Ask Phil: Can Progressive Talk Work?

[fred flintstone]

KJCB says:

ABC owns some of the best heritage stations in the country. They aren't CC whose goal is to own anything with an antenna, and they have been successful with a conservative business approach. Why would they blow up ANY of their stations for progressive talk or even syndicate a host they couldn't clear on any of their stations?

Now you are starting to make sense...maybe there is hope for you yet. The truth is, CC owned a bunch of dog am's. They had nothing to lose by placing Air America on them. Maybe they would get some listeners, but most importantly they would get some cover in DC where they could say they were being fair. The signals were poor anyway, and they could not make money with them anyway, so WHY NOT? I agree with their strategy.

But to then condemn ABC for not following the same strategy as Fred did shows a HUGE lack of understand of this business. ABC does not OWN any dog AM's. If we did, we already had switched them to Radio Disney long ago. That is actually a great format for a lesser AM also...so we were already using the strategy. We had no more dog am's to use for this purpose. All of our NewsTalkes were highly rated and profitable.

Phil: Many in the Biz and around the Biz have said liberal talk can't work. I have not seen you say that but the viewpoint is consistent with your programming and some of the things you have said here.

So, I'll ask: Can Progressive Talk Work?
If it can't work: Why not?

So far, the audience for conservative political talk has far outweighed the audience for liberal political talk. But election results and polls and surveys suggest the liberal demo and the conservative demo should be of comparable size. Is liberal talk like Oldies - a format stations can't sell (regardless of ratings)?

Some had said that station owners and managers are themselves conservative and either shun liberal talk because of their own views (not for business reasons) or their own political views cause them to assume that the audience is not there. Yes/No? Agree/Disagee?

AAR put themselves on some bad signals. And they put out a lot of bad product. But setting aside inept management and programming, could progressive talk work? If Sheldon Drobny handed you a bag of gold, could you make it work?

 

[evnlee]

The truth is, CC owned a bunch of dog am's. They had nothing to lose by placing Air America on them. Maybe they would get some listeners, but most importantly they would get some cover in DC where they could say they were being fair. The signals were poor anyway, and they could not make money with them anyway, so WHY NOT? I agree with their strategy.

I posted on RI in 2003, 'CC is placing AAR on thier weak signals NOT because they feel it will help their bottom line, but help thier perception in DC'

I was flamed furiously for this statement, by those who claimed 'Clear Channel sees a winner. They wouldn't do something like that, it's not in thier nature. If they chose to place AAR programming on thier sticks, it's only because they see the changing nature of radio, and want to be in on the 'next big thing'.

Then, when CC started pulling AAR off some stations, I heard the ridiculous 'evil conservative Clear Channel business as usual' routine.

I was working for Cumulus, and my inside source @ Clear Channel ( where I used to work ) was well placed, and told me ' they are only doing this AAR placement for political cover.'

I know this is just his speculation, but Mr Boyce has just confirmed this for me.

Fighting Irish, Baroosk, Scribbler, and the lot~next time listen a little more and you might get a 'scoop' for your 'readers'. :

Clear Channel used you and AAR. Sorry if the truth hurts a little bit.

 

[Scott in DE]

Can Progressive Talk Work?

No, it cannot.

 

[fred flintstone]

Can Progressive Talk Work?

No, it cannot.

And you know this how?

 

[fred flintstone]

I posted on RI in 2003, 'CC is placing AAR on thier weak signals NOT because they feel it will help their bottom line, but help thier perception in DC'

I was flamed furiously for this statement, by those who claimed 'Clear Channel sees a winner. They wouldn't do something like that, it's not in thier nature. If they chose to place AAR programming on thier sticks, it's only because they see the changing nature of radio, and want to be in on the 'next big thing'.

Then, when CC started pulling AAR off some stations, I heard the ridiculous 'evil conservative Clear Channel business as usual' routine.

I was working for Cumulus, and my inside source @ Clear Channel ( where I used to work ) was well placed, and told me ' they are only doing this AAR placement for political cover.'

I know this is just his speculation, but Mr Boyce has just confirmed this for me.

Fighting Irish, Baroosk, Scribbler, and the lot~next time listen a little more and you might get a 'scoop' for your 'readers'. :

Clear Channel used you and AAR. Sorry if the truth hurts a little bit.

That's Phil's observation. And your's. It's not confirmation. Given an inside source, your's might be the more informed observation.

I don't recall seeing the people you mention being such believers in the purity of Clear Channel's motives.

Yes, they might have wanted some political cover.
Maybe, because they have a lot of AM stations - many of them under-performing - they thought it might be good business to try a new format. With that many stations they could afford to do so.
Maybe they thought they could make some money. I recall the people you mention citing that as a possible reason. Even if progressive talk worked only marginally, it could make the audience profile of a station cluster more attractive to advertisers - especially if it drew younger listeners (as some predicted it would early on).

