Conservative vs Progressive Audiences?

[KevinFodor]

if liberal talk is put on the air, promoted just as well as conservative stations and has about the same coverage area and still bombs, i'd say that the area couldn't or doesn't or wouldn't support liberal talk. the only problem i perceive is that more times than not, the liberal station isn't promoted well if at all and has a horrible coverage area. it's like taking freshwater tropical fish to the arctic, dumping them in the water and expecting your tropical fish sample to grow. the conditions are stacked so much against liberal radio more times than not that it fails to pull in ratings.

that brings me to another thought. say a conservative station had no promotion and no signal area. considering the nature of talk radio today, would that station get flipped to something else?

Air America content bombed in Cleveland. Springer tanked the morning ratings at WTAM, was replaced with Glenn Beck, then local programming, but they are back to Beck. Akron's "progressive" station, which had a signal that covers the Cleveland area, also has given up the ghost and is all sports. It just didn't draw an audience, even when they moved from the amateurs like Franken and Garafolo to the Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

two questions for you:
are you from cleveland and what by what standard other than lack of airtime can you call al franken and janene garafolo amateur? if you want to argue airtime, then explain why rush limbaugh or glen beck got started in the business. by the way, from what i hear, the ohio massacre of clear channel progressive stations was done despite showing up in the local books.

The problem with the original comment here is that conservative talkers used to be on those "lousy signals" but got better ratings than the progressive talk did. The better ratings is what led to the conservative talkers being placed on bigger signals.

I think the problem, overall, is that most progressive talk listening goes to NPR. Prog-thinkers are satisfied with the programming and, because many progressives are younger and, frankly, may never have listened to an AM station, are not going to seek that kind of talk out on AM. It may, however, be more successful on an FM stick. Progressive talk may be shooting itself in the foot by going after AM stations and trying to go head to head with Rush, Hannity, etc. Go for FM. I think that's where the progressive audience is, for the most part.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It may, however, be more successful on an FM stick. Progressive talk may be shooting itself in the foot by going after AM stations and trying to go head to head with Rush, Hannity, etc. Go for FM. I think that's where the progressive audience is, for the most part.

I don't quarrel with your logistical logic.... but let me quote two quaint old cliches:

1. "I trying to to earn my second million right off the bat. They say it is much easier than trying to earn your first million."

2. "Dance with the one whut brung you." or in this case: "You have to settle for dancing with the one willing and able to bring you."

You can maybe get the owner of a floundering A.M. to make time available for experimenting with an unproven talk format.

Everyone thinks their F.M. channel is a "beauty queen" destined to be Queen of the Prom, thus they only want to dance with proven formats.... or formats with a lot of money in their pocket.

This is a guess on my part, but I think this is what I observe: Some well intentioned person who is personally favorable to a Progressive message is willing to put at least a limited amount of money into funding an upstart effort in their community, or if they already own a station, take on the programming at a loss to give it a try. These people are either unable or unwilling to put substantial amounts of "skin" in the game and the project never gets past the floundering stage into the learning stage.

Rush and others did not hit the ground as instant overwhelming successes. Sooner or later a clever genius here and there will put together a surplus frequency (either A.M. or F.M.) in a receptive market with a good choice of ingredients and survive long enough to become a proving ground to discover what makes the format work.

Our friend AMFMXM has pointed out several stations and markets that are successful in the format. Time will tell whether they have "lucked out" in timing and locale, or whether they have isolated the "secret ingredients" for a repeatable recipe and menu.

 

[amfmxm]

I find this thread particularly fascinating in that the basic argument--that is, whether liberal talk can be a successful radio format--is very much akin to arguing whether the Red Sox will ever win a World Series or whether an African-American can ever be elected President of the United States.

It's over. It's settled. And the proof is Clear Channel's pride & joy: 620/KPOJ, Portland. Currently ranked #4 (12+) in market #23 and beating conservative talk cluster-mate 1190/KEX in all the important sales demos.

Portland is no backwater. It's an intensely competitive market, with 53 local signals (per radio-locator.com). Oregon voted 57% for Obama, just slightly above the national 53%, and in fact KEX still leads KPOJ overall--though the margin is all in adults 65+.

Most importantly, though, Portland has served as the ultimate test-market for Progressive Talk. Given a decent signal--25kw day/10kw night on 620 kHz--the format has performed very successfully against a conservative talker with 50,000 watts day and night.

How much more proof do we need? It works. And yes, Kevin, it works on AM.

