Is there a new trend around the corner in 'talk radio' or is this it?

[Slant]

Good OR bad, the current climate of the broadcast industry will be the sole reason why you will not hear "different" talk genres of programming in the spoken word formats (besides some sports talk, hot talk and progressive talk).

Air America took a chance, and they failed for reasons not beyond their own incompetence. Right now, heritage talk radio needs to hunker down and make money the way they know how to...and if that means conservative issue based shows, than so be it.

If you want true diversity, check out the web. Simply, from Citadel to Westwood, the money isn't there to take chances on programming that will not have a high probability of appealing to a mass, revenue generating audience.

Maybe I'm wrong...but thats how I see it.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Simply, from Citadel to Westwood, the money isn't there to take chances on programming that will not have a high probability of appealing to a mass, revenue generating audience.

If the heritage stations in 1980 had taken that approach, then the radio talk revolution of Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have happened. Playing it too safe can lead to the demise of an industry, including radio. That's the ironic thing about the industry leaders of radio who broadcast programs that daily praise the pursuit of being market driven entrpenurs (basically all conservative talk praises that), yet these radio leaders don't have that entrpenural spirit in how they run their businesses. Unlike the leaders of industrial companies who must change with the times and be creative in how they produce a product, how they market it, and what new products to produce, etc, to continue to grow their businesses or they risk their business becoming stodgy and outdated and eventually out of business. As in 1980, it may again be time for the heritage stations and the radio networks that make their livilihood via AM radio rather than FM to pull their heads out of their respective turtle shells (there's more than one way to say that, this was the "G" rated way) and start a new talk radio revolution. Find the next thing in talk radio.

 

[Slant]

Mike your right...the problem is, back then, deregulation didn't exist and massive, public traded radio companies were not ruling the broadcast landscape. Totally different enviroment now...for good or bad...but probably for the worse

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Slant, you make a good point. The radio world has changed since the "Limbaugh Revolution", it may not be for the better. I keep hoping that some clever talent (which is what Rush was then) can break out from the pack and bring in that next best thing, but as you said, if the head honco's at the networks and the stations won't take the chance on the next new thing then mediocre radio is what we'll get. At some point enough people will tune out and listen to online stuff, XM, audio books, CD's, Ipods, etc. When this happens in sufficient numbers then Phil and the others at ABC, CBS, Westwood One, etc will have to find some other line of work as their medium (radio) will be as outdated as the telegraph and the victrola are today.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Why settle for a 5 when you could have more? I pulled box car numbers 25-54 and 18-34 at night on WLS. Anyone can get on a big stick station and yell "stop Hillary Clinton" every five seconds or George Bush is a Nazi every day. It take real talent to take a story and make something out of it without having to lean on those crutches. By the way Phil did you get the e-mail I sent you?

If I didn't know better, it sure sounds like Jay wants a weekend show on Phil's station. Then again, I do.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Why settle for a 5 when you could have more? I pulled box car numbers 25-54 and 18-34 at night on WLS. Anyone can get on a big stick station and yell "stop Hillary Clinton" every five seconds or George Bush is a Nazi every day. It take real talent to take a story and make something out of it without having to lean on those crutches. By the way Phil did you get the e-mail I sent you?

If I didn't know better, it sure sounds like Jay wants a weekend show on Phil's station. Then again, I do.

Oh Oh Oh me too...

 

[jaymarvin]

No, sorry Mobile I already have a full time gig and have the weekends off. I'm happy with what I have going on right now.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

I have never believed conservative talk was the only form that would work. I have stated before that the talk format really is not one thing, but a variety of different things that all share one thing in common...it talks. pb

Exactly. Which makes it all the more frustrating for those of us who do something other than conserva-clone talk.
(Again, I have no problem with conservative talk when when market-appropriate and well executed - a la WABC. I have a big problem with the vast number of squawkers out there aping Rush or whoever simply because they - and their managers - have neither the vision of courage to try something outside the tried-and-true).

