Ed Schultz Blasts Phil Boyce and Poor Management at WABC

[Phil Boyce]

CM454 writes:

WABC was a terrific station when you could hear the likes of Bob Grant AND Lynn Samuels.

It was a terrific station, and nother against Lynn. but in those days Bob was getting a 2 share, and Lynn was getting a 2 share. Lynn was not a great fit for this station, and she is much better suited on the liberal channel in sirius where she is now.

Today, I have Mark Levin on in those hours, and he is getting double what Lynn used to get. The reason I pair like minded shows together, is that I don't have to jump start the audience when a show starts. My listeners then give me more TSL...in the Spring book 11 hours and 42 minutes for the average listener. That is one of the highest in the country.

 

[Phil Boyce]

ABQ Tom writes:

Well ... maybe true for national audience figures counting all the smaller CONSERVATIVE markets ... but Hannity is LOSING or going neck and neck with Big Ed in key BIG CITY LIBERAL markets like Albuquerque, Denver, Miami, and Seattle ...

You keep saying this, so I decided to check it. This may have been true in one fluky book a long time ago. It is not true today, certainly not in the Spring of 2007 when the latest figures were released. These are the markets where Big Ed does best in the country. Even so...he could not beat Hannity. I added up Sean's shares, 25-54 and found Sean's total for these 4 markets is a 10.4 share. Big Ed totals a 6.8 share. It is respectable, but not close to beating Sean.

pb

 

[DaleGriffin]

Don't you believe a great station is one whose personalities are attractive and entertaining BEYOND their political leanings? Don't you think it's acceptable to have a conservative back to back with a non-conservative if they are interesting enough? Why must talk radio be programmed these days based on political slant? Isn't that limiting the potential audience.

WABC was a terrific station when you could hear the likes of Bob Grant AND Lynn Samuels. The common thread? Interesting individualists--unlike what you hear on stations around the country filled with Rush clones.

Yeah and that Country station should play a few rap songs and a few disco tracks. Seriously, why limit the audience.... ??? Get a clue people.

 

[ajhenderson]

What CM is missing it that, like Phil said, you want to boost TSL, and you do that by keeping a similar ideology, where the talents are entertaining. Yes, entertainment is key, I've said that time and again here, but no one wants to listen in this thread. However, you must be entertaining to even qualify - if you're entertaining but people's blood boils listening to you, they might keep you on longer than a non-entertaining guy who makes their blood boil, but in today's day and age, with something for everyone, people are more finicky. Sure, a conservative may turn to a libtalk station once in awhile if he knows he can find entertainment there. But if you're WABC, why chance a big tune-out after a show like Hannity? While his listenership's politics may be scattered, Hannity is very conservative, so why jarr people by going from Hannity to Rachel Maddow (who's also not entertaining). If people want to jarr themselves, they'll adjust their dial to 1600... if they can get it.

 

[cm454]

Yeah and that Country station should play a few rap songs and a few disco tracks. Seriously, why limit the audience.... ??? Get a clue people.

There it is! I was waiting to see who would be the first to throw out that facile music station analogy.

What you do not seem able to grasp is that the common thread between great personalities is the ability to entertain and be interesting BEYOND a political opinion. Talkradio is being defined now more than ever before by POLITICS....and that IS a mistake.

A more appropriate music station analogy would be if a country station only played one artist's music vs. a selection of artists who are playing a wide variety of songs. The defining point in this case is NOT the style of music, but instead the quality of the music being played.

Yes, all of the listeners wanting to hear that station are looking for COUNTRY MUSIC, just as anyone listening to a talk staion is wanting to hear TALK. Country listeners, for the most part, are willing to listen to different styles of country music. Assuming talk listeners only want to hear one style of talk is short sighted.

If simply hearing other people's ideas is as shocking and unsettling as hearing a rap song on a country station, then we've got a problem, Houston.

 

[ajhenderson]

If simply hearing other people's ideas is as shocking and unsettling as hearing a rap song on a country station, then we've got a problem, Houston.

