is there a market for Progressive radio?

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

I'm not trying to throw political DingDongs or Twinkies here...am trying to present a real question. So before you read, please understand my intent is not to play politics.

My question ... is there a market for progressive radio? I consider myself moderate/progressive, and find I am attracted to the COMEDIC side of politics when it comes to radio & TV; and otherwise I am interested in balanced panels (NOT and I repeat NOT ... Talking Points that pretend to be regular panelists, such as Meet the Press guests). That means I enjoyed Al Franken's comedic take when Air America was alive ... not so much the rhetoric programs. Enjoy the Daily Show, etc. But the whole concept of having a station to eat the "dog food" is not something I crave, and I wonder if that is what is behind the lackluster success of the progressive format?

On the other hand, the Rush, Glenn Beck, etc. thing really seems to catch fire because my PERCEPTION is that audience loves to be spoon-fed the conspiracy theories, the belief that there is always something lurking and we better hate the people who aren't "like us". It's more of a safe harbor, and therefore the appointment listening seems to be more loyal and the message resonates with a much larger audience. It's not a numbers thing ... which is why we have 230 stations seeking Conservative Talk mantle in a community where that population is highly outnumbered. It's a lifestyle and preference thing that seems to align with the demographics and is missing from the left-leaning audience.

Anyone see this much differently than I do ... or, even worse, SIMILARLY to how I do?

 

[notalent]

aside from the politics, consider this:

Rush and Beck, arguably the most successful radio talk hosts of any persuasion were RADIO PEOPLE first who then chose to do political talk. Trained radio professionals with an understanding of formatics, bits, timing, etc.

Most other talk hosts were pundits first who then decided to do radio.

When Limbaugh started, he presented a unique viewpoint in a media sea full of moderate to liberal content on all levels.

When Air America started there was no shortage of the liberal/progressive view in media. it was nothing unique and they hired pundits to do radio instead of radio people to do punditry.

I've listened to Rush off and on since around '92 and i've never heard him tell me to "hate" anyone or anything. Even if he did I think I could make up my own mind about who or what to fear. Just saying. Rush was better radio wise in the earlier days. Beck, formatically is exactly like any other radio morning show, Rivers, etc, except there is only one topic, politics.

Radio people know how to succeed at radio by using their well honed broadcast skills... Pundits must rely exclusively on their punditry and hope that carries the day for them.

The same happens in music radio, these days with most new jocks having no training or "farm system" to hone their skills. Partially why radio is a shadow of its former self. Back in the heyday everyone on the air in a major market worked their way up, honed skills, went to broadcast school, and learned the art of SHOW BIZ. Not so much today.

 

[multiplex]

In my opinion, yes. The general problem is one that many new formats have: the stations switching to it were weak, failing at something else, or both.
And Air America survived quite a while, considering how it was run.
One of the biggest pitfalls for progressive talk is that most stations are run by corporations opposing its views.
And we're increasingly seeing companies specializing in certain formats.
Thus, CBS has decided to do sports in a big way on AM, and what's the AM CBS owns in Seattle? KPTK.
KPTK's progressive talk format doesn't mesh with their grand sports plan, so bye-bye Stephanie Miller and hello Jim Rome.
Another problem, as you say, is that the audience may not be listening as long as they do to conservative talk, but I suspect that's less the case than many people think.
I've seen a lot of progressive talk loyalty spanning all age groups.
But progressive radio has never had anyone with a loyalty factor to rival Limbaugh or Hannity. Al Franken was good, but he wandered all over the place.
Stephanie Miller is good, but she's too acerbic for some.
Randi excels, but sometimes she's really out there.
Thom Hartmann is intelligent and persuasive, but somewhat cerebral.
Mike Malloy (sp?) is thoughtful and smart, but some find his rants way over the top.
To me, Big Ed isn't cerebral and analytical enough.
If the best parts of all of these personalities could be rolled into one, that person could lead listeners to a viable progressive talk station or network.
The real question isn't whether progressive radio is marketable, but whether the big boys with the bucks will ever market it well, or even at all.
So far I have only seen one station which put a massive promotional effort into the format, and that station changed format after a sale.
The only way we can truly see how marketable progressive talk is would be for it to appear on signals as big as the ones that carry other talk programming, with the same resources used to promote the format.
And, of course, entertaining, informative hosts.
Without all of those factors, your question will be unanswered.

