• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Evan Cohen: GOP Trojan Horse?

B

bierkenstock

Guest
Now it's starting to make sense. Evan Cohen spent his career before Air America Radio as a Republican political operative, deal maker and consultant. He operated businesses based on his political connections and reportedly talked his way into taking the helm at Air America Radio. His career seems to show he excels at talking his way into things (including the Boys and Girls Club in the Bronx). Politics seems to draw people like this like flies.

Did he get involved with Air America Radio to kill the idea of progressive talk radio before it got started? In the Spring of last year, people on this board were questioning some of AAR's strategies. They made some early moves that were inexplicably stupid.
<ul>
[*]Starting up with too little cash.
[*]LMA's with weak stations in a handful of markets. An arrangement in which AAR had to meet the rent each month (as opposed to a syndication deal in which a station gets programming to sell; the syndicator has a partner in each market instead of a landlord and creditor).
[*]Hiring hosts with no radio experience or background.
[*]Passing over progressive talk radio hosts in favor of seemingly less attractive talent.
[*]Launching an entire schedule instead of one or two strong shows and growing from there.
[/list]

Was AAR really dumb? Or was Evan Cohen setting up the network to fail? If so, he almost succeeded. They had one non-LMA station: Clear Channel's station in Portland, OR. Clear Channel started to see results with progressive talk. Clear Channel strengthened the line-up with shows from other producers. Clear Channel saved progressive talk despite Cohen's worst efforts.

The format was saved, but Cohen left AAR crippled. They have since brought in Jerry Springer from Clear Channel, but otherwise are stuck with a line-up of inferior programs. And now AAR has to pay Cohen's bills (not just the Boy's and Girl's Club but a flood of red ink and debt).

Some people on these boards cannot distinquish AAR from the progressive talk format. But AAR is one company producing programming for progressive talk stations. Just as several companies produce shows for traditional talk stations. Some people want progressive talk so much they are willing to tolerate bad radio from AAR. IMHO this is misguided. The format can only thrive with good radio. Some recent numbers suggest that the novelty of progressive talk is wearing off and listenership in the core audience is eroding. I say this is a result of bad radio from AAR. But there are progressive talk hosts doing good radio (Schultz, Miller, Hartmann and some local hosts). If progressive talk is to continue long-term, look for more and more stations to replace individual AAR shows with programs from other syndicators. Look for a better and more competitive marketplace for progressive talk programming. If AAR survives in that marketplace, it will be in a different form with a different business model. Much the same happened when the traditional/conservative talk format started and in most other formative industries, including the computer industry (anybody reading this on an IBM PC?).
 
My post here is in no way a defense of AAR. It is just some common sense.


> They made some early moves that
> were inexplicably stupid.
>
> Starting up with too little cash.

While this is true, the stupid part was that they thought advertisers would flock to them. In any unproven market, advertisers wait to see how it succeeds, or is accepted before "investing".

> LMA's with weak stations in a handful of markets.

To get a whole netowrk off the ground, with little cash, that's all they were gonna get. Now, if the format proves to be more successful in some markets than the traditional Conservative talker, then they will be able to slowly move onto bigger sticks where the current success is mediocre, and the station wants better.

> An arrangement in which AAR had to meet the rent each month (as
> opposed to a syndication deal in which a station gets
> programming to sell; the syndicator has a partner in each
> market instead of a landlord and creditor).

Again, this was necessary to do to get started. There is NOTHING wrong with paying for your time on a station. As a matter of fact, it has been reported that O'Reilly paid to be on in 2 or 3 MAJOR markets. Now that he's been proven to be somewhat of a success and the station's sales staff has most likely surmounted what the fee was, he's probably not paying anymore.

> Hiring hosts with no radio experience or background.
> Passing over progressive talk radio hosts in favor of
> seemingly less attractive talent.

This was clearly stupid...I agree with you. They could have held auditions across the country to find better talent. But they were going for the noteriety that some of those names bring. Franken, with his following, and the fact that he had a best seller. Garafalo, with her following, and noteriety in Hollywood too..etc.

> Launching an entire schedule instead of one or two strong
> shows and growing from there.

They wanted a 24/7 network, like BTR and USA, TRN etc....they just went about it the wrong way.

> Was AAR really dumb? Or was Evan Cohen setting up the
> network to fail? If so, he almost succeeded. They had one
> non-LMA station: Clear Channel's station in Portland, OR.
> Clear Channel started to see results with progressive talk.
> Clear Channel strengthened the line-up with shows from other
> producers. Clear Channel saved progressive talk despite
> Cohen's worst efforts.


CC didn't see "results". They saw an opportunity to take some underperforming stations and turn them into performers. It's an investment on CC's part. It's not even really a risk, because the format will grow. So whether they stick with AAR programming or start putting other PT hosts on, they will earn a good return on that investment (they aren't in the business of making bad investments). The network (AAR) hadn't been on long enough to see results...except for maybe the sales people kicked a$$ in Portland. The numbers would be irrelevant for at least a year.

> Some people on these boards cannot distinquish AAR from the
> progressive talk format. But AAR is one company producing
> programming for progressive talk stations. Just as several
> companies produce shows for traditional talk stations.

This is true, even on this board where the topic has been exausted. People still lump progrssive talk and the AAR network together as if they are one in the same.

> Some people want progressive talk so much they are willing to
> tolerate bad radio from AAR.

That's sad. Just because I like Rock music doesn't mean I will tolerate the crap that the labels put out now. Why should talk be any different. Demand a better product. When people stp buyng CD's the labels will start looking for better product to sell...the same can be said of talk radio.

> Some recent numbers suggest that the novelty of progressive
> talk is wearing off and listenership in the core audience is eroding.

The format hasn't been around long enough for there to be a "core" audience. Also, Arbitron has a flawed science. So even when you are number 1, never trust the numbers. Many stations in their imaging say "Arbitron Rated #1"... To me, that's admission that the science is flawed, C.Y.A. as they say.


> If progressive talk is to continue long-term, look for more and more stations > to replace individual AAR shows with programs from other
> syndicators. Look for a better and more competitive
> marketplace for progressive talk programming.

Yes, that is what you will see. The product will be better as themarketplace starts to demand better programming.

<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
> Was AAR really dumb? Or was Evan Cohen setting up the
> network to fail? If so, he almost succeeded. They had one
> non-LMA station: Clear Channel's station in Portland, OR.
> Clear Channel started to see results with progressive talk.
> Clear Channel strengthened the line-up with shows from other
> producers. Clear Channel saved progressive talk despite
> Cohen's worst efforts.

But Clear Channel did NOT "strengthen the lineup" in Portland with "shows from other producers." Until recently KPOJ got good ratings with the same lineup it began with in March 2004: AAR shows plus Ed Schultz. Now they're added a local morning host (Thom Hartmann), but they continue to run Franken, Rhodes (in PM drive), the Majority Report, Mike Malloy (all AAR shows) and Schultz. The result? KPOJ is the number one talk station and the number one AM station in 25-54 and the number-five station overall in 12+.

So why does progressive talk (with mostly AAR shows) succeed in Portland and get mediocre ratings in most other markets? The main reason is KPOJ's powerful signal, plus decent promotion. Put the same lineup on powerful signals in most big markets and, with decent promotion, you'd get similar results. And to those who say, "yeah, but Portland is a liberal city," my answer continues to be: The city of Portland, like most big cities, is liberal, but the Portland market as a whole is no more liberal than most big markets, as is evidenced by the fact that Clackamas County, the big suburban county to the south of the city, went for Bush in 2004. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 08/13/05 04:28 PM.</FONT></P>
 
The whole problem, both for AAR and for liberal partisans on this board, is thinking as though AAR were trying to win an election. Individual hosts may or may not get an audience. It just so happened that for years the most successful talk show hosts have been libertarian to conservative. It's not that some "right wing operatives" created a political strategy.<P ID="signature">______________
Did the Corinthians ever write back?</P>
 
CAB,

Looks like we are in agreement on most points.