So, it was about entertainment, now it's about "hearing other people's ideas". If you were all about entertainment, "ideas" wouldn't matter. Your true stripes have been revealed.

 

[DaleGriffin]

The fallacy here is that it is "Talk Radio" it is not... it is "conservative talk radio" and it works. That is why it is successful as a format. Once "liberal talk radio" can point out a few real successes (dollars) others will do it. The said part is you can clearly see the difference between those who program radio and those that want to.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

ABQ Tom writes:

Well ... maybe true for national audience figures counting all the smaller CONSERVATIVE markets ... but Hannity is LOSING or going neck and neck with Big Ed in key BIG CITY LIBERAL markets like Albuquerque, Denver, Miami, and Seattle ...

You keep saying this, so I decided to check it. This may have been true in one fluky book a long time ago. It is not true today, certainly not in the Spring of 2007 when the latest figures were released. These are the markets where Big Ed does best in the country. Even so...he could not beat Hannity. I added up Sean's shares, 25-54 and found Sean's total for these 4 markets is a 10.4 share. Big Ed totals a 6.8 share. It is respectable, but not close to beating Sean.

pb

Audience share only takes in part of the picture.

Listenership per station paints a whole different picture.

Because the number of affiliates for Hannity is not readily available on his own website, we will use the conservative estimate of 500 supplied by Wikipedia. We will also be conservative by saying Ed Schultz has 80 affiliates, based on information from his website.

If we take Hannity's 12.5 million listeners and divide them by 500 stations, that's average listenership per station of 25,000.

However, take Big Eddie's 3.25 million listeners and divide them by 80 stations, and you get an average listenership per station of 40,625.

Hannity may have more than triple the number of listeners compared with Big Eddie, but Schultz is getting in excess of 60 percent more listeners per station. Not bad considering many of Big Eddie's stations have lousy signals.

But wait. There's more...

Let's put in the mix Stephanie Miller, who considers Hannity "Satanic stud meat." (I'm inclined to agree.)

Divide the 1.5 million listeners for Stephanie cited by Talkers magazine by the 47 stations listed on her website and you get a listenership per station of 31,915...over 20 percent more listeners per station than Hannity.

There is no doubt Rush and Sean rule the roost as far as total listenership. But if an advertiser (and I've been one) had the choice of paying top dollar for talent that generates a lower listenership per station and a lower (perhaps much lower) price for a host generating more listeners per station on generally dinky signals...and the local station's listenership for the show reflects national averages...it only makes sense for the advertiser to stretch his/her ad dollars by placing spots with the likes of Big Eddie and Steph.

[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[ajhenderson]

Sean

I believe the 500 number for Hannity (it's a bit higher now) refers to all affiliates since inception. So, for example, KSTP/Minneapolis (old) and KTLK/Minneapolis (new) count as two affiliates. Two signed affiliate agreements.

Hannity has consistently been #1 12+ in a number of good-sized markets. Besides, the 25,000 number is deceptive... if he had 25,000 cume in the smallest rated Arbitron market (291, IIRC), he'd have a 50 share for the entire week, and a much higher share in his daypart. Since he's on in markets that aren't even rated, the stations where he may cume 1,000 or less a week make up for the major and large markets where it's in the six figures.

 

[smedge2006]

The fallacy here is that it is "Talk Radio" it is not... it is "conservative talk radio" and it works. That is why it is successful as a format. Once "liberal talk radio" can point out a few real successes (dollars) others will do it. The said part is you can clearly see the difference between those who program radio and those that want to.

This analysis leaves out a lot... station owners invested a LOT of money in news-talk in major and medium markets in the 1980s... building or rebuilding full-service newsrooms... hiring local hosts and promotions people. It took time for the ratings to translate into revenue... and there was a lot of red ink along the way.
Stations in smaller markets that just plugged in the satellite for Rush, Sean and whatever are just minor presences in their own markets -- listeners just as often tune in to the big market station miles away that carries Rush because it has a bigger "image."