 

[TheBigA]

In a market like Seattle, maybe.

Consider the fact that NPR's KUOW is one of the top-rated radio stations in town. But NPR doesn't do personality talk the way commercial radio does.

The real story is that the market for conservative political radio is on the decline. Outside of Rush and Hannity, the other syndicated talkers get small audience shares. Research tells us that younger audiences, those under 40, don't like political talk. So this is a format that will likely die out in about ten years.

The other point I'd make is that conservatives tend to band together, while progressives tend to be free-thinkers. While free thought is admirable intellectually, it's bad for radio. Commercial radio programs to groups, not individuals. Audiences who cluster together make good radio audiences. Why? Because commercial radio sells audience numbers to advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money the station takes in. Progressives have demonstrated an interest, but not a RAGING interest in radio talk. They prefer straight news, without a lot of the blather, and they're well served by KUOW.

Lastly, whatever the political slant, talk radio is driven by the specific personality. Right now, there are no known progressive radio personalities who can attract and retain an audience like the conservatives. If some of the Comedy Central hosts started radio shows, they might be successful. A humorous approach could work, especially for younger audiences. But it really comes down to the attraction of the personality.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

The other point I'd make is that conservatives tend to band together, while progressives tend to be free-thinkers. While free thought is admirable intellectually, it's bad for radio. Commercial radio programs to groups, not individuals. Audiences who cluster together make good radio audiences. Why? Because commercial radio sells audience numbers to advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money the station takes in. Progressives have demonstrated an interest, but not a RAGING interest in radio talk. They prefer straight news, without a lot of the blather, and they're well served by KUOW.

You very eloquently said in this paragraph what I was fumbling around trying to say. Great job.

 

[Bongwater]

Limbaugh was a failed CHR jock who simply took his act and revamped it to an older, conservative talk radio audience, which for AM radio was a perfect fit. And I'll give the devil his due: NOBODY ever did talk radio that way before.

Beck and all the rest were Rush wannabes. Most flounder well below Rush to this day. However, radio relies on a LOT of "me-too" copycatting and Beck knows this as well. How was he going to make himself stand out in a sea of Limbaugh wannabes? Simple. Add another dimension to it. Enter Alex Jones.

Alex Jones simply came out of nowhere. He was one of the first to make his name through internet syndication (and a list of scrappy, lowest rung AM stations and Part 15 radio) But he had a gimmick not even Rush would duplicate: He played on people's worst fears. The people who believed the government was out to get them.

Rush made you believe everyone without an "R" after their names was evil. Jones made you believe EVERYBODY in ANY level of government authority was evil. Beck knew if you could combine this and wrap it up in a GOP friendly candy coating to make it more palatable to nervous far-right conservatives. Throw in a few crocodile tears to make it look somewhat human and you'd have an instant smash - the best of both worlds.

Whereas Alex Jones still languishes in the backwater, Glenn Beck has profited handsomely.

As far as progressive radio, I find it kind of bizarre. First, I don't think it's a failed format - far from it. But the bottom line is it's not a "corporate friendly" format. And more than anything else, that's where the money is.

But you can't deny it's had an impact. I really don't think the astonishing Democratic victory last election day could have been done by cable TV (where progressive talk has been VERY successful), the progressive internet sites and social media on their own. Terrestrial radio's great advantage is immediacy and wide local coverage. Even those with web access up to their teeth will often listen to terrestrial radio as their background noise. Why waste precious RAM memory on an app or web player.you really don't need and bog everything else down on your low RAM netbook or tablet computer?

 

[Blatherwatch]

The bigger question might be, do progressives need to listen to radio as far as talk is concerned? It's possible they already get most of their analysis from other sources, mainly the net and what progressive voices are out there merely serve as a means of support and entertainment politically in a blue area of the country, but as one radio owner told me recently, if you can't sell progressive talk on the west coast, you can't sell it anywhere.

The Miller's and the Schultz's saving grace is to embrace more access to app's as their demographics support listeners who are tech savvy and are willing to add the data plans to their 'smart' devices, or go XM Sirius, while the listeners on the right will be slow to pick up on the move to such technology. Apps and streaming is about to overtake radio for equal share of listeners if it hasn't already. Miller and Schultz also have side projects ( Current TV, Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour, MSNBC respectively) which earn enough to please themselves without relying on one huge contract from a radio source.

You're also going to see hosts who have to continue to generate a $%^&load of revenue to keep their huge multimillion dollar contracts (if they are renewed) with companies who have already leveraged themselves to death.

Will the ad dollars be there for terrestrial radio in the future is probably the real question.

 

[DJ Alan]

Might want to consider what Howard Stern proved years ago: People that hate what you have to say will listen to you longer than the people that agree with you.

I know plenty of progressives that listen to conservative talk radio, and watch Fox News, because it charges them up… sometimes to a fervor. I don’t get it myself. I don’t listen to talk radio in general, or watch Fox News, but when I hear too much conservative BS being tossed my way, I’ll usually tune out when I realize it is working up my pulse.

To sum up my thoughts: With the rabid manner that conservatives listen to, and hang on to every word of conservative talk radio, added with the progressives that listen to get worked up… well, you can see where the ratings are when it comes to talk radio. I am sure we can all agree that most corporations will usually follow the ratings to the money no matter how unethical the means. They play on the fact that common sense is not that common, and that works in the business world, for at least the short term gains.

As long as conservative talk radio is around there will alays be a market for progressive talk, but it will have a smaller draw.

My 2 cents,
DJ Alan

 

[multiplex]

I think progressive talk radio meshes better with a local sales force courting local sponsors.
And of course that's what radio companies have ben eliminating or cutting back on.

 

[fairchild]

There's a market, but not everywhere, and usually not as lucrative. Conservative talk radio is perfectly aimed at its demographic. Those are people who usually listen to conservative talk all day. There's more of a market for local conservative hosts riding Rush's ratings than there is for local progressives.

Crossing over slightly into politics, the conservative philosophy is more of a mindset. Conservatives are more likely to self-identify and seek out their own media sources, while people who are progressive don't always feel the need to identify themselves as such, or may not be progressive on all the issues. Conservatives are a more loyal audience, although I do agree with the previous posters, than audience is shrinking.

 

[Lonely Summer]

I think progressive talk radio meshes better with a local sales force courting local sponsors.
And of course that's what radio companies have ben eliminating or cutting back on.

A friend and I have commented several times that what was missing on KPTK was some local perspective. They were a great station for keeping in touch with issues on the national scene, but to find out about anything local, you had to look elsewhere. Something to keep in mind if anyone attempts this format again in the Seattle market.

 

[Goldilocks94941]

I liked KPOJ's presentation better because of how they did their breaks. Tho' I think for an automated stations, KPTK had a good selection of weekday shows. But KPOJ used to include a short AP news summary during the half-hour breaks, and didn't cut the on-the-hour newscast short to plug in a couple more minutes of promos etc, as KPTK, 'scuze me, K-effin' Q, does.

When you're listening to a 'news-talk' format, a little more news can't hurt to keep people tuned in. Even if it's just from AP Radio. And maybe throw in a few of the one or two minute-long feature programs from time to time, like Star Date, during those longer breaks when you don't have actual commercial sales to fill all the avails. Otherwise I tend to tune away during a four minute or longer commercial break, and sometimes I find something on another station that draws me in and not back to 1090 for awhile. But that's getting less and less likely for me with what most Seattle stations are offering. Weekends are getting especially dull. I think it's because sales people have pushed out actual programming staff from TV and radio mgt, and don't realize there's a lot more to the listener/viewer experience than just filling blanks on a page. For example, imagine what Comcast might be like with an actual program director in each of its markets making decisions on what they offer.

 

[ksradiogeek]

In a city like Seattle, yes. Just put some local talent on there as well and you have a shot. Also, promote it like CBS has done with the forums.

 

[Bongwater]

I think the very term "Progressive Talk" might be misleading. Or might be confused with "Progressive Rock". Who knows?

I would have simply called it "News/Talk 1090", "Talk 1090" "Talkradio 1090" or something. I mean, most conservative talkers don't label themselves as "Conservative Talk" (aside from a few with nudge-wink monikers like The Patriot, The Flag, The Truth, Freedom, etc.) They mostly use generic terms like those I mentioned.

