Day 246 without prog. talk...

[Keith321]

It was actually not a rumour that WXKS/WKOX was having second thoughts about the change they made to Rhumba. The format is getting no numbers,

Well, the chance of XKS-KOS returning to Progressive talk is next to nil.

#1.) Some formats do not need numbers...

#2.) Whatever #'s KOX-XKS had as Progressive talk were negligle. When you get down that low...the numbers don't matter to anyone. No agency is going to buy that deep.

#3.) If Clear Channel is not happy with the performance of KOX-XKS...and were expecting more by this point (and I'm not sure thats the case), expect Clear Channel to try a LOT of things to fix it. Different PD, different programming, different music, etc. There's a lot of tings they could do for the next 3 years to improve Spanish before they think about throwing in the towel. These owners think in years...not weeks.

The idea that they might go back to Progressive talk is wishful thinking.

I was friendly with the previous GM, who was very popular with the staff, and who was seriously looking at bringing back progressive talk,

He knew your ideology...and was humoring you.

How do you think he got to be so popular with the staff?

(I think the word is "schmooze".)

 

[dlhalper]

My, my, my. I do hate it when people talk to me like I'm 5. For the record, I have been a consultant for nearly 25 years and have worked with both righties and lefties. Yet, a previous poster says that the former GM of Kiss108 and WXKS "knew your ideology...and was humoring you. How do you think he got to be so popular with the staff?" Silly rabbit. Nobody "humors" me. Mike (the GM in question) was popular with the staff because he was honest with them and treated them fairly. He treated me the same way. At first, he was very negative about progressive talk, but as time went on, he seemed to be having some second thoughts, and our discussions were quite in depth about the possibilities. Would he have switched it back? He never promised me that. But we had some very good meetings, and I can say no more at this point.

As for your other assertion, Mike didn't know my "ideology" because when I'm working, my political views take a back seat to my desire to do my job well. My ideology when I am consulting is to provide interesting and compelling radio. I've trained some fairly well respected announcers over the years. Mike and I talked politics, yes, and I discovered that while he is certainly more conservative than I am over all, he was actually very issues-oriented... conservative about some issues and moderate about others. The same can be said about many of us. Mike admittedly didn't particularly like progressive talk himself, but then, he liked some individual hosts. He also told me that he can't listen to some of the rightie talkers these days, because they have become predictable and boring. Mike happens to be friendly with successful (and profitable) progressive talker Ed Schultz, who did a very successful promotion at one of the stations where Mike was GM several years ago-- my impression was that he wouldn't object to having Ed back on some of his stations, given that Ed's show has been making money for the past 2 years. In fact, the impression I got was that whoever could turn a profit and also attract listeners, whatever their ideolgy, that was fine by Mike. It was fine by me too. Mostly, during our meetings and phone conversations, we talked about what needs to be done to get people back to listening to radio. We are still in touch, in fact. A very nice person. I hope we get to work together at some time soon.

Oh and in your post, you mentioned ratings, sir-- as a Progressive Talker, the station got around a .8 much of the time, with an occasional dip to a .5 when the signal got worse during the winter, and as high as a 1.0 a couple of times. Not bad for a niche format with minimal local content, a poor signal, no full-time staff, and no promotion budget. And there are many of us who still wish we could hear Ed or Stephanie or Rachel or Thom in Boston again. And I'd rather listen to them than to Tom Finneran, excuse me for saying so...

 

[Keith321]

Nobody "humors" me. Mike (the GM in question) was popular with the staff because he was honest with them and treated them fairly. He treated me the same way.

Well, you know what they say about salespeople..."Once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made!"

As for your other assertion, Mike didn't know my "ideology" because when I'm working, my political views take a back seat to my desire to do my job well. My ideology when I am consulting is to provide interesting and compelling radio.

Unless you become a different person (with a different name), everybody knows your ideology.

as a Progressive Talker, the station got around a .8 much of the time, with an occasional dip to a .5 when the signal got worse during the winter, and as high as a 1.0 a couple of times.

Ratings that low don't matter. A .5 or a 1.0.....doesn't make a lick of difference to their business.

 

[dlhalper]

Well, I guess Keith doesn't like me, or thinks he's an expert on who I am and what I believe. He wrote "Unless you become a different person (with a different name), everybody knows your ideology." Ya think? Okay, if I am teaching a class, then yes my opinions may come out. But I've consulted all sorts of stations over the years and the topic of politics just did not come up when I was working with, let's say, an album rocker or a top-40 station. What came up was playing the right music, training the staff, etc. Of course some of my beliefs come through, but they are more my personal beliefs than my political ones-- I wear a Jewish star, so I guess it's safe to assume I am Jewish. I don't smoke or drink or do drugs, and I love ice cream... oh and I used to teach Sunday School. But as for my politics, when I'm working at a station, I hope I am professional enough to keep the conversation about work, and I discuss politics if I'm asked. I'd assume people who know me are aware of the causes I've been involved in over the years, like being a Big Sister or working with an adult who has autism. But as some people on this list who know me will tell you, I'm not particularly an ideologue. I am quite liberal about some issues, yes, but I am actually somewhat conservative about a few subjects. It really varies. But let's get back to radio. I still think progressive talk is a format that, when done the right way, can make money and get listeners. Evidently, Keith, you disagree.

