How I would grow liberal talk radio

[hammondo]

I see at least one LIBERAL claptrap that is longer than most of the rest
in this tread.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Re: How I would grow liberal talk radio-TIO

I am particularly amused with the "top-secret" research one thread participant claims to have which he can use to make sweeping judgments about ... well, everything, but while he can make judgments, others who request the underlying facts are told they can't have them.

Are you equally amused by the fact that the operators of this website absolutely forbid the posting of Arbitron numbers because they are copyrighted information? Are you amused that the operators of this website absolutely forbid the posting of copyrighted articles, and that the Managing Editor in here routinely deletes all posts that contain copyrighted materials?

Do you no respect for either the copyright laws or contract laws about obeying signed non-disclosure agreements? Wait, don't answer that question. We already know the answer. You're a liberal. You only have to obey the laws you agree with.

 

[MikeD2]

Re: How I would grow liberal talk radio-TIO

Air America made two huge mistakes: They tried to get too big too fast, and they (by and large) were not entertaining.
The 800lbs gorilla of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, is the 800lbs gorilla because above all else he is entertaining. Hell even
libs listen to him because he is entertaining.

If I were starting an Air America clone I would have a parent company and a subsidiary syndication company. Then you
hire two hosts. The most entertaining you can find, with the ability to paint the vision you want for the future. Of course
it helps if your party has a vision for the future. Then you push these hosts as hard as you can and get them on the air
on as many stations as you can. If all you can get on some stations is one host thats good for now, we can work on
getting the other one later.
Now after (hopefully) you have both hosts on in as many markets as you can for a good length of time hire a third host,
and start pushing him/her. Now that the syndication arm is chugging right along (we hope) we go back to the parent
company.
The parent company by now should set up a broadcast arm and start looking to buy a radio station., since it has money
coming in from the syndication division. It doesn't have to be a large station. A medium or small would do. And I would
suggest a blue state or area. Then you place your syndicated hosts on the new station along with local hosts to round
out the day.
Buy another station as soon as you can with out running your self into the red. Now you have a network. Ok it's only two
stations, but a network is a network. Right?
Keep adding stations and hosts and before you know it you've got a big network with entertaining hosts and making money.
And remember any hosts not on your network can be syndicated to stations outside of your network. (of course you already
knew that). ;D

I look forward to the replies.
Have a great day.

MikeD

 

[Radio_Realist]

Two things.

1. This forum has a strict policy against posting copyrighter material. The reports I have mentioned are copyrighted. If anyone has a problem with this forum's rule against posting copyrighted material, take it up with the Managing Editor.

2. No one quoted Pravda. However, one of us (namely me) repeated an old joke about Pravda. The joke was funny because even though it was a made-up story, there was enough of the air of reality about it to make it seem like it could have been true.

Isn't it considered proper to repeat well-known old jokes to make a point?

 

[NE Miss Radio]

Then when you reach a critical mass of stations, flip them all to liberal talk. The Salems and others will feel double-crossed, but it'll be too late for them to do anything about it.

You are assuming that all you have to do to succeed is have is liberal talk. AA had lots of it, and how are they doing?

You would be much better served to find out what listeners want but can't get (yet).

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Re: How I would grow liberal talk radio-TIO

I am particularly amused with the "top-secret" research one thread participant claims to have which he can use to make sweeping judgments about ... well, everything, but while he can make judgments, others who request the underlying facts are told they can't have them.

Are you equally amused by the fact that the operators of this website absolutely forbid the posting of Arbitron numbers because they are copyrighted information? Are you amused that the operators of this website absolutely forbid the posting of copyrighted articles, and that the Managing Editor in here routinely deletes all posts that contain copyrighted materials?

Do you no respect for either the copyright laws or contract laws about obeying signed non-disclosure agreements? Wait, don't answer that question. We already know the answer. You're a liberal. You only have to obey the laws you agree with.

For all we know, Realist, you have no experience in radio, or at least less than I do.

So until you stop hiding behind your username and prove it, any comments about research you saw have no credibility.

And everytime I see this bullsh-t from you, I am ready to take it outside.

 

[Radio_Realist]

For all we know, Realist, you have no experience in radio, or at least less than I do.

Maybe so, maybe no. The important question to ask regarding what anyone in here says is not "What are this person's credentials?". The important question to ask is "Does what this person say makes sense?". Regardless of the source, ask yourself if what I have said makes sense. Does it conform to your own real world experiences?

That's the acid test for what anyone posts in here.

I have said that I worked in radio a long time ago, and found more and better opportunities in marketing and advertising. But if you look at what I have said in here objectively, especially the things I have said about the business of radio being similar to other businesses, you will see validity and merit in what I have posted.

Look at how many people have attempted to be talk show hosts, and failed, despite having what looked like impeccable credentials. Look at how many have succeeded despite incredibly meagre credentials. The #1 talk show host is a college drop-out who spent some of his career in the marketing department of a baseball team.

Which of these two opposite opinions makes the most sense? (1) Liberal talk radio has only performed well below all expectations because it wasn't tried long enough, or on the right stations, or because the weather was bad, or because Al Franken has a funny haircut. Or, (2) liberal talk radio has performed below expectations because the expectations were too high in the first place. There aren't as many people out there who want to listen to liberal talk radio as the people who started liberal talk radio networks thought there were.

Which of those two arguments hold water? Which of those two would an objective observer who had some reasonable familiarity with selling products to the marketplace would regard as the most probable?

I have seen proprietary reports that actually measure the size of the potential market for liberal talk radio with a high degree of precision. If you work in radio, you've probably seen Arbitron ratings down at the quarter-hour level, divided into precise demographic groups. And, if you work in radio, you know that obtaining that detailed Arbitron data costs money, and that revealing it or posting it on the internet is illegal. So why do you have so much trouble believing that Arbitron numbers aren't the only data that is proprietary, copyrighted, and that can't be legally posted on the internet?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

For all we know, Realist, you have no experience in radio, or at least less than I do.

Maybe so, maybe no. The important question to ask regarding what anyone in here says is not "What are this person's credentials?". The important question to ask is "Does what this person say makes sense?". Regardless of the source, ask yourself if what I have said makes sense. Does it conform to your own real world experiences?

That's the acid test for what anyone posts in here.

I have said that I worked in radio a long time ago, and found more and better opportunities in marketing and advertising. But if you look at what I have said in here objectively, especially the things I have said about the business of radio being similar to other businesses, you will see validity and merit in what I have posted.

Look at how many people have attempted to be talk show hosts, and failed, despite having what looked like impeccable credentials. Look at how many have succeeded despite incredibly meagre credentials. The #1 talk show host is a college drop-out who spent some of his career in the marketing department of a baseball team.

Which of these two opposite opinions makes the most sense? (1) Liberal talk radio has only performed well below all expectations because it wasn't tried long enough, or on the right stations, or because the weather was bad, or because Al Franken has a funny haircut. Or, (2) liberal talk radio has performed below expectations because the expectations were too high in the first place. There aren't as many people out there who want to listen to liberal talk radio as the people who started liberal talk radio networks thought there were.

Which of those two arguments hold water? Which of those two would an objective observer who had some reasonable familiarity with selling products to the marketplace would regard as the most probable?

I have seen proprietary reports that actually measure the size of the potential market for liberal talk radio with a high degree of precision. If you work in radio, you've probably seen Arbitron ratings down at the quarter-hour level, divided into precise demographic groups. And, if you work in radio, you know that obtaining that detailed Arbitron data costs money, and that revealing it or posting it on the internet is illegal. So why do you have so much trouble believing that Arbitron numbers aren't the only data that is proprietary, copyrighted, and that can't be legally posted on the internet?

Because the argument over proprietary information has been used with everything from voting machines to pet food. And we are seeing the consequences with both.

 

[ajhenderson]

 

[Radio_Realist]

Because the argument over proprietary information has been used with everything from voting machines to pet food.

Do you deny the fact that it is not only against the rules of this forum to post proprietary, copyrighted information, it is also illegal to do so without the owners consent? I don't care whether you like the truth or not, but the truth is the truth.

With all I posted, why is your response only to nit-pick over something that anyone can see is valid? Why no response about whether or not my argument makes sense purely at face value?

And, for what it's worth, we aren't talking about voting machines or pet food, are we?

Sometimes I wonder why any of us even bother to respond in here. If the discussions get interesting or intense or anything other than bland or boring, they get deleted or moved. It reminds me of talk radio back in the 1960's.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Because the argument over proprietary information has been used with everything from voting machines to pet food.

Do you deny the fact that it is not only against the rules of this forum to post proprietary, copyrighted information, it is also illegal to do so without the owners consent? I don't care whether you like the truth or not, but the truth is the truth.

With all I posted, why is your response only to nit-pick over something that anyone can see is valid? Why no response about whether or not my argument makes sense purely at face value?

And, for what it's worth, we aren't talking about voting machines or pet food, are we?

Sometimes I wonder why any of us even bother to respond in here. If the discussions get interesting or intense or anything other than bland or boring, they get deleted or moved. It reminds me of talk radio back in the 1960's.

Because you say too many things on this board that make us wonder if we should even consider anything you say as valid. And I say this as one who handles confidential information on a daily basis. My job description, including what I get paid, are a matter of public record.

As for the truth...to quote Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." The truth in this case is that there are people on this board who will call you when you cite reports in your arguments, but you give no specifics to back it up. I find your comments on the research you cite as valid as the arguments that abstinence-only education is working.

I may have been a factor in one regular board poster on the Columbus board saying "Good-bye" when he called on the carpet. And when I did call him on the carpet, the posts went to Take It Outside.

I won't hesitate to do the same thing to a former radio guy from Pittsburgh who admits to selling out and going into marketing.

 

[Radio_Realist]

My job description, including what I get paid, are a matter of public record.

Mine is not.

who admits to selling out and going into marketing

I did not "sell out". I moved up. We're talking about radio in here, not taking Holy Orders or selling cleaning products.

 

[dampier]

I see at least one LIBERAL claptrap that is longer than most of the rest
in this tread.

Hmmm... when you can't debate the merits, compare sizes instead. If that works for you.

Because the argument over proprietary information has been used with everything from voting machines to pet food.

Do you deny the fact that it is not only against the rules of this forum to post proprietary, copyrighted information, it is also illegal to do so without the owners consent? I don't care whether you like the truth or not, but the truth is the truth.

Oh please... the victim mentality at work here? This sounds like Tom Cruise proving the merits of Scientology, because he "knows the truth!" Here's an amazing thing that we have on the Internet. It's called a hyperlink. If they won't let you post copyrighted articles here, they will let you link to them. So gather your evidence file together and post it as a series of links, allowing each of us to consider your arguments in the context of the facts you are using to bolster them. If you can't do that, it's nothing more than empty rhetoric and the bottom falls out.

Sometimes I wonder why any of us even bother to respond in here. If the discussions get interesting or intense or anything other than bland or boring, they get deleted or moved. It reminds me of talk radio back in the 1960's.

I don't personally need intensity to debate an issue. I just would like to see some facts accompany the arguments. When you don't have the facts, you can bring out the volume knob try and scream your points across with more heated rhetoric. But until we see the evidence, that's all it is - rhetoric.

 

[pbf1]

Onesidedness

I see at least one LIBERAL claptrap that is longer than most of the rest
in this tread.

Why not call out the original post ("conservative claptrap")? This post was merely in response.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If they won't let you post copyrighted articles here, they will let you link to them.

For the last time. These are not "articles". They are confidential, proprietary marketing research reports. The company that paid for those reports will not permit anyone to give the data away for free. This isn't stuff that was published in a magazine. It was serious business research.

I am not going to risk a lawsuit for breach of contract by posting intellectual property that I do not own the rights to just to convince a bunch of people who wouldn't believe the truth if it came up and bit them on the ass.

You and the rest of the ones who keep nagging about "I have to see the research myself" keep ignoring the supplemental proof that is staring you in the face. Whether the research I have seen confirms this statement or not, what anyone who keeps their eyes and ears open and who actually has everyday contact with real human beings should understand this without any other proof besides personal observation. If large numbers of radio listeners wanted to listen to liberal talk radio, then liberal talk radio hosts wouldn't usually get low ratings.

Forget challenging me about "proof" of what should be as obvious as the sky being blue. Where's the "proof" that all the liberal talk radio programs that failed recently would have succeeded if only some cosmic force or rich sugar daddy would have just kept the on the air a little bit longer?

What it appears is that those of you who still think liberal radio will work, despite it's terrible track record and limited handful of success stories, can't support your contention that it will work, so you nitpick whether or not I have enough credentials that what I say can be accepted as true.

Open your freakin' eyes! Look at the abysmal track record of liberal talk radio. Point to a handful of examples of a liberal talk show here or there as if they proved that liberal talk radio can succeed as a mainstream format in a majority of markets. You say you can't believe the research I refer to without seeing it, and yet you challenge me to believe that liberal talk radio can work in the face of no proof or evidence at all! You challenge us to believe that liberal talk radio can work in the face of failure after failure after failure, and yet you challenge my assertions because you haven't seen the proof.

You want to see real proof?

You want to see real evidence?

Try tuning in the Al Franken Show tomorrow. Try finding Air America on the dial in most cities of the United States. Try finding more than a handful of liberal talk hosts who regularly and consistently beat first string conservative talk hosts in direct, head-to-head competition.

You can't find those things because they don't exist.

I have submitted a reason why liberal talk radio doesn't work. If the research I mention was wrong, that only proves that the reason I suggested would explain the failure of liberal talk radio wasn't the correct reason. That would mean that there is a different reason why liberal talk radio fails. It would not mean that liberal talk radio hasn't failed, or that it won't fail again it tried again.

So, if you don't believe that liberal talk radio has failed because not enough people want to listen to liberal talk radio, if you reject that reason, then please tell us why you think it failed? To what do you attribute the failure of liberal talk radio to attract listeners, if not the fact that people don't want to listen to it?

Is the government preventing them from listening?

Are the mobs of people who want to listen to liberal talk radio kept away from their radios by an evil and sinister conspiracy?

If my reason is wrong, then tell us what the real reason is.

 

[radiophiler]

I no longer work in news/talk radio, but did for 11 years. I have been watching the liberal talk stations with some interest.
Here's how I see the current situation: There are several markets where liberal talk stations are getting 1.0+ ratings, even a few 2.0+. Yes, there are those getting below a 1.0.
I could also point to several sports talk stations (one, WPEN in my home market, Philly), that get below a 1.0 rating. But no one is saying that people don't want to listen to sports talk.
For that matter, sports talk stations that get above a 2.0 are few and far in between. But the men 18-54 audience for sports talk is one that advertisers want, so low ratings tend not to hurt these stations. And many of them outside the top 10 or 20 markets are all satellite or mostly satellite syndicated programs, so they're cheap to run. Gee, sounds kinda like liberal talk. So if sports talk has survived, maybe liberal talk will, too. After all, the ratings show the demos for liberal talk are younger than conservative talk - something advertisers want.

Liberal talk had a shake out recently. Several stations dropped the format. But it's still around. There have been other types of formats that have come and almost completely disappeared. Remember all 70s? All 80s? Almost nowhere to be found now. Yet, many liberal talk stations continue to stick around.

And I predict they'll continue to stick around. Why? Because many markets have more than two AM stations. Once someone else has taken the talkradio (conservative talk) and sports formats, what's left? Being the second-tier conservative talker or sports talker? Check the ratings now available on this Web site or on Radio and Records. There are few second-tier stations in these two formats that do well in the ratings.

Some station owners would rather be the only liberal talk station in the market rather than the second-rated conservative talk or sports talk station. Liberal talk is another option for AM operators. It'll be around for some time to come.

And as for the mentioned market research: I'm sorry, but until I see it, I reserve the right not to believe in it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

But no one is saying that people don't want to listen to sports talk.

And no one, myself included, is say that no people want to listen to liberal talk. All I have said is that the number of people who want to listen to liberal talk radio is fewer than the number of people who want to listen to conservative talk. "Fewer" means "not as many", it doesn't mean "none".

And I won't dispute that some liberal talk stations will survive as profitable, niche marketing enterprises. But this thread is about "How I would grow liberal talk radio", as if somehow it could be made to be as popular, with as large an audience, as conservative talk radio. And the fact is that liberal talk radio will never grow to that size. Your assessment of the situation is correct.

I don't need to see links to any sort of proof to recognize that what you say makes sense. It passes the test of being quite plausible. When you say that liberal talk radio will be a little market niche product making profits with meager ratings, I can recognize the common sense in that.

I'm sorry, but until I see it, I reserve the right not to believe in it.

I'm not asking anyone to believe it as some sort of gospel truth. As I said, it was only about the reason why the situation that you described is the way that it is.

So, you appear to believe that liberal talk radio will only survive as a small, niche marketing format with low ratings but possibly good demographics. (And I believe that is an accurate summary of what your post says.) I also presume that you'll accept the premise that radio formats that get low ratings get those low ratings because there aren't large numbers of people who want to hear those formats. Since the marketing research I have talked about says the exact same thing, why can you not believe it?

You have made a post that indicates that only a small number of people want to listen to liberal talk radio. I said the marketing research I have seen says that only a small number of people want to listen to liberal talk radio. So what is it that you can't believe until you see it?

 

[radiophiler]

To advance the original topic of this thread:
My formula for improving liberal talk radio would be:
1) Get the format on stations with stronger signals. I can't recommend the original theory in this thread of how to do that. I can't imagine such a scheme to wrestle 5,000 or 50,000 watt stations out of the hands of religious broadcasters. How would I get liberal talk on stronger signals? Good question. I'm still working on that.

2) Local morning shows. The stations that have them do better.

3) Pay attention to the station. Don't put it on automation and walk away without monitoring it. Some of the dumped stations were imfamous for on-air screwups because management "set it and forgot it."

4) Don't necessarily brand yourself "liberal" or "progressive" talk. That locks you in to a niche that's too narrow. My favorite proposed branding phrase, "Talk radio for the rest of us." That way, if you want to slip in some non-ideological advice shows or even a sports show or two, your're not married to the "liberal" moniker.

5) Pick the syndicated shows with a sense of entertainment. Stephanie Miller is my prototype for this.

On the question posed to me at the end of the previous post: Here's why I reserve the right not to believe in something I haven't seen. Let's say I'm walking along a city street, and a complete stranger comes up to me and says, "I have research that proves X." I say, "that's interesting, show me the research." The stranger says, "I can't. It's proprietary. You'll just have to believe me."

How many of us would believe that?

Just because someone writes something on an Internet board doesn't necessarily mean it's true - or false.

 

[Radio_Realist]

a complete stranger comes up to me and says, "I have research that proves X."

That's where we differ. My reaction would depend on what "X" was. If someone said, "I have research that proves that the sky is blue", my reaction would be, "But I already know that the sky is blue. You don't have to prove that to me."

If the stranger says, "I have proof that if you strike a match, it's a chemical reaction that will make it burst into flame", then I'd say, "Well, I know that matches burst into flame when struck. I suppose it could be because of a chemical reaction. But whether it does or not, the important thing is whether or not I have a match when I need to start a fire."

Granted, if the stranger said, "I think that even though doing this thing has failed every time it has been tried, if we try it again, it might be different the next time. However, I don't even pretend to have proof", I'd say, "Whether you have 'proof' or not is irrelevant. If something has failed all the other times it was tried, odds are that it won't work the next time, either".

So, what proof do you offer that simply putting liberal talk radio on stronger signalled stations will work this time when it didn't work the last time?

What proof do you have that a liberal morning talk show will make a difference?

What proof do you have that paying attention to details will make a difference?

What proof do you have that pretending that you aren't liberal will work better than admitting that you are?

What proof do you have that Stephanie Miller isn't the only liberal talk host with a sense of entertainment?

 

[evnlee]

We tried Air America with the 2nd best signal in Atlanta on AM, and it didn't work.

1690 has a good night signal relative to say, 640, but I wouldn't call it number two, and in any event, it's a long way from number one (WSB) to number two. 1690 was also unpromoted. Many AA fans only found out it was carrying AA when the papers announced the station was being sold. By the way, 1690 did occasionally make the ratings as progressive talk. It hasn't made the ratings since the new (crackpot) owner took it over and used it for a trainwreck format of opera, Beatles tunes, and birdcalls. Nor has the owner's other AM in Atlanta, 1160. If he were a sane man, he'd reconsider Air America...

more 'untruthiness' and slime from Smedge.

WWAA only 'showed up' in a couple trends, the programming did not then nor does it now ever 'show up', in any real sense.

It was promoted, not only by a decent media roll out,but with visits from Franken and co, and working hand in hand with the 2nd most read weekly in the state. The signal is strong, and yet Err Amerika failed, just as the current programming is now. The only difference is the sugar daddy. The current owner cannot be bothered with the ratings, he just wants his own signal to sell some spots and play his crap. NO 'sugardaddy' stepped up to protect or buy out the signal, and there are many, many millionaire liberals in this city. They did not 'save' liberal talk, because to them, it was not worth it. That's really all the answer, right there, no?

I would not call Sheldon Drobny a 'crackpot' because he wants to buy stations and put libtalk on it, just like I dont insult the current owner of the now defunct Err Amerika signal.

Liberals in this city already have what they need and like: NPR. Want to 'grow' libtalk? Destroy it's principle competition, NPR. That's a freebie