Today there's no tolerance for red ink, nor even for a profit that isn't ginormous (KLSD in San Diego, it is said, was not profitable ENOUGH.) If station owners were willing to put liberal talkers with big news images (you guys are the ones who say NPR is their competition, after all) things would be different. Instead these station owners (many of which also own conservative talkers) define liberal as the "niche" and put few if any resources into it, as compared with the "Big Talkers" like WLW which have been nurtured over the years. Liberal talk is SUPPOSED to stay in its niche and not take away listeners from the conservative talkers. Then the suits declare it isn't profitable (ENOUGH) and kick it to the corner.

 

[cm454]

So, it was about entertainment, now it's about "hearing other people's ideas". If you were all about entertainment, "ideas" wouldn't matter. Your true stripes have been revealed.

True stripes? NOW who is the one demonstrating a predisposition to thinking everything is or should be about an agenda?

It is about entertainment. The problem is that some people automatically assumed that different ideas negate any quality of content or execution.

The ideas SHOULD NOT be the dividing line. I can't imagine listening to the same drivel, the same drum beat, every single day, whether liberal or conservative.

As evidenced by your response, the *threat* of different ideas is enough to make you immediately close your mind and ears. Different ideas should not disqualify someone from being allowed to entertain an audience. It's amazing how many people are so afraid of a differing view.

Thankfully, talkradio is of limited influence in this country. Otherwise we'd be screwed. Considering that talkradio does almost nothing to change the minds of listeners, it's sad to see silly politicians spend time reacting to it. Fools.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Sean

I believe the 500 number for Hannity (it's a bit higher now) refers to all affiliates since inception. So, for example, KSTP/Minneapolis (old) and KTLK/Minneapolis (new) count as two affiliates. Two signed affiliate agreements.

Hannity has consistently been #1 12+ in a number of good-sized markets. Besides, the 25,000 number is deceptive... if he had 25,000 cume in the smallest rated Arbitron market (291, IIRC), he'd have a 50 share for the entire week, and a much higher share in his daypart. Since he's on in markets that aren't even rated, the stations where he may cume 1,000 or less a week make up for the major and large markets where it's in the six figures.

Considering that Rush had roughly 530 stations as of a year and a half ago, and the difference between the two of them is a million listeners, I don't think the 500 affiliates for Hannity currently is unrealistic. But since we don't know for sure since the official numbers aren't available from his website, we can't say one way or the other.

The issue of listenership per station is also one Big Eddie brought up on his show recently. If, as he points out, the playing field were level (which it isn't), and Ed or Stephanie Miller were on an equal number of affiliates as Hannity with similar signal strength, the discussion here would be going a totally different direction.

We would be discussing how hot Phil Boyce would look in a sumo outfit.

Too bad Randy Michaels doesn't post here.

By the way...In the last two weeks, Big Eddie has had Tom Tancredo and Richard Viguerie (a regular) among his guests. Viguerie is now appearing as often as Mike Rogers of BlogActive and nearly as often as David Brock of Media Matters.

Now, considering that Phil was the one who challenged Ed to the sumo match, I anticipate Mike Rogers might have something to reveal about Phil on his blog. And Ed's show.

Oh, am I getting my money's worth from my podcast subscription. ;D

 

[cm454]

CM454 writes:

WABC was a terrific station when you could hear the likes of Bob Grant AND Lynn Samuels.

It was a terrific station, and nother against Lynn. but in those days Bob was getting a 2 share, and Lynn was getting a 2 share. Lynn was not a great fit for this station, and she is much better suited on the liberal channel in sirius where she is now.

Today, I have Mark Levin on in those hours, and he is getting double what Lynn used to get. The reason I pair like minded shows together, is that I don't have to jump start the audience when a show starts. My listeners then give me more TSL...in the Spring book 11 hours and 42 minutes for the average listener. That is one of the highest in the country.

How is that possible when at one point in either late '94 or early '95, WABC was #2 in the market with a 4.5 (or was it a 4.8)?

