I've never heard of Thom Hartmann.
-
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
Baroosk:
Where the heck are you getting your "info" on Randi Rhodes Ratings in Portland. You're not even close.
Total audience - point two tied for 18th placed
25-54 - point two tied for 16th place
For anyone to say "she was up 21%" is full of garbage.
I don't care whether you support the format or not, just don't lie or quote ratings performances that are completely inaccurate to paint a particular picture.
Where the heck are you getting your "info" on Randi Rhodes Ratings in Portland. You're not even close.
Total audience - point two tied for 18th placed
25-54 - point two tied for 16th place
For anyone to say "she was up 21%" is full of garbage.
I don't care whether you support the format or not, just don't lie or quote ratings performances that are completely inaccurate to paint a particular picture.
E
evnlee
Guest
adbuyer1 said:
you cant blame Baroosk because he gets his info from Mediamatters, or what not.
It's like when 'progressives' say outrageous things like "Fact: No station has increased its audience share after dropping liberal talk. Shares stay about the same or drop. "
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:
Evn: Stop making things up.
Baroosk was talking about Randi Rhodes numbers, not the overall (and meaningless) 12+ numbers posted online.
And no station which dropped liberal talk has increased its overall numbers, not even on the second or third flip. I notice you don't reply to the "outrageous" statement directly but bring it up later and out of context, possibly hoping you wouldn't get called on it. OK, I call. Let's see all those examples of stations with improved numbers are liberal talk. Atlanta, where liberal talk supposedly "failed?" Nope! The station's numbers are down with a so-called "variety" format. Do a little checking. See if you can find any.
Sorry, Dude. You lied. You're busted.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
And no station which dropped liberal talk has increased its overall numbers,
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Liberal talk radio fails because it is only aired on crappy stations with bad signals that can't succeed with any other sort of programming. But when liberal talk radio is pulled for any other sort of programming, and the station still fails, then that proves that liberal talk radio would have succeeded had it not been pulled?
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Liberal talk radio fails because it is only aired on crappy stations with bad signals that can't succeed with any other sort of programming. But when liberal talk radio is pulled for any other sort of programming, and the station still fails, then that proves that liberal talk radio would have succeeded had it not been pulled?
A
Al Johnson
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
One makes up stuff. The other twists things. They can't have much confidence in their own viewpoints to resort to such "tricks." Or else their hatred of liberal talk overwhelms otherwise better judgment.
Anything fails when it is aired on crappy stations with bad signals.
When liberal talk airs on stations with decent signals and selects programs from various syndicators, it does about as well as the number two right-wing talker (all or mostly syndicated with second-string hosts). It does not do as well as dominant talkers with a blow-torch signal, an established local morning personality/host, a strong local news presence, long-standing involvement in community events and programs, Rush, and ballgames with top local teams.
Liberal talk beats Salem and Salem overall has better stations (and more money behind it).
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:
ummm...I responded to this in another thread: you did not answer me.
let's try again:
what about KYJK - 105.9 Jack FM?
look it up. :
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:ummm...I responded to this in another thread: you did not answer me.
let's try again:
what about KYJK - 105.9 Jack FM?
look it up. :
Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
Bluffing works better in poker than on Al Gore's information super highway.
KNS 105.9FM was an Air America turnkey station for some eight months, which flipped to Variety/Adult Hits almost a year and a half ago when an out of town company took over the station. The out-going station manager was quoted as saying the format was popular in what is considered a liberal town but encountered resistance from advertisers.
Back to original question: Did ratings go down, stay constant or go up since the flip?
The problem with telling someone to look something up is they just might do it.
There are no ratings. Missoula is an unrated market.
But thank you for playing, Evn. Please accept a copy of our home game and a carton of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat.
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:
huh. you might want to 'splain that to the good people at Eastlan resources, the # 2 ratings compiler of small markets, there chief.
http://www.eastlan.com/markets.htm
just because Arbitron does not consider Missoula large enough to bother, doesn't mean nobody else does.
Maybe you should purchase thier july 14th report to find out for yourself
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:huh. you might want to 'splain that to the good people at Eastlan resources, the # 2 ratings compiler of small markets, there chief.
http://www.eastlan.com/markets.htm
just because Arbitron does not consider Missoula large enough to bother, doesn't mean nobody else does.
Maybe you should purchase thier july 14th report to find out for yourself
You are the one making the assertion about Missoula. If you have seen actual numbers, please provide a link to them (both current numbers and the station's last complete book as liberal talk).
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
what about KYJK - 105.9 Jack FM?
That's a bad example. The reason is the Jack format (and Bob, Sam, Fred, Ralph, and all the other "variety hits" formats) have a track record of very fast ratings growth followed by a crash and burn in around 18 months.
That's a bad example. The reason is the Jack format (and Bob, Sam, Fred, Ralph, and all the other "variety hits" formats) have a track record of very fast ratings growth followed by a crash and burn in around 18 months.
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
you know what, I think you may be right.
But, it's true that thier overall ratings improved after they took off Err Amerika. Thier billing did as well. Didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. But the 'jockless' format does have a tendency to fade, and it's usually right in that timeframe, too. But that's a subject for another board
Hey Al? It's against board rules to post actual numbers!~ I implore you to purchase the next Eastlan report: 1-877-886-3320. I'll make a deal with you: If I'm lying, and that KYJK ratings went down~ I'll reimburse you the cost. Deal?
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:Radio_Realist said:
you know what, I think you may be right.
But, it's true that thier overall ratings improved after they took off Err Amerika. Thier billing did as well. Didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. But the 'jockless' format does have a tendency to fade, and it's usually right in that timeframe, too. But that's a subject for another board
Hey Al? It's against board rules to post actual numbers!~ I implore you to purchase the next Eastlan report: 1-877-886-3320. I'll make a deal with you: If I'm lying, and that KYJK ratings went down~ I'll reimburse you the cost. Deal?
I asked for a link to numbers, not actual numbers. This site now does have rights to post Arbitron numbers (maybe you missed the memo).
I agree, RR makes a valid point. And an FM station is not a typical lib-talk outlet. There was a rim-shot in Texas but the only current liberal talk station on FM is Madison, Wisconsin with a healthy 3.6 share (number 10 in the market, number two out of three talk stations). This is the station the self-appointed "Grim Reaper" of liberal talk wanted to make the third sports-talk station in the market with turnkey ESPN Radio.
In any case, 24 stations have dropped liberal talk since February, 2006, according to Baroosk. We can see overall numbers for the 23 in Arbitron markets. So the best outcome you can hope for here is 23 out of 24 ex=lib-talkers did not improve their numbers (and the other one may have seen a temporary spike).
And then there is Salem, which was smart enough to buy up some good AM signals in the 90s, but even on stations that have had good numbers with prior formats, their news/talk network fails to beat liberal talk. Plus all the 2nd tier talk stations with second string hosts from TRN, Radio America, Fox, WOR, Westwood One and even Jones, who also often have good signals and their numbers are comparable to liberal talk.
The only thing holding back the liberal talk format is the mind-set of people in the biz who believe it can't work and who don't want it to work, and the mind-set of advertisers who think liberal talk is controversial (and right-wing talk is not). I once spoke to the program director of a news/talk station. They did news in AM and PM drive and had local morning talk show with a right-wing host who called himself "independent" (all the positions he arrived at independently just happened to be the same as the Republicans) and Salem's Mike Gallagher. When Air America launched, he was asked whether he'd take any shows from them. He said no because he didn't want the station and its news to be seen as liberal (but apparently running a strident right-wing host like Gallagher did not present such a concern). A lot of people in radio identify themselves so closely with the Republican establishment and ideology, and take it so for granted, that any other views seem foreign to them.
Somehow your "offer" implies that you have not in fact seen these audience numbers for Missoula (covering 2005, 2006 and so far in 2007). You may not be bluffing. That would mean you know what hand you hold. Maybe your strong belief in the inevitable "failure" of liberal talk causes you to feel confident in a guess.
Al Johnson said:
I cannot offer an argument against what you say, Al, but your thought does give me pause. Is that the only sort of thing holding it back? My sense of most owners is that they want to program whatever will be profitable.
I have to wonder how many watched the launch of Air America with the thought that if it were successful, it may be something to consider in the future. If so, the multiple levels of failure would understandably be enough to scare anybody away.
But, based on presumably your knowledge of the company and its track record across the country, which of its station would you cite as being particular successful? (You mention Madison, for example, but being 10th in a market of that size probably isn't good enough unless the demo composition is outstanding.)
Separate question: How many markets are there where an Air America (or any left-oriented talk) station consistently beats the right-oriented talk station (assuming that there is one)?
It would seem to me that those two measures would give some sense of the success of left-oriented talk radio. If the two of us owned a station where we were considering a format change, isn't that the sort of thing we would want to know?
A
Al Johnson
Guest
You raise several interesting points. Most have been brought up before but not all together.
Most program what they believe will be profitable. But many station owners, operators and managers also use their stations to advance their own political views. Maybe they believe there is no conflict between those two. There have been studies showing people in broadcast sales and management overwhelmingly identify with the Republican party and it's traditional views. People in broadcast sales and management also participate actively in various community, business and service organizations in which they network with other business people who also overwhelmingly identify with the Republican party and it's traditional views. They probably don't know many Democrats personally or socially (and may not like those they do know). In their world, conservative talk radio expresses commonly-held or community views. Liberal talk is controversial.
Failure can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clear Channel was under some political pressure a few years back and they responded by flipping some under-performing stations to liberal talk. Mostly, the station flipped to liberal talk was "the weakest link" in the local cluster. Often the person in charge was the program director of the existing conservative talk station, who often worked his way up to that position as a local conservative talk host. Many of these regional program directors have said publicly from the beginning that they expected liberal talk to fail.
The people behind liberal talk did a great deal to contribute to their own failures. Over-spending at start-up. Inexperienced (often over-paid) talent. A willingness to sign up any station just to boost the affiliate count.
Despite all this, the format has had a few notable success.
Madison's liberal talk station is the number two non-music station in the market. The format has down well in other markets including Portland and San Diego (a traditionally conservative area).
The winning formula seems to be: A good signal. At least one good local show. And pick and choose the best hosts from Jones Radio and Nova M and don't take too much from Air America. Air America currently has two viable shows, Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes. Better performing stations fill most of their schedules with such programs as Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy from outside Air America. Turnkey Air America stations (those that just plug into the network feed all day long) are consistently poor performers. Air America is no longer the dominant liberal talk program provider.
Beats how? Profitability is what matters but those figures are hard to come by. Key demographics is what is most important to profitability and those numbers are scarce, too. Specific progressive talk shows have won in some markets in key demographic categories. Most markets with a liberal talk station have two or three conservative talk stations. The second and third conservative stations are also often not on the stations with the best signals and often have schedules made up of syndicated shows "left over" after the dominant station has picked the top performing shows. Liberal talk stations often have ratings comparable to (and sometimes beat) these stations.
Top performing talk stations in any market are mostly 50,000 watt Class A (clear channel) AM stations with over 20 years in a talk format and a history of community involvement. In addition to two or three of the better performing conservative talk shows, these stations also have good local news department, one or two established (often non-ideological) local hosts-personalities, and rights to ballgames involving major local teams. Their appeal is much broader than the conservative hosts on their schedules.
Not entirely. Despite what people in broadcast sales and management may believe, a substantial portion of the population does not identify itself with the Republican party or its traditional views. There are a good many liberal-leaning people in the audience. Before Rush came along, a lot of people in radio did not believe ideological talk could be successful as more than a niche type of programming (and there various failures to support that view). Marketing is described as find a need and fill it. Too many in radio look to copy what has worked for someone else. I would say the better questions to ask if we see an appetite in the market for liberal talk are: How do we do it right? And how do we sell it?
JbeJay said:
Most program what they believe will be profitable. But many station owners, operators and managers also use their stations to advance their own political views. Maybe they believe there is no conflict between those two. There have been studies showing people in broadcast sales and management overwhelmingly identify with the Republican party and it's traditional views. People in broadcast sales and management also participate actively in various community, business and service organizations in which they network with other business people who also overwhelmingly identify with the Republican party and it's traditional views. They probably don't know many Democrats personally or socially (and may not like those they do know). In their world, conservative talk radio expresses commonly-held or community views. Liberal talk is controversial.
Failure can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clear Channel was under some political pressure a few years back and they responded by flipping some under-performing stations to liberal talk. Mostly, the station flipped to liberal talk was "the weakest link" in the local cluster. Often the person in charge was the program director of the existing conservative talk station, who often worked his way up to that position as a local conservative talk host. Many of these regional program directors have said publicly from the beginning that they expected liberal talk to fail.
The people behind liberal talk did a great deal to contribute to their own failures. Over-spending at start-up. Inexperienced (often over-paid) talent. A willingness to sign up any station just to boost the affiliate count.
