Clear Channel dirty tricks

[Scribbler]

I would think, based on my experience as a GM, that whatever political motivations we have are completely overridden by fear of financial loss. I am somewhat conservative, but believe me, if I was handed a lib talk station, I'd work my ass off to make it work. Similarly, I know of plenty of liberal managers with conservative talkers. It's pretty much financially driven unless the manager is just an idiot.

But, as you said earlier in this thread, "My completely unsubstantiated guess has always been that they flipped a bunch of stations to libtalk to blunt criticism and knew damn well they wouldn't make money."

My unsubstantiated guess is that some local management people would get the message that San Antonio WAS only doing this to blunt criticism...that all they wanted was to be able to say they "tried." So I suppose that if you really did try and made money, San Antonio would be OK with that, and if the format failed, San Antonio would collectively shrug (especially if all the other stations in the cluster were making money) and you'd then flip to Fox Sports or Spanish (and really try to succeed this time).

 

[SaltyDog]

But, as you said earlier in this thread, "My completely unsubstantiated guess has always been that they flipped a bunch of stations to libtalk to blunt criticism and knew damn well they wouldn't make money."

My unsubstantiated guess is that some local management people would get the message that San Antonio WAS only doing this to blunt criticism...that all they wanted was to be able to say they "tried."

How would they get that message? That was my guess, not necessarily theirs. GMs get paid on cash flow so even if they did somehow come to the same conclusion, it would not have been in their best interest to let them fail.

So I suppose that if you really did try and made money, San Antonio would be OK with that, and if the format failed, San Antonio would collectively shrug (especially if all the other stations in the cluster were making money) and you'd then flip to Fox Sports or Spanish (and really try to succeed this time).

Yes, if your talk station failed, San Antonio might shrug it off... IF the other stations in your cluster overcame the deficit and your cluster made its overall budget. If your talk station's failure meant you missed your cash flow budget, they wouldn't shrug. They might well fire you. So a GM is highly incentivized to make his stations work regardless of his or her political leanings.

 

[evnlee]

I would think, based on my experience as a GM, that whatever political motivations we have are completely overridden by fear of financial loss. I am somewhat conservative, but believe me, if I was handed a lib talk station, I'd work my ass off to make it work. Similarly, I know of plenty of liberal managers with conservative talkers. It's pretty much financially driven unless the manager is just an idiot.

But, as you said earlier in this thread, "My completely unsubstantiated guess has always been that they flipped a bunch of stations to libtalk to blunt criticism and knew damn well they wouldn't make money."

My unsubstantiated guess is that some local management people would get the message that San Antonio WAS only doing this to blunt criticism...that all they wanted was to be able to say they "tried." So I suppose that if you really did try and made money, San Antonio would be OK with that, and if the format failed, San Antonio would collectively shrug (especially if all the other stations in the cluster were making money) and you'd then flip to Fox Sports or Spanish (and really try to succeed this time).

Gee, who's stolen my patented 'wishful thinking machine'?

"You can't have it both ways. Either CC was merely posturing by flipping some stations to libtalk because they are in bed with the GOP or they tried libtalk to see if it would be profitable. It can't be both. "

Into my machine this comes out as " Well, when we praised CC it was because we didn't know at the time they were using us and making fools of us by allowing AAR programming on thier affiliates. Now that they have failed, and CC is pulling them off, we can go back to hating them ( and Fox News Corp ) like we always did.

 

[sdwulfdawg]

I think you're right on target. However the format did end up succeeding in Portland and San Diego and CC found they could actually make money off of it. It was then rolled out across the country and it's had mixed results, with the reasons for the mixed results having been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

Where did you get your information about San Diego? THe AAR station is ranked 19th....averages 1.4-1.9 in the books in 25-54 demo. That is NOT a success in my humble opinion. THe talk in town is that it is at the same r*tings level of the previous format of the station, adult standards. Of course for Little Rock on the Willamette, Portland, OR, I could see that it would be a "success."

 

[Radio_Realist]

THe AAR station is ranked 19th....averages 1.4-1.9 in the books in 25-54 demo. That is NOT a success in my humble opinion.

What are their billings?

THe talk in town is that it is at the same r*tings level of the previous format of the station, adult standards.

But are their billings the same, or higher, or lower?

You don't put ratings points into the bank, you deposit ad sales dollars. Ratings are a means to an end, higher airtime sales is the end itself. If broadcaster discovers a format that doesn't attract as many listeners, but does attract more advertisers, why would that broadcaster not embrace the format that attracts advertisers.