 

[cm454]

Moved to new thread.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Sorry..I was away for awhile and came back to find this little tidbit of complete lunacy from Sean Gilbow:

If we take Hannity's 12.5 million listeners and divide them by 500 stations, that's average listenership per station of 25,000.

However, take Big Eddie's 3.25 million listeners and divide them by 80 stations, and you get an average listenership per station of 40,625.

Hannity may have more than triple the number of listeners compared with Big Eddie, but Schultz is getting in excess of 60 percent more listeners per station. Not bad considering many of Big Eddie's stations have lousy signals.

The problem with this argument is that EACH station is not equal. There are only about 300 Arbitron rated metros. Sean has 520 radio stations, so about 220 of them do not even rate in Arbitron...they have a zero, according to Arbitron. "Ohhhhhhhhhh" says Sean Gilbow. "I did not KNOW that!" Trying to divide total national audience figures by the number of stations will NEVER give you an accurate count of how many listeners you have per station, because of this simple fact above. It will not compute.

This is what happens when somebody with a tiny bit of knowledge tries to debate the issue with somebody who actually DOES this for a living.

The second problem with the Gilbow argument is that in the markets where Sean and Big Ed actually DO compete head-on...(and these are the 4 markets mentioned above where ABQ Tom claimed Big Ed was beating Sean)....these markets actually have REAL numbers attached to them. You do not have to do any fuzzy math, and try to calculate who has more listeners in these markets.

I already pointed out Sean's lead over Big Ed when you add up the shares in these four markets. So the issue is MOOT. If you want me to, I will go back and convert the shares to actual listeners, but it will not change the final calculation because a share represents a percentage of the radios turned on to any given show in each market. The percentage lead for Hannity over Big Ed would be the same.

It was a nice creative try to use air-headed calculations to justify somebody's pre-conceived notion about how well Big Ed is doing. Gilbow should go to the mirror...give a look of horror and grab his cheeks like the kid in Home Alone, because the light bulb surely is going off in his tiny little head that his little calculation is worth about as much as my tiny suma wrestling towel.

pb

 

[Phil Boyce]

CM453 asks:

How is that possible when at one point in either late '94 or early '95, WABC was #2 in the market with a 4.5 (or was it a 4.Cool?

I am glad you gave me a chance to correct my typo above where I said that Bob Grant used to have a 2 share. I meant to say a 7 share in PM drive. I went on to add correctly that Lynn's numbers were in the 2's.... so that is what I meant to say.

As to your question, in the Fall of 94 (before I was hired) WABC had a 4.7 share in NYC. I was hired the following winter, and in the Fall of 95 WABC had a 4.5 share. That was largely due to Bob Grant's large lead over the competition. I was forced to fire Bob the following spring. While Hannity does really well for me now in PM drive, we have not seen a 7 share there since Bob left us.

However in the recent Spring 2007 book WABC scored a 3.9, so we are pretty close to the level where we used to be overall as a station. In 25-54 we are actually a little higher. And in the Mark Levin hours of 6pm to 8pm, where we never used to do that well, Mark is getting consistent 4 shares or better, about double what we used to get at night back in the day. Keep in mind that is up against strong competition from SAvage on WOR, The Yankees on WCBS-AM, the Mets on WFAN and a very good All-News station in WINS.

Hope this helps.

pb

 

[ajhenderson]

Phil

How much better do Mark and Bob Grant (or Jerry Agar before) do vs. when the Yankees were on WABC? I would think the Yankees, if you had them back, wouldn't do quite as well now as they did several years ago?

 

[Phil Boyce]

KJCB says:

How much better do Mark and Bob Grant (or Jerry Agar before) do vs. when the Yankees were on WABC? I would think the Yankees, if you had them back, wouldn't do quite as well now as they did several years ago?