Why settle for a 5 when you could have more? I pulled box car numbers 25-54 and 18-34 at night on WLS. Anyone can get on a big stick station and yell "stop Hillary Clinton" every five seconds or George Bush is a Nazi every day. It take real talent to take a story and make something out of it without having to lean on those crutches.

Amen.

 

[gr8oldies]

There are those who want a "liberal Limbaugh" and those who think the key to success is to find someone who says what Limbaugh says, without actually being Limbaugh.

Who is really out there doing anything "new and different". You can run through the plethora of names who get mentioned on this board, and I'm aware of few (I do believe Jay Marvin would have a shot, and be a better choice in syndication than just about anyone else on the liberal side, and many on the conservative side).

Gary Burbank just retired from WLW (doing satire and humor, not conservative talk..in fact he regularly poked fun at..just about everyone). WLW wants to replace him with a comedy/entertainment show and I haven't teh foggiest idea who can do what Burbank did while not being Burbank.

 

[kaufcom]

Phil...you are a piece of work

First you tried insulting me and others who disagreed with you. Remember these zingers:

I make a damn good living, so I guess I know more than you in my little finger.

It is difficult for me to communicate with somebody so twisted and unwilling listen to facts.

I feel stupid for even talking to this moron

Then you started attacking people who used false names. People usually use false names on the internet. Why does it surprise you that they do so on a board dealing with issues that some of their employers might find offensive.

Now you are accusing those of us who comment on the misinformation you spew on this board as "the true haters of talk radio."

Now let me continue without any personal attacks.

You call me a hater of of talk radio. Yes, I do hate the fact that over 90% of talk radio is conservative. That's because I love politics and fair and even-handed political debates. I suspect from some of your comments that you would also hate talk radio if 90% of it was liberal.

And why did you attack me for comparing the increase in talk radio during Presidential election years to increased baseball ratings during the World Series and Christmas music ratings during December?

You said

My point is, the stars are lining up for a great 2008. And yes....2009 will drop back down. It does not take a rocket scientist to get that. I don;t mean to be rude Baroosk, but you really invite this kind of response.

So what's the problem. We agree on this point.

Then you attacked me for comparing talk radio ratings to the superbowl. Excuse me. Wasn't it you who brought up the Super Bowl?

You can complain that it is boring...and maybe to many it is. But to the 5% or so that make up the talkradio hard core audience in most markets, this is the super bowl.

Then when I said
Yes, but what you don't point out is that the format has been stuck at 14% for the past ten years and that overall radio listening is down about 8% -- also other formats like religion, Spanish, sports, and urban have grown significantly

You replied

Baroosk we already fought this battle, remember? When you have the #1 format in radio....you can't grow any higher. There is no rank higher than NUMERO UNO. When Spanish or any other format passes News/Talk Radio, then you can make that claim. But if Spanish grows from 2% to 4%....so what? They still have only one third of the listening on News/Talk radio...and they will never ever pass us. EVER. If Spanish ever passes us, it means that Vincente Fox was elected President of the US and tore down the border. It is never gonna happen.

You still don't get it. Of course you can have the number one format and continue to grow. Ten years ago, the talk radio format had 14% of the radio audience. Today it has 14%. Yes, it is number one, but that doesn't mean it can't grow. Are you suggesting that once you reach "number one" you are stuck --you can grow anymore. You can't increase your coverage to 15%, 16%, or 17% or higher?

Also your snide comment about Spanish programming shows your ignorance of format ratings. The Spanish programming format accounts 10.9% of radio listening (not 4%). It is now the second most listened to format and during the time that talk radio has been stuck at 14%, Spanish radio ratings have increased by almost 40%. Don't be surprised if Spanish passes talk within the next six years. Never say never.


Phil said

I remain a cheerleader for this format. Many here will hate me for that. I am not sure why. If you have a message board about the News/Talk format, why come here if you hate it so much? I just don't get that. Go to the message board of the format you DO like

.

I like talk radio too Phil. I just want to see it get better. More parity in political talk, more comedy. (Remember when Phil Hendrie was funny), and programming that appeals to more than white men over 50

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Gary Burbank just retired from WLW (doing satire and humor, not conservative talk..in fact he regularly poked fun at..just about everyone). WLW wants to replace him with a comedy/entertainment show and I haven't teh foggiest idea who can do what Burbank did while not being Burbank.

The closest thing to Burbank I can think of would be Terry Meiners (who I'm sure is not going anywhere any time soon).

 

[Phil Boyce]

Jay...I did not get the e-mail you sent me. You might try my citcomm.com address.

Plus if all your going to do is cater to the core than you can only get a limited share. Why settle for a 5 when you could have more? It all reminds me of the struggle to broaden out country radio in the middle 70's and 80's. Bob Pitman caught all kinds of hell for what he did at WMAQ. But he reached beyond the core to make the format more mass appeal. Why not do it with talk?

This is just my philosophy, so what do I know. I think it is very hard to do what you are describing on talkradio. That does not mean there is not room for a host who does what you do, there is room. But as more and more competition arrives for each listener, it is becoming almost impossible to be mass appeal. I don't say entirely impossible, because somebody out there may be doing it. But ALMOST impossible. Listeners now have a tendency to put a box around everything. They are bombarded all day with so much crap that they just want to know what to expect when they turn on the radio. If they are expecting ONE thing and turn on the radio and hear something completely opposite or different, they just turn it off. Years ago, when there was not so much competition, you could get away with adding something like that and listeners would give it more time. Now listeners give you 5 seconds. That is all.

It is harder now to do what you describe because listeners attention spans are sooooooo short, and they are being bombarded all the time with different forms of information. It is overload to the max, and you can't change that on one station. That is why....IMHO....you have to put a talk station together like a jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces are different and unique...but the all must fit together with a common thread.

I don't hate talk radio. I don't like what it has become. Anyone can get on a big stick station and yell "stop Hillary Clinton" every five seconds or George Bush is a Nazi every day. It take real talent to take a story and make something out of it without having to lean on those crutches.

Jay, I agree with all of that, and I never put you in the camp of the talkradio haters. There are still hosts out there pulling good numbers doing shows like you just described. But I also think you do not quite "get" the appeal of the shows that do what you do not like above. As I have said...give me a 5 share and I am a hero. But that leaves 95% of the audience not listening, and I do agree that there is a form of talkradio out there for some of them. I just think it is harder and harder to combine these different styles on one station. I don't want cookie cutters on the air....and anybody who listeners to Rush, Sean, and Mark back to back will hear three completely different styles and approaches to talkradio. Their personalities are different and unique...but they appeal to the same basic listener, which drives my TSL through the roof. I am not trying to toot my own horn, just trying to describe what works on one station in NYC. It is not all that different than what Fox News Channel has done on cable.

pb

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Why settle for a 5 when you could have more? I pulled box car numbers 25-54 and 18-34 at night on WLS. Anyone can get on a big stick station and yell "stop Hillary Clinton" every five seconds or George Bush is a Nazi every day. It take real talent to take a story and make something out of it without having to lean on those crutches. By the way Phil did you get the e-mail I sent you?

If I didn't know better, it sure sounds like Jay wants a weekend show on Phil's station. Then again, I do.

Oh Oh Oh me too...

It's funny how you can type something with one meaning in mind; then, the reader will see view with another. 90 percent of my weekends are booked an no interest in work with Phil's station just here to hear his and others views. His last post was one of his best.

Dale, next time you have a keynote at a convention let me know and save me a spot. I have a center-row spot reserved for you at Big Eddie's next one.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Baroosk: I don't know what it is, but there is something refreshingly genuine about you. You seem completely sincere, yet at the same time completely out of touch with reality. I am going to attempt to respond to all of your claims without insulting you. I am going to assume that you really do like talkradio, just not the kind of talkradio that is done most places. So I will do my best to educate you. I know that sounds condescending, but I don't mean it to be. I just mean that I have been doing this a long time and I think I understand the format a little better than you.

