Re: Progressive Talk - Not For Everybody
> I am not suggesting Air America Radio "turn down" stations
> which want to carry their programs. I am suggesting they
> identify and target those markets and stations with the
> greatest potential for the progressive talk format.
Any syndicator will go after whatever station will pick up the programming. And I think liberal talk can work in red markets as well as blue markets, for the reasons I already mentioned.
> Of course, programming has to be good. And the programming
> has to be supported with effective promotion. But good
> programming and promotion are not enough.
Local stations are responsible for promotion at their level. AAR can only do so much, and I think they've done more promotion than any other syndicator out there.
> As you point out, a good signal is an important ingredient.
> And progressive talk has ended up on too many stations
> lacking that ingredient.
Sometimes, you have to play the hand you're dealt. If they can land a substandard affiliate (like signal-impaired WCPT in Chicago), then they should go for it. Remember, Rush's talk show got it's start on weak AM stations.
> As I said in an earlier posts, talk radio (any kind of talk
> radio) does not play equally well in every market. No
> format does. So, for the next phrase of their development,
> AAR needs to focus their efforts and resources on markets in
> which talk formats perform well.
Sometimes you have to put forth the effort in order to find out. And like I said before, it's not like syndicated liberal talk is an outrageously expensive format to run. And it has more money-making potential than oldies, classic country, standards or Sporting News Radio off the bird, which tend to be the last resort formats for tiny AM stations.
> They also need to identify and focus on those markets with a
> solid base of listeners predisposed or open to progressive
> talk programming. Blue markets is an obvious indicator.
> They should also look beyond that for markets, like San
> Diego, with a strong and active Blue minority. (By the way,
> KLSD is the number 22 station in the market and the number
> four political talk station. I won't quote numbers but it's
> not as high-rated as you suggest.)
I'm turning into a broken record here. Should programmers have backed away from country music in a market like Chicago because there probably aren't as many country fans as in, say, Nashville? I'm sure that no matter where one goes, there's at least some left-leaning people. And not too long after KLSD went on the air with their current format, they were the #3 rated AM station in certain demographics. I don't have any current demographic breakdowns.
> Other factors to consider would be markets with above
> average levels of income and education (including a strong
> presence of institutions of higher learning). Not
> surprisingly, the markets in which progressive talk radio is
> likely to do well are the same ones in which public radio
> does well.
>
> AAR needs to find markets with a large and vocal choir.
> That said, they should not preach to it. The choir - as
> evidenced by many who post here - want a political p*fest,
> with lots of shots at the opposition and general bashing of
> the opposition. They need to hold to core values but with a
> lighter touch (this includes appropriate humor, which
> despite all the comedians they hired, is mostly lacking in
> AAR programming). And they need to get into non-political
> or lifestyle topics consistent with progressive political
> philosophy and of interest to the kind of people who lean
> that way.
>
> So far AAR is a "hobby station." It's a bunch of rich
> people who backed AAR as a start-up and AAR's politically
> connected managers programming what they want. This is not
> unique to AAR. Conservative operators have a long history
> of running stations to reflect their political viewpoints
> (some were described in the Pre-Rush talk radio thread). It
> also happens in music radio in which somebody plays the
> music they like. AAR has to decide if they want to be a
> successful business or somebody's hobby.
As I can see, they're trying to run a business, but one that reflects their own political ideology. Why do you see a problem with building a business out out of something they believe in?
> AAR needs to consolidate and build. They need to build a
> track record of success for local stations. To do that,
> they need to be selective. They need to qualify potential
> "affiliates." Otherwise they are likely to end up being
> relegated to being a niche format on marginal AM stations
> (like Salem).
There are only a small number of strong AM stations in any given market, and the stations most likely to flip are ones that are signal-impaired (which is the majority of them). Let's face it, in say, New York, stations like WABC, WFAN, WCBS, etc. are not in any hurry to change anything. Hence WLIB. Obviously, landing some strong signals like KPOJ, WINZ and (especially) WCKY was a big plus.
> They've been doing it your way. They took any station they
> could get. Some have fallen by the wayside, much to glee of
> those who want progressive talk radio to disappear. They
> have shown they can lose. They need to do more to show they
> can win.
>
I don't understand this approach you suggest about only taking certain stations. That's the equivalent of throwing all of one's eggs in only a few baskets. I say if a station owner wants to take on the programming and nobody else in the market has spoken up, why not let them air it? What other syndicators turn down affiliates? And if it takes off and stronger stations want to take over as affiliates, this can be done (this recently happened in Sacramento).<P ID="signature">______________
The
Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
