Conservative vs Progressive Audiences?

[johnbasalla]

I think a large part of the issue is the entertainment value of the hosts. Even Bill Clinton says that Rush Limbaugh can be enertaining. I listened to an Air America station on and off for the short time it was available on a pretty good AM signal. The thing I remember most is the woman who was on after 6pm (est).
All she did was whine, complain and was "P.O'd" 90% of the time. Got old very quickly.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Let me frame a question about the inability to make something other than conservative talk into a viable radio product.

If two friends and myself had some money and we decided for some reason that we wanted to own a car dealership, even though none of us had been in the business, we would be well advised to find us a "car man". (That is a term you will hear around dealerships. They have employees who are working hard but not getting far, and then they have stars... people are are "car men". And WOMEN!)

If I wanted to get into the petroleum business... as in drilling for crude oil.... I would look for a partner who had experience in the business.

In this space we read about the number of stations who found that conservative talk would build audience and sell advertising, but when liberal talk radio is tried, it falls on it's face from a listener and advertising basis. Are these failures the result of radio people who have no knowledge of political discourse throwing something together that is a train wreck, or were there bona fide "I have liberal talk experience" people involved in planning and executing these efforts?

If I thought I had the bankroll to fund the experiment and I decided tomorrow morning I want to try it, who would I call? Who can I go sit with and pick their brain? Who can I hire? Can we name 10 or 15 people who have the smarts and connections to give such a project the possibility of survival and success? Or are we left to scramble and hire some person who has a track record of putting together sports oriented broadcasting, or someone who put together a TV cooking channel, or someone to put together a satellite network of country music stations?

 

[smedge2006]

If I thought I had the bankroll to fund the experiment and I decided tomorrow morning I want to try it, who would I call? Who can I go sit with and pick their brain? Who can I hire? Can we name 10 or 15 people who have the smarts and connections to give such a project the possibility of survival and success? Or are we left to scramble and hire some person who has a track record of putting together sports oriented broadcasting, or someone who put together a TV cooking channel, or someone to put together a satellite network of country music stations?

To be candid, there's no equivalent of a John Mainelli who has managed a liberal talker to success. KPOJ lucked into a good signal. WXXM's former PD deserves some props but the station was syndicated 21 hours a day. (Now it's 24.) No one has tried to build a liberal talker the way WABC or WLW or KFI was built... with a lineup of strong local personalities using syndication for spice.

The syndication success of Rush Limbaugh was built on his presence on the 50 kWers, not the 1 kWers. The 50 kWs that took him did so on the basis of his performance on big signals in other markets, and the potential -- not on what he was doing at the peashooter across town. Rush's show then grew because he was on a big station that already had a strong identity.


A liberal talker that built itself "local first" and concentrated on marketing itself to its market -- not just through advertising but through local events and "crusades" -- the way, for example, local conservative hosts in LA crusade against illegal/undocumented immigration -- will be the first real breakthrough story in this format. There were a few talk radio programmers in the 1980's, trying to shoehorn the format into a Drake clock (which was all they understood). For the last fifteen years, talk radio programming has been paint by numbers -- "What (syndicated) hosts can we get" rather than "what audience do we want", to paraphrase Walter Sabo. What they need is a version of 1980's "Hot Talk" updated for 2009, with extensive use of all the latest tech offerings. There's more than one way to listen to talk radio now, and there should be more than one way to participate. If I had to come up with a strategy to promote a liberal talker and a way to sum it up in a sentence, it would be "make trouble, every day."

 

[KFodor]

At one point, when Nationwide Communications owned WCOL-AM/FM, we retooled the AM and tried to do what the current Congress apparently wants broadcasters to do with a proposed "Fairness Doctrine". We tried to allow differing points of view within the context of a 24 hour day.

Reports like this tend to make even the daring become a little bit "faint of heart".

As we have often said in radio in trying to get listener news-tips: There is no little blinking light at the radio station that comes on when there has been a fire, and road closed by accident, etc. Please call us.

So I ask this question: Since there is no little red blinking light that comes on in the home or car of progressive folks when a radio station is carrying a progressive talk show... do you have any second thoughts that maybe some targeted marketing and promotion would have made any difference.

The fact that Rush built audience has to be considered. Are conservative listeners more likely to tell a friend to tune in than would be the listeners of a more liberal program?

Your experience mirrors what others posters write about station efforts to venture into programming that is more centrist or leftist. Is there some ingredient, some methodology that is being overlooked?

OK, here's another "case in point" from my career in and around talk radio:

WAVI-AM (a daytime 250 watt station that eventually went to 1 KW on 1210) in Dayton, Ohio. Yep, it was a crappy signal, especially at 250 watts. It's serviceable at 1 KW, but prone to interference at sunrise and sunset. The station went to a full-time "2 way news and telephone talk" format around 1972 or so. All were local hosts (this was way before the day of syndication beyond, say, Paul Harvey...which they had back then).

The morning guy was a conservative, leaned libertarian (think Neal Boortz).

The mid-day guy was a solid liberal democrat.

The afternoon guy varied...some were conservative, others moderate, others liberal. And...when there was an evening show:

The evening guy was most likely conservative. (this was Mike Gallagher's first talk radio job. I worked with him then.)

The ratings on the liberal programs were not as strong as the conservative programs. However, the midday liberal host ranked very well (given the obstacle of signal) with women listeners...not so good with men. Draw your own conclusions here.

Yes, the station was promoted, primarily in the local newspaper and other news weeklies. There were occasional TV spots, too.

But, yet...the station survived in the talk radio format until the ownership changed in the early 80's.

Oh, and a word about the owner. H.K. "Bud" Crowl. (Yes...he was Dave's father.) Bud was a hard core right wing Republican. He once drove the staff so crazy with his "hands on" approach to everything, they once tried to convince him to run for President against Nixon, just to get him out of the office! Cheap? He made Scrooge McDuck look good.

But, he made WAVI work. And, in 1964, following the suggestion of a former big DJ of that era, he put the first FM station in America that exclusively served the African-American audience. Though, WAVI was his passion, the FM WDAO became his cash cow. I only mention this because, though a big conservative, Bud was a businessman, and saw the viability of the Urban format on FM. WAVI was unique, too. Because both conservative, moderate and liberal talk were heard. Though some programs did better than others, the station survived.

Now, I'm not a fan of resuming the Fairness Doctrine. (The reason? The original intent was to prevent over-concentration of "thought" when the media available in a single market was less than a third of what it is today.) Funny, isn't it? So many people say radio is "dying", yet our Congress obsesses over a few talkshow hosts and says "balance" must be maintained, despite the plethora of all types of thought available in newspapers, cable, radio and the internet today. If radio was truly "dying", why would they care?

 

[amfmxm]

Whew! Step away from this thread for a day and you miss a lot! Well, let me toss in my proverbial two cents on a number of topics...

Jason, I'm not quite sure where the WAVI story fits in--unless it is to demonstrate that any kind of programming that stirs a little interest on a small/crippled signal will usually be picked up by a larger/less-crippled signal. Along those lines, I'm still puzzled why more broadcasters haven't taken notice of the big lib-talk success story in Portland, with 620/KPOJ. Can't they connect the dots enough to translate that big-signal success to other--even more liberal--markets, given a competitive signal? Again, guys & gals, this ain't rocket surgery.

Heidi, when there is no lib-talker in a given market (Vegas), you will indeed get calls from all slices of the political spectrum. But to say you don't know what we mean by "conservative" or "liberal" audiences shows an inordinate degree of isolation. Get out a little more!

I'm willing to bet $10 with anyone that the whole "Fairness Doctrine" issue dies a quiet death. Yes, some members of congress--and at least one marginal lib-talker (Bill Press)--are getting some face-time with it, but they know, as we all know, that it is a knife that cuts both ways. Sure, it might silence Rush & Fox News for awhile, but it would silence Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann just as much. It's a Non-Starter. So, relax, y'all.

GRC, your question is rooted in the premise that liberal/progressive talk radio doesn't work. Please explain KPOJ's success first (and WXXM/Madison) then revisit the question.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of conservative talk's strengths is the favorable view it espouses toward business in general and Big Business in particular. Major market radio has long been controlled by Big Business--it's a game very few small companies play, anymore (yes, Philly's B101 is the shining exception). Aside from Clear Channel, none of the big radio companies have delved into liberal talk. Suggesting that the big radio companies have a stake in conservative radio's success beyond mere ratings is not much of a stretch. Nor is it a stretch to suggest that they have just as much of a stake in minimizing liberal talk radio's success. Liberal talkers preach a gospel that hits them in the pocketbook.

So if lib-talk is ever going to reach its potential, it will most likely happen without the support of radio's biggest and wealthiest licensees.

 

[talk chick]

Ouch! You don't really believe people only tune in to my show because there are no liberal options, do you? In fact, during my first hour, I'm head to head with Doug Basham and Lydia Cornell on KLAV in Vegas. Doug's as lib as you get, and, coincidentally, ran the board for me my very first time on air, over ten years ago at KDWN...small world.

My guess is that he gets callers who disagree, too. I don't get to hear his show, so I don't know. What I do know is that there's room for all points of view, and there always should be. People CAN think for themselves. Well, most people except members of Congress....

Ultimately, even with the BIG guys, people tune in, if they're not interested in the topic, they tune out. Short attention spans seem to be the norm nowadays...oh look, a butterfly...

Heidi Harris
KDWN

 

[NewsVet]

Thom Hartmann sometimes talks about the winning formula at the station that he broadcasts from, Clear
Channel's KPOJ in Portland.

It has a good local morning show, a good spot on the dial (620), and a signal that covers the entire metro area. It also has management that believes in the format and makes an effort to market the station.

In the last rating period, KPOJ ranked number four in 12+ (with a 4.3 share) among the 26 stations that were rated in the Portland market.

The lineup includes local host Carl Wolfson in morning drive (Hartmann contributes in the 8 AM to 9 AM hour), Hartmann's national show, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Mike Malloy and Jon Elliott.

And yes, Portland is a liberal city -- but KPOJ's success shoots holes in the argument that liberals won't listen to progressive talk radio.

 

[amfmxm]

Ouch! You don't really believe people only tune in to my show because there are no liberal options, do you? In fact, during my first hour, I'm head to head with Doug Basham and Lydia Cornell on KLAV in Vegas. Doug's as lib as you get, and, coincidentally, ran the board for me my very first time on air, over ten years ago at KDWN...small world.

My guess is that he gets callers who disagree, too. I don't get to hear his show, so I don't know. What I do know is that there's room for all points of view, and there always should be. People CAN think for themselves. Well, most people except members of Congress....

Ultimately, even with the BIG guys, people tune in, if they're not interested in the topic, they tune out. Short attention spans seem to be the norm nowadays...oh look, a butterfly...

Heidi Harris
KDWN

Sorry to have forgotten about 1230/KLAV (Motto: "A Thousand Watts, Sounding Like A Million!"). Doug & Lydia do that hour between The Polynesian Show and The Henderson Chamber Report, don't they? LOL!

Just teasing--but, honestly, little brokered stations with no discernible audience are not serious players, and shouldn't be part of a legitimate analysis of politically-based talk radio. FWIW--just from looking at the KDWN website--it appears that your station is indeed one of those relatively rare operations trying to focus as much-or-more on local issues & events than on politics, but still with a pronounced conservative slant. That's a tricky tightrope, ma'am--and it may go a ways toward explaining the #19 ranking. I'm betting that your show must be a lot of fun--I promise to click that "Listen Live" button and check it out. Thanks for your observations, too.

NewsVet--thanks for the corroboration. Yes, KPOJ is #4 in the 23rd largest market. And the formula is not a big secret--in fact 21 hours of their daily schedule is available from the bird. All of us radio-types have been learning/stealing from the success of stations in other markets all our professional lives.

If KPOJ is the model for the latest programming "discovery" (progressive talk), why isn't it being imported--on similarly competitive sticks--to seriously liberal markets like Boston, Philly, Baltimore, Washington... (and with due respect to lost-in-the-noise-at-the-top-of-the-AM-dial-1600/WWRL) New York?

So far, the answer seems to be that there are broadcasters who would rather lose money with any other format than make money as a progressive talk station.

 

[ctkatz]

i agree with one of the posters above. i think the problem with progtalk not doing nearly as well as conservotalk is because of access. it is very hard to break into a market when the fcc will not issue more broadcast licenses and your market is filled with the big broadcast companies. how often is this pattern followed- your big stick AM has the top level conservative talkers on one station, your second level AM has the second level conservative talkers, your third/fourth level has sports talk or business talk (interchangeable). so what's left for a possible market for progtalk? very low powered signals from the big companies (if there are any left of their 8 total stations of a market) or the local community affairs AMs that barely cover a metro area.

louisville, kentucky is a progressive city with a progressive mayor and a progressive representative in congress. yet we have 2.5 conservative stations (one is business talk and pay programming/advice talk) and no progressive talk stations. but we do have a radio disney station, 2 sports stations, 1 oldies station, and 3 religious stations (one is a simulcast of the other) on the am side. we have multiple urban, classic country, country, top 40, and alt rock stations on the fm side. i do most of my progtalk listening online or on satellite (a little off topic here, but if satellite goes away, i have 100% belief that NO local stations are going to increase their liberal on-air staff to compensate. its another reason why i hope satellite survives). and i know that there is a sizable audience in this city that would listen to progtalk, locally produced and syndicated. but there is no access because of companies like clear channel, citadel, and salem "dominating" the am scene with their bigger talent base. i believe if the government breaks up the big local ownership groups, either smaller local groups can get access and program a progressive talk station or an outside ownership group puts on progressive talk.

i do not believe that the fairness doctrine was ever a problem or that the rush clones were a problem. i think the problem was that big media conglomerates bought other midsized conglomerates and homogenized their stations. even with their rates of growth, i'm not surprized that it took until after clinton signed the act removing local media ownership restrictions that rush limbaugh and coast to coast am got to 500 stations that quickly, ironically distributed by the same company (premiere/clear channel) that owns those stations.

 

[kaufcom]

I often have people call and say "Heidi, I listen to you every day, and I never agree with you, but today you're right...". The point is entertainment, not ideology. Really.

Really? Why can't you just accept the fact that you are one of the overwhelming majority (over 90%) of talk show hosts who spew out right wing talking points for three or so hours every day. You and your pal Rush Limbaugh might be "entertaining" but both you perform your entertainment with a conservate political ideology.

As for the right vs. left "fairness" issue, how do you quantify "fairness"? If I have a mobster and admitted murdered on my show (and I have), and we disagree on things like, oh, let me see...whether or not it's alright to kill people for the mob... isn't that an "opposing view"?

Your example is pathetic. The fairness doctrine is about political discussion. Not whether murder, rape or other kinds of mayhem are debatable. Fact is that 50% of radio listeners only hear right wing views on talk radio. Most of the other 50% can only listen to liberal views on weak stations that effectively cover less that half of markets that they serve.

I for one, am never threatened by having a caller or guest on with whom I disagree. That is what America's supposed to be about. Most of the world can't do what we get to do.

So let me understand what you're saying. You think this is "what America is about" because you and the other right wing yakkers on KDWN occasionally take calls from prescreened liberals.

And another thing - as most of us know, radio is full of liberals. (Maybe we should let Congress know) Every PD I've had is more liberal than I am, every producer I've had has been a lib, and working together has not been a problem.

and some of my best friends are........

 

[landtuna]

The fairness doctrine is about political discussion.

Actually, that would be the Equal Time rule.

 

[jh]

The fairness doctrine is about political discussion.

Actually, that would be the Equal Time rule.

No, the Equal Time rule applies to political candidates, not a general political discussion.

I'm not sure what a new Fairness Doctrine would cover, but the old Fairness Doctrine could cover just about anything. It was not limited to political discussion. And running Ed Schultz for three hours after running Rush for three hours wouldn't satisfy the fairness doctrine, either.

The old doctrine required a station to give time to qualified spokesmen to present opposing views. Here's an example... you have the city administrator on your talk show. He talks about a proposal to require all dogs be on leashes. Somebody asks for time to argue dogs shouldn't be on leashes. Then somebody asks for time to argue that dogs and cats should be on leashes.

It also covered time on your station purchased by someone else. I believe one station lost their license (Red Lion, PA) because they sold time to a preacher. Somebody demanded time for an opposing view to what the preacher said. The station refused to give that person time, although I think they did offer to sell time.

If the old fairness doctrine was brought back, there would be a lot fewer talk shows on the air because stations wouldn't want to deal with it. Local talk shows would go back to exchanging recipes and giving gardening tips, while syndicated shows would likely be similar; or they would be replaced with automated music.