 

[Keith321]

Well, I guess Keith doesn't like me, or thinks he's an expert on who I am and what I believe.

No, I have nothing against you.

The points I made stand on their own and do not have anything to do with you personally.

1.) The possibility of the format returning are next to nil

2.) Everyone who know Donna Halper knows her liberal leanings.

It is not an attack on you personally.

I still think progressive talk is a format that, when done the right way, can make money and get listeners. Evidently, Keith, you disagree.

I never stated if it can work or not.

Just the opinion that returning Progressive talk is not returning to KOX/XKS.

 

[JIBGUY]

1.0? Really? I've been watching the ratings, and I don't remember those two ever getting more than a 0.6 added together.......

 

[HHH]

AAR had a lousy business plan, overextended themselves, and had no alternative revenue streams to fund the creation of a 24/7 network, complete with a news department, from a dead stop. They should have known that it would be at least five-six years or so before they would break even with such heavy operational costs and station brokerage deals.

Look at WTTT. Still on the air with numbers about the same as AAR. Here's the difference: a) O & O station. b) Salem's deep pockets, lined by other revenue, floating this whole Salem conservo-talk format. You think if WTTT were a stand-alone, non 0 & 0, they would still be this format? No way.

 

[robbbc]

1.0? Really? I've been watching the ratings, and I don't remember those two ever getting more than a 0.6 added together.......

I know for a fact I saw a 0.8 at several points. 1.0, not so certain- but wouldn't be suprised. It almost always showed up on RadioandRecords charts. Often a few up from the bottom. Still doing better than the current incarnation.

 

[Finn]

AAR had a lousy business plan, overextended themselves, and had no alternative revenue streams to fund the creation of a 24/7 network, complete with a news department, from a dead stop. They should have known that it would be at least five-six years or so before they would break even with such heavy operational costs and station brokerage deals.

Look at WTTT. Still on the air with numbers about the same as AAR. Here's the difference: a) O & O station. b) Salem's deep pockets, lined by other revenue, floating this whole Salem conservo-talk format. You think if WTTT were a stand-alone, non 0 & 0, they would still be this format? No way.

If conservo-talk isn't a viable format on its own, why would Salem keep the format?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

If conservo-talk isn't a viable format on its own, why would Salem keep the format?

I'm guessing that, in this day and age, Salem is a rare example of a commercial broadcasting company that still considers it's own ideology and agenda to be more important than whether or not they are programming the most financially viable format on each station in each market that they're in.

Aren't ALL of Salem's stations either religious, or extremely conservative talk (some of which is couched in pseudo-religious platitudes)? I know some also air some brokered programming, but it seems that ALL of their original programming falls within those two formats, or a combination thereof.

As HHH said, their other sources of revenue, such as their network of strictly religious stations, probably supports their marginally performing extremely conservative talk stations, and they are both part of the company's agenda.

Progressive Talk stations had no such parent company with such a commitment to their ideology and format which had other viable, steady sources of income which could've supported it despite mediocre to poor performance in many markets (as Salem does with WTTT). Franken and company (Air America) originally tried to purchase a number of stations at first, but that idea proved quickly unfeasible.

Then, AA went with (mostly) Clear Channel, who tried putting it (with other Progressive Talk from Jones, etc..) on a number of their (mostly) already underperforming stations, some with marginal signals in their target markets. However, Clear Channel had no ideological commitment to the format as Salem does to theirs, nor should they have been expected to. They did it strictly for business, to see if it would generate a little income for some of their "dog" stations. Unlike Salem, they were unwilling to continue to support underperforming Progressive Talk stations with money funneled from other sources in their business after a while.

There has been no commercial broadcasting company with other solid sources of income and a "progressive" agenda willing to devote other revenue to supporting marginally performing Progressive Talk stations, as Salem does with supporting no-ratings arch-conservative talk stations like WTTT because it espouses the companys religious-conservative agenda.

 

[newhampshiredude]

I still don't understand how WTTT gets no ratings. After all, they are Boston's Sean Hannity affiliate.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

I still don't understand how WTTT gets no ratings. After all, they are Boston's Sean Hannity affiliate.

The last time I had the opportunity to see the entire breakdowns for the demo a year and a half ago, WTTT was floating around 0.1 to 0.2 for most dayparts. So, they don't actually have NO ratings, but they were very low. I don't know if they've improved since then, but apparently not much. If they cracked 0.4 12+, they would show in the ratings published to the general public, and they haven't yet.