is AAR killing progtalk?

[evnlee]

"Jeff Tyler, Clear Channel Madison vice president, said that progressive talk outlets around the country have been struggling with advertising issues, and that the financial status of Air America, which filed for bankruptcy, is also a factor.

"There are many advertisers, local and national, who have been at conflict with the programming or stay away from controversial programming that has led to less than reasonable results," Tyler said in an e-mail Friday. "Our sales team successfully sells the overall top talk station in the market (WIBA AM 1310) and it ranks in the top 5 in market in revenue. There are obviously similar sales struggles with other progressive talk outlets in the country, including what the base network Air America Radio is currently going through with their bankruptcy. This is leading to other stations and ownerships dropping the format or modifying the lineup."

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=110412


The liberal “revolution of talk radio” here is over.

Clear Channel has canceled progressive talk on WSAI-AM (1360) – a tough sell in a red state – after two years of low ratings.

“It wasn’t working. We thought it best to do something else,” says Tony Bender, program director.


The change also was prompted by Jerry Springer’s decision to quit his 9 a.m.-noon liberal talk show after today’s Friday rerun, and the uncertainty of the liberal Air America network, which declared bankruptcy in October.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061207/ENT/61207013/-1/all


2 questions:

Is the failure's of AAR affecting other PD's from allowing on decent,established talent like Miller and Schultz? Or, just the opposite?

Would there be more angst over these flips if the last election had turned out differently?

 

[Radio_Realist]

I'd have to say yes, AAR's demise is going to put the nail in "progtalk's" coffin. AAR's poor performance and subsequent bankruptcy will make the word "progressive" when used to describe a talk format into the kiss of death.

However, since AAR identified itself as "progressive" instead of "liberal", the word "liberal" should escape the taint of AAR. So, as long as "decent, established talent like Miller and Schultz" identify them as "liberal" instead of hiding behind the euphamism "progressive", they should escape being tarred with AAR's brush.

Just think, we can return to calling liberals "liberals". We can also call spades "spades" instead of "manual excavation implements".

We'll still have to refer to some segments of the population as "urban".

And before the moderator takes offense, the segment I was referring to are "city dwellers".

 

[raccoonradio]

It may or may not be killing off the idea of entire stations devoted to libtalk...some of the Jones shows
may show promise and who knows maybe they'll wind up on the so-called conservative stations
(Miller, Schultz). It's possible that there's too much political talk and you may see stations abandoning it,
and the strongest shows surviving...

AAR's problems included:
--weaker signals (companies didn't want to put it on bigger stations, fearing the ratings would plummet..)
--lack of promotion
--in several cases, like Boston, no daily local shows
--trying to win elections rather than be entertaining
--high salaries, high expenses, lack of ad revenue
etc.

I was just leafing through my copy of Brian Anderson's book about South Park Conservatives and he mentions
the rise of Rush and other conservative talkers. He said liberals like Cuomo, Hightower, and Estrich failed
to find an audience and mentions Air America as "struggling" but that they were trying to be
entertaining. (Yes, some entertainers like Franken were doing shows, but is that any guarantee they'll
catch on?) The book also gives other reasons libtalk has failed to catch on: Political correctness (afraid
to make fun of certain groups); the idea that liberals see the world in "shades of grey and plaid rather
than black and white"--takes too long to explain their stands; being too serious...etc. He does say AAR
at least was trying to be more funny, etc.

One person is quoted as saying "why would liberals need talk radio when they already have Jennings,
Brokaw, and Rather?" (OK, so that quote is slightly outdated) And Anderson says "they also have
NPR". Some complain that NPR is targeted unfairly as home to only liberal thought, though.

Libtalk SHOWS may catch on and there may still be some "all-liberal" stations out there...but when you have places like Boston turning up their noses to Air America, what can you say? Other than to put a
Spinal Tap spin on it: "Well, we're going off air in Boston but not to worry. It's not a big liberal town..."

 

[Radio_Realist]

(Yes, some entertainers like Franken were doing shows, but is that any guarantee they'll
catch on?)

Having seen Franken's schtick on Saturday Night Live, on other comedy programs, and having read portions of his books (OK, I flipped through them in Barnes and Noble, but refused to actually pay for them), calling him an "entertainer" is a stretch. Al Franken is to entertainment what Yoko Ono is to singing.

 

[mouthoff]

Progressive talk is no more a failure because of liberalism anymore than conservative talk is a success due to conservatism. It failed because of its product!

All it takes is one megastar, and then a whole bunch of megastar wannabes to fill the rest of the day, and voila!

FYI: I'm a proud moderate (as are most people), and don't agree with 90% of what most conservative talkers say, but I listen. Why? They're fun to listen to---at least a few of them? We had Franken here for awhile and he put me to sleep. I like Ingraham, If Shultz were here, I'd listen. If they're good, I'm there. It has nothing to do with ideology.

Talk TV is the same. Before Olberman, Joe Scarborough, Jon Stewart etc., I'd tune in O'Reilly, H&O, but now that I have a choice, I rarely give them time anymore. Is this because I agree with MSNBC's, or Comedy Central's guys more? No, I enjoy their shows more.

It's about the talent, not the format.

 

[evnlee]

One person is quoted as saying "why would liberals need talk radio when they already have Jennings,
Brokaw, and Rather?" (OK, so that quote is slightly outdated) And Anderson says "they also have
NPR". Some complain that NPR is targeted unfairly as home to only liberal thought, though.

Libtalk SHOWS may catch on and there may still be some "all-liberal" stations out there...but when you have places like Boston turning up their noses to Air America, what can you say? Other than to put a
Spinal Tap spin on it: "Well, we're going off air in Boston but not to worry. It's not a big liberal town..."

Good points.

However, when it comes to people's perception of bias on NPR, you basically have 2 camps. Those that know and accept that NPR is not 'objective', and those that will never accept that as fact no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

The irony is that those who ignore the obvious bias on NPR are the first to condemn Fox News for thier own political leanings. They are also the most ardent supporters and apologists for AAR, although recent events have quelled thier tongues a bit

My favorite Spinal Tap quote:

" I told them a hundred times! 'Air America Radio FIRST, Puppet Show SECOND! ' "

 

[b344077]

I hope AAR doesn't "kill" progressive talk.

I live in Chicago and realized that if WCPT changes formats, there will only be four AM stations in Chicago that to which I could listen: WSCR, WGN, WBBM and WMVP!

In my opinion, both WIND and WLS are Nazi stations with the rest serving other market segments: urban, religion or foreign language. That's it! That's the whole AM dial!

 

[Radio_Realist]

That's the whole AM dial!

Haven't you heard? There's now a whole bunch of radio stations on this new-fangled band called "FM". Most radio receivers can receive these stations simply by flipping a switch.

You might want to look into it.

 

[redneckriviera]

What is this? A rightwingers' Wishful Thinking session? LOL!

No, Air America's presumed demise won't kill progressive talk radio. It's pretty common--in business, in politics, in social movements--that being the first doesn't guarantee success. So AAR has been the pioneer in this field. They stumbled into it, had some success, had some failure... and may-or-may not emerge from their current financial crisis. Most of us are betting they won't.

But Jones Radio Network has already emerged as a successor. And Tom Athans, developer of the Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller national syndication deals, has announced a new venture, Talk USA Radio.

Boston? Put progressive talk on a big stick and it'll kill. Same in DC. As in any programming battle, the facility is at least half the battle.

Just don't bet the house on progressive talk radio's death. You've gotta live somewhere!

 

[Radio_Realist]

So AAR has been the pioneer in this field.

Actually, that's not accurate. All AAR did was to attempt to turn liberal-biased talk radio, which has been around for a long time, into a national, brand-name product. They weren't the first to promote liberal talk radio, they were only the first to promote it really, really badly.

Their attempt to re-name the product "progressive" instead of "liberal" is just one small example of the bad tactical moves that they made. Die-hard liberals will cling to the name "progressive", but the rest of the world will ignore it, or assume it refers to something totally different.

I'm waiting for one participant in here to resume counting how many times I mention that fact. Or maybe he can get some convict's dog to do it for him.

 

[evnlee]

Boston? Put progressive talk on a big stick and it'll kill. Same in DC. As in any programming battle, the facility is at least half the battle.

Just don't bet the house on progressive talk radio's death. You've gotta live somewhere!

First it was 'put progtalk on the radio and it will kill'

then it became ' put progtalk on the radio and promote it, and it will kill'

after so many failures in pretty 'red' area's, it is now 'Put progressive talk on a big stick and it'll kill.'

yet so many 2nd and third tier conservative hosts ( Ingraham, Medved, etc. ) get into similar situations ( weak stick, no promotions ) and survive longer then AAR.

'Sup wid dat?


I wonder if Schultz or Miller are saying to thier agents and syndicators ' don't put me on in any markets where the signal is crappy! We will fail without a strong signal!! "

I bet they are most likely saying 'hey, put me on in any market anywhere you can. We've been at this long enough to know how the system is set up and we will take our chances. Were good enough to stay on the air, even if it's not the best possible scenario.'

