money came from?
AAR had a lot of problems but number one was incompetence. Number two was internal politics (not political money).

I have to disagree. When the founders of a company have an agenda other than something that is pure, politics will always get in the way of great radio. If the shoe was on the other foot, and conservative talk was started by donors and investors with GOP leanings to try and counter the liberal bias in the press...and they hired Rush and Sean to help carry the water of the GOP...those shows would fail due to a lack of intellectual honesty. If that happened, how would Rush one day say "I am no longer carrying the water for Bush" when in fact he had been hired to do just that?

If the backers of AA had said...we want to start a radio syndication company that reaches liberal listeners with smart, intelligent liberal leaning hosts who have the freedom to speak their mind, entertain and inform, with the right radio foundation...and they agreed to keep hands off when it came to politics...maybe AA could succeed. I just don´t think that is what they did.

pb

pb

 

[Phil Boyce]

I have about erached the end of my patience with Barooosk. I will wish him well and hope I never run into him on the street wandering around talking to himself.

Here is what he said first...

How could they have one good month when the Arbitron book measures three months.

Here is what he said next

I never said there was no thing as monthly ratings. I just said that they were unreliable, especially when you are looking at one market for a new network that is launching it many markets.

So he is delusional, and has a hard time going back to look at his own quotes. It´s ok, don´t let it bother you.

I agree with you that conservative talk probably started for financial reasons, especially after the early success of Rush. But that was 20 years ago. In the past half dozen years conservative talk has been manipulated by the Republican Party to support their positions and provide them with a safe access to the public – e.g. the so-called “radio days” at the White House and the Pentagon. And Rush’s statement that he was "no longer going to carry water for those who don't deserve it,"

Conservative talk exists to get ratings and make money. It is not manipulated by the GOP. I know you probably think the black helicopters are droppign off the talking points at Rush´s house...but it really doesn´t happen that way.

I appreciate the opportunity to have this exchange, and maybe after he thinks about it for awhile he will understand that what I say is true. If not...oh well I tried. }


pb

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I've said this on this board and others a billion times, it seems...and I don't have a fraction of Phil Boyce's resume: entertainment wins out.

Before Rush came along in the 1980's, there was "entertaining talk radio". But Mr. Limbaugh set the standard for literally hundreds of hosts who followed him...and not in regards to politics. (There are those many consider Ed Schultz a liberal equivalent to Rush in his presentation and style.)

But there has to be SOME entertainment value to Rush, Big Eddie, Sean, Steph, and the others. AAR's biggest problem, as I've posted here over and over, was that it apparently sought out to A) influence an election and B) maybe pick up listeners along the way.

Not that some of the conservative hosts aren't guilty of "preaching to the choir", as it were. I know Phil - assuming this is the WABC programmer - has a major role in Sean Hannity's career, and at times, as a moderate who listens to all talk radio, it feels to me like he's reading talking points. (Some of the liberal hosts are just as guilty, but Phil hasn't programmed for them )

You know what I like on Hannity's show as a "non-choir" listener?

His back and forth with "Flipper". Sending her or someone out on the street to do the Leno/"Jaywalking"-style questions with tongue in cheek. I realize Sean has a core audience base to superserve, but if he's all Republican Party Rules all the time, I'm not there...as a non-core listener.

Since I mentioned liberal hosts, and this topic is dedicated to the format, I'll say I stopped listening to Randi Rhodes for much the same reason...she veered off into a more "party line" presentation, round about the time producer Tim Allan Walker parted company with her. With Tim there, it seemed like a family and there was more humor and humanity.

As far as Big Eddie and AAR goes - it's true, he was on his Fargo station and one in Needles (and I believe Grand Rapids MI was his third market) and got launched into overdrive with the AAR launch. Without them, is he on 80 or 90 stations or whatever he's on now? Maybe not.

But I pointed out earlier...he was on Clear Channel's Liberal Talk Success Story, KPOJ/620 in Portland OR, from the station's launch. He's as much responsible for that station's strong early ratings (and continued) as anyone else.

Entertainment, folks. Not talking points.

Oh, Phil, since you're here...I'm reminded of someone on one of the message boards decrying a programming decision you'd made, and pretty much demanding you reverse yourself. My quote: "I'm pretty sure Phil Boyce doesn't program WABC based on message board feedback."

I've always wanted to quote that to you.

 

[kaufcom]

I have about erached the end of my patience with Barooosk. I will wish him well and hope I never run into him on the street wandering around talking to himself.

Phil continues with personal attacks. He also tries to mis-quote my posts, to support his ridiculous statement that AAR failed because their ratings in New York went down in from April, 2004 to to May 2004. I have to take his word for this because I don’t get the Arbitron monthly reports like he does.

In any case, I digress.

Here’s what Phil claimed I said.

How could they have one good month when the Arbitron book measures three months.

Then he said here’s what I said next

I never said there was no thing as monthly ratings. I just said that they were unreliable, especially when you are looking at one market for a new network that is launching it many markets.

Then he made one of his frequent personal attacks

So he is delusional, and has a hard time going back to look at his own quotes. It´s ok, don´t let it bother you.

Well, here’s what I actually said.

How could they have one good month when the Arbitron book measures three months. In fact, in April, 2004 , AAR barely showed up in Arbitrends.

Now a good numbers cruncher like Phil knows the “Arbitrends" are monthly ratings reports. Why did Phil omit my reference to the Arbitrends. Is it possible that he doesn’t know what they are?

 

[evnlee]

I have to take his word for this because I don’t get the Arbitron monthly reports like he does.

why dont you take his word for it because he programs a successful station in the #1 market?

have you seen this guys resume? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Boyce

yeah, I'll take his word for it. :

 

[kaufcom]

why dont you take his word for it because he programs a successful station in the #1 market?
have you seen this guys resume? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Boyce
yeah, I'll take his word for it. :

You are joking, aren't you? The guy accuses me of saying I never referred to monthly ratings, uses the first part of post that I made regarding ratings and omits the very next sentence when I refer to one monthly ratings. And you say I should take his word for it?

Why are sucking up to him? The one thing I like about you Evelyn, is that you don't suck up anybody.