FredLeonard said:
Jason Roberts said:
Actually, I'll agree with a lot of what you say here.
There is a "tier 2" and "tier 3" of conservative talk hosts who don't do nearly as well, ratings wise as the Rush's and Hannity's of the world. (Just ask the number of sub-par AM stations that think switching to talk will "save" them) And yes, the audience is particular about the top talk hosts. Early adopters of Rush in the early 90's learned that the audience follows him when they would lose him to a bigger stick even back then. Sounds like CBS should have read the ratings history of these shows, perhaps.
Actually, CBS should know that from their own history. CBS killed WCAU after WWDB picked up Rush and scored big. WWDB never did recover when WPHT brought Rush back to 1210 AM.
The thing that has always puzzled me is why broadcasters go with the (well-named) "tier 2" and even "tier 3" conservative hosts, rather than counter-programming with progressive talk. Progressive talk generally does as well in share numbers as "tier 2 or 3" conservatives plus, as part of a cluster, expands the cluster's reach.
It also puzzles me why almost no one has tried the non-ideological water-cooler talk format of NJ 101.5, which is far better than ideological talk at delivering the money demos. It seems the suits have fixated on the idea that the only way is to imitate Rush.
You're making some reasonable points. Let me put on my "tin foil programmer's hat" for a minute.
One thing I've noted from the prog-talk stations I've been able to listen to (and this may not be true of them all), is that the imaging is, frankly, really not always that good. Now, realize, I'm talking stationality here, not so much the individual programs. These stations sometimes take a very dry "radio for the rest of us" attitude. While that's not necessarily a bad line, I think more creative imagining, (like..."show you have a sense of humor") coupled with a solid commitment to local news might help. And, that local news needs to be promoted well. Local news, I believe (and I've told you this, I think) is a lynchpin to a successful talk station of any genre.
One criticism of the early days of the format was that it was "too dry" and "not entertaining". And, I think some of those criticisms were valid. Realistically, it's not "revolution" they're selling (I cringe when I hear a station using that line.) It's "radio". And, it's also not rocket science.
Fox News (and the Rush Limbaugh show, for that matter) was created because of the "perception" (whether you politically believe it or not) of an audience that felt it was not being served by mainstream media. And, history has shown they were right. MSNBC's latest incantation, despite its most recent ratings collapse did show what was obvious to me (though not to all people), that they were trying to be the "Anti-Fox". (Read: your idea of stations using prog talk as an "alternative".) Is there an audience for it? Logically, the answer is yes. (And the ratings uptick for MSNBC until just recently seems to indicate that.) But, one has to find a way to "put it all together" for it to work.
These are programming strategies, not political ideologies. One must separate the two, I think, to understand this. (josh: are you paying attention to this?)
As for radio managements, let's agree on one thing. They want what makes the most money. So right now the "default" position, because of ratings success) is conservative talk. Any conservative talk for some groups. And, that's a problem, too. Not all shows are that good. And not all of it works.
OK...accuse me of not "hewing to the party line here". But, I've always been a student of programming strategy first.