Couple of small items:

AAR did more than just pay for clearance as Jones/Democracy Radio does. They leased the whole station, a much more expensive undertaking and one in which they assume the entire risk. The licensee just collects the rent. When AAR could not pay the rent in LA and Chicago, they were evicted. In the syndication model, the station has avails to sell and an incentive for the format or program to suceed. The LMA approach was not "necessary" as Democracy Radio has shown.

I wouldn't call BTR, USA and TRN 24/7 networks. They are syndicators. They feed programs on an a la carte basis and stations pick and choose what they want. They are not set up for a turn-key operation like the 24/7 music services. There are holes and repeats in their feed schedules. Most important, public brand identity still rests with the individual station - not the "network." The only example of a true 24/7 network I can think of is Salem. Yes, NPR does have a brand identity but even it is more of a programming service, with stations cherry picking from their programs (and from programs from PRI and other sources).

What early AAR wanted was control of the schedule. In the beginning under Cohen, even where there was no LMA in place, AAR wanted to stations to take all (the entire schedule) or nothing. Since such terms were unacceptable to potential affiliates, they did not start picking up stations until after Cohen left and the rules changed, allowing Schultz, Miller, Lionel, Hendrie, Hartmann, pre-AAR Springer and local morning shows. Cohen's all or nothing rule seems like a pretty effective way to hobble a "fledgling" operation. Again, it wasn't something they had to do as Democracy Radio demonstrates.

The one good thing Cohen did was demonstrate that progressive talk shows needed their own format and their own stations to thrive. However, I wonder what kind of role he played in splitting off the people who eventually started AAR from the people who eventually started Democracy Radio, and in selling some of those early supporters of progressive talk radio on the network model and on hiring comedians; rather than the alternative approach of finding and developing good progressive talk hosts.

The result of his actions was he got a lot of attention for AAR, mostly people predicting failure (which may have been his intent). IMHO Cohen did not kill progressive talk because: (1) There is a demand for it. (2) He did get a lot of attention and Barnum was right, there is no bad publicity. (3) He lowered expectations, which may be why so many cut AAR so much slack.
 
> In the
> beginning under Cohen, even where there was no LMA in place,
> AAR wanted to stations to take all (the entire schedule) or
> nothing. Since such terms were unacceptable to potential
> affiliates, they did not start picking up stations until
> after Cohen left and the rules changed, allowing Schultz,
> Miller, Lionel, Hendrie, Hartmann, pre-AAR Springer and
> local morning shows. Cohen's all or nothing rule seems like
> a pretty effective way to hobble a "fledgling" operation.
> Again, it wasn't something they had to do as Democracy Radio
> demonstrates.
>
This seems to be an enduring urban legend. Schultz was being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and was in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on AAR's first day. And, of course, Cohen was in charge of AAR on that day and for weeks after that. So either there was no "all or nothing rule" or it wasn't enforced in the case of the station that bills itself as "The World's First Air America Affiliate." <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 08/13/05 07:17 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> > Was AAR really dumb? Or was Evan Cohen setting up the
> > network to fail? If so, he almost succeeded. They had
> one
> > non-LMA station: Clear Channel's station in Portland, OR.
>
> > Clear Channel started to see results with progressive
> talk.
> > Clear Channel strengthened the line-up with shows from
> other
> > producers. Clear Channel saved progressive talk despite
> > Cohen's worst efforts.
>
> But Clear Channel did NOT "strengthen the lineup" in
> Portland with "shows from other producers." Until recently
> KPOJ got good ratings with the same lineup it began with in
> March 2004: AAR shows plus Ed Schultz. Now they're added a
> local morning host (Thom Hartmann), but they continue to run
> Franken, Rhodes (in PM drive), the Majority Report, Mike
> Malloy (all AAR shows) and Schultz. The result? KPOJ is
> the number one talk station and the number one AM station in
> 25-54 and the number-five station overall in 12+.
>
> So why does progressive talk (with mostly AAR shows) succeed
> in Portland and get mediocre ratings in most other markets?
> The main reason is KPOJ's powerful signal, plus decent
> promotion. Put the same lineup on powerful signals in most
> big markets and, with decent promotion, you'd get similar
> results. And to those who say, "yeah, but Portland is a
> liberal city," my answer continues to be: The city of
> Portland, like most big cities, is liberal, but the Portland
> market as a whole is no more liberal than most big markets,
> as is evidenced by the fact that Clackamas County, the big
> suburban county to the south of the city, went for Bush in
> 2004.
>


The explain WCKY in Cincinatti..... 50Kw blowtorch. Likewise in Miami. How about Seattles 50kW AAR station?
 
> The explain WCKY in Cincinatti..... 50Kw blowtorch.
> Likewise in Miami. How about Seattles 50kW AAR station?
>
I assume you're talking about the virtually useless 12+ numbers in those markets. And do you know if there's been any marketing at all in those places?

Nevertheless, WINZ in Miami, with a directional signal at night that requires six towers, has still managed to increase its 12+ numbers FIVE-FOLD over what it was getting as a Fox Sports station last spring -- and is now in a virtual tie for second place among English-language AMs, hard on the heels of WIOD -- the big conservative talker in the market.

BTW, I remember that when it was announced that WINZ was going to go lib-talk, there were loud complaints from Anglo liberals in the Miami area to the effect that after the sun went down the station couldn't be heard in many Anglo areas, while it came in fine in "ethnic" areas. Conservative Republican, anti-Castro Cubans aren't exactly Air America's target audience.

In Seattle, KPTK, which also has a directional signal at night, has almost DOUBLED its 12+ numbers since last spring, despite the fact that it's facing tough competition from long-established liberal talkers on KIRO.

WCKY in Cincinnati just switched to progressive talk in mid-January -- so it's really too soon to tell what's happening there after only one complete book (and Cincinnatti is one of the most conservative markets in the country). And from what I hear, there's been virtually no promotion of the new format.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 08/14/05 04:48 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> It just so happened that for years the most successful talk
> show hosts have been libertarian to conservative. It's not
> that some "right wing operatives" created a political
> strategy.

That, and none of them, ABSOLUTELY NONE of them, were trying to piggyback on the success of Rush Limbaugh. They just happened to be conservative too.


Riiiiight...


<P ID="signature">______________
There's nothing to see here.</P>
 
> Schultz was
> being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and was
> in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it
> switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on AAR's
> first day.

Wrong. Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR launched. It was a brilliant move. As stations started to experiment with lib talk, they would pick up Schultz so that AAR wasn't their exclusive programming source.
 
Scribbler is right, Schultz debuted first

> > Schultz was
> > being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and was
>
> > in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it
> > switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on AAR's
> > first day.
>
> Wrong. Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR
> launched. It was a brilliant move. As stations started to
> experiment with lib talk, they would pick up Schultz so that
> AAR wasn't their exclusive programming source.

Scribbler is correct, according to this excerpt from the 3rd paragraph of an article on <a target="_blank" href=http://www.bigeddieradio.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=26>this page</a> of the Ed Schultz Web site (that was taken from INSIDE RADIO.com on January 26, 2004):

In the case of Jones Radio Network, for example, it already has in the form of former All American quarterback Ed Schultz, whose three-hour (3-6pm, ET) JRN show debuted three weeks ago (1-5-2004) with an eye-popping guest list.

Air America Radio debuted on March 31, 2004.
 
Schultz Went National on 1/5/04

> > Schultz was
> > being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and was
>
> > in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it
> > switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on AAR's
> > first day.
>
> Wrong. Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR
> launched. It was a brilliant move. As stations started to
> experiment with lib talk, they would pick up Schultz so that
> AAR wasn't their exclusive programming source.
>
No, you're wrong. Jones began syndicating the Schultz show on January 5, 2004, almost three full months before the Air America launch. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens of references like this one, from Inside Radio, Jan. 26, 2004.

In the case of Jones Radio Network, for example, it already has in the form of former All American quarterback Ed Schultz, whose three-hour (3-6pm, ET) JRN show debuted three weeks ago (1-5-2004) with an eye-popping guest list.

Last January Schultz made a big thing of his first anniversary as a national show.

Note: After I posted the above I belatedly saw that Robmidmi had posted the same information. Didn't mean to pile on Barooos.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 08/16/05 03:10 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Schultz Went National on 1/5/04

> > > Schultz was
> > > being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and
> was
> >
> > > in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it
> > > switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on AAR's
>
> > > first day.
> >
> > Wrong. Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR
> > launched. It was a brilliant move. As stations started
> to
> > experiment with lib talk, they would pick up Schultz so
> that
> > AAR wasn't their exclusive programming source.
> >
> No, you're wrong. Jones began syndicating the Schultz show
> on January 5, 2004, almost three full months before the Air
> America launch. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens
> of references like this one, from Inside Radio, Jan. 26,
> 2004.
>
> In the case of Jones Radio Network, for example, it already
> has in the form of former All American quarterback Ed
> Schultz, whose three-hour (3-6pm, ET) JRN show debuted three
> weeks ago (1-5-2004) with an eye-popping guest list.
>
> Last January Schultz made a big thing of his first
> anniversary as a national show.

Jones knew that AAR was going to launch. That's the only reason they started syndicated the Ed Schultz Show in January. I believe that he had two affiliates in January and February. One in North Dakota and another in Needles, CA. Schultz didn't get any significant distribution until AAR launched in April. Jones' plan was to piggyback on the AAR roll-out. If you are suggesting otherwise you are wrong.
 
Re: Schultz Went National on 1/5/04

> > > > Schultz was
> > > > being syndicated months before AAR went on the air and
>
> > was
> > >
> > > > in the initial lineup at Clear Channel's KPOJ when it
> > > > switched to progressive talk (AAR plus Schultz) on
> AAR's
> >
> > > > first day.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR
> > > launched. It was a brilliant move. As stations started
>
> > to
> > > experiment with lib talk, they would pick up Schultz so
> > that
> > > AAR wasn't their exclusive programming source.
> > >
> > No, you're wrong. Jones began syndicating the Schultz show
>
> > on January 5, 2004, almost three full months before the
> Air
> > America launch. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens
>
> > of references like this one, from Inside Radio, Jan. 26,
> > 2004.
> >
> > In the case of Jones Radio Network, for example, it
> already
> > has in the form of former All American quarterback Ed
> > Schultz, whose three-hour (3-6pm, ET) JRN show debuted
> three
> > weeks ago (1-5-2004) with an eye-popping guest list.
> >
> > Last January Schultz made a big thing of his first
> > anniversary as a national show.
>
> Jones knew that AAR was going to launch. That's the only
> reason they started syndicated the Ed Schultz Show in
> January. I believe that he had two affiliates in January
> and February. One in North Dakota and another in Needles,
> CA. Schultz didn't get any significant distribution until
> AAR launched in April. Jones' plan was to piggyback on the
> AAR roll-out. If you are suggesting otherwise you are
> wrong.

My point was that you were flatly wrong when you said, "Jones started to syndicate Schultz after AAR launched." And yes, Schultz wasn't going anywhere until he piggybacked on Air America, even though he would have you believe otherwise.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom