S
SeanMGilbow
Guest
justareporter said:
Perhaps the most intelligent and eloquent comments I've seen on the News/Talk board. Thanks for an insider view.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How I would grow liberal talk radio
- Thread starter smedge2006
- Start date
Perhaps the most intelligent and eloquent comments I've seen on the News/Talk board. Thanks for an insider view.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
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.
By George, you've got it! You hit the nail right on the head. You treat the two genres of talk radio the exact same way that you would treat two different genres of music radio. Your insight into that process it totally correct.
Anyone who has observed how multi-station clusters operate has seen that if you owned two music stations, you would put the music station that played the genre of music with the biggest existing fanbase on your station with the better signal, and you'd give it a bigger promotion budget. You would put the music station that played the genre of music that appealed to a smaller fanbase on the weaker station and you wouldn't promote it with as big a budget.
Your observation that talk is treated the exact same way is dead-on correct. Your insight into the reality that whether it's music or talk, you program the genres within the categories to maximize your profits, can't be faulted. If Classic Rock draws a bigger and more advertiser appealing audience in your town, and CHR draws a smaller, less advertiser appealing audience, then your top station plays Classic Rock, and your lesser station gets the CHR. If conservative talk draws a bigger and more advertiser appealing audience in your town, and liberal talk draws a smaller, less advertiser appealing audience, then your top talk station plays conservative talk, and your lesser talk station gets the liberal talk.
Why can't everyone else see things as clearly as you do?
By George, you've got it! You hit the nail right on the head. You treat the two genres of talk radio the exact same way that you would treat two different genres of music radio. Your insight into that process it totally correct.
Anyone who has observed how multi-station clusters operate has seen that if you owned two music stations, you would put the music station that played the genre of music with the biggest existing fanbase on your station with the better signal, and you'd give it a bigger promotion budget. You would put the music station that played the genre of music that appealed to a smaller fanbase on the weaker station and you wouldn't promote it with as big a budget.
Your observation that talk is treated the exact same way is dead-on correct. Your insight into the reality that whether it's music or talk, you program the genres within the categories to maximize your profits, can't be faulted. If Classic Rock draws a bigger and more advertiser appealing audience in your town, and CHR draws a smaller, less advertiser appealing audience, then your top station plays Classic Rock, and your lesser station gets the CHR. If conservative talk draws a bigger and more advertiser appealing audience in your town, and liberal talk draws a smaller, less advertiser appealing audience, then your top talk station plays conservative talk, and your lesser talk station gets the liberal talk.
Why can't everyone else see things as clearly as you do?
Missing from that *marketplace rules all* conversation is that little problem of them being "public" airwaves for the public "interest, convenience and necessity." Liberal entertainment talk isn't as big as conservative entertainment talk becasue owners who have a vested interest in their "conservative entertainment" talk stations have no reson to promote the other political view stations. Unfortunately many people fail to be able to distinguish talk show from news. They actually think the entertainers who host talk shows have any responsibility to be accurate and/or responsible.
Here's a clue: they don't.
We should never compare music and talk as formats. Music always entertains (even the stuff I do't like)..but talk has gone from a discussion of issues to the promotion of one view over all others. some have even argued that the three hours some conservative hosts give to their one sided (mostly Republican) shows amounts to nothing short of a 3 hour political ad and the Republican party should get a bill. It is a novel argument.
Here's a clue: they don't.
We should never compare music and talk as formats. Music always entertains (even the stuff I do't like)..but talk has gone from a discussion of issues to the promotion of one view over all others. some have even argued that the three hours some conservative hosts give to their one sided (mostly Republican) shows amounts to nothing short of a 3 hour political ad and the Republican party should get a bill. It is a novel argument.
The only interest is money. If Randi Rhodes screaming from the left would beat Michael savage screaming from the right, she'd replace him tommorrow. If you're going to accuse operators of doing talk radio only to get votes for the Republicans, I would expect that there would be no liberal morning show hosts in other formats, nor would they play music from liberal artists. The whole "youhave to put programming on the air that no one listens to becuase the airwaves belong to the public" is antiqquated. I can push that button on anything I don't like much faster than you can repeat that phrase.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
gr8oldies said:The only interest is money. If Randi Rhodes screaming from the left would beat Michael savage screaming from the right, she'd replace him tommorrow. If you're going to accuse operators of doing talk radio only to get votes for the Republicans, I would expect that there would be no liberal morning show hosts in other formats, nor would they play music from liberal artists. The whole "youhave to put programming on the air that no one listens to becuase the airwaves belong to the public" is antiqquated. I can push that button on anything I don't like much faster than you can repeat that phrase.
Wrong! Absolutely and completely wrong.
The fact is history provides frequent examples of publication and station proprietors using their properties as a platform for their own views, despite loss of audience and revenue. Clear Channel has refused billboard, television and radio advertising from organizations (with cash in hand) wanting to express their views, while continuing to provide time (often free time) for views consistent with management's views. So has Sinclair. So have others, back to William Randolph Hearst and before that.
Maybe what you say sounds like a reasonable way to do business, maybe even an enlightened way to do business. But never underestimate the power of ego. Pride is often a more powerful temptation than avarice (that's why it's number one on the Deadly Sins Countdown). But saying it's about money is good spin, which is why Clear Channel lobbyists and PR flacks keep using it.
The logic here seems to be: If Randi could beat Savage she would be on. She's not on, therefore that proves she can't be Savage. But wait, there's more! How about those markets in which lib and con talk have had something close to a level playing field and Randi has beaten Savage (or Hannity). Shhh, no let's not talk about that. Besides, everybody knows lib talk can't work so those markets are flukes. Pay no attention to them.
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:[The logic here seems to be: If Randi could beat Savage she would be on. She's not on, therefore that proves she can't be Savage. But wait, there's more! How about those markets in which lib and con talk have had something close to a level playing field and Randi has beaten Savage (or Hannity). Shhh, no let's not talk about that.
we have all talked about that plenty. lets do so again.
what about those markets where Randi has beaten Rush ( the real big dog ). Would that be when she was in West Palm Beach? Why, yes it was! How did she fare vs Rush in Nyc on WLIB? What's that you say? The NYC area/signal/management isn't a 'level playing field'?
So, Randi can compete with Rush, while in WPB ( where the playing field is 'level', like say Madison, Wisconsin, or Portland, Oregon) but not in most other places?
the 'playing field' is national syndication, in the context of this thread. you argue it's not 'level'.
I'll let you argue that point.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:the 'playing field' is national syndication, in the context of this thread. you argue it's not 'level'.
I thought we were talking about Randi and Savage.
No the playing fields are each individual market. Shows are sold in individual markets. The playing field is different in each individual market. And audiences differ from market to market.
Station operators and programmers pick programs based on how they think a show will work in their market, on their station against their competition.
I argued the playing field was not level in Atlanta and it's not level in other markets.
. If you're going to accuse operators of doing talk radio only to get votes for the Republicans, I would expect that there would be no liberal morning show hosts in other formats, nor would they play music from liberal artists.
Any liberals doing morning shows in music formats are usually pretty muzzled politically, simply because the target audience isn't people looking for political talk. Most songs played by liberal (or conservative) musical acts on radio stations are apolitical. A liberal working a morning show in a music format is by no means the same thing as a full-time political talk show, and has about as much influence as Alan Colmes.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
simply because the target audience isn't people looking for political talk.
I seem to recall someone suggesting that people who vote liberal tend to prefer listening to music to listening to political talk. If one researches the ratings, in markets where liberal politicians get elected, music format stations tend to dominate the ratings.
I wonder how many people will ignore what I just wrote, and instead of responding to the assertion that liberal voters tend to prefer listening to music programming will respond as if I wrote "All liberal voters prefer listening to music".
I seem to recall someone suggesting that people who vote liberal tend to prefer listening to music to listening to political talk. If one researches the ratings, in markets where liberal politicians get elected, music format stations tend to dominate the ratings.
I wonder how many people will ignore what I just wrote, and instead of responding to the assertion that liberal voters tend to prefer listening to music programming will respond as if I wrote "All liberal voters prefer listening to music".
A
Al Johnson
Guest
Radio_Realist said:simply because the target audience isn't people looking for political talk.
I seem to recall someone suggesting that people who vote liberal tend to prefer listening to music to listening to political talk. If one researches the ratings, in markets where liberal politicians get elected, music format stations tend to dominate the ratings.
I wonder how many people will ignore what I just wrote, and instead of responding to the assertion that liberal voters tend to prefer listening to music programming will respond as if I wrote "All liberal voters prefer listening to music".
Talk radio - all talk radio, left and right - gets about a 10 per cent market share. Most people - of all political persuasions - prefer listening to music. Music formats dominate ratings in a lot of markets, red and blue. Talk radio dominates where you have good talk stations, which are long and well-established, with a substantial percentage of local programming.
Here I go sounding like the absolute elitist snob I am but part of the reason why (as a died in the wool liberal) I don't listen to talk shows***almost any talk show**** liberal, conservative or anything else is that they are not very good. Most (not all) of the talent fails to ask good questions and never listens to the answers. The guest could say that he had just hacked away at his wife (or even better for the purpose of this discussion) male sex slave and most hosts would never hear a thing. The programs themselves (and the hosts who fill them) have been reduced to either shilling for station clients (small market radio) or pandering to one side political audiences (larger or network.) Gone is anything resembling a decent question.
Maybe that is why many "liberals" (and a whole bunch of conservatives) listen to their iPod or XM/Sirrus. Me? I always look for an all news station wherever I am. If that isn't available I **TRY** to listen to the local folks for a while (assuming I can find one) ...then there is always "books on tape."
Maybe that is why many "liberals" (and a whole bunch of conservatives) listen to their iPod or XM/Sirrus. Me? I always look for an all news station wherever I am. If that isn't available I **TRY** to listen to the local folks for a while (assuming I can find one) ...then there is always "books on tape."
Radio Realist doesn't get it. Progressive talk is not a failed format. True there are some setbacks to the format but the listeners up 11%. Plus libtakers like Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz are successes. They are on stations that aren't in the progressive talk format. KJLL is Ms. Miller first non progressive talk station, plus she is number one on that station. Ed Schultz is on more non progressive talk stations, that is why he is the number one lib talker.
Most stations that flipped from progressive talk did even worse. Look at WYTS it is dead last in the Columbus Ohio Market. So did other AM stations that used to carry Libtalk. Madison 92.1 The Mic is still on the air thanks to the listeners. It doesn't make sense to try to filpped a successful lib talk station.
It does matter on the personality of the talker. This is why Jones Radio Network AAR main competitor. Plus their are three syndicators of lib talk:
AAR
Jones Radio Network
Nova M
My own personal expearence in the Columbus Ohio market that the local CC managers did squat in promoting the former lib talk station. Any radio format will failed if they don't do proper promotions and sales. I Look at the LA progressive talk station KTLK. They have a great sales/promotional team.
Most lib talk stations are on Class C AM stations. True they don't have the wattage.
Right now Jones Radio is doing lib talk right. They have three Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Bill Press. Three very sucessful lib talkers. Nova M is showing promising growth. AAR is trying to grow with Lionel.
Most stations that flipped from progressive talk did even worse. Look at WYTS it is dead last in the Columbus Ohio Market. So did other AM stations that used to carry Libtalk. Madison 92.1 The Mic is still on the air thanks to the listeners. It doesn't make sense to try to filpped a successful lib talk station.
It does matter on the personality of the talker. This is why Jones Radio Network AAR main competitor. Plus their are three syndicators of lib talk:
AAR
Jones Radio Network
Nova M
My own personal expearence in the Columbus Ohio market that the local CC managers did squat in promoting the former lib talk station. Any radio format will failed if they don't do proper promotions and sales. I Look at the LA progressive talk station KTLK. They have a great sales/promotional team.
Most lib talk stations are on Class C AM stations. True they don't have the wattage.
Right now Jones Radio is doing lib talk right. They have three Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Bill Press. Three very sucessful lib talkers. Nova M is showing promising growth. AAR is trying to grow with Lionel.
E
evnlee
Guest
why do we keep going around and around these stats?
an 11% increase is only as good as the market dictates.
if a station goes from a .08 to a 1.0, it grew 25%, but it still isn't considered a 'success'
as for KTLK, were they the ones charging AAR for airtime? Does Limbaugh pay people to put him on, or do they pay Limbaugh?
the entire motivation behind Err Amerika was to compete with Limbaugh.
how did they do? nationwide? cume? billing? tsl? 12+ numbers?
uh huh.
Who is David Letterman's main competition? Leno.
Who is Rush' main competition? Hannity. Not Schultz, and not Miller ( Stefanny, who I enjoy).
If liberal talk could attract liberal listeners, then you guys wouldn't have to keep making lame excuses for why they keep failing.
that's like people saying that Leno isn't Letterman's main rival, but that Charlie Rose is.
Now, what is the main competetitor ( nationally ) for liberal talk?
NPR.
if you really want to 'grow' liberal talk, take out thier main competetitor.
an 11% increase is only as good as the market dictates.
if a station goes from a .08 to a 1.0, it grew 25%, but it still isn't considered a 'success'
as for KTLK, were they the ones charging AAR for airtime? Does Limbaugh pay people to put him on, or do they pay Limbaugh?
the entire motivation behind Err Amerika was to compete with Limbaugh.
how did they do? nationwide? cume? billing? tsl? 12+ numbers?
uh huh.
Who is David Letterman's main competition? Leno.
Who is Rush' main competition? Hannity. Not Schultz, and not Miller ( Stefanny, who I enjoy).
If liberal talk could attract liberal listeners, then you guys wouldn't have to keep making lame excuses for why they keep failing.
that's like people saying that Leno isn't Letterman's main rival, but that Charlie Rose is.
Now, what is the main competetitor ( nationally ) for liberal talk?
NPR.
if you really want to 'grow' liberal talk, take out thier main competetitor.
smedge2006 said:Problem: While many of the first-tier AM signals in most markets are controlled by the big boys, the second-tier stations are run by religious broadcasters who make money off "dollar a holler" programming. They're a closed circle and won't sell stations to outsiders unless forced to do so. This bottleneck forces Air America and other progressive talk product to third-tier or less stations in many markets, resulting in low ratings.
Answer: Form a "fake" Christian broadcasting company. Get chummy with Salem, Truth Radio, Crawford, Communicom, Chesapeake and the like. Pick up some of their stations as they reposition in certain markets. Broker time out to preachers and pretend to be religious 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.
I guess the end justifies the means.
Shark
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
So what happens when the audience still doesn't show up?
Blame the government, blame changes in ownership laws, blame the weather, blame the Republicans, blame the Christians, blame evil corporate America, blame somebody. Blame anybody. Then find a cooperative liberal Congressman to propose legislation to make it all better.
Blame the government, blame changes in ownership laws, blame the weather, blame the Republicans, blame the Christians, blame evil corporate America, blame somebody. Blame anybody. Then find a cooperative liberal Congressman to propose legislation to make it all better.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
Radio_Realist said:So what happens when the audience still doesn't show up?
Blame the government, blame changes in ownership laws, blame the weather, blame the Republicans, blame the Christians, blame evil corporate America, blame somebody. Blame anybody. Then find a cooperative liberal Congressman to propose legislation to make it all better.
You keep assuming, as an article of faith that the audience won't show up. Can't show up.
When the audience does show up, who do you blame?
Oh that's right. You say, "Well, that's a liberal market. It doesn't count."
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
You keep assuming, as an article of faith that the audience won't show up. Can't show up.
Wrong. I assume, based on past performance, that large audiences won't show up in most markets. I've made that clear before, and presumably you will continue to misrepresent what I've said, requiring me to re-clarify yet again the difference between what I have said and what you accuse me of saying. Your insistence on claiming that I said something different from what I've actually said is getting very, very tiresome.
You say, "Well, that's a liberal market. It doesn't count."
And there's more of the same deceitful misrepresentation. What I have said and would continue to say is that a few isolated examples do not prove a national trend. There is nothing under the sun that can't find higher levels of popularity in a few locations.
Wrong. I assume, based on past performance, that large audiences won't show up in most markets. I've made that clear before, and presumably you will continue to misrepresent what I've said, requiring me to re-clarify yet again the difference between what I have said and what you accuse me of saying. Your insistence on claiming that I said something different from what I've actually said is getting very, very tiresome.
You say, "Well, that's a liberal market. It doesn't count."
And there's more of the same deceitful misrepresentation. What I have said and would continue to say is that a few isolated examples do not prove a national trend. There is nothing under the sun that can't find higher levels of popularity in a few locations.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
RR, the comment was not addressed to you. You did not make the original statement about the audience not showing up. And, yes, your comments about "isolated examples" is not the same as my paraphrase of some others' comments made on this board. You have no basis to claim "deceitful misrepresentation." It's one thing to say I didn't get what you said; it's another to attribute that to deceit.
I have to ask, since you brought it up, what would it take to qualify as national trend for liberal talk? What numbers? In how many markets or which markets? There's also nothing under the sun that doesn't find lower popularity in some locations, either, including conservative talk.
What I don't think you acknowledge is there are some key differences in the liberal talk stations that do well and those that don't. It's not just the markets. There are things the lib-talk stations that don't do well aren't doing. There is music I don't like and won't listen to, but I can recognize when the format is being done well, promoted well and sold well (and when it's not). You may not like liberal politics but as a radio guy you have to recognize that the success of some liberal talk stations and the failure of others has more to do with radio issues than the perceived "rightness" of a set of political beliefs.
I have to ask, since you brought it up, what would it take to qualify as national trend for liberal talk? What numbers? In how many markets or which markets? There's also nothing under the sun that doesn't find lower popularity in some locations, either, including conservative talk.
What I don't think you acknowledge is there are some key differences in the liberal talk stations that do well and those that don't. It's not just the markets. There are things the lib-talk stations that don't do well aren't doing. There is music I don't like and won't listen to, but I can recognize when the format is being done well, promoted well and sold well (and when it's not). You may not like liberal politics but as a radio guy you have to recognize that the success of some liberal talk stations and the failure of others has more to do with radio issues than the perceived "rightness" of a set of political beliefs.
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:I have to ask, since you brought it up, what would it take to qualify as national trend for liberal talk? What numbers? In how many markets or which markets?
I'm not sure if I understand the question, but here's my take.
To be considered a 'success' nationally, a host must hold affiliates in all 20 of the top markets.
I dont consider Glenn Beck a 'success', (or not as much as Hannity and Limbaugh) until he can cut it in NYC and LA. He might be the '# 3 most listened to host', but he's not in the same league as those guys.
You have to judge 'success' on the front runners in the field, like the examples I used above.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.