• 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

CBS needs to drop talk on 1210 WPHT

TheBigA said:
We're you talking about ratings?
Click to expand...

Huh? The contraction "we're" means "we are". So you're (meaning "you are") asking "We are you talking about ratings?"

I was making a general statement about radio broadcasting in general. In general, a station does not need to be good to get good ratings. It only has to be better than its competition. That's true about every sort of business. Whoever is the best gets the most business, even if the term "the best" really means "sucks the least". In the town where I live (a major market, BTW), all of the other stations on the air when "All Things Considered" is broadcast are a worse option for me to listen to, so even though "All Things Considered" sucks, it is still the best option for me on the air at the time.

Think of it like saying that Moe was the smartest Stooge.
 
That would only be true if radio was the only medium where businesses could advertise. Since they must provide a compelling reason to get businesses to spend limited ad budgets on (1) radio and preferably (2) on their station, they do need to offer a substantial audience or way to reach a targeted group of people in a way that provides value. So I dispute that they only need to be marginally better than their competition to survive.
 
umfan said:
That would only be true if radio was the only medium where businesses could advertise. Since they must provide a compelling reason to get businesses to spend limited ad budgets on (1) radio and preferably (2) on their station, they do need to offer a substantial audience or way to reach a targeted group of people in a way that provides value. So I dispute that they only need to be marginally better than their competition to survive.
Click to expand...

That takes the example to the next level, but doesn't negate the universal principle I'm talking about. You are correct that if the entire industry sucks, the entire industry goes down the tubes. An industry cannot survive if none of the participants are at least good. And, the principle of beating competition does have to include ALL competition. In fact, you've just touched on the second principle of marketing that follows the principle that you only have to beat your competition. That's the principle of recognizing your true competition.

So, I'll happily acknowledge that a radio station only has to be marginally better than its competition to survive, including competition for advertisers' money from other media. You'll get no disagreement from me on that point. But even within that point, radio only has to be a little bit better than direct mail, local newspapers, or any other media to beat them for the advertising dollar.
 
Avid Listener said:
But even within that point, radio only has to be a little bit better than direct mail, local newspapers, or any other media to beat them for the advertising dollar.
Click to expand...

Advertisers buy based on the ratio of audience and spot price. So the assumption here is that an audience is motivated by quality.

However, in the case of WHYY, they don't sell spots. They want members. So their appeal is directly to the people who listen.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
Advertisers buy based on the ratio of audience and spot price. So the assumption here is that an audience is motivated by quality.

However, in the case of WHYY, they don't sell spots. They want members. So their appeal is directly to the people who listen.
Click to expand...

You really buy into the pledge period myth of "and listeners like you", don't you?
 
Avid Listener said:
You really buy into the pledge period myth of "and listeners like you", don't you?
Click to expand...

I've actually answered the phones during pledge breaks. I've seen the checks arrive. And I've attended member functions. So yes, I do. The shows that get the most listener support have power, and the ones that don't get canceled. I'm here to tell you that it's not a myth. Listener-supported radio is not unlike Kickstarter. In fact, friends of mine are using Kickstarter to pay for a non-commercial radio project.
 
That's a great, and very apt, analogy. I'm no fan of NPR and believe the subsidy should be done away with, but it doesn't even represent a majority of their budget. Since they don't advertise directly, even though they do mention corporations who provide 'grants', how is this different?, someone must be providing the difference.
 
umfan said:
That's a great, and very apt, analogy. I'm no fan of NPR and believe the subsidy should be done away with, but it doesn't even represent a majority of their budget. Since they don't advertise directly, even though they do mention corporations who provide 'grants', how is this different?, someone must be providing the difference.
Click to expand...

Every published report I've ever seen indicates that the lion's share of most public station's budgets come from corporate underwriting and government grants. Support from "listeners like you" comes in third in terms of revenue.
 
Avid Listener said:
Every published report I've ever seen indicates that the lion's share of most public station's budgets come from corporate underwriting and government grants. Support from "listeners like you" comes in third in terms of revenue.
Click to expand...

But the listeners have more direct say in the programming, unlike commercial radio. A lot of the government funds are based on the amount of local membership support. What they call "matching funds." The more membership money, the more you get from other sources. This is why I say ratings don't matter, but the number of listeners who donate. The amount of membership support is key to any presentation for other money. And the other money is what supports expensive things like the physical plant rather than programming. One example I remember was that we got more membership money for locally produced music programming than All Things Considered. Ultimately, we dropped ATC and replaced it with more local music.
 
Last edited:
umfan said:
Since they don't advertise directly, even though they do mention corporations who provide 'grants', how is this different?, someone must be providing the difference.
Click to expand...

Mentioning a corporation is not selling a product. No "call to action." That's what the difference is. The FCC is very tough on the difference, and stations have been fined for turning an underwriting mention into an actual commercial. The donation is a tax write-off for the corporation, so the feds are very careful about that money. The donation money generally comes from a different part of the corporation than advertising money. The donation quite often is coming from a charitable wing of the corporation, the part that makes these kinds of donations. Not the advertising or marketing wing. So it's more of an institutional donation, rather than trying to reach a particular demographic through certain kinds of programming. Very different things, and a lot of it is controlled by the government in terms of their rules and regulations.

In commercial radio, we do similar things in our relations with record labels. We can say that a certain record or concert tickets are available on a certain date. We can't say where to buy them unless they buy advertising.
 
Avid Listener said:
Turn on your radio during the time that All Things Considered is on the air. Tune your radio to the station that carries All Things Considered. Listen to it.
There. There's the proof. Use your own two ears!
Click to expand...

Here's my litmus test...do they use the term "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers"?
 
TheBigA said:
One guy makes up what he thinks they'd probably say, and you then call his fabrication an example of NPR bias? Wow, watch out for that straw man falling.
Click to expand...

I indicated that simply ignoring stories is typical of how NPR practices bias. Small Market Guy's example is an illustration of what I was referring to, not proof. Do you understand the difference between those two things?
 
Avid Listener said:
I indicated that simply ignoring stories is typical of how NPR practices bias.
Click to expand...

Depends on the story they ignore. But if you believe they don't cover the subject of immigration, you're wrong. About 15% of their news stories are about immigration.

As for language, NPR actually did a piece once about terminology with regards to abortion. Is it more correct, as in less biased, to say "anti-abortion" or "pro-life." Their experts concluded both words contained bias. So they are very careful which words they use in their news stories. Perhaps the bias you sense has more to say about you than them.
 
TheBigA said:
Depends on the story they ignore. But if you believe they don't cover the subject of immigration, you're wrong. About 15% of their news stories are about immigration.

As for language, NPR actually did a piece once about terminology with regards to abortion. Is it more correct, as in less biased, to say "anti-abortion" or "pro-life." Their experts concluded both words contained bias. So they are very careful which words they use in their news stories. Perhaps the bias you sense has more to say about you than them.
Click to expand...

I asked if you understood the difference between an illustration and proof. Your reply indicates that you do not.
 
TheBigA said:
It's easy to be right when you simply answer your own questions, and ignore the person you're asking.
Click to expand...

Between this comment and the "falling strawmen" comment, you've summed up the entire Sean Hannity show.

Don't be surprised when "avid listener"s of those shows find those tactics completely normal and reasonable in actual, everyday conversation.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom