McConnell lands Atlanta

[titoisradio]

To be fair, I did hear Mike do just that with the case of the boy who was left in the closet to die by the foster parents..a story that actually didn't get any national coverage that I'm aware of.

I also have noticed that he lets 700 WLW or Cincinnati references or even some Atlanta refrences go without chastising the caller like he was doing early on in syndication.

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

The internet has made everyone local and local refrences on talk shows should be part of that.

I would like to hear Mike announce where the listeners are from when talking whether it be Cincinnati, Atlanta, or wherever.

 

[brian65]

Mike did, on one of his recent shows, say that Ken had been banned from calling...but it was because he had 'abused his email privileges', whatever that means. As if that is any reason to ban someone from calling the show; the listeners couldn't care less if he exceeded his email privileges.

Sometimes I think WLW has caused their own Ken 'problem' by not letting him actually have even the standard amount of caller time to actually come on and make a statement before they start calling him crazy and hi-jacking the topic from him. His ideas cannot be that much different than many of the other ones out there. And if they are actually that dangerous, they should just ban him permanently.

They might be treading into Nancy Grace territory by not allowing Ken to get his two cents in, driving him insane enough to do something really bad to himself or others. Just for the sake of ratings.

As many times as I have heard that guy call, I can't ever say I've heard him ever be allowed to finish what he starts to say without it being completely side-tracked by a WLW host.

 

[LocalGuy]

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Why? How much of WSIX's revenue comes from XM??

 

[titoisradio]

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Why? How much of WSIX's revenue comes from XM??

By going on XM they now become a national station. There are XM specific commercials that bring additional revenue into Clear Channel, thus those XM listeners are important. Finally listeners nor advertisers aren't going to care if another listener is on the air from Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville or at a truck stop with a waffle house 30 miles outside of Nashville as long as the call is entertaining and more than "where you calling from". Its about entertainment not programming to the "hot zips".

 

[ajhenderson]

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Why? How much of WSIX's revenue comes from XM??

By going on XM they now become a national station. There are XM specific commercials that bring additional revenue into Clear Channel, thus those XM listeners are important. Finally listeners nor advertisers aren't going to care if another listener is on the air from Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville or at a truck stop with a waffle house 30 miles outside of Nashville as long as the call is entertaining and more than "where you calling from". Its about entertainment not programming to the "hot zips".

No, they're a local station that CC put on XM to serve as spot dump. CC sells spots on tons of different platforms, be it stations, websites, networks, traffic services, etc., and this is no different. People aren't calling up and asking to buy spots on WSIX on XM.

The bottom line is that while WSIX, WLW, etc. got selected to fill CC's allotment of simulcast channels on XM because of their quality content, CC could care less about providing content, nor about attracting listeners outside of each station's market. If XM had given them channels with test patterns they wouldn't have cared so long as they could have thrown some national buys on them

 

[titoisradio]

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Why? How much of WSIX's revenue comes from XM??

By going on XM they now become a national station. There are XM specific commercials that bring additional revenue into Clear Channel, thus those XM listeners are important. Finally listeners nor advertisers aren't going to care if another listener is on the air from Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville or at a truck stop with a waffle house 30 miles outside of Nashville as long as the call is entertaining and more than "where you calling from". Its about entertainment not programming to the "hot zips".

No, they're a local station that CC put on XM to serve as spot dump. CC sells spots on tons of different platforms, be it stations, websites, networks, traffic services, etc., and this is no different. People aren't calling up and asking to buy spots on WSIX on XM.

The bottom line is that while WSIX, WLW, etc. got selected to fill CC's allotment of simulcast channels on XM because of their quality content, CC could care less about providing content, nor about attracting listeners outside of each station's market. If XM had given them channels with test patterns they wouldn't have cared so long as they could have thrown some national buys on them

I would say that WLW has embraced the XM audience and though topics are local they do not hide the fact they are on XM, whereas the WSIX "programming geniuses" took the opposite approach. Of course corporate only cares about the bottom line, they'd run test patterns on FM if they thought they could throw local and national buys on them. But from a discussion here if your station is on a national platform, whether it be internet or satellite you should acknowledge that. Another interesting question is if I am listening to 700WLW on XM in Cincinnati and had a book would my listening count towards WLW's ratings?

 

[ajhenderson]

CC would put test patterns on FM if they could sell spots, but they couldn't. That's the difference.

BTW, many stations are streamed online and most of those at least making passing reference to it, so does that mean that every station with fourteen people listening online should program to the entire world?

 

[titoisradio]

CC would put test patterns on FM if they could sell spots, but they couldn't. That's the difference.

BTW, many stations are streamed online and most of those at least making passing reference to it, so does that mean that every station with fourteen people listening online should program to the entire world?

You program stations to be entertaining to your audience, its simple but its what works, anything more complex such as "hot zips", quarter hour placement of commercials, and overhyped contests that provide little or no listener interaction are smoke and mirrors and simply a waste. Also you evidently don't keep up with online radio listening trends, its the future especially with at work listening, I highly doubt Clear Channel stations have only 14 computers connected, hell my net only station currently has 83 tuned in right now at 11pm Eastern, that's without the web presense of a Kiss or WLW. WLW does a great job of broadcasting to a national and worldwide audience while maintaining their local precense. They don't hide the fact they are on XM but embrace it, WSIX does the opposite, which is a bad approach. I also disagree with you that they could put test paterns on the XM stations and still sell it.

What is more entertaining on lets say Kiss, DJ talking about the Mason Prom or talking about K-Fed/Britney? Dj saying, Hi where you calling from, or having a caller describe how she uses a carrot as a sex toy? Localism is way over-rated

 

[brian65]

He's now telling his Christmas Story. I think now he would need to be slightly drunk to make it sound less like court testimony. At least in a better mood. Or maybe let him be telling it to someone in the studio. The monologue technique doesn't work so well anymore.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

I got to listen to Mr. McConnell's show a few times this week. So far....eh, hasn't done much for me. He doesn't seem to engage me too much. I've listened to entire shows too, not just 10 minutes at a time. If he's a great local host, then that's good, but if the guy's really got talent he'll be able to adapt nationally without becoming a bore. It's possible. I listen to some.

Another thing I noticed is that WLW on XM is uncensored, so anything that gets dumped out of, the XM audience gets to hear.

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Maybe they have no listeners. With all the commercial free country choices on XM, who would want to listen to one with commercials? Plus, I wouldn't imagine this Clear Channel deal will last for a long time, with all the divesting they've been doing, so maybe it's not worth the station's energy.

I would say that WLW has embraced the XM audience and though topics are local they do not hide the fact they are on XM, whereas the WSIX "programming geniuses" took the opposite approach. Of course corporate only cares about the bottom line, they'd run test patterns on FM if they thought they could throw local and national buys on them. But from a discussion here if your station is on a national platform, whether it be internet or satellite you should acknowledge that. Another interesting question is if I am listening to 700WLW on XM in Cincinnati and had a book would my listening count towards WLW's ratings?

One thing I want to point out, Clear Channel runs a LOT of WLW promos on their XM channels. I might just try recording some of them. It used to be an insane amount, but they've trimmed way down. They even have WLW produce news for channels 165 and 152, which are national news spots not heard on WLW, but have a plug for the website and channel 173. I'm not sure who's influencing that, but sometimes it feels like getting WLW as much attention as possible is top priority when it comes to on-network promos, while the other shows take 2nd, 3rd, 4th seat, etc, and some get zero promotion. They got smart recently and began promoting the college basketball games, which is a big draw for satellite radio. And to add to that, WLW doesn't reciprocate, so no promos for other Clear Channel XM channels or programs run on WLW. It's like they want to trap everyone there. Haha.

Someone should also tell them they're not on XM in Canada. It's sometimes erroneously in their promos and mentioned by the hosts. Of course the AM signal certainly blasts its way up there.

If you have a book and listen to WLW-XM, it would not count towards AM's ratings. Satellite ratings are kept private, much like internet and non-comms.

 

[titoisradio]

I got to listen to Mr. McConnell's show a few times this week. So far....eh, hasn't done much for me. He doesn't seem to engage me too much. I've listened to entire shows too, not just 10 minutes at a time. If he's a great local host, then that's good, but if the guy's really got talent he'll be able to adapt nationally without becoming a bore. It's possible. I listen to some.

Another thing I noticed is that WLW on XM is uncensored, so anything that gets dumped out of, the XM audience gets to hear.

On an offtopic note when i listen to WSIX/Nashville on XM they avoid XM listeners like the plague, which is beyond stupid.

Maybe they have no listeners. With all the commercial free country choices on XM, who would want to listen to one with commercials? Plus, I wouldn't imagine this Clear Channel deal will last for a long time, with all the divesting they've been doing, so maybe it's not worth the station's energy.

I would say that WLW has embraced the XM audience and though topics are local they do not hide the fact they are on XM, whereas the WSIX "programming geniuses" took the opposite approach. Of course corporate only cares about the bottom line, they'd run test patterns on FM if they thought they could throw local and national buys on them. But from a discussion here if your station is on a national platform, whether it be internet or satellite you should acknowledge that. Another interesting question is if I am listening to 700WLW on XM in Cincinnati and had a book would my listening count towards WLW's ratings?

One thing I want to point out, Clear Channel runs a LOT of WLW promos on their XM channels. I might just try recording some of them. It used to be an insane amount, but they've trimmed way down. They even have WLW produce news for channels 165 and 152, which are national news spots not heard on WLW, but have a plug for the website and channel 173. I'm not sure who's influencing that, but sometimes it feels like getting WLW as much attention as possible is top priority when it comes to on-network promos, while the other shows take 2nd, 3rd, 4th seat, etc, and some get zero promotion. They got smart recently and began promoting the college basketball games, which is a big draw for satellite radio. And to add to that, WLW doesn't reciprocate, so no promos for other Clear Channel XM channels or programs run on WLW. It's like they want to trap everyone there. Haha.

Someone should also tell them they're not on XM in Canada. It's sometimes erroneously in their promos and mentioned by the hosts. Of course the AM signal certainly blasts its way up there.

If you have a book and listen to WLW-XM, it would not count towards AM's ratings. Satellite ratings are kept private, much like internet and non-comms.

I guess to answer the last question it would depend on how you wrote the station down in the book, if someone wrote WLW or 700 WLW then they would get credit. I do know that XM-USA was heard in Canada before XM lauched XM-Canada, though this was before WLW launched XM173. The non-dumping of the XM/Internet signal is interesting in that Phil Burress could record the XM feed and try to claim indecency against WLW even though the am broadcast was not indecent.

One thing I wish WLW would do on XM is do some original programming durring Reds/Bengals games, though with the recent downsizing that is very unlikely. WLW news on other XM Channels is due to Clear Channel dropping their regional news channels and only putting WLW on, which is a win for both XM and Clear Channel.

 

[LocalGuy]

With all the commercial free country choices on XM, who would want to listen to one with commercials?

Easy -- anyone who wants to hear the best that's available on XM. WSIX is the most energetic, alive, human, entertaining, cohesive country product there.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

I guess to answer the last question it would depend on how you wrote the station down in the book, if someone wrote WLW or 700 WLW then they would get credit. I do know that XM-USA was heard in Canada before XM lauched XM-Canada, though this was before WLW launched XM173. The non-dumping of the XM/Internet signal is interesting in that Phil Burress could record the XM feed and try to claim indecency against WLW even though the am broadcast was not indecent.

One thing I wish WLW would do on XM is do some original programming durring Reds/Bengals games, though with the recent downsizing that is very unlikely. WLW news on other XM Channels is due to Clear Channel dropping their regional news channels and only putting WLW on, which is a win for both XM and Clear Channel.

I'd imagine if you wrote WLW, WLW (AM) would get credit, despite it being hundreds of miles away. If you wrote XM173, WLW-XM gets credit. If you wrote 700, the local station on 700 AM (if such a station exists) would get credit. If there isn't a 700 AM locally, maybe it's tossed out, but even then a lot of people would have to write that for it to attain a determinable listenership.

XM was technically on in Canada before XM Canada, but by "on" I mean the signal footprint reaches half of Canada. Kind of like how some of their satellite TV providers, like Bell ExpressVu, bleed over into our borders. XM Canada just uses the same satellites. As a stipulation for XM Canada to conduct business in Canada, they have to follow CanCon regulations and have only so many non-Canadian channels for every Canadian channel, which is why about 70 channels available on the US service are excluded. XM Satellite Radio in the US is not licensed to conduct business in Canada, so it's illegal to buy American XM radios and pay for American XM accounts in Canada, even though tens of thousands of Canadians do it. It's similar to Canadians who have DirecTV or Dish Network. The ol' grey market.

Even if someone filed a complaint using the XM or internet feed as evidence, the FCC would have to ask WLW for the OTA broadcast audio, and if it was clean, then the complaint is thrown out. The FCC can't always trust the complainer, since they may have possibly edited their "evidence."

I'd like to see original programming like that too, like an experimental filler show, but for reasons you said, yeah. Also, before WLW News (and Fox Sports Radio updates), those other Clear Channel channels carried USA Radio Network News. Looks like they saved some money there.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

Easy -- anyone who wants to hear the best that's available on XM. WSIX is the most energetic, alive, human, entertaining, cohesive country product there.

The best? Ech. I gave WSIX a try and it reminded me of why I got XM. If "alive" means having a lot of production (lasers!!!) and talking and Nashville news and traffic updates, I'll leave it. I like my stations to have personality, but it seems half the time I heard talking or promos, and each song had a sweeper inbetween. One thing they do right is throw songs over all but 3 minutes of the commercial breaks, but sometimes alive can translate to obnoxious, so for current country I usually head to Highway 16. But hey, it does great in Nashville. Sure makes WSM-FM look like a pile of puke.

 

[ajhenderson]

If you're in an office building, in the market, where WLW, KRC, etc., doesn't come in and stream the station online, WLW gets credit. That's why they stream. You think they care about people in Atlanta or Juneau?