I don't think it was as simple as you say - or all about politics and cover.

I also notice Clear Channel often has a flavor of the month mentality in formats. They will flip a bunch of stations to a given format and then next month be flipping stations to something else. Other big broadcasters tend to be like this. Sports. Spanish. Jack.... Progressive talk was another flavor of the month.

 

[evnlee]

That's Phil's observation. And your's. It's not confirmation. Given an inside source, your's might be the more informed observation.

I don't recall seeing the people you mention being such believers in the purity of Clear Channel's motives.

Yes, they might have wanted some political cover.

You have to remember the time in which this occurred. Howard Stern was labasting 'Clear Channel' as being schills for the GOP about the time in early 2004 (pre election ). Other notables were claiming fellowship. A very close election was on the way~ and it was at this perfect time that CC flipped some of thier underperformers.

I explained then that this move was more about political cover then 'good business', and I was roundly criticized for that observation.

I vividly remember many AAR apologists touting 'Clear Channel' as truly 'progressive', open minded, and willing to give Prog/Lib Talk a chance. :

It's very curious how some of those same people now maintain what I have been saying all along, the Madison example is proof positive.

But, hey, they won the day in Madison. If you listen to those that were 'involved', it sure appears as if they had these same preconceived notions, that Clear Channel's motives in regards to the Mic was not good 'business', but more political.

Too humorous.

 

[fred flintstone]

You have to remember the time in which this occurred. Howard Stern was labasting 'Clear Channel' as being schills for the GOP about the time in early 2004 (pre election ). Other notables were claiming fellowship. A very close election was on the way~ and it was at this perfect time that CC flipped some of thier underperformers.

I explained then that this move was more about political cover then 'good business', and I was roundly criticized for that observation.

I vividly remember many AAR apologists touting 'Clear Channel' as truly 'progressive', open minded, and willing to give Prog/Lib Talk a chance. :

It's very curious how some of those same people now maintain what I have been saying all along, the Madison example is proof positive.

But, hey, they won the day in Madison. If you listen to those that were 'involved', it sure appears as if they had these same preconceived notions, that Clear Channel's motives in regards to the Mic was not good 'business', but more political.

Too humorous.

I don't recall the posts you mentioned but whoever made them was living in Fantasyland and inhaling too much Pixie Dust.

But I can relate. I also have noticed that some people who blasted me for pointing out what I saw as "short-comings" in AAR's programming and business model are now saying what I posted two years ago - like they thought this stuff up all by themselves.

Oh, well. Human nature, I guess.

 

[Scott in DE]

Can Progressive Talk Work?

No, it cannot.

And you know this how?

I just answered that here:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,60087.msg423295.html#msg423295

 

[kaufcom]

I posted on RI in 2003, 'CC is placing AAR on thier weak signals NOT because they feel it will help their bottom line, but help thier perception in DC'...Then, when CC started pulling AAR off some stations, I heard the ridiculous 'evil conservative Clear Channel business as usual' routine. I was working for Cumulus, and my inside source @ Clear Channel ( where I used to work ) was well placed, and told me ' they are only doing this AAR placement for political cover.' I know this is just his speculation, but Mr Boyce has just confirmed this for me. Fighting Irish, Baroosk, Scribbler, and the lot~next time listen a little more and you might get a 'scoop' for your 'readers'. :

I agree with you on this one Evelyn, but I am confused about why CC is making this move considering the current situation.

The Democratic takeover in Washington will put more pressure on FCC which has already stopped the ten year deregulatory agenda which benefitted CC

Despite AAR's problems, lib talk has actually increased it's ratings by 7% in 2006 (without new stations) and conservative talk ratings have decreased by 4%.

Opposition movements in Madison, Boston, Columbus, and Cincinnati are causing problems for CC and they were even forced to back down in Madison, when they faced a significant public backlash.

It is clear that there is a political motive in the switchout.

With the exception of WKOX/WXKS in Boston, all of the CC switchouts were in red or marginal states -- WSAI in Columbus OH, WSAI in Cincinnati OH, WXXM in Madison WI and WSMB in New Orleans LA.  (Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic party, said that lib talk contributed to the Dems stunning victory in Ohio.)

They replaced lib talk with weak formats.  Third tier right-wing talk in Columbus, a hodgepodge of weak talk programming in Cin. a simulcast of WWL in New Orleans, and Spanish in Boston where the Hispanic population is less than 14%.

If CC is following a "political" agenda as you suggest, it makes their "its all business" statements sound like a smokescreen.