Just one more footnote: conservative talk did not start out on lesser sticks. Rush made his mark on 50-kw flamethrower KFBK, Sacramento--then and now the top dog in market #27.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Then we should end our conversations built around "Will progressive audiences respond and listen?"

Our future conversations should be: "What did the station operator do right? / What did the station operator do wrong?"

 

[gr8oldies]

Portland does not prove that a big signal in and of itself will result in high ratings for this format. Why did it fail in Cincinnati? Why did Springer not take off in Cleveland? Yes, KFBK is a big stick but many others Limbaugh started with were small.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Portland does not prove that a big signal in and of itself will result in high ratings for this format. Why did it fail in Cincinnati? Why did Springer not take off in Cleveland? Yes, KFBK is a big stick but many others Limbaugh started with were small.

Rx P.R.N. Repeat as necessary: "What did the station operator do right? / What did the station operator do wrong?"

 

[amfmxm]

Portland does not prove that a big signal in and of itself will result in high ratings for this format. Why did it fail in Cincinnati? Why did Springer not take off in Cleveland? Yes, KFBK is a big stick but many others Limbaugh started with were small.

C'mon, you know this. Doesn't everyone who has been hanging around radio more than a couple of weeks? What's the old saying? "The lower on the AM dial a station is, the more its power is worth." Go to radio-locator.com and check it out.

In Cincinnati, WCKY's 50-kw on 1530 produces a local quality (5.0 mV/m) signal extending 40 miles. By comparison, WLW's 50-kw on 700 produces a 5.0 mV signal extending 110 miles. WKRC's 5-kw on 550 goes out 90 miles--more than double the coverage of 'CKY. In Clear Channel's Cincinnati portfolio, WCKY is its worst signal.

The critical issue isn't "watts," but "competitive coverage." Signal strength. Basic, basic, basic.

Speaking of Cincy, if Jerry Springer is going to be a radio star anywhere it's there. Not Cleveland. But that case is special for its raging stupidity. 1100/WTAM, home of Rush Limbaugh since 1990--and therefore well-established as the conservative talk flagship of The Forest City--replaced Glenn Beck with Springer and was shocked (SHOCKED!!!) when the move was greeted with tons-o-hate-mail... angry mobs with torches & pitchforks storming the offices--until management relented and returned Beck to his previous place in the lineup.

Made for great theatre. Made for cheap promotion. Made for a perfect way to demonstrate how much Clevelanders "love" Glenn Beck... and Conservative Radio... and WTAM--and hate Liberals!!! Terrific for both ratings & sales.

Or am I just too cynical?

 

[amfmxm]

"What did the station operator do right? / What did the station operator do wrong?"

In KPOJ's case they do have an excellent local morning show from 6-9A: full-service with lots of news & info + two-person "personality" team--the guy is a stand-up comic--and from 8-9A they bring in Thom Hartmann for local bits... followed by Hartmann's nationally-syndicated show. But following Hartmann it's network (Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes/Nancy Skinner, Ron Reagan, Mike Malloy, Jon Elliott, Rachel Maddow, Bill Press--all stuff from Dial Global (Jones) or Air America.

In other words, aside from being Hartmann's flagship, they do a 3-hour local morning act then it's the same national fare as everyone else.

I can't speak for their promotional budget, but I'm guessing Clear Channel treats KPOJ the same as KEX. Don't know how that compares to their FM promotional budgets in Portland.

And their signal is as good as anyone else in the market.

And the market skews Democrat--like most cities, Portland's home county is solidly "blue," and suburban counties less so. I've seen some adventurous broadcasters employ this format in "red" markets, but if it were my money on the line, I'd want to make sure the deck was stacked in my favor (just like any other format)--so I sincerely believe the best bets for Lib Talk are in "blue" markets in "blue" states.

But other than having a legitimate signal and a good morning act, there doesn't seem to be any magic wand hidden in their bag of tools.

 

[del_griffith]

Portland does not prove that a big signal in and of itself will result in high ratings for this format. Why did it fail in Cincinnati? Why did Springer not take off in Cleveland? Yes, KFBK is a big stick but many others Limbaugh started with were small.

A good portion of the answer lies in the times. Limbaugh really started to came to life about 1990. Desert Storm time period. Then the economy started to tank and the Read My Lips comment came home to haunt the first President Bush as well as Ruby Ridge. Then Clinton got elected. It simply couldn't have been a better time for an articulate person like Rush to blossom and bloom. Also remember in those early days, he was able to use the small sticks to his advantage as in the mainstream (who owned the big sticks) were trying to keep him from being listened to.

