• 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

Bonneville's airing WHAT?!

Salt Lake City's new FM talk station already swiped Savage from CC's rival KNRS-AM... now, 97.5 FM Talk has taken Bill O'Reilly, previously 9-11pm and recently 7-9pm on heritage blowtorch KSL, leaving the Bonneville talker's early evening spot open. Who of all people to fill that spot than ED SCHULTZ? Having spent a lot of time in the area talking with folks that work in media and those who work at Bonneville's parent company (ie, the LDS Church), I am stunned they would even consider a progressive even on the order of Schultz. This on top of the fact that ratings no-show KTKK had previously aired Schultz live IIRC, then moved him to overnights when people were practically threatening to blow the station up. Jones and the station apparently agreed to yank him.

Wow...
 
> Salt Lake City's new FM talk station already swiped Savage
> from CC's rival KNRS-AM... now, 97.5 FM Talk has taken Bill
> O'Reilly, previously 9-11pm and recently 7-9pm on heritage
> blowtorch KSL, leaving the Bonneville talker's early evening
> spot open. Who of all people to fill that spot than ED
> SCHULTZ? Having spent a lot of time in the area talking with
> folks that work in media and those who work at Bonneville's
> parent company (ie, the LDS Church), I am stunned they would
> even consider a progressive even on the order of Schultz.
> This on top of the fact that ratings no-show KTKK had
> previously aired Schultz live IIRC, then moved him to
> overnights when people were practically threatening to blow
> the station up. Jones and the station apparently agreed to
> yank him.
>
> Wow...

Schultz was NOT live on KTKK. His show was airing in the same time slot, actually. 7 pm to 9 pm. Apparently Jones Radio Networks wants Ed live, so they were unwilling to work with KTKK, who wanted to continue airing his show in the evening.

Gotta give it to Jim Sumpter- his station may be strange, but at least he believes in live and local during the day.
 
> Gotta give it to Jim Sumpter- his station may be strange,
> but at least he believes in live and local during the day.

I'd agree, but aren't some of those hosts paying?
 
I've said it before..there's nothing wrong with a show being brokered. And just because a show is brokered doesn't make it a poorly produced show. (many are, but being a broker doesn't automatically mean you suck)

Look at it this way. A broker takes control over his revenue. He can make as little or as much as he/she may wants after paying the bills. If the hourly rate is $100 and the host has a three hour a day show, if they have $50 per spot rates and have 10 spots per hour....you do the math. It's NOT a bad business model. Even if so someone sucks on air, if they are good at sales, or hires someone who is, there is good money to be made.

There are hosts who pay to be on some of the networsks because of the larger listenership. They too are brokering time. Is O' Reilly a West Wood One employee, or is he just contracted to buy time from them, or essentially pay WW1 for their affiliate services...There are different ways to look at "brokered hosts".

I'm sure some people are paying to be on XM or Sirius...

It shouldn't matter. All it means is the station has less control over the production value and content of the show.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
> I've said it before..there's nothing wrong with a show being
> brokered. And just because a show is brokered doesn't make
> it a poorly produced show. (many are, but being a broker
> doesn't automatically mean you suck)
>

> Look at it this way. A broker takes control over his
> revenue. He can make as little or as much as he/she may
> wants after paying the bills. If the hourly rate is $100 and
> the host has a three hour a day show, if they have $50 per
> spot rates and have 10 spots per hour....you do the math.
> It's NOT a bad business model. Even if so someone sucks on
> air, if they are good at sales, or hires someone who is,
> there is good money to be made.

It is a bad business model... unless you're using the show to promote your business. You're not going to sell the spots for more than the station can get for them. If they could sell spots in that hour, they wouldn't sell the hour to you.

Those who succeed at brokering often have to resort to questionable tactics.
In the Tampa area, there is a sports talk show, hosted by a man who has padded his resume with a nonexistent NFL career while leaving out a considerable rap sheet. He has kept his show on the air on the lowest-rent station in town for years by overrepresenting his audience size and underdelivering on promises to small, naive advertisers (such as floral shops) where the owners don't understand radio. He sounds terrible and survives only by conning sponsors, leaving these businesses with a bad taste toward anyone trying to sell them radio time.

If someone sucks on air, and manages to talk a few suckers into buying time,
then the station and the listeners take a hit. The listeners can go to satellite, internet and other media. Now is not the time to give them another reason to leave.

Some markets (Jacksonville FL for example) have been ruled by time-brokers who have lousy shows but are great salesmen. That's a big reason no station has ever challenged WOKV for dominance in the talk format.