 

[evnlee]

I agree with you on this one Evelyn, but I am confused about why CC is making this move considering the current situation.

If CC is following a "political" agenda as you suggest, it makes their "its all business" statements sound like a smokescreen.

again, I am speculating on when they put AAR on, not what they are doing now. They may have stuck Prog/Lib Talk on sticks they didn't care about (and didn't promote them) before the 2004 election, but this is a whole new deal.

Then, they were worried about 'perception'. Now, they may be more concerned with 'the bottom line'. Or, they do have a political motive. Either way I still believe y'all were owned. Those who cheered for Clear Channel then, condemn them now. :

There's one born every minute. Apparently, there's 3 born every minute in Madison!

 

[kaufcom]

I am speculating on when they put AAR on, not what they are doing now.

April 1, 2004

They may have stuck Prog/Lib Talk on sticks they didn't care about (and didn't promote them) before the 2004 election, but this is a whole new deal.

Not so. CC gave lib talk several good markets with reasonably good signals. KLSD in San Diego, KTLK in Los Angles, KPOJ in Portland OR, and KKZN in Denver just to name a few. There were some bad signals in there like WKOX/WXKS in Boston, WDTW in Detroit, WAVZ in Hartford and KABQ in Alberquerque, but that was what CC had available at the time.

Then, they were worried about 'perception'. Now, they may be more concerned with 'the bottom line'. Or, they do have a political motive.

Sounds like you wavering here. Is a "politics" or the "bottom line?" You can't have it both ways.

 

[evnlee]

Sounds like you wavering here. Is a "politics" or the "bottom line?" You can't have it both ways.

not so. I only stated what I felt thier position was in 2004. I no longer have the inside connection, so I cannot say for certain that's what's going on now.

It's not like I cultivate 'sources' for some blog

Either Clear Channel giving AAR a chance in 2004 was out of 'good business' or 'bad politics'. Weren't you one of the guys that bragged about how smart Clear Channel was back in 2004? And now, you think they are morons for dumping some affiliates? That's trying to have it both ways :

 

[kaufcom]

Weren't you one of the guys that bragged about how smart Clear Channel was back in 2004? And now, you think they are morons for dumping some affiliates? That's trying to have it both ways :

Yes, I am puzzled about why they are changing course. I commended CC when they supported lib talk and now I question why they are reversing field.

 

[fred flintstone]

The Democratic takeover in Washington will put more pressure on FCC which has already stopped the ten year deregulatory agenda which benefitted CC

Baroosk: Let's think about that one. Has deregulation benefited CC? Their stock has tanked. They had a $4-billion write-off. They've assumed massive amounts of debt (and interest). Now they are doing the buy-back. All radio stocks have been doing poorly. Stations keep automating and cutting personnel and still the P/L statements look terrible.

Radio was doing better with regulation! Limit of seven AM and seven FM stations. Public service requirements. News requirements. Local content requirements. Limits on commercial time. Fairness doctrine. And more.

And while this was happening, people listened to the radio. People liked radio. People cared about radio. Every time the industry changes the rules to gain what they think is an advantage, they lose listeners and revenue.

And with all of that, and with the NAB bitching it's collective head off, the industry overall was healthy and making money.

Same is true of the airlines. They were doing better with regulations (and so was anybody who flew commercial).

Station managers and owners tend to be knee-jerk right-wingers but maybe they need to start following the money.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Liberal talk radio won't work for one simple reason. Those who advocate it, those who attempt to push it onto the public, those responsible for making it work don't seem to have a clue about communications in general, or radio in particular.

If a conservative could be found who was convinced that there was money to be made broadcasting liberal slanted news/talk programming, then we'd quickly see growth of successful, liberal talk shows beyond the limited handful of liberal hosts on the air today.

The problem is that those liberals who have attempted to create liberal news/talk networks refuse to accept the proven principles of success that the conservatives have demonstrated.

An example of that liberal mindset that has doomed liberal talk radio to also-ran status in broadcasting would be those individuals who insist on promoting their own personal ego trip over the ideas they wish to express. I'm speaking of people who'll hijack a discussion forum with thread after redundant thread on the same topic, as if sheer quantity of new threads on existing topics somehow proves their point, or worse, feeds their massive egos.

Conservative talk hosts succeed because they set out to make a profit by determining the wants and needs of a market segment, then by supplying those wants and needs. Liberal talk hosts tend to fail because they set out to persuade the market that the market needs them. They put the cart before the horse.

 

[kaufcom]

Baroosk: Let's think about that one. Has deregulation benefited CC? Their stock has tanked. They had a $4-billion write-off. They've assumed massive amounts of debt (and interest). Now they are doing the buy-back. All radio stocks have been doing poorly. Stations keep automating and cutting personnel and still the P/L statements look terrible.