First let me explain one more time my problem with fake names on this board. When somebody works at another radio station, and they come here attacking me, my station, or my company without bothering to reveal their "conflict of interest" it bothers me. I have never attacked another radio station, pd or company on this board. I post using my real name. I stand behind what I say, and if I say the wrong thing I could get in trouble for it. However others come here attacking me, hiding behind a fake name, claiming they know me personally. That is wrong, in my opinion. Show yourself, if you are going to attack me. At least then I have the ability to take a look at YOUR station and find the same flaws you seem to find in mine. It is just a matter of fairness. I believe they would never say some of the things they say, if their identity was known. But mine...IS known.

For others who use a fake name, it is not a big deal to me. It is a big deal when you are in the business attacking me from behind a closed door. Just open the door and let me see who I am dealing with so I can have a fair "fight" if that is what you want. Some people here want to fight me, without revealing who they are. I am a big target. I am easy prey for them. To me that is not fair...it feels like a sucker punch.

You call me a hater of of talk radio. Yes, I do hate the fact that over 90% of talk radio is conservative. That's because I love politics and fair and even-handed political debates. I suspect from some of your comments that you would also hate talk radio if 90% of it was liberal.

Baroosk thanks for being honest here and there is nothing wrong with that. It is just that talkradio actually works. So for you to condemn it for personal reasons as you state above is already a moot point. It is not going to change a thing, just because you personally do not like it.

And why did you attack me for comparing the increase in talk radio during Presidential election years to increased baseball ratings during the World Series and Christmas music ratings during December?

So what's the problem. We agree on this point.

Then you attacked me for comparing talk radio ratings to the superbowl. Excuse me. Wasn't it you who brought up the Super Bowl?

I will try to explain the difference in how you used the Super Bowl and how I used it. Talkradio ratings are going to go up in 2008 because it is our world series....it is our Christmas music...it is our Super Bowl. But unilike those events that are limited in time (Super Bowl is one day) this will go on for the entire year. It is normal to assume that in 2009 numbers will go back down to normal. But my point is, we are approaching a banner year in talkradio with more interest in this presidential election than we have seen in years, so it is a good time to be in this format. It is not a good time for stations to begin tinkering with the format and stop "dancing with the one that brung em to the dance." Sorry, I know I mixed my metaphors....could not resist.

You still don't get it. Of course you can have the number one format and continue to grow. Ten years ago, the talk radio format had 14% of the radio audience. Today it has 14%. Yes, it is number one, but that doesn't mean it can't grow. Are you suggesting that once you reach "number one" you are stuck --you can grow anymore. You can't increase your coverage to 15%, 16%, or 17% or higher?

Also your snide comment about Spanish programming shows your ignorance of format ratings. The Spanish programming format accounts 10.9% of radio listening (not 4%). It is now the second most listened to format and during the time that talk radio has been stuck at 14%, Spanish radio ratings have increased by almost 40%. Don't be surprised if Spanish passes talk within the next six years. Never say never.

Well...if spanish passes talkradio as the most listened to radio format in America...it is time for me to hang up my headphones. For you to assume that there is something wrong with talkradio because it is not continuing to attract a new and larger audience every year just shows how naive you are about how radio listening works. Talkradio works, but "it ain't for everybody." The listening audience is just too diverse. There are just too many people out there that are never going to listen to this format. I think holding the #1 position for the last 10 years is remarkable. You don't...so I guess we will have to disagree on that one.

I like talk radio too Phil. I just want to see it get better. More parity in political talk, more comedy. (Remember when Phil Hendrie was funny), and programming that appeals to more than white men over 50

Wow I think I actually agree with you here. Maybe someday somebody will give me the keys to the Ferrari and let me drive it around the block...and tell me I don't have to bring it back for 5-10 years...and give me the time to create such a format. It would be a blast and it just might work. Anybody want to do that?