I think you are probably right about that. Mark's numbers....consistently in the 4 share and above range, are better than when we used to have the Yankees. There is a drop off at 8pm when Mark gets off, and frankly Bob Grant has not been on a full book yet, but I expect he will do a bit better there because of his legacy status on the market. His final month in the summer was very encouraging (his first month on the air on WABC again).

When WABC lost the Yankees, after 5 straight world series appearances, many feared we would get killed without them. But the truth is, the Yankees brought new cume to the station, but lowered the TSL. I figured if I could replace that hole with strong talk shows, my TSL would go up, even though my cume would drop without the Yankee listeners. That is exactly what happened, so WABC actually gets better numbers at night than when we used to have the Yankees. Still, the Yankees can drive cume when they get in a playoff run...and the PPM seems to find more listeners for baseball than we thought.

But the truth is, the lineup is more consistent, top to bottom, than it was when we broke things up with the Yankees. Many Yankee listeners just came for the games. Now...I can drive traffic from morning to noon to night...and get that TSL up to astronomical numbers which in turn gives me better shares.

As for the guy above who does not understand Radio and therefore does not get the music analogy (playing a country song on a rock station) he just does not get it. I know there are different opinions on this, but I actually PROGRAM for a living, and in these past 17 years programming major market talk stations I have figured something out. Give listeners what they want....and more of it...and your TSL will improve. But if you throw in a curveball...no matter how entertaining...you have to jump start your audience.

Why do you think the Fox News Channel has done so well? Because they mix liberal shows with conservative? Nawwwwwwwwwwww. It does not work. Trust me...I tried it before. It failed. But there will be guys on this board who have never programmed a radio station argue with me till the cows come home that liberal shows and conservative shows can sit side by side on the same station and both work if they are both good. Not gonna happen.

pb

 

[ajhenderson]

Not that he needs me to say it, but Phil is right. Schultz was on a couple CC "Newsradio" (and predominately right-wing) talkers, and bombed. KTRH/Houston. WHJJ/Providence. WSYR/Syracuse. You'd think all the talk of "income disparity" and how Schultz plays to the middle class would play in SYRACUSE. Ever been to Syracuse? It makes Utica look like a world-class city... if anywhere would a message of Midwestern liberalism play, it's there.

And there are more... KRFT/St. Louis, which is bouncing Randi Rhodes and her conservative counterparts next week. KTKK/Salt Lake City (the PD told me listeners threatened to burn down the station). KNUU/Las Vegas.

 

[Phil Boyce]

KJCB says:

Schultz was on a couple CC "Newsradio" (and predominately right-wing) talkers, and bombed. KTRH/Houston. WHJJ/Providence. WSYR/Syracuse. You'd think all the talk of "income disparity" and how Schultz plays to the middle class would play in SYRACUSE. Ever been to Syracuse? It makes Utica look like a world-class city... if anywhere would a message of Midwestern liberalism play, it's there.

Wow, now I feel we are having a real discussion about radio programming instead of me trying to explain quantum physics to kindergartners. And I am starting to undersgtand where these arguments are coming from. These people are taking Big Ed's arguments that HE should be on WABC and if only programmers like ME would wake up and see his brilliance, he would be a big national star instead of the fizzled one he is.

But this logic that if a show is entertaining it will work regardless of politics defies all logic. Listeners gravitate to Rush, Sean, and Mark because (for the most part) they agree with them. When Rush hit the national stage many listeners felt like finally...somebody was saying what THEY had been thinking. It is the same today. Yes they are entertaining...but the subject matter is what is important to these listeners. Conservative leaning listeners would ...as KJCB says...."burn down the station" if we tried to force Big Ed onto one of these big talkers like WABC. Trust me...it is my job to know these listeners.

I like Ed and his passion. But if he is going to make it big, he is gonna have to get numbers on his own. He is not going to be placed on a big talker like WABC and ride the coattails of the Big Three I mentioned. And if I did put him on after the big three, he would get killed in the ratings. Then what would that do to his national reputation?

My offer to engage him in a sumo wrestling match remains. He still has not responded. Hmmmmmmm is he afraid of me?

pb