End of local talk radio?

[Don62]

The Internet isn't the same thing as radio.

And others here have thrown out TV as an example. Radio is neither TV nor the internet.

And I didn't say radio had to be all local. As the example I've brought up (that none of the so-called experts here have been able to refute) shows that a major market talk station can run some local daily talk shows mixed in with syndicated programming and remain No. 1. The owners of KMBZ certainly didn't take the easy way like the PD at the very low-rated "heritage" talker KCMO- which is entirely syndicated.

At most radio stations - and this is okay - ourly news is mostly syndicated. The overnight is mostly syndicated (Coast To Coast), Kim Komando is syndicated. Paul Harvey is syndicated. There's nothing wrong with airing a mix of syndication.

But to air every show as syndicated with zero local origination makes talk stations in Fargo, N.D., better serve its audience - as small a market as it is - with its one local talk show than WIOD, Miami, or WFLA, Tampa, or KRMG, Tulsa, whose impoverished owners CC and Cox can't even afford to pay a local hack to host a local show. Everything is off satellite, just like automated music stations in tiny markets.
That's real radio. Right.

And don't tell me there aren't qualified people that can host at least one talk show.

I'd certainly prefer a "local hack" host a show than "a schill for the Bush administration" any day.

It's only about money.

Some of the posters here have really shown their real motivations. Buy a car whose brakes don't work, because it's cheap. To hell with any other drivers. That's their problem. "I only care about money."

 

[Radio_Realist]

Everything is off satellite, just like automated music stations in tiny markets. That's real radio. Right.

Right! That is correct. What you described is "real" radio. It is not imaginary. It is not fictional. It is real. It exists.

And don't tell me there aren't qualified people that can host at least one talk show.

Apparently, there aren't qualified people who can host a talk show who are willing to work for the same amount of money that a syndicated program costs. Or, there aren't people qualified enough that they can attract enough of an audience that the increased availability of spots would all sell out to generate enough revenue to make up the difference between what the live host costs compared to what the syndicated show costs.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that bringing in someone from a distant city in order to sit behind a local mic is no more "local" than bringing in someone from a distant city via satellite.

 

[bierkenstock]

Newsflash boys and girls;RADIO STATIONS ARE IIN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY. Otherwise it's not worth owning one.

It's easy to disagree with Bierkenstock's first paragraph. It said;
...
"Whle I agree that most of what passes for local content is boring but when a chemical train derails, the river overflows or the twister is coming to carry people off to Munchkinland, who ya gonna call? (Rest of the time, however, nobody cares much about local news or local anything on the radio.)"

Sir, I couldn't disagree more.
EVERY station I've owned (4) or programmed (another 4) or helped start (10) made BIG BUCKS making the newspaper into fish wrap BECAUSE people knew they could put us on for local news AND SPONSORS CAME by the boatload. One station I owned in a small town had an HOUR LONG 6 day a week LOCAL newscast that had 8 ANNUAL sponsors.

The news was accidents, council meetings, school news, hospital reports, farm info, missing pets and that kind of stuff. HOW do you think a local newspaper makes money? Same stuff.

Today, your radio station can get everything else from the bird and nobody REALLY cares. Do a GREAT local newscast and the advertisiers line up. It's as big a profit center as sports. If you are in a "bad weather" zone, a professional meteorologlist weather report grossed us $4000 a month (with just half the reports sold).

Bierkenstock is RIGHT in the rest of his post. It's Don who is way off.

I'm sorry but the claim you make ("making the newspaper into fish wrap" on 18 stations) is just not credible. I've heard that kind of hype from small market radio managers just too often. In my experience, newspapers generally become "fishwrap" after the radio station has lifted stories from the newspaper. Sure, once in a great while a station gets lucky with a news tip. Even rarer, somebody from a station is in the right place at the right time. I worked for a guy who claimed to beat the newspaper by three days or more. How? Sometimes the newspapers sat on press releases until they had extra space in the news-hole. The station generally would use them right away since press releases with sound is what passed for reporting. Oh, another time the station did a promotional event and the newspaper filled a little space with a mention the following Saturday (but the station had it live).