Despite all this, the format has had a few notable success.
Madison's liberal talk station is the number two non-music station in the market. The format has down well in other markets including Portland and San Diego (a traditionally conservative area).
The winning formula seems to be: A good signal. At least one good local show. And pick and choose the best hosts from Jones Radio and Nova M and don't take too much from Air America. Air America currently has two viable shows, Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes. Better performing stations fill most of their schedules with such programs as Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy from outside Air America. Turnkey Air America stations (those that just plug into the network feed all day long) are consistently poor performers. Air America is no longer the dominant liberal talk program provider.
Beats how? Profitability is what matters but those figures are hard to come by. Key demographics is what is most important to profitability and those numbers are scarce, too. Specific progressive talk shows have won in some markets in key demographic categories. Most markets with a liberal talk station have two or three conservative talk stations. The second and third conservative stations are also often not on the stations with the best signals and often have schedules made up of syndicated shows "left over" after the dominant station has picked the top performing shows. Liberal talk stations often have ratings comparable to (and sometimes beat) these stations.
Top performing talk stations in any market are mostly 50,000 watt Class A (clear channel) AM stations with over 20 years in a talk format and a history of community involvement. In addition to two or three of the better performing conservative talk shows, these stations also have good local news department, one or two established (often non-ideological) local hosts-personalities, and rights to ballgames involving major local teams. Their appeal is much broader than the conservative hosts on their schedules.
Not entirely. Despite what people in broadcast sales and management may believe, a substantial portion of the population does not identify itself with the Republican party or its traditional views. There are a good many liberal-leaning people in the audience. Before Rush came along, a lot of people in radio did not believe ideological talk could be successful as more than a niche type of programming (and there various failures to support that view). Marketing is described as find a need and fill it. Too many in radio look to copy what has worked for someone else. I would say the better questions to ask if we see an appetite in the market for liberal talk are: How do we do it right? And how do we sell it?
Al Johnson said:
And thank you, in turn, for your reasoned response.
In my observation there has been very little of the "advance their own political views". Marx (Karl, not Groucho) and Lenin (not Lennon) each commented about the stereotypical capitalist who would sell the rope with which to hang him. A radio station is a substantial investment, relative to its marketplace, and not something to be used frivolously these days, one would think.
I would be interested in the studies you quote about management being disproportionately Republican. I don't necessarily doubt it, given the apparent tendency for successful businessmen to lean in that direction, but don't recall having seen a study like this which was specific to radio. (Studies of people in the news media leaning to the left, on the other hand, are many and persistent over the years.)
I see that every day, not just in the radio business. My left-leaning friends wouldn't think of reading a right-leaning political blog; my right-leaning friends wouldn't think of reading a left-leaning political blog. It's so easy to reinforce preconceived notions by staying insulated from other points of view. Sad but true.
I'm sure you realize that "number two non-music station in the [Madison] market" isn't enough to be considered a success. That station, in a left-leaning college town and a state capital, generally has half the 12+ share of the number one non-music station and with no demo pattern to brag about.
My recollection of the Portland situation is that it was a flash in the pan and that the station has settled far back in the pack. I don't know which San Diego station it is, but agree with you that that is "a traditionally conservative area". To do well there would certainly be swimming against the tide. Which station is it, and how has it done?
An interesting list. We have seen over the years that people will strain to hear programming that they really want to hear, of course, weak signal and all. But definitely a good signal ought to do better.
Yes, turning audience numbers into revenue numbers is a function of the sales department. Profitability would be good to measure but, as you note, we probably cannot do so here.
And yes, the demo picture is key. But if you would agree that the age spread of any two talk stations would be more similar than different, we could simply look at the 12+ numbers which we are apparently allowed to quote here. On that basis, can you name even three markets where a left-oriented talk station consistently beats the leading right-oriented talk station?
To say that the left-leaning one can "have ratings comparable to (and sometimes beat) the #2 or #3 right-leaning one almost seems like an argument in support of right-leaning radio: "There are three of them and only one of us, and yet we are about as good as their second- or third-best."
If the audience for right-leaning talk is able to support two or three stations with a total share which is a multiple of what the left-leaning station has, wouldn't that indicate a greater potential for the right and serious limitations for the left?