Clear Channel's top execs are still making lots of money despite the stock drop. In fact, the move to go private was made so they could earn more money. Asking a company like CC with a business plan based on gobbling up as many assets as they can, to reconsider their strategy, is like asking a drug addict to use fewer drugs or a chronic gambler not to double down in Black Jack.

 

[Ben Shaton]

I am speculating on when they put AAR on, not what they are doing now.

They may have stuck Prog/Lib Talk on sticks they didn't care about (and didn't promote them) before the 2004 election, but this is a whole new deal.

Not so. CC gave lib talk several good markets with reasonably good signals. KLSD in San Diego, KTLK in Los Angles,

Can you name one AM frequency that CC owns in either market that's worse?

 

[fred flintstone]

Liberal talk radio won't work for one simple reason. Those who advocate it, those who attempt to push it onto the public, those responsible for making it work don't seem to have a clue about communications in general, or radio in particular.

Conservative talk hosts succeed because they set out to make a profit by determining the wants and needs of a market segment, then by supplying those wants and needs. Liberal talk hosts tend to fail because they set out to persuade the market that the market needs them. They put the cart before the horse.

You start out saying "won't work" but then you seem to say hasn't worked because ....

You also seem to suggest that the reason certain neo-con hosts have succeeded is because they are NOT true believers and NOT committed to the cause, but because they are just in it for the money. As a KQV jock, Rush played the records on the playlist, read the spots and promos and followed the format. It sounds like you are saying that this is also the key to success in talk radio, regardless of what he - or any other host - really thinks.

As I've long suspected, many - maybe most - possibly all right-wing hosts sell the political talking points handed to them, just as they sell Verbal Advantage, Health Insurance for the Self-Employed, General Steel, e-Harmony, drugs, herbal remedies and the other products - many of questionable value - which seem to pop up only on right-wing talk radio. As recent posts here have indicated they clearly have a gullible market, which may be why right-wing talk is so attractive to a certain kind of advertiser. Hey folks, these guys are not your friend! They sell politics like Ed McMahon sells life insurance or magazine subscription lotteries. And now we have a radio insider who says these right-wing hosts are successful BECAUSE they don't care about anything they say - they are just in it for the money.

Right-wing talk works because it is just one big Infomercial. Popeil for President.

 

[evnlee]

I am speculating on when they put AAR on, not what they are doing now.

They may have stuck Prog/Lib Talk on sticks they didn't care about (and didn't promote them) before the 2004 election, but this is a whole new deal.

Not so. CC gave lib talk several good markets with reasonably good signals. KLSD in San Diego, KTLK in Los Angles,

Can you name one AM frequency that CC owns in either market that's worse?

Good point. Baroosk?

 

[Radio_Realist]

You also seem to suggest that the reason certain neo-con hosts have succeeded is because they are NOT true believers and NOT committed to the cause, but because they are just in it for the money.

Then you are reading into what I am saying. Conservative talk stations primarily succeed because the cynical managers of the stations who are only in it for the money hire true believers as on-air talent. Liberal stations (and networks) fail because the suits running the operation are the "true believers".

That's not to say that people like Rush, Hannity, or Quinn aren't sincere in the political beliefs they advocate. But they realize that they must be entertaining in their presentation of those ideas. And, that's not to say that a conservative talk host might decide that out of 10 particular issues that are active in the news, he might not simply keep silent about one of them because on that issue his position doesn't sit well with the public.

As a KQV jock, Rush played the records on the playlist, read the spots and promos and followed the format.

Actually, Rush (aka "Jeff Christie" at the time) was fired from KQV because he didn't "play the records on the playlist, read the spots and promos and followed the format" closely enough to suit management.

And now we have a radio insider who says these right-wing hosts are successful BECAUSE they don't care about anything they say - they are just in it for the money.

Wrong. I left out one thing that I thought would be understood. They supply the wants and needs of listeners within the limits of what they are able to offer. I've met Quinn, and talked with him about his career choices. If he couldn't have found a show where he could express his own political views, then he'd have pursued a career in broadcasting where views and opinions were irrelevant. He'd have gone back to playing music, or hosting a TV game show, or doing voice-over work, or entering a new industry. Or, he'd have switched careers to either aviation or dog breeding, which are also two of his personal interests. But don't think for a minute that the conservative hosts would switch over and start successfully doing liberal shows just because someone offered them piles of money.

Look at it as being similar to music. If a singer has a deep bass voice, then they're going to sing songs written for deep bass voices. They'll look for audiences who like deep bass voices. They won't attempt to sing falsetto, or use electronic devices to make their voices sound high pitched. Liberal talk networks are like high pitched tenor voices in a market where audiences want to hear basses and baritones.