How many "qualified news people" did you have? (What is "qualified" to a radio station is laughable to most newspaper editors. but that's another topic). How many reporters, writers and editors did the paper have? I can make a good guess on the answers and there is no way a radio station beats a newspaper consistently.

Newspaper reporters go out and work beats, get news and cover stories. They don't just show up for meetings. They don't just do police call downs a couple of times a day. And they certainly don't consider getting a sound bite to go with a press release as real reporting.

At the stations like those you describe I worked for (and against), advertisers loved the news coverage. The station gave them free promotion in newscasts and called it news. The local merchants were the managers' friends and he took good care of them. Cut a ribbon and get a live shot.

Station managers operate in their own little world and they believe their own hype, but radio news has become irrelevant for most people.

 

[Don62]

And you still haven't addressed the fact that bringing in someone from a distant city in order to sit behind a local mic is no more "local" than bringing in someone from a distant city via satellite.

Of course it's local. Are you going to start defining words in the dictionary now?

So a newscater comes to a local TV station, and most of the anchors are from out of town, so that's not any different than the station running an informercial in that time slot or running network news?

That's stupid and is an illogical argument and you know it.

So what if someone is from out of town. At least it shows initiative instead of relying on a crutch, as you apparently advocate.

A syndicated host wouldn't necessarily be more popular than a local host.

Look at Kansas City, which you like to ignore. The local hosts on KMBZ day in and day out beat the pants off of Hannity and the rest.
The all-syndicated, all the time station is in the toilet. A sad testimony for a "heritage" talk station, KCMO.

If you were in charge of a station in the past, your kind of thinking would have kept many qualified and respected broadcasters off the air.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So a newscater comes to a local TV station, and most of the anchors are from out of town, so that's not any different than the station running an informercial in that time slot or running network news?

That's apples to oranges. The talking heads on television newscasts read the stories written by the real reporters. Radio talk show hosts have to come up with their own words to say based on their own personal store of knowledge. There's also a world of difference between standing in front of the scene of a disaster and sticking a mic in front of a distraught victim and asking "How do you feel?" for a 30 second bit and running a talk show for three hours. If you can't tell the difference between those two tasks, how can we regard anything you say about anything as coming from someone with any knowledge of the subject?

Look at Kansas City, which you like to ignore.

I do not live in Kansas City. I cannot pick up any Kansas City radio stations on any of my radios. I do understand that they have some crazy little women there. Perhaps you can expand on that.

One example of one market in a nation the size of the United States proves nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[Al Johnson]

Don, relax! It's only radio.

Look at Kansas City, which you like to ignore. The local hosts on KMBZ day in and day out beat the pants off of Hannity and the rest.
The all-syndicated, all the time station is in the toilet. A sad testimony for a "heritage" talk station, KCMO.

You have local hosts. If, as you say, those local hosts are doing better than the syndicated hosts, you may well have more local hosts. KMBZ gets around a 5 12+ AQH share. KCMO hovers above a two share. Of course, KMBZ has Rush. The station with Rush is almost always the leading talker in town. And the number two talker in town is almost always all or mostly syndicated (it's the best they can afford).

You may not like them but those syndicated shows have listeners and fans. Drop one for an unknown local show and the complaint calls begin.

Before satellite syndication, there were not nearly as many "news/talk" as now. The so-called "heritage" talk stations had news blocks, comedy/personality morning shows, radio shrinks, ball games and sports talk until the 90s when political talk became dominant on these stations. In smaller markets, any kind of talk programming was limited to one or two schedule blocks in an otherwise mostly music schedule. Talk radio is an expensive format to do live and local and there just are not that many really good hosts around.

Yes, local talk is good (as long as local hosts don't get too much into "arcane" local issues).
All things being equal, local talk trumps syndicated talk.
Things usually are not equal (outside major markets, almost never equal).
Even a local host with potential is hindered outside of major markets with a limited pool of guests and callers.
People would rather listen to a good syndicated show than a marginal, barely adequate or poor local show.

<Those you who think radio stations should not care about money can skip this part.>
Here is your two-second MBA:
Revenue-expenses=Profit
Here is your two-second summary of the plot of "The Producers:"
"Under the right circumstances you can make more money with a flop than a hit."

As RR has pointed out, a syndicated show is almost always cheaper than a local show.
Even if the syndicated show has less of an audience and brings in less station revenue, lower costs can make it more profitable.
<End of money part.>

And a syndicated show is more of a sure thing. The show has a track record in other markets. Unless the host comes to radio from some other field with only name recognition, in all likelihood the host and his production team have a track record doing a major market local show. A new local talk show is a crap-shoot.

I have to agree with RR that hiring a radio host from outside the market, results in a show that's not very local. The guy comes to KC and wants to make a splash so he can go into syndication, or at least go to Chicago. He won't know local issues so he will pretty much stick with what he knows (and whatever comes in the prep service he subscribes to). OK, local callers have a chance to get on. Good for the one percent of listeners who call but with only a local caller pool to draw from, not so good for the 99 percent of long-time listeners, no-time callers.

If Clear Channel or somebody corrals the top syndicated hosts and puts them on FM, the two KC AM talkers may go local live to survive. Or the stronger one would go local-live and the weaker would go brokered.

 

[Don62]

So a newscater comes to a local TV station, and most of the anchors are from out of town, so that's not any different than the station running an informercial in that time slot or running network news?

That's apples to oranges. The talking heads on television newscasts read the stories written by the real reporters. Radio talk show hosts have to come up with their own words to say based on their own personal store of knowledge. There's also a world of difference between standing in front of the scene of a disaster and sticking a mic in front of a distraught victim and asking "How do you feel?" for a 30 second bit and running a talk show for three hours. If you can't tell the difference between those two tasks, how can we regard anything you say about anything as coming from someone with any knowledge of the subject?

Look at Kansas City, which you like to ignore.

I do not live in Kansas City. I cannot pick up any Kansas City radio stations on any of my radios. I do understand that they have some crazy little women there. Perhaps you can expand on that.

One example of one market in a nation the size of the United States proves nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

No matter how you twist words, a radio talk show host ( or any other DJ or GM or sales weasel ) who moves to another town to work at another radio station is local.

Any program done at a certain station but not syndicated to other stations- one allowing the host to discuss local issues - is local. This is opposed to a program produced in New York and satellite or pigeom-carrier fed to other stations, which is network.
What of this do you not understand?

I don't care that you only want to pick nits here.

I don't care where a host moved from.

 

[Radio_Realist]

What of this do you not understand?

I understand that you define "local" by nothing more than where someone parks his keister when he talks into a microphone. I define "local" as meaning that the program content is either totally local topics, or at least mostly local topics.

You define local by mere geography.

I define local by the content of what is aired.

I think your definition is woefully inadequate, and frankly, not worth worrying about. If your only argument in favor of "local" is that someone has to get a paycheck for doing something that someone else who is more talented and who does it better (and cheaper) through syndication just because Don62 says that's local and it's "better", then you don't have a case.

 

[Don62]

Careful choice of words dept.: Poor Don (who isn't interested in money) says;
"So I guess money is all that's important in this business- not programming to an audience and serving a community or city of license."

The answer Don, is YES, money IS all that's important! If it was LESS important - EVERY station would be local and live and have LOCAL NEWS.

Didn't they teach you in school that "Money runs things?" After 57 years of living, I'd rather have it than be without it.

The businesses you sold spots to when you owned radio stations - their financial health was unimportant to you?
You could have cared less because you narrow-mindedly cared only about fattening your wallet?

You - like broadcasting overall - apparently can't see the bigger picture

Remember that WKRP episode where some cheezy funeral home came up with a snappy spot. It would have made the station a boatload of money. But G.M. Arthur Carlson had a funny feeling about how it would look to run those spots.

Of course it was only a TV show and not really radio but it showed what many in the industry would have done- much like TV news reporters who might have inserted themselves into a story or asked a victim a senseless question to only get ratings.

You as a station owner would have accepted such harmful or questionable advertising?

With money being the only concern, I guess we know what the answer would be.

 

[Don62]

One example of one market in a nation the size of the United States proves nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Oh really. WBAP in Dallas has a local mid-morning show. It's the market's No. 1 talker.

Look at Kansas City, which you like to ignore.

I do not live in Kansas City. I cannot pick up any Kansas City radio stations on any of my radios. I do understand that they have some crazy little women there. Perhaps you can expand on that.

You don't have to live in a market to get a sense of what a station programs or how it does ratings wise. You can also listen online, as I do to many stations.

KMBZ is Kansas City's NT market leader. Its syndicated competitor - which used to be mostly local - has hardly half KMBZ's ratings. Yet that means nothing. Baloney.
I could care less if you are ignorant of that fact.

KMBZ has two local daytime shows and three syndicated shows. It hasn't gone the lazy route and yet look at its ratings.

I challenge any of the so-called experts here to dispute that the station is No. 1 in its format.

Go ahead. Show me the evidence the wall-to-wall syndicated station is better.

I better watch out. I might be told something as stupid as that "local hosts don't have anything to talk about." Or "local hosts can't learn the market quickly enough."

Get this pal: most syndicated host (excepts the celebrities who cut in line) had to start as a local host.
Wow. New revalation.



Common sense tells me that KMBZ is doing something right. Its PD isn't a CC or Cox clone. It also shows that the suits who only consider pulling programming of the satellite are blind to other success.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You can also listen online,

Then why worry about what goes out over the air?

most syndicated host (excepts the celebrities who cut in line) had to start as a local host.

And most major league ball players had to start in the minor leagues. So what? Eventually the best get to the major leagues, leaving those who weren't good enough in the minor leagues.

 

[Faraway]

Can't believe you guys are still at it...like I said much earlier, I think all here agree in a perfect world, great local programming can be good for the listeners and radio's future. The disagreement starts with the premise some are makingthat syndication is the cheap, easy and lazy way Clear Channel and Cox programs their news talk stations.

As I posted earlier Clear Channel's KFI, WOAI, KEX, KTRH, KFYI, WTVN, WISN, WFLF and KOA are large markets that have more than just a live morning show...some have more than two additional local shows...heck, WLW is all local almost all the time. There are probably more, just these came to mind. So it's hardly a CC thing, nor is it for Cox and everyone else.

Are there markets that have more syndication than others, yes. I doubt that a PD is being "lazy" by going that route. As I stated before, A SMART PD is one who will program his/her station with regard to what gets ratings, and not get hung up on whether something is locally produced or not. Rather it's probably market conditions...either it's not a great talk market and/or it's an especially good market for the syndicated stars. Are there markets where a penny-pinching GM demands the syndication route? For sure, but just as likely the PD and Sales Manager are bummed about it.

Also, as I 've pointed out before - syndicated programming is not necessarily the cheapest route. Some of the big shows require an additional cash outlay, even extra units in drive times. Many managers would love to have a local show, with all the inventory for local sale. In the larger markets, this means hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost revenue.

Yes, it IS about the money. It's a business. And that is not a concept that came about with Telecom 1996. For us old-timers, we can attest this has always been the case, long before the CC's, Cumulus' and Entercoms of the world. If a station is attracting a LARGE audience, I'd say they are probably serving their community well.

 

[Don62]

Everything is off satellite, just like automated music stations in tiny markets. That's real radio. Right.

Right! That is correct. What you described is "real" radio. It is not imaginary. It is not fictional. It is real. It exists.

And don't tell me there aren't qualified people that can host at least one talk show.

Apparently, there aren't qualified people who can host a talk show who are willing to work for the same amount of money that a syndicated program costs. Or, there aren't people qualified enough that they can attract enough of an audience that the increased availability of spots would all sell out to generate enough revenue to make up the difference between what the live host costs compared to what the syndicated show costs.

I highly doubt that's the case.
I believe it's more of a case of "real radio talent need not apply. We're too lazy. We take everything given to us, like a newspaper relying primarily on press releases vs. going out and doing real reporting.

The former may be true, though, given Cheap Channel's inabiility to even pay subsistence wages to hosts.
It's only about the bottom line, not talent, not anything else.
All syndicated, all the time.
Local hosts are too stupid to talk about anything interesting.
Listeners don't care. Right.
What a bunch of retards running radio these days.

 

[Faraway]

The former may be true, though, given Cheap Channel's inabiility to even pay subsistence wages to hosts.
It's only about the bottom line, not talent, not anything else.
All syndicated, all the time.
Local hosts are too stupid to talk about anything interesting.
Listeners don't care. Right.
What a bunch of retards running radio these days.

