How I would grow liberal talk radio

[Radio_Realist]

RR, the comment was not addressed to you. You did not make the original statement about the audience not showing up.

But I did make the post that you quoted in its entirety. When the heading in your post says: "Quote from: Radio_Realist on Today at 10:26:50 am", it's pretty hard to back pedal and claim you weren't responding to my post.

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?

For the entire genre of liberal talk to be regarded as a success, then it would have to be measured by the average overall numbers of at least the top five liberal talk hosts. Fewer than that, and it's not a measure of the genre, it's a measure of individuals.

When the top five liberal talk hosts combined have an average of clearances in the same number of markets as the top 10 conservative talk hosts, then I'd say the liberal talk genre has achieved success in clearances. And, to make it even more fair, I'd use a points system where a clearance in a top 20 market is worth 5 points, a clearance in a top 50 to 21 market is worth 3 points, and clearance in all other markets is worth 1 point. Give an extra bonus point for all live clearances.

When the top five liberal talk hosts combined have an average overall Arbitron rating as the average of the top ten conservative talk hosts, then I'd say the liberal talk genre has achieved a success in the ratings.

But if only one or two liberal hosts manage outstanding success in a few markets, then that only proves that those individuals are good, but not that the genre of liberal political talk is a winner.

 

[Al Johnson]

For the entire genre of liberal talk to be regarded as a success, then it would have to be measured by the average overall numbers of at least the top five liberal talk hosts. Fewer than that, and it's not a measure of the genre, it's a measure of individuals.

When the top five liberal talk hosts combined have an average of clearances in the same number of markets as the top 10 conservative talk hosts, then I'd say the liberal talk genre has achieved success in clearances. And, to make it even more fair, I'd use a points system where a clearance in a top 20 market is worth 5 points, a clearance in a top 50 to 21 market is worth 3 points, and clearance in all other markets is worth 1 point. Give an extra bonus point for all live clearances.

When the top five liberal talk hosts combined have an average overall Arbitron rating as the average of the top ten conservative talk hosts, then I'd say the liberal talk genre has achieved a success in the ratings.

But if only one or two liberal hosts manage outstanding success in a few markets, then that only proves that those individuals are good, but not that the genre of liberal political talk is a winner.

Evnlee, alternatively, proposed as his standard of "success" clearance in all of the top 20 markets.

Liberal talk has been around a little over three years. Let's keep in mind that conservative talk radio took far longer than that to have five (let alone 10) hosts in active national syndication, or to have any of its hosts cleared in all of the top 20 markets.

I will admit the Democrats came late to the party. They spent much of the 90s bitching about Rush (who was the lone ideological right-wing host in syndication for much of the time) rather than trying to beat him at his own game. During the early part of this period, banks would not loan money to buy AM stations and AM stations could be had for fire-sale prices. Salem bought up a bunch of heritage AMs with strong signals and lower frequencies (prime AM real estate). With the lifting of local ownership caps, other group broadcasters expanded local clusters by buying AMs cheap. Meanwhile Democrats and people like Sheldon Drobny sat on their hands. When the Democrats finally got around to starting their own so-called network, nearly all of the good AMs were already taken (often as the second or third conservative talk station in the market). So Rush, and others sit at the top of talk radio hill and liberal talkers are just starting to climb.

While liberal talk overall and liberal talk hosts can't compare to the position Rush and Hannity enjoy, they have attained "success" comparable to number two conservative stations and to second-string conservative hosts. So, why would broadcasters prefer to operate a second or third conservative talk station in the market (with also-ran hosts or even hosts time-shifted from another station in the market) to liberal talk from Jones, Nova M and Air America? I see how turn-key sports talk is an easy sell and therefore appealing to station operators. But how are also-ran hosts like Gallagher, Doyle, Larson and Liddy an easier sell than Miller, Schultz and Hartmann?

And then there's the other question I raised earlier:

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.

 

[evnlee]

Evnlee, alternatively, proposed as his standard of "success" clearance in all of the top 20 markets.

Liberal talk has been around a little over three years. Let's keep in mind that conservative talk radio took far longer than that to have five (let alone 10) hosts in active national syndication, or to have any of its hosts cleared in all of the top 20 markets.

I will admit the Democrats came late to the party. They spent much of the 90s bitching about Rush (who was the lone ideological right-wing host in syndication for much of the time) rather than trying to beat him at his own game.

Let me use a different analogy.

Look at the success of the 'Daily Show', Colbert Report and other 'Faux News' type comedy programs out there. The one's using the 'weekend update' style platform~basically mocking the talking heads on the all new networks.

There's that horrible attempt with the 'half hour news hour' on Fox.

It's just 'not good'.

It hurts my feelings just to watch it. I squirm with discomfort for the writers. I cant buy into the 'hosts'. I know it's just my opinion here, but it's really,really bad.

Even though I do not agree with Stewart and Colbert (politically) , there is no denying thier comedy genius. The guys are very entertaining.

I do not think that Fox news can make the 'half hour news hour' as successful as the Daily Show, even if they replace the writers or hosts. I just think that the hardcore Fox News demo isn't 'into' that kind of comedy program at that time slot. They have been indoctrinated to dislike that format of show on the average. And rather then watch either the Daily Show, or that Fox abberation, they would switch channels to something they are more comfy with.

A decade of complaining about how unfair 'talk radio' is cannot be overcome, even if your late to the dance and you want a date. Especially when the available homely girl that always around ( NPR ) is beckoning.

make sense?

 

[Al Johnson]

Evn, I'm not sure of the point you want to make with your cable comedy news analogy.

If you're saying the Fox show won't work because it is poorly done and much liberal talk won't work because it is poorly done, I would agree.

If you're saying the Fox audience is different from the Comedy Central audience and it doesn't work to do a Comedy Central knock-off for the Fox audience, and that liberal talk audience is different from the conservative talk audience and it won't work to do a show in the style of conservative talk for the liberal audience, I'd agree with that, too.

All we know so far is that so far and for the most part liberal talk radio as a format has not worked. Which different than conservative hosts and so-called radio "experts" saying it can't work.

In the late 80's, radio "experts" were saying:

• National syndication talk show shows can't work. (There was evidence. Both ABC and NBC "failed" with national talk radio networks.)
• Talk radio needs variety; you can't do political talk all day. (Most of what are now the blow torch heritage conservative talk stations back then were running a mix to talk types.)
• You have to have guests. You can't do a show that's just about the host and his opinions. (Rush got a good deal of skepticism in the industry when he proposed to do a show without guests.)

None of this had anything to do with the fairness doctrine. It was all about the traditionally closed view of radio programming experts who stumble on something that works and then keep doing more of it until it doesn't work. Radio experts get lucky once and make a career out of that.

Rush is the reason for the success of conservative talk. He is the anchor for the stations which carry him. Hannity, who is not in the same league with Rush (nobody is) is number two because he mostly follows Rush and inherits his audience. All it takes is one break-out host to build a format. If CBS had hung on to Howard, FreeFM might have made it. No failure in lib-talk that a break-out show can't fix.

I like Steph. She may be the best lib-talk has now. But during her three days in Imus' slot, I couldn't avoid the direct comparison to Imus and her show was thin. It just didn't measure up. She and her two sidekicks are good. They had their moments. But it wasn't the consistent high plateau that Imus, Howard or Rush achieve.

Lib-talk may never get their break-out show, again because the Democrats waited too long. There is no longer any place for somebody like Imus, Howard or Rush to build their act in radio any more.

I will ignore the shot about public radio. If you want to say NPR's flagship news shows show signs of bias, I won't disagree. What public radio's "discussion shows" are doing may appeal to many liberals, but it's not comparable to talk radio. Talk of the Nation, Diane Rehm and Fresh Air are some other format entirely.

 

[evnlee]

Evn, I'm not sure of the point you want to make with your cable comedy news analogy.

If you're saying the Fox show won't work because it is poorly done and much liberal talk won't work because it is poorly done, I would agree.

If you're saying the Fox audience is different from the Comedy Central audience and it doesn't work to do a Comedy Central knock-off for the Fox audience, and that liberal talk audience is different from the conservative talk audience and it won't work to do a show in the style of conservative talk for the liberal audience, I'd agree with that, too.

All we know so far is that so far and for the most part liberal talk radio as a format has not worked. Which different than conservative hosts and so-called radio "experts" saying it can't work.

In the late 80's, radio "experts" were saying:

• National syndication talk show shows can't work. (There was evidence. Both ABC and NBC "failed" with national talk radio networks.)
• Talk radio needs variety; you can't do political talk all day. (Most of what are now the blow torch heritage conservative talk stations back then were running a mix to talk types.)
• You have to have guests. You can't do a show that's just about the host and his opinions. (Rush got a good deal of skepticism in the industry when he proposed to do a show without guests.)

None of this had anything to do with the fairness doctrine. It was all about the traditionally closed view of radio programming experts who stumble on something that works and then keep doing more of it until it doesn't work. Radio experts get lucky once and make a career out of that.

Rush is the reason for the success of conservative talk. He is the anchor for the stations which carry him. Hannity, who is not in the same league with Rush (nobody is) is number two because he mostly follows Rush and inherits his audience. All it takes is one break-out host to build a format. If CBS had hung on to Howard, FreeFM might have made it. No failure in lib-talk that a break-out show can't fix.

I like Steph. She may be the best lib-talk has now. But during her three days in Imus' slot, I couldn't avoid the direct comparison to Imus and her show was thin. It just didn't measure up. She and her two sidekicks are good. They had their moments. But it wasn't the consistent high plateau that Imus, Howard or Rush achieve.

Lib-talk may never get their break-out show, again because the Democrats waited too long. There is no longer any place for somebody like Imus, Howard or Rush to build their act in radio any more.

I will ignore the shot about public radio. If you want to say NPR's flagship news shows show signs of bias, I won't disagree. What public radio's "discussion shows" are doing may appeal to many liberals, but it's not comparable to talk radio. Talk of the Nation, Diane Rehm and Fresh Air are some other format entirely.

lets look at another example.

Dennis Miller radio vs. the New Air America 2.0.

Dennis Miller has only been on the air comparably to that of the Green takeover of Err Amerika.

How much has the Dennis Miller show 'grown' vs that of the New Air America?

Why does D Miller pick up more affiliates then the 'golden calf' of Air America?

 

[Al Johnson]

lets look at another example.

Dennis Miller radio vs. the New Air America 2.0.

Dennis Miller has only been on the air comparably to that of the Green takeover of Err Amerika.

How much has the Dennis Miller show 'grown' vs that of the New Air America?

Why does D Miller pick up more affiliates then the 'golden calf' of Air America?

I have to say this is really not responsive to what I posted.

But I'll bite. How much? Why?

 

[evnlee]

lets look at another example.

Dennis Miller radio vs. the New Air America 2.0.

Dennis Miller has only been on the air comparably to that of the Green takeover of Err Amerika.

How much has the Dennis Miller show 'grown' vs that of the New Air America?

Why does D Miller pick up more affiliates then the 'golden calf' of Air America?

I have to say this is really not responsive to what I posted.

But I'll bite. How much? Why?

My point is station owners operating turnkey's are more likely to put on Dennis Miller rather then Air America, as they think they will get better results.

Air America was touted as 'the answer' to Limbaugh. It failed.

Will Dennis Miller ever be able to compete with Limbaugh? Doubt it. But, then again, neither will Stephanie Miller ( who I enjoy more then Dennis).

In short~ it doesn't 'cost' any more for station owners to put on Dennis Miller, or Air America. They both barter thier time.But the 'marketplace' has spoken.

Some think that eliminating Rush would help 'grow' libtalk. I disagree.

First, get rid of NPR. That's the real competition.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Evnlee, alternatively, proposed as his standard of "success" clearance in all of the top 20 markets.

I disagree with him.

Liberal talk has been around a little over three years. Let's keep in mind that conservative talk radio took far longer than that to have five (let alone 10) hosts in active national syndication, or to have any of its hosts cleared in all of the top 20 markets.

This is about achieving a goal, not a speed contest to see how quickly the goal can be reached. You asked for a standard that would indicate when a format achieved "success". I gave you one.

So, why would broadcasters prefer to operate a second or third conservative talk station in the market (with also-ran hosts or even hosts time-shifted from another station in the market) to liberal talk from Jones, Nova M and Air America?

If the second and third tier conservatives drew better ratings or were more profitable (ie. easier to sell) than first tier liberals, then broadcasters would pick whoever was likely to make them the most money.

 

[Al Johnson]

If the second and third tier conservatives drew better ratings or were more profitable (ie. easier to sell) than first tier liberals, then broadcasters would pick whoever was likely to make them the most money.

Ratings are not an issue. Liberal talk stations get ratings similar and comparable to those of number two and number three conservative talks, and those of turn-sports talk stations. Fact: No station has increased its audience share after dropping liberal talk. Shares stay about the same or drop.

The issue then is "easier to sell."

First off, a station manager and his sales reps don't know unless they've tried. If they have not done liberal talk, they don't know how hard or easy the format is to sell in their market. This is perception, not reality. And their perceptions are often based on their own political predispositions.

The program directors of talk clusters are often current or former conservative talk hosts. Programmers always program what they know. Hire a former Classic Rock jock and he's going to recommend Classic Rock. And assuming conservative talk show hosts became that because of their own political views, here again you have people making decisions based on their own political predispositions.

This is not the marketplace at work. This is a reflection of the fact that people who manage, sell, program and work in radio are overwhelmingly conservative.

If a cluster has the leading conservative talk station and adds a turn-key conservative talker with also ran hosts from Salem, TRN, Radio America, Fox or Westwood One of course the package is easier to sell. You are selling the same product to the same customers as before. You've just "Super-Sized" the package.

If third-string conservative talk is easier to sell than liberal talk with comparable numbers and demos, then buying decisions are being made on advertisers' own political political views, not real business considerations.

Any way you slice it, you have right-leaning advertisers and right-leaning broadcast managers and sales reps determining what can be heard on the radio based on their own political agenda.

This is not the marketplace at work. This is the local clique of country club Republicans deciding what's good for everybody else.

No way to escape the inevitable conclusion: It's time to re-regulate broadcasting.

America lets radio and TV broadcasters use public airwaves worth more than half a trillion dollars for free -- Using the public airwaves is a privilege — a lucrative one — not a right, and I fear the FCC has not done enough to stand up for the public interest. Our policies should reward broadcasters that honor their pledge to serve that interest and penalize those that don’t (read more - Michael Copps-NY Times Editorial)

 

[evnlee]

. Fact: No station has increased its audience share after dropping liberal talk. Shares stay about the same or drop.

really? what about KYJK - 105.9 Jack FM?

 

[Radio_Realist]

No way to escape the inevitable conclusion: It's time to re-regulate broadcasting.

There's a reason why the people who work in broadcasting tend to be conservative. They are accustomed to accepting responsibility for their actions, and accomplishing things on their own. Those who lack the drive, the ambition, and the talent to succeed on their own are the ones who manage to always find a convenient scapegoat for their failures, and usually the same "solution" to their self-created problems. Go whining to the government and get them to pass laws to make it all better.

Your entire post full of unsupported "impressions", undocumented events, and the usual, liberal bull<edit> sounds very much like the content of most of the shows hosted by liberal talk hosts that I have heard. The real reason why liberal talk shows usually fail to draw well in most markets is that the content simply <edit>.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Someone said that liberal talk has only been around for three years, NPR which is liberal has had talk/informational programming for far longer. From what I've read elsewhere on this board, NPR stations do well in ratings and corporate underwriting (sponsorship). So it would seem to me that liberal news/talk programming does sell and pulls in a solid audience. NPR's approach to talk is far different from Rush, Glenn Beck, and Hannity (the big conservative talk stars). NPR has more of that BBC or CBC sound. It is informative, but not as entertaining. Where as with Limbaugh and Beck especially, they have spoofs and comedy routines that augment their talk. Hannity has more guests. I believe that if similar personalities of the liberal stripe had Limbaugh's and Beck's sense of humor, etc, they too would pull in larger audiences. The typical liberal talker usual sounds like an angry liberal, more of the I hate Bush, I hate Reagan routine, etc. So for lib talk NPR is probably the best bet as they seem to be able to avoid that "angry liberal" attitude which kills the other lib shows that I've heard.