Man, the excuse making has truly achieved monumental status. ;D

 

[redneckriviera]

Radio_Realist says "Their attempt to re-name the product "progressive" instead of "liberal" is just one small example of the bad tactical moves that they made. Die-hard liberals will cling to the name "progressive", but the rest of the world will ignore it, or assume it refers to something totally different. I'm waiting for one participant in here to resume counting how many times I mention that fact."

Y'all are so much fun. R_R, "progressive" has been a synonym for "liberal" in American (& British and Canadian) politics since at least the 19th century. Don't flaunt your lousy education. Fact is, though, that liberals are perfectly comfortable being called "liberal." It means that we're open to new ideas and not mired in convention--as conservatives are. You may enjoy looking backward; we'd rather look forward. Progressive, get it?

As for Evnlee's observation that signal-strength shouldn't be an issue... uh, you want to swap WRKO and/or WTKK in Boston for the barely audible rim-shot & pea-shooter progressive talk has there? Or how about swapping WMAL for WWRC in Washington? Think Rush would do as well on 1260 in DC? Gimme a break.

 

[robbbc]

Boston? Put progressive talk on a big stick and it'll kill. Same in DC. As in any programming battle, the facility is at least half the battle.

Just don't bet the house on progressive talk radio's death. You've gotta live somewhere!

First it was 'put progtalk on the radio and it will kill'

then it became ' put progtalk on the radio and promote it, and it will kill'

after so many failures in pretty 'red' area's, it is now 'Put progressive talk on a big stick and it'll kill.'

yet so many 2nd and third tier conservative hosts ( Ingraham, Medved, etc. ) get into similar situations ( weak stick, no promotions ) and survive longer then AAR.

'Sup wid dat?


I wonder if Schultz or Miller are saying to thier agents and syndicators ' don't put me on in any markets where the signal is crappy! We will fail without a strong signal!! "

I bet they are most likely saying 'hey, put me on in any market anywhere you can. We've been at this long enough to know how the system is set up and we will take our chances. Were good enough to stay on the air, even if it's not the best possible scenario.'

Man, the excuse making has truly achieved monumental status. ;D

This board has been having the same debate over and over again.

Virtually every AM station that took on AAR and/or libtalk improved ratings (12+). This has been shown time and time again. In most cases where ratings remained the same or dropped it is likely that the demographics for libtalk were better than the previous format (for example; oldies). Even in the Boston market where libtalk is exiting many more and equally powerful AM signals never get any ratings (for example WBIX at 40kW and WWZN at 50kW) while WKOX/WXKS showed up every ratings period IIRC. Ratings are not now, nor have they ever been a problem for libtalk in Boston or most other places. If ratings were the only reason for flipping a radio station than the libtalk stations would be doing just fine and getting better signals as the real dogs in the market were flipped to the format. Repeating the ratings myth over and over again will not make it true. Now the issue of actually selling libtalk to advertisers- that's the problem.

 

[evnlee]

Virtually every AM station that took on AAR and/or libtalk improved ratings (12+). This has been shown time and time again. In most cases where ratings remained the same or dropped it is likely that the demographics for libtalk were better than the previous format (for example; oldies). Even in the Boston market where libtalk is exiting many more and equally powerful AM signals never get any ratings (for example WBIX at 40kW and WWZN at 50kW) while WKOX/WXKS showed up every ratings period IIRC. Ratings are not now, nor have they ever been a problem for libtalk in Boston or most other places. If ratings were the only reason for flipping a radio station than the libtalk stations would be doing just fine and getting better signals as the real dogs in the market were flipped to the format. Repeating the ratings myth over and over again will not make it true. Now the issue of actually selling libtalk to advertisers- that's the problem.

that's crazy. Low ratings have a direct impact on sales revenue, especially in start-ups.

 

[NewsVet]

[/quote]
Virtually every AM station that took on AAR and/or libtalk improved ratings (12+). This has been shown time and time again. In most cases where ratings remained the same or dropped it is likely that the demographics for libtalk were better than the previous format (for example; oldies). Even in the Boston market where libtalk is exiting many more and equally powerful AM signals never get any ratings (for example WBIX at 40kW and WWZN at 50kW) while WKOX/WXKS showed up every ratings period IIRC. Ratings are not now, nor have they ever been a problem for libtalk in Boston or most other places. If ratings were the only reason for flipping a radio station than the libtalk stations would be doing just fine and getting better signals as the real dogs in the market were flipped to the format. Repeating the ratings myth over and over again will not make it true. Now the issue of actually selling libtalk to advertisers- that's the problem.
[/quote]

Absolutely. The progressive talk station in Madison, Wisc. had good ratings, but not enough advertising....so Clear Channel is flipping the station to sports. I don't know how much effort CC put into selling advertising in Madiosn, but I do know that business people are typically conservative and Republican (even in places like Madison) and are reluctant to advertise on lib talk stations. As for the term "progressive talk," that was insisted upon by Clear Channel, not Air America.

 

[disney fanatic]

Is WWRL will be next to dump Air America in New York City after moving from 1190 AM to 1600 AM?

 

[NewsVet]

Is WWRL will be next to dump Air America in New York City after moving from 1190 AM to 1600 AM?

[EDIT], I don't know why I bother answering but....

WWRL hasn't "moved" anywhere. And its ratings have much improved since it started carrying Air America (despite its terrible signal), so why would it "dump" the network?


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[Radio_Realist]

R_R, "progressive" has been a synonym for "liberal" in American (& British and Canadian) politics since at least the 19th century. Don't flaunt your lousy education.

Don't you flaunt yours! "Synonym" means "has the exact same meaning". If two words are synonyms, they are interchangeable. And the so-called "progressives" were always a subset or branch of the liberal tree, but never the whole tree itself. Some some liberals were progressive, but not all.

It means that we're open to new ideas and not mired in convention

Then why do liberals cling so slavishly to the failed principles of Karl Marx?

You may enjoy looking backward; we'd rather look forward.

Help me understand this. Liberals advocate more government control and management of the economy in a return to the feudal system of the Middle Ages with the state taking the place of the Crown, and that is somehow looking forward? Perhaps liberal radio failed because the liberal message was simply too confusing for anyone to want to listen to it.

It does, after all, pose an intellectual challenge equal to believing three impossible things before breakfast every day. Dealing with liberal newspeak and doublethink is, after all, quite hard work.

 

[evnlee]

Is WWRL will be next to dump Air America in New York City after moving from 1190 AM to 1600 AM?

[EDIT], I don't know why I bother answering but....

WWRL hasn't "moved" anywhere. And its ratings have much improved since it started carrying Air America (despite its terrible signal), so why would it "dump" the network?


[EDIT-inflammatory]

I think the poster was referring to AAR 'moving', not WWRL.

And, speaking of which: what about the flagship station, WLIB? In April Mediaweek, Baloney, and RnR all reported that the Arby's show Air America registering a weak 1.0 share in Los Angeles, an even tinier share in Chicago, and a catastrophic drop in New York City, where flagship station WLIB hemorrhaged nearly half its listenership over the last ratings period, falling from a mediocre 1.4 to a pathetic 0.8 share. That’s smaller than the all-Caribbean format the network replaced when it first launched in New York .

So, you have the #1 market and the flagship station ( which is no longer ) in the tank, and Air America is a 'virtual success'.


http://www.nysun.com/article/28658
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/

 

[robbbc]

Is WWRL will be next to dump Air America in New York City after moving from 1190 AM to 1600 AM?

[EDIT], I don't know why I bother answering but....

WWRL hasn't "moved" anywhere. And its ratings have much improved since it started carrying Air America (despite its terrible signal), so why would it "dump" the network?


[EDIT-inflammatory]

I think the poster was referring to AAR 'moving', not WWRL.

And, speaking of which: what about the flagship station, WLIB? In April Mediaweek, Baloney, and RnR all reported that the Arby's show Air America registering a weak 1.0 share in Los Angeles, an even tinier share in Chicago, and a catastrophic drop in New York City, where flagship station WLIB hemorrhaged nearly half its listenership over the last ratings period, falling from a mediocre 1.4 to a pathetic 0.8 share. That’s smaller than the all-Caribbean format the network replaced when it first launched in New York .

So, you have the #1 market and the flagship station ( which is no longer ) in the tank, and Air America is a 'virtual success'.


http://www.nysun.com/article/28658
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/

I love this! Everyone is so new to this board. The All Carribean Format (I love the Italics btw) is the way republicans like to mislead people into thinking WLIB was a tiny bit player in the NY market. Actually the Tropical fomats are very popular in New York and do well- more like a mix or country station in the rest of America. WLIB was facing increased competition from FM tropical formats (WSKQ) and saw that the end was near, so they took an LMA from AAR and the rest is history. If they were doing so well with Tropical why are they now doing "praise and inspiration"!? Looking at Radio and Records we see that WWRL is up since the switch to AAR and WLIB is down, behind WWRL. Mayor Bloomberg's little station at 50kW is well behind much weaker WWRL- that should be what people are ranting about, but since he is a republican I guess no one wants to mention that. How about a lovely ABC property at 50kW: WEPN. Tied with WWRL. Let's not even mention radio Disney at 50kW not even making the list.

The success or failure of a radio station is about money, not ratings. You may want to think that the most popular formats survive and the less popular formats don't, but that is not how it works. New York is an excellent example of this.