Please read my post just above yours. Thanks.

 

[smedge2006]

I am often surprised to find that some very small markets (Fargo North Dakota for example) have more local programming than much bigger ones.

I do think the lack of local talk in some markets has to do with a business model -- one that appears to be failing on the macro scale -- moreso than individual market decisions. Let's face it, the PD has become more and more of a figurehead over the last 15 years and is really more of a "paint by numbers" job these days -- the numbers given to him/her by the GM and sales.

One factor in those alleged "individual market decisions" that no one has cited is the presence of a strong competitor. Competitive markets tend to have more local talk. WOAI has KTSA. KFYI has KTAR.

 

[hammondo]

Don talked about funeral home ads; You as a station owner would have accepted such harmful or questionable advertising?

YES - WHY is it harmful/questionable? No bimbo is stripping in the studio. No foul language. In fact monument companies and funeral homes did run JINGLES (very tasteful jingles) on our radio stations.

Those businesses need to move their products/sell, too! WHY should they be left out? The jingles ran in the hour long morning news block just prior to the obituaries!

That's WHY I WAS IN BUSINESS. TO SELL ADVERTISING. O&A and Howard are questionable. NOT ME! Haven't YOU EVER bought anything and expected a return? I just sold a thousand shares of my Chcago Tribue stock that yielded 10 times it's cost in 1967. Nothing wrong with that.

Who the bleep are YOU to judge ME, anyway? You have NO idea who I am or even what my motives are. But here he goes again.....

Don said; With money being the only concern, I guess we know what the answer would be.

Money WAS not the only concern, but it WAS the PRIMARY concern.
Without MONEY nothing else happens. No bills paid, no employees, no promotions, no charity.

We did LOTS of "payback" to the community.

But personally, I was VERY Blessed. We put in only about $250k to get 1.3 million back, 13 yeas later. With a great banker/lawyer, we are still living off that money, bought/sold other businesses, and put 2 kids through college.

I wasn't in business to do ANYTHING ELSE but make MONEY and I succeeded!

A portion of that money paid my bills and taxes, a portion was contributed to LOTS of local charities, and the rest PAID ME for the often 80+ hour (sometimes 7 day) weeks I worked, for my fabulous ideas that got our 4 stations to average over 30% shares in the 3 markets we covered.

I earned it. I'm PROUD of what I did.

By the way, nobody is stopping YOU from doing the SAME THING.

 

[Al Johnson]

Don talked about funeral home ads; You as a station owner would have accepted such harmful or questionable advertising?

YES - WHY is it harmful/questionable? No bimbo is stripping in the studio. No foul language. In fact monument companies and funeral homes did run JINGLES (very tasteful jingles) on our radio stations.

Those businesses need to move their products/sell, too! WHY should they be left out? The jingles ran in the hour long morning news block just prior to the obituaries!

That's WHY I WAS IN BUSINESS. TO SELL ADVERTISING. O&A and Howard are questionable. NOT ME! Haven't YOU EVER bought anything and expected a return? I just sold a thousand shares of my Chcago Tribue stock that yielded 10 times it's cost in 1967. Nothing wrong with that.

Who the bleep are YOU to judge ME, anyway? You have NO idea who I am or even what my motives are. But here he goes again.....

Don said; With money being the only concern, I guess we know what the answer would be.

Money WAS not the only concern, but it WAS the PRIMARY concern.
Without MONEY nothing else happens. No bills paid, no employees, no promotions, no charity.

We did LOTS of "payback" to the community.

But personally, I was VERY Blessed. We put in only about $250k to get 1.3 million back, 13 yeas later. With a great banker/lawyer, we are still living off that money, bought/sold other businesses, and put 2 kids through college.

I wasn't in business to do ANYTHING ELSE but make MONEY and I succeeded!

A portion of that money paid my bills and taxes, a portion was contributed to LOTS of local charities, and the rest PAID ME for the often 80+ hour (sometimes 7 day) weeks I worked, for my fabulous ideas that got our 4 stations to average over 30% shares in the 3 markets we covered.

I earned it. I'm PROUD of what I did.

By the way, nobody is stopping YOU from doing the SAME THING.

In the interests of full disclosure: You mentioned in another post that you now own and operate funeral homes.