And profits are revenues less expenses. If you can keep the revenues the same, but cut expenses, you've increased profits as surely as if you would have increased revenues. So, a station that increases profits by reducing expenses is also a "success" to a bean counter. And make no mistake, Clear Channel is run by bean counters, not by broadcasters.

 

[evnlee]

THe AAR station is ranked 19th....averages 1.4-1.9 in the books in 25-54 demo. That is NOT a success in my humble opinion.

What are their billings?

THe talk in town is that it is at the same r*tings level of the previous format of the station, adult standards.

But are their billings the same, or higher, or lower?

You don't put ratings points into the bank, you deposit ad sales dollars. Ratings are a means to an end, higher airtime sales is the end itself. If broadcaster discovers a format that doesn't attract as many listeners, but does attract more advertisers, why would that broadcaster not embrace the format that attracts advertisers.

And profits are revenues less expenses. If you can keep the revenues the same, but cut expenses, you've increased profits as surely as if you would have increased revenues. So, a station that increases profits by reducing expenses is also a "success" to a bean counter. And make no mistake, Clear Channel is run by bean counters, not by broadcasters.

good points.

The reason I started this thread was to see how many bought into the 'CC hates AAR' conspiracy theories. Obviously, that number is growing!

I don't know about you, but I have been reading this ( and other mb's ) since the launch of AAR. When CC started puttin AAR on some of thier stations, the same people who now believe that CC has an ulterior motive outside of $$$$ were to first to proclaim CC 'progressive' enough to give it a chance. When they pull the plug, these same people now say ' of course, CC hates AAR ...and was only using AAR for political cover'.

I say you cannot have it both ways. Either CC gave AAR a chance, and they FAILED, or CC used AAR and it's listeners, which makes them look pretty foolish either way.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I say you cannot have it both ways. Either CC gave AAR a chance, and they FAILED, or CC used AAR and it's listeners, which makes them look pretty foolish either way.

I see it a little differently. I think CC looks at programming as so much product to be dispensed by the shovelful. Whether it is a talk or a music format, the people running CC don't much care what it is, so long as it is profitable. CC runs their radio stations the way grocery store chains run their regional outlets. If salsa sell better in one market, they put more salsa on the shelf. If ketchup sells better in another market, they they stock more ketchup in those other markets. Either way, they don't really care about salsa or ketchup, they only care about selling tomato-based condiments.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Good analysis Radio Realist. The Salsa/Ketchup scenario makes sense. However, it's suprising to hear CC conservative talkers in the very Blue Northeast part of the nation. CC's Wilmington Delaware outlet WILM airs Limbaugh and Savage Nation and there are rumors that they might be start airing Mark Leving and Sean Hannity from ABC radio soon. As the Wilmington market is a consistantly blue county, one would think CC would pick up more moderate to liberal talkers rather than the more rightwing variety. CBS radio's 50,000w flamethrower WPHT in Philly airs Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity again in a major market that also is a blue county. Of course Limbaugh and Hannity air in the very liberal region of NYC via their flagship station WABC. I don't know if WBZ or WRKO in Boston air Limbaugh and the other conservative talkers as Boston is probably even more liberal politically than even NYC. Any thoughts?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Any thoughts?

Yep. I posted this in "Air America Loses Madison, WI Affiliate to Fox Sports Radio":

It also has a lot to do with how satisfied listeners are with the status quo. Regardless of whether a listener is liberal or conservative, they're more likely to want to have their personal opinions reinforced by a talk show host they agree with if they are in surroundings where the prevailing attitude disagrees with them. If liberals perceive themselves as the majority, as they do in Boston, then they don't need to hear someone like Al Franken validate their opinions. That same liberal in a conservative city would be more likely to need the emotional/intellectual reassurance found in liberal talk radio.

The same is true for conservatives.

However, to work the political minority must still be large enough to constitute enough people for a decent market segment. If the minority is still large enough to amount to a few ratings points, then it works. But if the minority consists of only a half a dozen people, that's below the critical mass needed for success.

After all, it's not just a question of how many people vote liberal or conservative. It's how many people who care about politics vote liberal or conservative. Having much of the population consistently vote Democrat because they remember that FDR was for the little guy doesn't mean that portion of the population is liberal. It could just mean that portion of the population is really, really old. That's why the Democrats always win in Pittsburgh.