> It shouldn't matter. All it means is the station has less
> control over the production value and content of the show.
>

Walter Sabo has a great point about this. If someone paid you to put polkas on Friday night at 7 p.m. on a music station, you wouldn't, because it would screw up the cume. Some talk PDs are like paint-by-numbers artists compared to real artists. Just plug in the shows, fill up the holes. Otherwise they would care that the sound they have worked so hard to develop is being mangled by some brokered clown saying "duh, AM... uh radio, uh KXXX 1720" instead of "Newstalk 1720, KXXX, your News Leader in the Great Wash!" Why are the rules different for talk stations? Why is it OK for talk stations to suck two days a week?
 
Dude, I'm not talking about changing dominant stations into Time-brokered stations. I am not saying PD's need to allow local people to suddenly come in and start buying time and messing up their format. And I most certainly am not saying to break a music station apart by allowing people to pay for what they want to play, irregardless of format.

Your view point on this is skewed and narrow minded.

I am talking from the reverse point of view. If someone wants to be a talk host, and they can find a station that will take their money, that in itself doesn't mean they are bad at hosting a show. I'm saying that a host shouldn't be discounted JUST because they pay for time.

There are many hosts that STARTED that way...it's a good business model from the HOSTS perspective because they don't collect a fixed salary. They control what they make. And from a small station's perspective because they DON'T HAVE to chase commercials.

Traditional radio, with sales people selling commercials, can be profit prohibative for smaller stations because not only do you need to pay talent to be on the air, you have to have a traffic manager and a production person. Sure, some people are talented enough to wear several hats, but if your sales person is also producing their own spots either their selling day is short (less revenue) or they are working 60-80 hours per week, so they will burn out sooner than later. If your traffic person is producing the spots your spots may be poorly produced (no offense, but most traffic people aren't creative) and then they are not as effective for your advertisers so your sales person is constantly looking to replace lost business....

In order to have the traditional model work, you have to have the right signal the right programming etc. Show me 1000 - 2500 watt stations with traditional programming billing over 1M per year.


I understand what you are saying that some brokers may be a little crooked, I think that's just business in general. And that most brokers are not all that great sounding for radio....but...many people who started in radio sucked their first year or two. If you have a coach or a good manager at the station who is interested in developing talent...the situation could be alot different.

Why are stations "allowed to sound bad" on the weekend, because like I said, some of the 1000w (generally speaking) stations aren't making money because they have poorly trained sales people (if you were an experienced sales person would you prefer to sell $15 spots on a 1000w station or $250 spots on a 50000w station?), they have the second or third tier talk hosts that don't generate a large listening audience and they need the money. That's why.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
> I've said it before..there's nothing wrong with a show being
> brokered. And just because a show is brokered doesn't make
> it a poorly produced show. (many are, but being a broker
> doesn't automatically mean you suck)
>
> Look at it this way. A broker takes control over his
> revenue. He can make as little or as much as he/she may
> wants after paying the bills. If the hourly rate is $100 and
> the host has a three hour a day show, if they have $50 per
> spot rates and have 10 spots per hour....you do the math.
> It's NOT a bad business model. Even if so someone sucks on
> air, if they are good at sales, or hires someone who is,
> there is good money to be made.

I completely understand. I've known a few people who made $2-3k/mo just doing one hour a weekend. It does not mean you suck. However, when a station is brokered, having myself focused on brokered programming sales, we know the crap that tends to seep in. There just aren't enough great radio talents that have to pay.
 
> Why are stations "allowed to sound bad" on the weekend,
> because like I said, some of the 1000w (generally speaking)
> stations aren't making money because they have poorly
> trained sales people (if you were an experienced sales
> person would you prefer to sell $15 spots on a 1000w station
> or $250 spots on a 50000w station?), they have the second or
> third tier talk hosts that don't generate a large listening
> audience and they need the money. That's why.

Exactly. The few locally owned stations, small clusters, etc. have a tough time competing for ad buys when the local CC, Infinity, Citadel talkers get national buys dumped in their lap. It's very difficult to sell a station that entered the talk arena late and had to settle for third- and fourth-tier shows. Plus, the signal is weak and they typically can't afford great consulting to create great imaging. Add to that the unaffordable expense of Arbitron... how anyone can be hawking :60s in the street for $10 and be successful is beyond me.
 
> Salt Lake City's new FM talk station already swiped Savage
> from CC's rival KNRS-AM... now, 97.5 FM Talk has taken Bill
> O'Reilly, previously 9-11pm and recently 7-9pm on heritage
> blowtorch KSL, leaving the Bonneville talker's early evening
> spot open. Who of all people to fill that spot than ED
> SCHULTZ? Having spent a lot of time in the area talking with
> folks that work in media and those who work at Bonneville's
> parent company (ie, the LDS Church), I am stunned they would
> even consider a progressive even on the order of Schultz.
> Wow...

KSL is probably going to have a local talk host in that slot soon.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom