Is Political Talk Talked Out?

[dampier]

I think a big reason for this kind of thread is the fact that the majority of talk radio in this country is conservative, and this kind of talk radio energizes the listeners the most when they are fighting against something. With the GOP controlling all branches of government, a lot of conservative talkshow hosts have been left reading talking points, making excuses, and towing the party line, and it begins to sound like Radio Moscow. This is particularly true of Rush Limbaugh who has become so establishment, his knee could be holding up the foundation of the Republican Congress.

All of the energy and activism in on the left these days (which is why you hear the GOP complain that libtalk is all 'blame Bush' and attacks -- as if they weren't doing the same thing when Clinton was in office -- "America Held Hostage," etc.) The one major exception on the right is the always bizarre "Michael Savage" character who is now attacking Bush on immigration and similar issues. Being a former vitamin peddler, he knows what works in advertising and marketing, and being against something and sounding angry all the time is more interesting that fawning over Bush & Cheney for the entire length of your show.

If Democrats take control, you'll immediately see conservative talk start getting angry towards whatever they are doing and they'll be "running against" them on the air.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Someone suggested that you could listen on line, to which you replied that you didn't have the time to do this.

That is correct. I do not have time available to me to listen to AAR's talk hosts because at the time the ones I would like to check out are on the air, I am not in a position where I can use my computer to listen on-line. I do have time to listen to them while I am driving to and from work, but my internet connection doesn't work while I am driving.

I fail to see how someone who spends a good deal of time on this board does not have the time to listen to talk radio online.

That's because you lack imagination and/or knowledge of how real people actually live.

 

[kaufcom]

That's because you lack imagination and/or knowledge of how real people actually live.

We're not talking about "real people." We're talking about wingnuts like you and me who are spending time composing posts on a board entitled "New/Talk" radio. It's not too much to expect us to find the time and means to actually listen to some of the programs.

 

[kaufcom]

Reportedly, a quarter of AAR's audience comes from satellite radio and Internet audio listeners, clearly there is a potential for progressive talk outside the usual terrestrial radio channels (maybe even more outside than in).
...Given AAR's poor distribution via terrestrial radio (bad signals in some markets; no signals in most), they need to remove any barriers to people listening by newer media (especially convenience and price). They could pick up a nice extra chunk of audience (and they can't sell people who aren't listening). They should also be making deals with major cable MSOs, DirecTV and Dish to get progressive talk programming on cable/satellite audio.

While non-broadcast listenership accounts for a significant part of AAR's coverage. (Probably between 10 and 15%) it is not a significant factor in generating revenue. Radio gets about 80% of its revenue from local stations sales. Network sales is a small part of the equation and satellite sales are even smaller. Whatever deal AAR got for given exclusivity to XM far exceeds the loss the add revenue by not being on Sirius.

 

[fred flintstone]

While non-broadcast listenership accounts for a significant part of AAR's coverage. (Probably between 10 and 15%) it is not a significant factor in generating revenue. Radio gets about 80% of its revenue from local stations sales. Network sales is a small part of the equation and satellite sales are even smaller. Whatever deal AAR got for given exclusivity to XM far exceeds the loss the add revenue by not being on Sirius.

Outside of New York, AAR gets zero per cent of its revenue from local sales.

I doubt any of us knows what deal AAR made with XM - only that the bastards showed a willful disregard for listeners who had subscribed to Sirius to listen to AAR. Whatever the amount, it shows short-term thinking. But since these political activists are playing radio just to influence the next election (in their dreams), I suppose there is no reason for them to be concerned about the long-term viability of either their operation or the format.

Here is the rule for dealing with AAR:
Whatever they say, assume it is a lie.
Whatever they do, assume it is dumb.

 

[kaufcom]

While non-broadcast listenership accounts for a significant part of AAR's coverage. (Probably between 10 and 15%) it is not a significant factor in generating revenue. Radio gets about 80% of its revenue from local stations sales. Network sales is a small part of the equation and satellite sales are even smaller. Whatever deal AAR got for given exclusivity to XM far exceeds the loss the add revenue by not being on Sirius.

Outside of New York, AAR gets zero per cent of its revenue from local sales.

This is one of those examples of the 80:20 rule. Without radio station affiliates, AAR doesn't exist. So they happily allow these affiliates to generate 80% of the revenue so that they can get their 20% (Actually it's more like 10% because half of the national sales revenues goes to the stations.)

I doubt any of us knows what deal AAR made with XM - only that the bastards showed a willful disregard for listeners who had subscribed to Sirius to listen to AAR. Whatever the amount, it shows short-term thinking.

I think the bean counters at AAR know exactly what they got for giving exclusivity to XM. If you look at the satellite radio business plan you will notice that most of better programmers -- e.g. Stern, Oprah, Martha Stewart, Dylan, Major League Baseball --have exclusivity with one of the networks. This will probably change when the networks find a way to merge in about a year.