And I agree, a deeper focus on local news and a few local hosts talking about local issues would have made SOME difference. And that's what KUOW seems to have done and they rode all the way to the top with it (perhaps the first time EVER in Seattle radio history a non-com topped the general ratings chart.)

 

[TheBigA]

And that's what KUOW seems to have done and they rode all the way to the top with it (perhaps the first time EVER in Seattle radio history a non-com topped the general ratings chart.)

Exactly! I agree. What I don't understand is why there needs to be another station besides KUOW in this format. Just because the station is non-commercial doesn't mean it's less of a station.

 

[Goldilocks94941]

To think of KUOW and KPTK (or the now-officially "effin'Q") as being the same programming, and as equals -- that betrays a real lack of understanding about program content, and also about the requirements of non-commercial programming. I'm afraid to ask what you would consider the centerpoint or standard for "mainstream" news and talk programming?

And it beautifully illustrates my other point about how the sales people really don't understand the "content" part of programming. Such as the difference between advocacy programming, and straightforward news and talk hosts who don't have to trumpet a partisan line. (I'm talking KUOW here, and maybe Dave Ross.) The journalistic and ethical requirements many of us were taught seem to be treated as archaic and sneer-worthy by some of you. Maybe you need to find that dusty AP Stylebook in what used to be the station newsroom and see what was considered the industry standard for broadcasting news and information. Back when you used to have to at least pretend to care, in order to have a radio license.

Given the types of programming, and the perspectives that I read from some industry apologists on this board, it's no surprise to me that other distribution systems are replacing the radio "minstral show," as listeners who don't want to be shouted at or manipulated seek out a trusted source for information that isn't designed to "sell" anything. (hint: It ain't on Comcast, either.) Or that a non-comm station, with all of its own flaws and shortcomings, is relied on by more and more people who have given up on the former standard bearers of the radio dial when seeking relatively-objective information and conversation.

 

[dtuba]

To think of KUOW and KPTK (or the now-officially "effin'Q") as being the same programming, and as equals -- that betrays a real lack of understanding about program content, and also about the requirements of non-commercial programming. I'm afraid to ask what you would consider the centerpoint or standard for "mainstream" news and talk programming?

And it beautifully illustrates my other point about how the sales people really don't understand the "content" part of programming. Such as the difference between advocacy programming, and straightforward news and talk hosts who don't have to trumpet a partisan line. (I'm talking KUOW here, and maybe Dave Ross.) The journalistic and ethical requirements many of us were taught seem to be treated as archaic and sneer-worthy by some of you. Maybe you need to find that dusty AP Stylebook in what used to be the station newsroom and see what was considered the industry standard for broadcasting news and information. Back when you used to have to at least pretend to care, in order to have a radio license.

Given the types of programming, and the perspectives that I read from some industry apologists on this board, it's no surprise to me that other distribution systems are replacing the radio "minstral show," as listeners who don't want to be shouted at or manipulated seek out a trusted source for information that isn't designed to "sell" anything. (hint: It ain't on Comcast, either.) Or that a non-comm station, with all of its own flaws and shortcomings, is relied on by more and more people who have given up on the former standard bearers of the radio dial when seeking relatively-objective information and conversation.

Very good post. Wish we had a "golf clap" smiley to put here...

 

[boombox]

I wonder how much the marketing of the station would have made a difference? Here in Seattle I've seen maybe a handful of cars with the 10-90 bumper stickers, but that's about it.

I think a lot of their potential audience just don't know about the station. If I mention the station or any of its hosts to liberal friends of mine, their answer is generally "who?"

 

[TheBigA]

I think a lot of their potential audience just don't know about the station. If I mention the station or any of its hosts to liberal friends of mine, their answer is generally "who?"

For many, AM radio is a tree falling in an empty forest.

 

[AQH]

I wonder how much the marketing of the station would have made a difference? Here in Seattle I've seen maybe a handful of cars with the 10-90 bumper stickers, but that's about it.

The amount of bumper stickers on cars is not a proper barometer on the effectiveness of marketing.

I think a lot of their potential audience just don't know about the station. If I mention the station or any of its hosts to liberal friends of mine, their answer is generally "who?"

Just because people might think Liberal or would vote straight party line doesn't mean they would listen to a Liberal talk radio station. I like grilled cheese sandwiches, but that doesn't mean I would listen to a station that talks about grilled cheese sandwiches.