How I would grow liberal talk radio

[SeanMGilbow]

A few interesting developments from Columbus, as posted on the Columbus board:

Click here for that article:

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/life/stories/2007/05/09/2_ARBRAT.ART_ART_05-09-07_D5_126KJBC.html

Radio ratings
Format flip-flopping fails to help WYTS gain ground
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:45 AM
By Tim Feran
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Going conservative doesn't necessarily pay.

WYTS (1230 AM) found out the hard way after it switched from a liberal/
progressive format to a mainly conservative one in December.

Ratings for the station dropped according to the latest Arbitron radio survey, which polled central Ohio listeners from Jan. 11 to April 14: The station's ranking in the market, always near the bottom, fell to dead last.

----------

And as one Columbus poster eloquently put it:

Tim Feran got it right; he knew what the big story was this time around. And it almost made me choke on my Raisin Bran this morning as I read why Clear Channel is going to continue WYTS' current format in spite of the drop -- because it wants talent like Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Savage to remain "tied up" and unavailable to rival stations. Yeah, right, there's a broadcast company out there that wishes it could just steal 'em all away ... because IT wants to be in last place next time!!!

----------

And from http:ltradio.blogspot.com

The current strategy of WYTS is to serve as a flanker of sorts. Meaning that they tie up Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and sports talker Jim Rome and keep other stations from grabbing them. Namely WTDA. Or any other FM station in town that decides to jump into the talk fray. It's an oft-used strategy, and in this case, it prevents competitors from becoming too competitive with Clear Channel's local gravy train, WTVN. In addition, WYTS serves as an account executive throw-in special, meaning that they have a little something-something to offer to clients who purchase ad time on WTVN.

Oh, one bit of ignorance on the part of the Realist from Pittsburgh:

You want to see real proof?

You want to see real evidence?

Try tuning in the Al Franken Show tomorrow.

Franken's talk show ended in February as he pursues a bid for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota.

Makes me wonder if the Realist uses a similar marketing strategy.

It wouldn't surprise me, since the Realist's home of Pittsburgh and Daryl Park's home of Cincinnati lie along the same river.

I'll refresh you on Daryl Parks, with help of baroosk at http://talkingradio.blogspot.com:

On Monday we posted a story about how Clear Channel’s Cincinnati Operations Manager, Darryl Parks had challenged our accusation that he was instrumental in the purge of the Liberal talk radio format in three Ohio markets -- WSAI/1360 in Cincinnati, WTPG/1230 in Columbus and WARF/1350 in Akron.

Parks, who identified himself as "the Grim Reaper to ‘progressive’ talk radio," claimed on his blog that he was "not that powerful," and "if the radio sucks, the program will be on a suicide mission all by itself. "

Then on Tuesday we posted a story about the launch of a syndicated talk radio show. The Mario Solis-Marich Show debuted yesterday on two Entravision stations -- KHRO/1650 in El Paso and KNVO-FM/101.1 in McAllen-Brownsville, targeting the booming Hispanic market in an English language format.

Now, today we are reporting on the strange confluence of these two stories. It seems that Parks and rest of the nutty Clear Channel management team in Cincinnati decided to pull down about a dozen billboards that contained a blatantly offensive message that offended many members of community in general and virtually all Hispanics in particular.

The billboards, created by Clear Channel’s marketing department and the Lamar Advertising Agency, were intended to promote WLW/700, which is referred to in Cincinnati as "The Big One." So what those creative ad guys came up with were billboards showing a donkey and a man wearing a sombrero with the slogan "The Big Juan." (Get it?)


You can read not only the rest of the story to get the reaction, but you can get a concurring viewpoint from Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney at his blog.

Baroosk, by the way, is a regular poster here himself, so I'm sure he wouldn't mind the posting of actual evidence to counteract the Realist's lack thereof.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You want to see real proof?

You want to see real evidence?

Try tuning in the Al Franken Show tomorrow.

Franken's talk show ended in February as he pursues a bid for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota.

Well, Duh!!! My point was that you cannot tune in Al Franken's show because it failed. The proof is the fact that he isn't on the air anymore. He quit and moved on to tilt at a different windmill.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind the posting of actual evidence to counteract the Realist's lack thereof.

Where did you post any evidence that refutes the assertion that the reason why liberal talk radio has failed is that not enough people want to listen to it?

You list a handful of stations that stopped carrying liberal talk, with no mention of how well those stations might have been doing carrying liberal talk, and that's supposed to disprove the assertion that liberal talk hasn't worked nationwide because there aren't enough people across the nation who want to listen to it?

Where is the evidence of hordes of people crying out for more liberal talk stations? Where is the proof that the listeners are out there, and would tune in liberal talk radio this time even though few of them did so that last time a national liberal talk radio network was attempted?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Where did you post any evidence that refutes the assertion that the reason why liberal talk radio has failed is that not enough people want to listen to it?

[/quote]

Where do you post any evidence to back your assertion?

Oh, wait. It's proprietary information.

Nice try, Realist.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Where do you post any evidence to back your assertion?

Did you not read any of the subsequent posts? Can you name any radio format that generally draws high ratings in all markets for which there are not a large number of listeners who want to listen to it? Can you suggest any reason why liberal talk radio generally draws low ratings other than because not enough people want to listen to it?

How much proof does it take to "prove" that low ratings are caused by a shortage of listeners?

 

[evnlee]

Sean doesn't get it.

You will never be able to get him to understand that you do not want to break the rules to prove a point to him that he will never understand in any case.

He used 1 credible source for his point on WYTS, and 2 'bloggers'. :

Even the Columbus Dispatch said this :"The station's ranking in the market, always near the bottom, fell to dead last." So, that great 'libtalk' that preceeded the switch did not bode well. Now let's move on to the other 'excuses', no promotion, weak signal, bad or 'crazy' management, etc....

However, for underperforming libtalkers that switched to other formats ( sports, hispanic ) not all of them fell to the bottom. Some actually IMPROVED. Some stayed the same ( as evidenced here in Atlanta ).

The simple proof is all around : there is not enough of a viable market for libtalk nationwide.If so, Air America would not have failed. Now, there are certain markets where it can flourish, but it cannot hope to compete with it's conservative counterparts on a syndicated level.

My liberal friends that listen to radio explained to me that they have no interest in listening to 'progressive talk'. They prefer NPR or music formats.


I don't think libtalk can ever hope to truly 'compete' on terrestrial radio. The problem is, they spent a decade trying to marginalize Limbaugh, while he was 'growing the field'. Now, after pointing to 'talk radio' and : rolling thier eyes, they want to jump in. It doesn't work like that. You cannot point to a format and decry it for 10 years, and then hope your choir will sing that song.

The best hope for growing libtalk? 2 options: federal police power mandates, or satellite/internet based platforms.

 

[Radio_Realist]

prove a point to him that he will never understand in any case.

I have gathered that. I wonder if someone who worked in music format radio would require a link to "proof" that radio stations that program polka music tend to get low ratings because there aren't large numbers of people who want to listen to polka music.

BTW, I conducted some informal research on my own, though the results were written longhand on a piece of lined tablet paper. I asked a semi-random sample of about a dozen people who don't work in radio, but who listen to the radio this question: "Would you agree that radio that stations that get low ratings get low ratings because not many people want to listen to them?"

Out of the 12 people I polled, none disagreed with that statement.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Having done successful "liberal" talk radio in a very conservative market, I discovered the key is to be entertaining while discussing serious subjects. I use the word "liberal" within the social context. Any talk show host who is not governed by an ideology, and is strictly committed to formulating opinions based upon well established facts, will have to formulate opinions that go contrary to that of the "Conservative Hosts" have been saying forthe last four years, or demonstrate an inability to use logic in the formulation of opinions. Again, the key to success in talk radio is to be someone people like to listen to even if they disagree with you most of the time. The Air America crew just doesn't have any talent. They do not entertain. They do not have much class.

 

[852RadioDude]

Where were you successful?

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Where were you successful?

WVOC, Columbia from '96-'99. My Sunday Morning Talk show reached third in its time slot and was the subject of a feature artice in The Nov. 6 1998 edition of the State.

I took the Sunday Morning slot on WISW 1320 in the spring of '03. By the fall Arbitron I had taken that time slot from nowhewre to fifth.

Both efforts were also rewarded by abundant sponsors who were more than happy to ofer a breath of fresh air to the Columbia market.

I am now doing a Saturday Night show on an FM station is the Upstate that I hope to have syndicated on a network of privately owned FM stations across the state.

 

[evnlee]

Where were you successful?

WVOC, Columbia from '96-'99. My Sunday Morning Talk show reached third in its time slot and was the subject of a feature artice in The Nov. 6 1998 edition of the State.

I took the Sunday Morning slot on WISW 1320 in the spring of '03. By the fall Arbitron I had taken that time slot from nowhewre to fifth.

Both efforts were also rewarded by abundant sponsors who were more than happy to ofer a breath of fresh air to the Columbia market.

I am now doing a Saturday Night show on an FM station is the Upstate that I hope to have syndicated on a network of privately owned FM stations across the state.

first, a tip of the hat to you David. Well done.

However, doing a 'weekend' show and a 5-day-a-week show in drive time is another animal altogether. Many times the 'liberal' show on a 'conservative' signal is on the weekends. That does not speak to the effect of 'growing' a liberal talk show that competes with the big boys.

It's kind of apples and oranges.

You are right about the entertainment quotient. I wish you luck!

 

[Nate Wesley]

You cannot point to a format and decry it for 10 years, and then hope your choir will sing that song.

It isn't about the 'format', it's the audience. People who like R&B don't go campaigning against the local country station. If a station that plays R&B signs on, they get happy and tune in.

For about twenty years, talk radio catered solely to one audience. Radio got smart-- liberal talk radio represents an effort to GROW audience who doesn't already listen the oft-profitable format. Therefore, it's incessently stupid to assume or insist that one effort is supposed to take down the other. I've never worked in radio at all, yet I understand this.

 

[evnlee]

You cannot point to a format and decry it for 10 years, and then hope your choir will sing that song.

It isn't about the 'format', it's the audience. People who like R&B don't go campaigning against the local country station. If a station that plays R&B signs on, they get happy and tune in.

For about twenty years, talk radio catered solely to one audience. Radio got smart-- liberal talk radio represents an effort to GROW audience who doesn't already listen the oft-profitable format. Therefore, it's incessently stupid to assume or insist that one effort is supposed to take down the other. I've never worked in radio at all, yet I understand this.

we have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that for over a decade, the 'talk format' on AM was viewed with suspicion or outright derision amongst the 'audience' you are hoping will tune in, and I think that damages them on a nationally syndicated level, now that they want to use these same outlets.

In marginalizing Limbaugh for all those years, they provided him with a safe place to throw stones, and now most liberals that listen to talk at all, are tuning in NPR. And they have no desire to 'give the liberal talker' a chance, because when they did, it was boring, so they went back to NPR, or music.

So now, they have some entertaining libtalkers out there ( Stephanie Miller ) but the 'audience' is gone. They are listening to music, sports, NPR or thier ipods.

JMHO.

 

[Radio_Realist]

It isn't about the 'format', it's the audience.

You are correct about that. You seemed to understand exactly the situation when you said, "People who like R&B don't go campaigning against the local country station. If a station that plays R&B signs on, they get happy and tune in." That is exactly and completely correct.

The point you miss is that talk radio is on the same level as music radio in the overall scheme of things. Just as your example of the existence of two mostly separate segments existing within the music radio audience (R&B and country), so too are there two different segments in the talk radio audience, liberal and conservative. And just as there will always be a small portion of cross-over music fans who like more than one genre of music, there will also be a small portion of cross-over talk fans who like more than one genre of talk.

But no one gets rich programming either a music radio or a talk radio by targeting any small portion of fans who like multiple genre. So, station operators have to go after whatever listener segment gives them the best chance of success. That decision is made based on the tastes of the local audience and the existing competition in the local market.

A common sense based review of the general failure of liberal talk radio in most markets should be enough to reveal to anyone that there probably is not a large, untapped nationwide market of talk radio fans who want the liberal genre of talk. There might be pockets of such people in some local markets, but overall, there doesn't seem to be enough talk radio fans who want the liberal genre of talk.

If one attempts to "grow" the market for the liberal genre of talk, it would be the exact same process as growing the country genre of music. You would have to find either people who didn't listen to music radio at all, and get them to start listening to country music radio, or you'd have to convince fans of other music genres to switch to country.

liberal talk radio represents an effort to GROW audience who doesn't already listen the oft-profitable format.

But from where would those listeners come? Are you going to get people who prefer listening to music to switch to listening to talk? Or are you going to convince people who do not listen to the radio at all to start turning the radio on to listen to liberal talk? Or are you going to convince people who listen to conservative talk radio to switch genre?

BTW, the growth of non-political "hot" talk is also an attempt to convert music radio listeners, non-radio listeners, and political talk radio listeners to switch preferences.

Before anyone spends big piles of money attempting to accomplish the conversion of those three groups of listeners into liberal talk radio fans, doesn't it make sense to first make a diligent attempt to measure the size of those groups, and to determine how likely those groups are to be willing to make such a switch?

 

[smedge2006]

But from where would those listeners come? Are you going to get people who prefer listening to music to switch to listening to talk? Or are you going to convince people who do not listen to the radio at all to start turning the radio on to listen to liberal talk? Or are you going to convince people who listen to conservative talk radio to switch genre?

The original audience for conservative AM talk radio was baby boomers who spent their youth listening to AM Top 40. These people had been music radio listeners, but they were willing to change. The problem is that AM listening has continued to decline, and its harder and harder to convince people to go to AM, especially people under 45 and especially small, weak-signal stations with no track record of recent, or any, success.
In AM more than FM, signal is destiny. Good signals hold their own, poor signals don't exist.

By the way, look at this and tell me my original idea doesn't make sense:

Salem to Sell More Stations?

http://www.insideradio.com/pdheadlines.asp?phid=498177&PT=Today's+Top+Stories

 

[gr8oldies]

Even if you could buy these stations , how long could you aford o wait for an audience to show up? Just because you build doesn't mean they will come. No one had a "master plan" for conservative talk radio in 1987. That still seems to be what proponents of liberal talk don't get.

 

[Radio_Realist]

These people had been music radio listeners, but they were willing to change.

As one of those people, trust me when I tell you that it wasn't so much that we were willing to change as it was that the passage of years caused us to change. Getting older does that to people. Compounding that was the fact that most music format radio has turned to mostly crap nowadays. Whenever I get into a car owned by anyone my age (mid-50's), odds are that there is a CD in the player (or a cassette in the deck if it's an older car), and when he starts his car, the CD (or casette) starts playing, not the radio.

 

[smedge2006]

No one had a "master plan" for conservative talk radio in 1987.

Radio wasn't consolidated in 1987. Big 50 kW Class A AMs and Class C FM's could be acquired by small, energetic companies in 1987. Dozens of stations weren't owned by companies committed to promoting one agenda (Salem). Things could grow organically. Not so now. To fail to plan is to plan to fail. If anything, there hasn't been enough master planning to grow liberal talk radio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If anything, there hasn't been enough master planning to grow liberal talk radio.

You just don't get it, do you? No amount of master planning will compensate for an inadequate pool of potential customers to market to. There simply is not now, and never has been, a great untapped market of people who want to listen to liberal talk radio but who haven't been able to because there hasn't been any to listen to. If there was a big, untapped market for liberal talk radio, then those big, greed companies would have exploited that market for their greedy capitalist gain.

Ask almost any liberal about the nature of capitalists, and he'll give you the same answer. Capitalists are greedy, selfish pigs who'll do anything for profit. All they care about is making more money. So, since capitalists only want money and profits, if there was enough of a market for liberal talk radio for it to be profitable, then why didn't the evil, greedy capitalists jump all over that market?

The evil, greedy capitalists had no compunctions about putting rap music on the radio. It was profitable, so even if they were conservative, their greed trumped their principles and rap music with its liberal lyrics are broadcast in almost every market. If the evil, greedy capitalists would put rap music on the air because it was profitable, why wouldn't they do the same with liberal talk radio?

 

[justareporter]

One point many have failed to realize is the notion of owning everything and marketing only part of that which you own. Consider Clear channel for a moment, jsut as an example. In many markets they have owned both the #1 right leaning talk station and changed the format for one of the others in the cluster to a left leaning.

GREAT idea.

You own both. You actively promote the one with the better signal (usually the more conservative as it has been there longer) and do "lip service" to the "liberal" station with a weaker signal.

You OWN the market.

I used to do a similar thing. If there was an anchor at a competing station I could do one of two things:

 

[justareporter]

One point many have failed to realize is the notion of owning everything and marketing only part of that which you own. Consider Clear channel for a moment, just as an example. In many markets they have owned both the #1 right leaning talk station and changed the format for one of the others in the cluster to a left leaning.

GREAT idea.

You own both. You actively promote the one with the better signal (usually the more conservative as it has been there longer) and do "lip service" to the "liberal" station with a weaker signal.

You OWN the market.

I used to do a similar thing. If there was an anchor at a competing station that was hurting my station I could do one of two things:

1. Hire him or her
2. Recommend to another ND in a different market they look at the anchor hoping they would want to hire that individual. Even better yet, have my consultant do it for me.

Since the FCC doesn't allow owners to pack up their competition and move it out of state the next best thing was for CC and others to invent "clusters. "

Concentrate on one station but "own" the others in the market that might be competition. Your sales people will sell all of them as a "group buy."

Want to fix local radio? Reduce the ownership caps, bring back the anti-trafficking rules and require that all station produce 30, 40, or 50% of their programming locally. What we have right now is hundreds ...if not thousands of stations that serve absolutely no purpose at all except as downlinks for satellites. And this serves the "public interest, convenience and necessity" how?