Also conservative talk radio is all about you're not keeping yours because those people are taking it away from the "productive members of society". The whole conservative argument is very emotional in it's appeal. They use God. They use the military. They use the taxes are stealing from you card. They use family values. Progressive/liberal are typically neutral at best on God and at even sometimes anti-God. Same with the military. They are open to adequate taxation or even to the point of letting taxes perform the job of Robin Hood. And they aren't afraid to say gays can be decent parents in some cases. It's emotional in all the wrong ways.

 

[jackandcoke]

About Rush:

He's a high school grad--attended Southeast Missouri for a few semesters then jumped into radio and got pretty good as a Top 40 jock, but stalled out at a couple of Pittsburgh's dying AM Top 40s--WIXZ & KQV. Not bad, but... then bailed from radio for about 5 years and worked in baseball administration/PR, including a gig with the Royals.

Back to radio in 1984, joining 50,000-watt KFBK(AM) which was then ranked about 6th in Sacramento--and in 4 years helped them reach #1. In 1988 ABC moved him to NYC as the lynchpin of 770 WABC(AM) and slapped him on other O&Os including Chicago's 890 WLS(AM), & Detroit's 760 WJR. Huge signals in huge markets.

So he didn't climb the ladder as a talk show host from the minors to the majors, or from underpowered signals to the big ones. He began his talk show career in a large market with a 50,000-watt AM and then jumped to the nation's biggest 50,000-watt AM stations.

Don't forget the incredible crash that both WABC & WLS had suffered in the eighties when FM radio crushed their legendary Top 40 formats. They both held on way too long. And then they were desperate.

Rush jumped into that desperation gap and came up smelling like a rose!

 

[landtuna]

Rush jumped into that desperation gap and came up smelling like a rose!

RushBoss is a bit like a really successful fertilizer salesman.

He makes a lot of money selling really distasteful stuff.

 

[jh]

About Rush:

In 1988 ABC moved him to NYC as the lynchpin of 770 WABC(AM) and slapped him on other O&Os including Chicago's 890 WLS(AM), & Detroit's 760 WJR. Huge signals in huge markets.

So he didn't climb the ladder as a talk show host from the minors to the majors, or from underpowered signals to the big ones. He began his talk show career in a large market with a 50,000-watt AM and then jumped to the nation's biggest 50,000-watt AM stations.

No, Rush was brought to New York by Ed McLaughlin not ABC. Rush did a local show on WABC in exchange for using their studios for the national show, which had nothing to do with ABC. Rush started his national show on two 50kw AMs, KFBK and WHO in Des Moines. The rest of the stations were basically small AMs willing to take a chance on a unknown commodity.

It took Rush several years to get on KFI. KABC had right of first refusal, and turned him down. It was several years before WLS picked up the show, too.

Rush did start small and move up to bigger stations. St. Louis is a good example: Rush started on KXOK, which was running a failing news format. After some months, the station changed formats and dropped Rush. He was picked up by a suburban station in Illinois, which ran the show for maybe a couple of years. When that station started beating 50kw KMOX in some demos during Rush's hours, KMOX picked up the show when the contract with the smaller station expired.

 

[gr8oldies]

WLS picked up Rush only as a stopgap while they were building their talk linep. The ratings were good enough for him to stay.

 

[MightyFrenchman]

Part of liberal talk radio's problem may be the inconsistent names it gives itself. Conservative talk radio always calls itself conservative talk radio. This
very post is an example of how liberals don't want to use that term because they know it's not a popular term & won't draw an audience. Hence they use
the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Part of liberal talk radio's problem may be the inconsistent names it gives itself. Conservative talk radio always calls itself conservative talk radio. This
very post is an example of how liberals don't want to use that term because they know it's not a popular term & won't draw an audience. Hence they use
the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

Based on that logic, or lack thereof, we could then label conservative talk radio as Fascist talk radio.

Is it any wonder why those with the Frenchman's line of thinking lost the last election?

 

[ratingsgeek]

No, Rush was brought to New York by Ed McLaughlin not ABC. Rush did a local show on WABC in exchange for using their studios for the national show, which had nothing to do with ABC. Rush started his national show on two 50kw AMs, KFBK and WHO in Des Moines. The rest of the stations were basically small AMs willing to take a chance on a unknown commodity.

It took Rush several years to get on KFI. KABC had right of first refusal, and turned him down. It was several years before WLS picked up the show, too.

Rush did start small and move up to bigger stations. St. Louis is a good example: Rush started on KXOK, which was running a failing news format. After some months, the station changed formats and dropped Rush. He was picked up by a suburban station in Illinois, which ran the show for maybe a couple of years. When that station started beating 50kw KMOX in some demos during Rush's hours, KMOX picked up the show when the contract with the smaller station expired.

This is stretching a point. The former KXOK--now religious KJSL--with 5KW @ 630 has a bigger/stronger signal than KMOX. Always has.

Starting one's talk radio career on two monsters like KFBK & WHO is like a baseball player going straight from college and starting his pro career with the Royals. No, it ain't the Yanks, but it's still the MAJOR LEAGUES!!! There are people who have spent decades trying to get UP to KFBK or WHO. They start in Red Oak and move up to Shenandoah and then up to Keokuk and then up to Fort Dodge and then...

Look. Rush is a great, great talent--nobody's denying that. But, mostly owing to fortuitous timing--coinciding with AM radio's darkest days in the eighties--he was able to kick off his highly successful career in talk radio with great facilities in sizable markets.

For all sorts of reasons, progressive talk has not had that particular advantage. Recognizing that situation doesn't take anything away from Rush. It just acknowledges the changed reality.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Hence they use the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

Dig a little deeper into history. Go back 100 to 120 years ago and focus on the Midwestern area anchored by Minnesota and Wisconsin. I think you will find "progressive" anything but nondescript. A number of things that you take for granted in your socio-political being have their roots in actions fought for by The Progressive Party people of that area.

That does not mean you will suddenly like those results thrust into your life by The Progressives, but it does mean "nondescript" probably doesn't work very well in this conversation.

Now, bringing all that back to radio: Liberal radio, Progressive radio, whatever it should eventually be called needs to quit letting Conservative radio be of official "namer" of all the animals in creation to borrow from the Adam and Even Saga. Conservative radio put much energy in deciding who will be called what... and too much of the effort to be "alternative" political expression (not conservative) goes on stage and acts out the script written for them by Conservative Radio.

It is possible that progressive/liberal radio will eventually grow up and discover it's very own persona and then our country will be blessed with authentic, self-policing and correcting, two-way conversation that has been a part of our heritage for over two centuries.

 

[amfmxm]

Part of liberal talk radio's problem may be the inconsistent names it gives itself. Conservative talk radio always calls itself conservative talk radio. This
very post is an example of how liberals don't want to use that term because they know it's not a popular term & won't draw an audience. Hence they use
the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

Liberals don't consider "liberal" to be derisive or insulting. Liberals are proud to be liberal--it's a positive term: "having political views favoring civil liberties, democratic reforms and the use of governmental programs to promote social progress."

Same with "progressive," meaning to move forward; advancing; striving for reform in politics, education and other fields.

Conservative? "the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change."

Liberals look forward; conservatives look backward. The dictionary is our friend...

 

[MightyFrenchman]

Part of liberal talk radio's problem may be the inconsistent names it gives itself. Conservative talk radio always calls itself conservative talk radio. This
very post is an example of how liberals don't want to use that term because they know it's not a popular term & won't draw an audience. Hence they use
the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

Liberals don't consider "liberal" to be derisive or insulting. Liberals are proud to be liberal--it's a positive term: "having political views favoring civil liberties, democratic reforms and the use of governmental programs to promote social progress."

Same with "progressive," meaning to move forward; advancing; striving for reform in politics, education and other fields.

Conservative? "the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change."

Liberals look forward; conservatives look backward. The dictionary is our friend...

Next time use an English language dictionary. You definitely got some mixed up translations for all three words.

 

[smedge2006]

Part of liberal talk radio's problem may be the inconsistent names it gives itself. Conservative talk radio always calls itself conservative talk radio.

No. Most conservative talk stations refer to themselves as "News-Talk" "Talkradio", "Newsradio" or the like. They either try to pretend they are "news" sources or just generic talk. Never -- with the exception of Salem stations -- do they sell themselves as "conservative radio". In fact, their promos often rather deceptively describe themselves as "a place to talk", "a place to listen", harking back to the format's beginnings as "two-way talk radio", when in fact it's pretty much one and a half way radio or less these days. Or they promote traffic reports and other elements. Most of the big stations started out as balanced and drifted to the right. But they hang their hats on news, traffic and other elements to try to grab listeners who aren't conservatives. Conservative talkers almost never promote themselves as conservative.