You seem to feel that you have found a way to serve both God and mammon. Congratulations.
The following still need work.
Matt: 6.1
Matt: 7.1
Matt: 7.21-23
Luke: 18.11

I am reminded of the scene in "Catcher in the Rye" in which the alumnus who operates funeral homes comes to speak at chapel and Holden pictures the guy shifting into second and asking Jesus to send him some more stiffs.

Personally, I prefer eros to thanatos on the radio.

Hey, you!
You're young and swingin'.
No time to think about tomorrow.
But there ain't no way to deny it.
Someday you're gonna buy it.
Plan today for Hammondo tomorrow.
Hammondo. Hammondo.
He's the man with the plot; the man with the plan.
Hammondo. Hammondo.
He's the mortician man who loves you...
A Lot!

Baba Booey.

 

[hammondo]

Al said..; In the interests of full disclosure: You mentioned in another post that you now own and operate funeral homes.

WRONG - I said I SOLD the 2 funeral homes I owned. I believe the discussion there was a about "good timing. I seem to have that.

YOU SAID: "You seem to feel that you have found a way to serve both God and mammon. Congratulations. "

YOU, sir are quite a PHARISEE!!!!I Never ever SAID or IMPLIED such a thing.

God gave me the TALENT (and the means) to be in business, the OPPORTUNITY to work it and to sell (YOU have NO IDEA WHY I SOLD -SO HOW can YOU judge? - and WHY should I care about YOUR judgement?) and the TIMING.

CERTAINLY the timing, as the guy who now owns those radio stations has several MORE competitors and MUCH WORSE circumstances than I had when he bought in '85).

I would NOT be using His gifts if I just sat there like a schlub. By the way, YOU also have NO idea about what I GIVE from what I EARNED and who I'm helping now.

I'm certainly NOT perfect. I DO however, have principles and a conscience. I can tell you undoubtedly that YOU DON'T HAVE A FLAMING CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

So take where YOU believe I STILL NEED WORK and REMOVE THE 300 FOOT TOWER* from your eye, before I remove the toothpick in
MINE!!!

By the way my ownership of a 300 foot tower with a few Christian radio stations, and a few other occupants on it, provides help for a black broadcaster who badly needs it, and several Christian stations.

Ha!
I REALLY don't care "what YOU prefer."

Bless the Lord.

Matt: 6.1. Not doing THAT. As another poster here says, "Not brag - just FACT." I'd challenge YOUR charity.

Matt: 7.1 THERE'S ONE you could use LOTS of help with!

Matt: 7.21-23 NEVER said anyting of the sort. I said I was BLESSED.

Luke: 18.11 Thump your Bible at YOURSELF.

 

[hammondo]

OK SMART GUY - That's ME. AS YOU SAID; 'IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE - WHERE are YOU flipping burgers and sweeping up THIS week?

It's HILARIOUS that you can MAKE FUN of something that YOU odn't know anything about - and in your ELMER GANTRY IGNORANCE - THUMP your Bible - yet be so JEALOUS (read the Catcher in the Rye crap you wrote) and be a fan of a SLOB, like Stern.

That REALLY shows YOUR true Character.

PS Most funeral homes make 300% profit on a BAD DAY.

I doubled my money after only 2 years of ownership. What have YOU given to God's work, lately????? We did 626 funerals in 2 years, about 40 have yet to fully pay. I'd put MY percentages against YOURS - ANY DAY! I took a YEAR vacation after the radio stations sold.

PS If I were you I'd take the "300 foot TOWER" out of YOUR eye, and I'd remove the SPECK from mine.

* I (sdtill) own a 300 foot tower on prime land with 6 antennas mounted on it. Part of why I bought it was to help a financially challenged Black Gospel station with a wonderful Pastor weho owns it,

I'd like to know WHO have YOU helped lately??? In the interest of full disclosure, of course.

Slobba BOOEY to YOU too!

 

[Radio_Realist]

Competitive markets tend to have more local talk.

That makes sense. If one station already has the top syndicated host talking about national topics, countering him with the #2 syndicated host available doesn't make as much sense as countering with someone who does a show with local interest content. If they simply hire someone to replicate a national program whilst sitting in a local chair, that wouldn't make any sense.