Yes, it is easier -- not necessarily better, just easier -- to follow someone else's proven path than to figure out one's own. But my curiosity is this: What tells you that there is "an appetite in the market for liberal talk [radio]"? Is it possible that the leanings to the left are already well-served?
Thanks for the discussion, Al.
Jay
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Al Johnson said:
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:evnlee said:Radio_Realist said:
you know what, I think you may be right.
But, it's true that thier overall ratings improved after they took off Err Amerika. Thier billing did as well. Didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. But the 'jockless' format does have a tendency to fade, and it's usually right in that timeframe, too. But that's a subject for another board
Hey Al? It's against board rules to post actual numbers!~ I implore you to purchase the next Eastlan report: 1-877-886-3320. I'll make a deal with you: If I'm lying, and that KYJK ratings went down~ I'll reimburse you the cost. Deal?
I asked for a link to numbers, not actual numbers. This site now does have rights to post Arbitron numbers (maybe you missed the memo).
I agree, RR makes a valid point. And an FM station is not a typical lib-talk outlet. There was a rim-shot in Texas but the only current liberal talk station on FM is Madison, Wisconsin with a healthy 3.6 share (number 10 in the market, number two out of three talk stations). This is the station the self-appointed "Grim Reaper" of liberal talk wanted to make the third sports-talk station in the market with turnkey ESPN Radio.
In any case, 24 stations have dropped liberal talk since February, 2006, according to Baroosk. We can see overall numbers for the 23 in Arbitron markets. So the best outcome you can hope for here is 23 out of 24 ex=lib-talkers did not improve their numbers (and the other one may have seen a temporary spike).
And then there is Salem, which was smart enough to buy up some good AM signals in the 90s, but even on stations that have had good numbers with prior formats, their news/talk network fails to beat liberal talk. Plus all the 2nd tier talk stations with second string hosts from TRN, Radio America, Fox, WOR, Westwood One and even Jones, who also often have good signals and their numbers are comparable to liberal talk.
The only thing holding back the liberal talk format is the mind-set of people in the biz who believe it can't work and who don't want it to work, and the mind-set of advertisers who think liberal talk is controversial (and right-wing talk is not). I once spoke to the program director of a news/talk station. They did news in AM and PM drive and had local morning talk show with a right-wing host who called himself "independent" (all the positions he arrived at independently just happened to be the same as the Republicans) and Salem's Mike Gallagher. When Air America launched, he was asked whether he'd take any shows from them. He said no because he didn't want the station and its news to be seen as liberal (but apparently running a strident right-wing host like Gallagher did not present such a concern). A lot of people in radio identify themselves so closely with the Republican establishment and ideology, and take it so for granted, that any other views seem foreign to them.
Somehow your "offer" implies that you have not in fact seen these audience numbers for Missoula (covering 2005, 2006 and so far in 2007). You may not be bluffing. That would mean you know what hand you hold. Maybe your strong belief in the inevitable "failure" of liberal talk causes you to feel confident in a guess.
the simple fact is, you were incorrect when you said ' every station that dumped lib talk has suffered or stayed the same in the ratings' ....that is incorrect.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. And nice spin on the 'FM' angle
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:the simple fact is, you were incorrect when you said ' every station that dumped lib talk has suffered or stayed the same in the ratings' ....that is incorrect.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. And nice spin on the 'FM' angle
Nice try, again. Every station in Arbitron markets (23 of 24) that dropped liberal talk has suffered or stayed the same. You say some heretofore little known rating provider specializing in small markets has numbers for Missoula. You have not said flat out that Jack has seen a sustained increase in audience numbers (let alone provide any evidence). You haven't even provided any reason to believe that (1) You have seen these Missoula books or (2) We should take your word for any of this.
If the "message" here is actual Missoula numbers, you have not delivered the message.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
Isolated examples, my [edit]! You and others claim liberal talk can't work. I cite places where it has worked. Ergo, liberal talk can work. I also point out how those examples differ from other data. Ergo, under certain conditions, liberal talk does work.
You say liberals don't listen to liberal talk. You have also asserted liberals do listen to public radio. That's talk and liberals listen to it (so does a substantial portion of conservative listeners). Maybe liberals have not listened much to commercial talk radio because there has been little or nothing offered they'd want to listen to. Talk radio - all talk radio - gets about one-tenth of the audience. Guess what, most conservatives are listening to music, too.
- Status