https://radioinsight.com/headlines/180481/ktnq-returns-to-spanish-news-talk/
Univision has released the schedule of talk programming to KTNQ Los Angeles.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
KTNQ Returns To Spanish News/Talk
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
https://radioinsight.com/headlines/180481/ktnq-returns-to-spanish-news-talk/
Univision has released the schedule of talk programming to KTNQ Los Angeles.
This strikes me as odd for three reasons...
1) Didn't Univision have a national line up of talk hosts similar to this one, only a few years ago? I know they had put the format on Class A 92.7 in NYC/Long Island. It wasn't so much about politics as health, lifestyle, money, etc. That Talk line up didn't last long. This seems like the same thing.
2) With ESPN closing down its Spanish language sports radio network, it looks like Univision doesn't think much of its own Spanish language sports radio network. It was only a couple of years ago that it switched all its major AM stations, including KTNQ, to Sports. This means the sports shows are not getting heard on weekdays in Los Angeles, one of the biggest Latino markets.
3) Because the average age of the Spanish-speaking audience is younger than the population as a whole, everyone thought Spanish talk won't work. There aren't enough older Spanish speakers to give it decent numbers. After all, English talk radio doesn't do well among younger listeners either, except for a few stations. Imagine what English Talk Radio's numbers would be without older listeners.
1) Didn't Univision have a national line up of talk hosts similar to this one, only a few years ago? I know they had put the format on Class A 92.7 in NYC/Long Island. It wasn't so much about politics as health, lifestyle, money, etc. That Talk line up didn't last long. This seems like the same thing.
2) With ESPN closing down its Spanish language sports radio network, it looks like Univision doesn't think much of its own Spanish language sports radio network. It was only a couple of years ago that it switched all its major AM stations, including KTNQ, to Sports. This means the sports shows are not getting heard on weekdays in Los Angeles, one of the biggest Latino markets.
3) Because the average age of the Spanish-speaking audience is younger than the population as a whole, everyone thought Spanish talk won't work. There aren't enough older Spanish speakers to give it decent numbers. After all, English talk radio doesn't do well among younger listeners either, except for a few stations. Imagine what English Talk Radio's numbers would be without older listeners.
KTNQ did talk in the late 90's, and at one point was beating KFI in 25-54 and was ahead of several of the FMs that were on at the time.
Unfortunately, the format was expensive. When both KWKW and KHJ came after it with variants of the format, there was not enough audience to sustain 3 stations. KWKW went all sports (which it still, successfully, is), KHJ went to ranchera gold and KTNQ simulcast KRCD/KRCV.
The big issue is that national Spanish talk does not work, and never has with Radio Unica, Radio Visa, and the Univision attempt.
Perhaps the biggest issue, though, is that the talent has to be trained as there is no established talk talent. That takes a program director willing to work 12 hours a day and who listens 24/7. None of this is happening.
It looks like KWKW is broadcasting Univision sports programs, which are now under the TUDN label (through a marketing collaboration with Televisa Deportes in Mexico).
Also, David, weren't you partially responsible for that successful KTNQ news/talk format in '90s??
KWKW is now the TUDN affiliate in LA. The network is a joint Univision project.
Also, David, weren't you partially responsible for that successful KTNQ news/talk format in '90s??
I was Cecil Heftel's PD. Created the format by retraining a number of music DJs who were tired of just waiting for a song to end to do a 10" segue....
Ahhh, the 90s, when Talk stations like KGO, KABC and KIRO could dominate the ratings in large West Coast cities. But sadly, nobody young or middle aged wants to hear talk anymore. All the FM hot talk stations like KLSX collapsed after Stern left. And AM talk stations are surviving on serving older listeners still willing to tune in AM radio.
Yes, KFI has very good ratings, #5 currently. But look at their cume. Those #5 ratings come from a very small audience leaving it on all day. And I would guess many of them are 55+ listeners.
I don't understand some trends in contemporary radio. Why don't listeners want to hear any soft music or instrumental music anymore? Why do Top 40 stations often do better in the 25-54 demo than in the 18-34 demo? Are middle aged women trying to be hip for their daughters? And why is the only successful talk format Very Conservative National Politics? (Yes in some cities Sports does great. But in others, like LA, not so good.)
Hey, I hope Univision does well with a local Spanish language talk station, 50,000 watts in a market where 60% of the market is Hispanic. But I fear it's like most things Univision does these days. Give it a try for a while, then like the national talk format and the national sports format, they lose interest and move onto something else.
Yes, KFI has very good ratings, #5 currently. But look at their cume. Those #5 ratings come from a very small audience leaving it on all day. And I would guess many of them are 55+ listeners.
I don't understand some trends in contemporary radio. Why don't listeners want to hear any soft music or instrumental music anymore? Why do Top 40 stations often do better in the 25-54 demo than in the 18-34 demo? Are middle aged women trying to be hip for their daughters? And why is the only successful talk format Very Conservative National Politics? (Yes in some cities Sports does great. But in others, like LA, not so good.)
Hey, I hope Univision does well with a local Spanish language talk station, 50,000 watts in a market where 60% of the market is Hispanic. But I fear it's like most things Univision does these days. Give it a try for a while, then like the national talk format and the national sports format, they lose interest and move onto something else.
It's a golden age of talk programming, just not on commercial radio. NPR programs like "This American Life" and "Fresh Air" have never been bigger. But many of the programs aren't on radio at all, offered only as podcasts.
KFI is generally out of the top 20 in 25-54.
There was a real strategy to the TUDN network moves in Miami (and around the country) which involves creating an additional revenue source for Univision upon the closure of ESPN Deportes. Many of the ESPN stations are now TUDN stations, a perfect platform for Univision as a company (meaning TV and online, too) can expand its base.
In other words, this is an expansion of the sports network... about quadrupling the number of affiliates.
The national talk network was a trial to see if talents who were well known on TV could overcome the local and regional differences in audiences; it couldn't and it was quickly eliminated. But, given the lack of options for AM stations in Spanish, it was worth the attempt.
Here are your answers:
Why don't listeners want to hear any soft music or instrumental music anymore? See answer to next question below
Why do Top 40 stations often do better in the 25-54 demo than in the 18-34 demo? Are middle aged women trying to be hip for their daughters? Yes. And trying to be their friends instead of their parents. The daughters experience the same phenomena when they go to school and encounter teachers and administrators that also just want to be their friends instead of actually teaching them.
And why is the only successful talk format Very Conservative National Politics? This question answers itself, but just in case you don't think so, did you ever actually listen to Air America? A continuous loop of squawking parrots would have sounded better and probably more intelligent.
I don't think anyone does. The goal is simple: Try to create some kind of content that will appeal to a consensus group of listeners, that will attract maybe 5% of the people in the market. There is nothing that will attract more than 10%, so the best you can hope for is the largest small group possible. This is why you can still do OK with a country station in LA attracting 2% of the people. It's a consensus format that will attract a consistent core group of people. Once you know who they are, then you serve them and sell them.
I take exception to those last four words. Ed Schultz and company may have had unpleasant voices (and I actually agree with you on this, for the most part) or subscribed to political and social philosophies you didn't share, but you do your argument no favors by questioning their intelligence. Why not just come right out and call them libtards? Or, as the learned Dr. Weiner/Savage does, proclaim liberalism a mental disorder? There are no unintelligent national talk hosts on either side of the great socio-political chasm, whether you endorse their views or not. They know exactly what they are trying to accomplish, and that is to entertain and to sway or reinforce opinions. To dehumanize them by implying deficient mental capacity contributes nothing to the debate and only accelerates the decline of civility.
Take exception all you like, I stand by my comments. There was a lot of competition for least informed or unintelligent Air America personality, but I am pretty convinced Randi Rhodes takes the prize. But don't take my word for it, read this from back in the day written by an actual fellow progressive:
https://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/11/randi_rhodes_is.html
Also from two progressive sites, a short article from each discussing her unamicable parting from Air America for not paying proper respects to a certain Democrat of very high standing and then failing to apologize for said error:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/13966
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/randi-rhodes-quits-air-am_n_96050
Not very bright.
Of course Randi had nothing on the star of the network, Al Franken, who became the first and only senator to be a victim of the left-inspired "MeToo Movement" because he literally couldn't keep his hands off of a female traveling companion without her consent. Al thought it was "funny"; the traveling companion, not so much. When caught, Al handled the situation so poorly that little-respected Senator Kristin Gillibrand is credited for being the first to give him his coup de' grace and forcing his retirement. If you can get played by Gillebrand (who is supposed to be on the same team), well, let's just say you are not among the best and brightest. If you are such a jerk that you can't keep your hands off a sleeping fellow female traveler, and then making a joke of it at her expense, then you get what you have coming.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ets-asking-al-franken-resignation/1802775001/
Last edited:
Not really.
It's been nearly four decades since there was any teen business to be had on the radio. So CHR stations target, as a core, 25-44 women. That is the focus of morning shows like Seacrest and the core of the music.
25-44 is hardly "middle aged" today; I'd define that as mid-40's to mid to late 50's now.
Yes, CHR stations do get teen spillage. But it is not the focus of programming as that is not a sales demo any more than 65+ is.
Wow, that is very interesting. Makes a lot of sense though - most teens don't have a lot of disposable income. Images of them spending all kinds of money in the mall for whatever they want is almost entirely a fabrication of the marketers - very few actually live that lifestyle. But I guess old ways of thinking die hard. I always associate teens as being the driving force as to what the changing tastes are on CHR. I shudder to think that these same tastes are actually being driven by people who are almost an entire generation older.
If you have a major CHR, it is likely that you will track music based on, perhaps, 18-34. But that is because "trending" on songs generally starts with the younger demos and then the older ones "follow". Similarly, a CHR will carefully watch trending on on-demand streams, YouTube views and the like, and most of that is driven by the youngest ages.
This is similar to how an AC station would research: if the target is 35-54, it is likely that they will research 35-49 at the most... with the understanding that the older segment will follow the core younger age range. The younger range is far more critical, as that is where the future of the format lies, while the older group will soon age out of the sales demos and is of vastly lower value for programming decisions.
While I want to emphasize, in the "moderator mode", that this subject can not become one of partisan politics, I do agree with you on the programming aspects.
The Air America hosts were certainly talented progressives. They were not stupid, and they were a good reflection of progressive thought at the time.
The problem was found elsewhere: they just were not entertaining enough. They were too intense, to strident in defending their beliefs and positions. Talk radio is an entertainment but Air America was, usually, not a fun listen.
Exactly. People think that if you simply hire a progressive version of Rush or Hannity, you'll immediately attract the same size audience. We already know it's not going to work. So what works? Take a look at Colbert. Watch Comedy Central. That's what works. It has to be FUNNY. "Entertaining" is too vague. Funny works. Preferably in front of a live audience. Otherwise, it's just more angry talk. Angry talk only works for one group.
Actually I don't think angry talk works for any group, which is exactly why Air America failed. It was non-stop vile bile all day long.
Rush is thought of as being the leading voice on the right, which is correct, however he is not all-politics all the time. He often goes into non-politic subjects as sports (particularly the NFL), culture, and technology (He is an Apple FanBoy and talks of their new products regularly). The point is, being a radio guy from his teens, he knows his first and foremost job is to be entertaining, then he can whip out his politics. He knows to do it the other way around would be to invite certain radio failure.
My point is there's no one I know of on radio who's doing what Colbert does.
I don't think it's possible to do anything like Stephen Colbert or John Oliver on a radio budget. Both of those guys have staffs of dozens.
- Status