-
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
Clear Channel adds needless clutter to the WOR morning show
- Thread starter wadio
- Start date
I should probably clarify that I was referring to Hillary Barsky who filled in most of the week -- not Jody Applegate who filled in today. Applegate is a good broadcaster with a head on her shoulders but this morning she did spend quite a bit of time discussing various tweets. I can only guess this behavior is being encouraged by management. If I'm a 25-54 year old and I happen to tune into this AM station by accident, I'm thinking, "Geez, why do I want to hear about these tweets second hand? Think I'll turn off the radio and log into Twitter."
Applegate is co-hosting with Jack Ford so it looks like CC is experimenting with the idea of a co-hosted morning show -- I'll bet somebody over there thinks five voices are better than three -- the more noise and clutter the better.
It was depressing to think of JJ Kennedy coming in to do nothing more than read the traffic, even for one day. What a waste of talent.
Applegate is co-hosting with Jack Ford so it looks like CC is experimenting with the idea of a co-hosted morning show -- I'll bet somebody over there thinks five voices are better than three -- the more noise and clutter the better.
It was depressing to think of JJ Kennedy coming in to do nothing more than read the traffic, even for one day. What a waste of talent.
Let me ask you a question, do you actually listen to the show?
The reason I ask is that if you are a listener you'll know that the old "Rambling With Gambling" was a fluff and features show, as opposed to new the news/talk show Gambling launched after his stint at news/talk WABC. The new show was specifically NOT called "Rambling With Gambling" in order to avoid having people confuse it with the previous show. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Back to my original point: a news/talk show works better when the host has more time to develop ideas. A bunch of external fixed-time, fixed-length elements interferes with the flow.
The reason I ask is that if you are a listener you'll know that the old "Rambling With Gambling" was a fluff and features show, as opposed to new the news/talk show Gambling launched after his stint at news/talk WABC. The new show was specifically NOT called "Rambling With Gambling" in order to avoid having people confuse it with the previous show. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Back to my original point: a news/talk show works better when the host has more time to develop ideas. A bunch of external fixed-time, fixed-length elements interferes with the flow.
wadio said:
This is first and foremost a MORNING show. "Developing ideas" is something you do in other dayparts, when you have time to stretch, and TSL is longer. A morning show needs to be fast paced and packed with information. That's what this needs to be. To be honest, no one cares what John Gambling thinks. He's the host of a morning show. Just tell me what I need to know. And I would NOT want him to "ramble." That would be absolute DEATH. If he wants to compete with Imus, he needs to be what Imus is NOT, which is fast-paced, entertaining, and informative. He needs help to do that.
Thank you ... you've made my point! The Imus show is a prime example of too many voices and to much clutter.
Since you've now shifted the argument to pace, have you tried listening to NPR's Morning Edition? It's the complete opposite of the "fast-paced MORNING show" you seem to think is the only model. Morning Edition is not MY choice for a morning show yet it has a large, loyal audience. Because YOU think every morning show should sound exactly the same doesn't make it so. Some people are able to think outside the box.
wadio said:
I'm not saying it should sound exactly the same, I'm saying it should sound BETTER. Once again, keep in mind that WOR is LOSING to WABC. Let me say this again: Local is losing to syndication. Something was wrong with the Gambling morning show. Adding a weather voice isn't going to hurt.
As for Morning Edition, they actually have TWO hosts. That's just for the national show. Then WNYC adds a local host who does the local news. Then they have a traffic reporter. So that's FOUR voices. Plus all the reporters who do the various stories. In your mind, that means lots of clutter. And as you say, they have a large loyal audience. Which is something Gambling lacks.
wadio said:
That's funny. The Imus show is a prime example of a host who's way past his prime. He needs the other voices to keep him awake and do the work, because he's done. And even though he's doing a terrible show and destroying his own legacy, he's still beating WOR.
Here's a simple fact: There is no news/talk in NYC doing a fast-paced morning show. That's why sharpening up the Gambling show is a good idea. And news talk needs more women. So if they're going to add more voices, they should be female. Thinking outside the box means trying something different. Something you're unwilling to do.
wadio said:
Morning drive. 6+
WABC, slowly declining from an average of 3.2 in the "Spring" period of last year to an average of 2.4 in the last three months of this year.
WOR, slowly declining from an average of 3.6 in Apr-May-Jun of 2011 to a 2.4 in Jan-Feb-Mar of this year.
In 25-54, WABC is about 40% ahead of WOR in mornings.
There is no strong morning performance on either station.
If that's the case, management needs to determine whether the show is dragging the station down or vice versa. If the show isn't attracting listeners, why? Is the show making money? If so, maybe the ratings aren't so important. Why risk making changes that could hurt the bottom line?
If John Gambling is the problem (which I doubt) he should be replaced. If they really need to "shake things up" they could bring in an irreverent host like Bill Handel. I could see John & Ken doing a good morning show. But I won't work to bring in an unknown host or team for the sake of change -- that was tried years ago with Howard Stern clones. The worst thing would be to pander to the youth market with someone who's obsessed with airhead celebrity stories and social media. Neither Handel nor J&K, for example, would do that.
If pace is the problem they could, for example, get rid of the dreadful droning Bruce Beck who brings the show to a complete standstill for many minutes at a time. I believe they've already eliminated "Bumper Music Fridays," which is a great move. The montage of voices at the beginning of the hour are gone, though I thought those actually helped the pace by setting up stories ahead of time, so I'm not sure what that decision was about.
The suggestion that adding a different weather element will "shake things up" is ridiculous. As I said in my original post, chances are it was a business decision having nothing to do with programming.
If John Gambling is the problem (which I doubt) he should be replaced. If they really need to "shake things up" they could bring in an irreverent host like Bill Handel. I could see John & Ken doing a good morning show. But I won't work to bring in an unknown host or team for the sake of change -- that was tried years ago with Howard Stern clones. The worst thing would be to pander to the youth market with someone who's obsessed with airhead celebrity stories and social media. Neither Handel nor J&K, for example, would do that.
If pace is the problem they could, for example, get rid of the dreadful droning Bruce Beck who brings the show to a complete standstill for many minutes at a time. I believe they've already eliminated "Bumper Music Fridays," which is a great move. The montage of voices at the beginning of the hour are gone, though I thought those actually helped the pace by setting up stories ahead of time, so I'm not sure what that decision was about.
The suggestion that adding a different weather element will "shake things up" is ridiculous. As I said in my original post, chances are it was a business decision having nothing to do with programming.
Wouldn't you all agree that if Imus was on WOR and Gambling on WABC, Gambling would've been on top? IMO this has to be viewed as station vs station battle, not host vs host... WOR sounds to old for the 25-54 demo, and CC did nothing to improve it, WOR audio still sounds like a cheap telephone connected to the mic.
- Status