 

[KFodor]

Whew! Step away from this thread for a day and you miss a lot! Well, let me toss in my proverbial two cents on a number of topics...

Jason, I'm not quite sure where the WAVI story fits in--unless it is to demonstrate that any kind of programming that stirs a little interest on a small/crippled signal will usually be picked up by a larger/less-crippled signal. Along those lines, I'm still puzzled why more broadcasters haven't taken notice of the big lib-talk success story in Portland, with 620/KPOJ. Can't they connect the dots enough to translate that big-signal success to other--even more liberal--markets, given a competitive signal? Again, guys & gals, this ain't rocket surgery.

Heidi, when there is no lib-talker in a given market (Vegas), you will indeed get calls from all slices of the political spectrum. But to say you don't know what we mean by "conservative" or "liberal" audiences shows an inordinate degree of isolation. Get out a little more!

I'm willing to bet $10 with anyone that the whole "Fairness Doctrine" issue dies a quiet death. Yes, some members of congress--and at least one marginal lib-talker (Bill Press)--are getting some face-time with it, but they know, as we all know, that it is a knife that cuts both ways. Sure, it might silence Rush & Fox News for awhile, but it would silence Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann just as much. It's a Non-Starter. So, relax, y'all.

GRC, your question is rooted in the premise that liberal/progressive talk radio doesn't work. Please explain KPOJ's success first (and WXXM/Madison) then revisit the question.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of conservative talk's strengths is the favorable view it espouses toward business in general and Big Business in particular. Major market radio has long been controlled by Big Business--it's a game very few small companies play, anymore (yes, Philly's B101 is the shining exception). Aside from Clear Channel, none of the big radio companies have delved into liberal talk. Suggesting that the big radio companies have a stake in conservative radio's success beyond mere ratings is not much of a stretch. Nor is it a stretch to suggest that they have just as much of a stake in minimizing liberal talk radio's success. Liberal talkers preach a gospel that hits them in the pocketbook.

So if lib-talk is ever going to reach its potential, it will most likely happen without the support of radio's biggest and wealthiest licensees.

The WAVI story does bear some comparisons to what we're discussing here. But you have to remember that, back in the 70's:

Even a peashooter 250 watt AM did better in terms of signal coverage than a station of that power would do today. WAVI, though never really a top 5 station in Dayton 12 plus, did hit the top 5 in demo quite often, which made it a salable property from an advertising perspective. I could even pull up a sales brochure that had the station #1 in mid-days among Women age 25-49. (I have one here from the early 80's.) Ironically, that was the liberal mid-day hosts spot. Consider it the Madison, Wisconsin of it's day. (Though clearly, its' sister FM, the Urban station, was often #2 or #3 overall, which made it the cash cow of the operation.)

Though the liberal host hit good numbers among women, the conservatives hosts dominance of men, with the women they got, pushed their overall numbers higher. Their experience suggested conservative shows did better than liberal ones, but, the liberal host could find his niche.

Does this mean liberal talk can survive with conservative talk? Perhaps. But, remember...in WAVI's case, the mid-day progressive host was a personality who geared that mid-day show toward women. Today's ideological scream-fests on both sides of the political spectrum wouldn't be able to narrow cast because they're in syndication and can't focus on a "local" audience.

I'm not surprised the "big companies" haven't embraced liberal talk. Just this morning, I heard Bill Press talk about WCKY in Cincinnati's experiment with progressive talk. He made it sound as though the station with a 1 share was a huge success and was taken off by the "greedy corporate owners". The station had been playing oldies before that...the progressive talk numbers did worse (from a 12 plus perspective), and the station never jelled. Yes, there are some positive signs for prog-talk...but more of those positives need to happen before you're going to get the bigger companies to embrace it. And I still think FM is where the prog-talk, ultimately, needs to go.

Yes, the WAVI story is one station way back when. Back when there was a Fairness Doctrine (and yes, WAVI fought battles with that). And yes, radio was different then. But some similarities from their experience and today, I respectfully submit, are valid.

 

[KFodor]

i agree with one of the posters above. i think the problem with progtalk not doing nearly as well as conservotalk is because of access. it is very hard to break into a market when the fcc will not issue more broadcast licenses and your market is filled with the big broadcast companies. how often is this pattern followed- your big stick AM has the top level conservative talkers on one station, your second level AM has the second level conservative talkers, your third/fourth level has sports talk or business talk (interchangeable). so what's left for a possible market for progtalk? very low powered signals from the big companies (if there are any left of their 8 total stations of a market) or the local community affairs AMs that barely cover a metro area.

louisville, kentucky is a progressive city with a progressive mayor and a progressive representative in congress. yet we have 2.5 conservative stations (one is business talk and pay programming/advice talk) and no progressive talk stations. but we do have a radio disney station, 2 sports stations, 1 oldies station, and 3 religious stations (one is a simulcast of the other) on the am side. we have multiple urban, classic country, country, top 40, and alt rock stations on the fm side. i do most of my progtalk listening online or on satellite (a little off topic here, but if satellite goes away, i have 100% belief that NO local stations are going to increase their liberal on-air staff to compensate. its another reason why i hope satellite survives). and i know that there is a sizable audience in this city that would listen to progtalk, locally produced and syndicated. but there is no access because of companies like clear channel, citadel, and salem "dominating" the am scene with their bigger talent base. i believe if the government breaks up the big local ownership groups, either smaller local groups can get access and program a progressive talk station or an outside ownership group puts on progressive talk.

i do not believe that the fairness doctrine was ever a problem or that the rush clones were a problem. i think the problem was that big media conglomerates bought other midsized conglomerates and homogenized their stations. even with their rates of growth, i'm not surprized that it took until after clinton signed the act removing local media ownership restrictions that rush limbaugh and coast to coast am got to 500 stations that quickly, ironically distributed by the same company (premiere/clear channel) that owns those stations.

The only area in which I disagree with you here is:

With the radio bands as cluttered as they are now, and with an FCC struggling to find room to put 100 watt LP-FM's on the air, where do you think you could put more stations? At least, stations that could be heard at some distance?

 

[landtuna]

No, the Equal Time rule applies to political candidates, not a general political discussion.

Yes...sorry....thought that is what was meant.

 

[ctkatz]

The only area in which I disagree with you here is:

With the radio bands as cluttered as they are now, and with an FCC struggling to find room to put 100 watt LP-FM's on the air, where do you think you could put more stations? At least, stations that could be heard at some distance?

it was a possibility. just like there's the possibility that rush limbaugh could announce that he's a closet liberal and that barack obama has appointed george w. bush to be a special envoy to the cayman islands (no extradition treaty) and has unilaterally pardoned scooter libby tomorrow. it is extremely unlikely, but there was the possibility.

i find it more likely that a syndicator group, like dial global, goes into the station ownership business should the big corporate groups be forced to sell off stations. aparantly dial thinks that liberal talk isn't much of a failure with bill press, stephanie miller, ed shultz, thom hartmann, and randi rhodes (likely) on the roster. perhaps mike malloy is next on the list? that looks like a pretty solid lineup to counter any conservative group.

 

[gr8oldies]

Dial Global is not an ideological group, and I doubt they'll be buying stations just to put liberal talk shows on the air.

One wonders that if consolodation hd never happened, and Rush,. Sean, etc were still on 500 stations plus, that many would be damning those small business owners who own radio stations who are all Republicans and want to spread their ideology.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

One wonders that if consolodation hd never happened, and Rush,. Sean, etc were still on 500 stations plus, that many would be damning those small business owners who own radio stations who are all Republicans and want to spread their ideology.

That scenario opens up a lot of wondering. To me that scenario assumes that the public's attitudes and interactions with radio might be different today.

Let's take your hometown radio owner under such a scenario. He indeed would have the opportunity to spread his/her Republican ideology via his/her station. This owner would also face the situation of going to the Tuesday noon Rotary Club meeting and sitting across the table from the Episcopalian priest who might explain to that owner six ways from Sunday a very negative opinion about the programming. Or the owner might go to the Lions Club meeting on Thursday and find the one banker in town that is NOT on his station telling him that as Chairman of the county Democratic Party organization, he will not be buying any advertising until there are some opposing view on the station.

All this talk about "live and local" that we read in R-I threads is not just about announcer-to-listener. It's also about community-leader-to-station-owner/manager.

 

[amfmxm]

One wonders that if consolodation hd never happened, and Rush,. Sean, etc were still on 500 stations plus, that many would be damning those small business owners who own radio stations who are all Republicans and want to spread their ideology.

That scenario opens up a lot of wondering. To me that scenario assumes that the public's attitudes and interactions with radio might be different today.

Let's take your hometown radio owner under such a scenario. He indeed would have the opportunity to spread his/her Republican ideology via his/her station. This owner would also face the situation of going to the Tuesday noon Rotary Club meeting and sitting across the table from the Episcopalian priest who might explain to that owner six ways from Sunday a very negative opinion about the programming. Or the owner might go to the Lions Club meeting on Thursday and find the one banker in town that is NOT on his station telling him that as Chairman of the county Democratic Party organization, he will not be buying any advertising until there are some opposing view on the station.

All this talk about "live and local" that we read in R-I threads is not just about announcer-to-listener. It's also about community-leader-to-station-owner/manager.

GRC, that scenario happens all the time. And, FWIW, it happens regardless of what kind of content an owner/licensee decides to program. There are people who love it and people who hate it--and they'll be happy to tell you (especially if they hate it) at Lions or Rotary!

It is (truly) one of the reasons why political talk of any stripe--conservative or liberal or libertarian or a mixture thereof--is very hard to sell in small towns. In most American towns, roughly half of any retailer's customers are Dems and roughly half are Republicans--and the retailer's profit margin is ordinarily small enough that they really can't afford to piss off either half... so they spend their radio dollar on the Country station or the AC station. It's easier. Nobody's offended. They can eat their Rotary lunch in peace.

And, as a result, real $$$ success in political talk radio is a larger-market phenomenon--where radio advertising is bought and sold on the basis of numbers... and the numbers-crunchers don't really care what you're doing to get the numbers.

My bottom-line angle on this whole topic is this:

Radio decision-makers, in general, have yet to perceive liberal talk as "just another format," and use it as they would any other format. My own interpretation--and it is based on observation over the past five years-or-so since the arrival (with all its problems and some successes) of nationally-syndicated progressive/liberal talk programming--is that since so many of us radio executives think of ourselves as "businessmen," we tend to vote Republican and tend to shy away from doing anything to "support" the ideas expressed by lib-talk.

But if we're smart, we'll start thinking of it as "just another format."

I grew up listening to rock & Top 40 music and wouldn't have been caught dead listening to Country. But when I had the chance to jump to a Top 50 market as a Country jock--for a lot more money than I was making in Top 40--I grabbed it. Over the years I learned to appreciate programming that I didn't especially like. Urban/Hip-hop (I'm an old white guy), AC (I'm a guy), Paid Religion (I could never get my own church to do it, but made a lot of money from the others)...

I'm willing to bet that Lowry Mays has never been a big fan of Black Gospel, but Clear Channel's big AM in Baltimore (600/WCAO) makes a PILE of money. And my guess is that he's not a big fan of their lib-talk station in Portland, the much-discussed 620/KPOJ... but it clears a shitload of cash for the Mays family.

Again... we've got to start thinking of Progressive or Liberal Talk as... "just another format." And when an enormous opportunity stares us in the face... do it. And do it right. I mean, left!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

GRC, your question is rooted in the premise that liberal/progressive talk radio doesn't work. Please explain KPOJ's success first (and WXXM/Madison) then revisit the question.

What was bouncing around my brain did not come out quite the way it should have on the screen. It is not MY premise that liberal/progressive talk radio doesn't work. (I was wondering out loud if it could.) My premise was that the conventional wisdom of most of the messages posted in R-I hold that liberal talk will not and can not work. The question I was asking: Are so many of the people in radio buying this concept that there are no players with the smarts and the willingness to make it work.

Thank you for the tip on some stations that are making it work. And thanks to the people who posted that they are currently doing civilized talk radio in their markets. That doesn't make the headlines in the industry columns and blogs.

That still leaves the question: If a licensee wants to give it a try, how do they recognize the "brains" that can actually make it work. Not the on air host necessarily. The responsible management person who can write the recipe for talent, promotion, and actual positioning of the "tone". My observation about Air America is that they tried to hit the ground with full-strength, fully-extreme message. Is it essential to begin with a more bland, more centrist position and then know when to get more "hard core" as time moves on.

You comments about small market merchants not wanting to offed the other side struck me as an example of the need to fully understand the effects of introducing new material to the Talk Radio scene that must be tailored to the market.