 

[kaufcom]

Phil said,

let me explain one more time my problem with fake names on this board. When somebody works at another radio station, and they come here attacking me, my station, or my company without bothering to reveal their "conflict of interest" it bothers me. I have never attacked another radio station, pd or company on this board. I post using my real name. I stand behind what I say, and if I say the wrong thing I could get in trouble for it. However others come here attacking me, hiding behind a fake name, claiming they know me personally. That is wrong, in my opinion. Show yourself, if you are going to attack me. At least then I have the ability to take a look at YOUR station and find the same flaws you seem to find in mine. It is just a matter of fairness. I believe they would never say some of the things they say, if their identity was known. But mine...IS known.

As one who uses a fake name on this board, let me explain my motivation. I have been posting on the news/talk board, off and on, for a couple of years. For the first year or so I used my real name. I stopped using my name when one of the regulars posted an item here about a family member of mine who was in some trouble. At that point, I started using my current handle. As many posters on this board know, I have a blog (see below) and I welcome comments and do not censor anyone. You can also email me on the blog and I will probably give you my real name. I enjoy interacting with you on the board and commend you for sharing your thoughts so openly and candidly.

 

[jaymarvin]

Phil, thanks for the nice return post. I'm not sure I agree with you about people putting things in a box. I do agree you have to put a station together very carefully and make sure all the parts fit and you have the proper balance between politics and other things going on. To me the key is the host has to be good, and they have to know how to do more than talk about one thing all the time. Jim Rome is a great example of what I'm talking about. He does a lot more than just sports. You know what you're going to get from him, but he always puts a little bit more in the stew. That's what radio needs. That and hosts who are a little right of center and a little left of center. Too far left too far right doesn't work. Liberal talk can work too if it's done right. Sad thing is it's not done right, and those of us who can read numbers know why. Bad signals, lack of promotion, most of all bad product. Anytime you have an owner who writes a political book and tries to push it you're in trouble. Radio is not about getting Dems or Repubs elected it's about entertainment. I predict after this upcoming election cycle Air America will be gone. As far as attacking you, Phil you're right in the sense you do not carry the cross for all of talk radio. You just happen to be a high value target because of who you are.

 

[willcail]

Phil,

If WABC is doing such a good job in the revenue/ratings area, why dropped Cost to Cost for infomercials. To me that is a sign of desperation.

BTW http://www.wvko1580.com is Columbus OH progressive talk.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Phil,

If WABC is doing such a good job in the revenue/ratings area, why dropped Cost to Cost for infomercials. To me that is a sign of desperation.

BTW http://www.wvko1580.com is Columbus OH progressive talk.

Maybe you should check your source on that. That thread has run it's course and the infomercial on WABC overnight-everynight was pure BS.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Baroosk. I really do not have a problem with your decision to use a fake name. I explained my problem with it, and you do not seem to fit the criteria that annoys the heck out of me.

Jay...I agree with most of what you said. I agree about Jim Rome. He is a big time destination personality. He is fun to listen to and you learn something. He has the right stuff that most successful hosts have...you included. And he could probably talk about anything and make it listenable, and he has an ability to create fans...not just listeners.


Will Cail says:

If WABC is doing such a good job in the revenue/ratings area, why dropped Cost to Cost for infomercials. To me that is a sign of desperation.

First I worry about anybody who can't even spell their own fake name. I think you meant Will Call. I also worry about somebody who can't spell Coast-To-Coast. And I worry about somebody who heard that rumor, believed it to be gospel, without ever bothering to find out if it was true or not. And there is plenty of evidence that it is not true.

Thanks Dale, again! LOL

pb

 

[jaymarvin]

Thanks Phil. To Mr. Call instead going by something someone else tells you turn the radio on and find out for yourself. Or stream the station. Here's another thought. . .if you ran paid programing overnights would it hurt the morning show? If not why not run it?