Mike Seigel’s self destruction

[J. Houndstooth]

Listened to Siegel doing a two-hour Saturday afternoon show (that was his timeslot) about a year and a half, maybe two years ago on KFNX AM 1100 in Phoenix. (No clue what its 6+ numbers are, but I imagine they can't be very high!) He was going after state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who had been making national news) pretty hard!

Siegel was always solidly on the left while at KING as I recall, although he had more of a hybrid ACLU/libertarian streak to him. I recall him being on "Donahue" defending a pregnant woman who wanted to get served an alcoholic beverage at some restaurant (like a Red Robin or something of the sort,) for instance. He was also very vocal against the pay increase Congress gave itself; that became such a big national story that it gave us our most recent Constitutional amendment.

Once 1090 was in the dust, he had the same sort of approach at KVI for a while. KVI had two local left-of-center hosts at the time, Seigel and a fellow named Steve West (not the KJR Steve West.) Limbaugh was 9-noon of course, (after Bryan Jennings did morning drive) and then there were a pair of syndicated shows, two hours each from Barry Farber (kind of a Medved-type) and Alan Colmes before afternoon drive. In time, KVI dropped the national stuff outside of Limbaugh except for evenings and then late-night (I believe Stan Major and then Gil Gross in the late slot; Michael Reagan had an early evening syndicated show as well.) At some point, KVI even went local 9 pm to midnight with Phil Harper (of Harry Nile fame) having a brief run (and then Kirby Wilbur replaced.) It would have been after Major circa '92/'93 and then before Gross ('95?) when Kirby took mornings. Being three decades ago this is hard to recall!

Getting back to Siegel, he fully understood both the KVI audience and where talk radio was headed. That, and the Clinton backlash/1994 elections, seemed to cement him taking up the cause on the right, although personally I never thought it was fully sincere. He definitely was well-known locally in that timeframe though. "Almost LIVE!" even parodied with a bit that had John Keister hosting "The Mike Pigeon Show."

 

[boombox4]

I also listened to Siegel more when he was left leaning, when he was new to the city. And the early era of KVI as a talk station was pretty cool -- you could hear conservatives as well as liberals like Alan Colmes. There was a balance. I recall Stan Major's show. No idea who Stan Major was aside from his national show.

 

[Anti-wingnut]

He definitely seemed to change politics when his paycheck was involved. Seems like Dori did too

I remember back in 2004 or so talk radio was intelligent and mainstream enough that KIRO could have well attended round tables at local theaters like the Everett Historical Theater. Dave, Dori, Mike Webb, Erin Hart , Fred Ebert and others.

Past the personal choices of Mike Webb, they seemed to suffer a brain drain when Dori became number 1, Dave became a lot less prominent and Ron&Don showed up with their double digit combined IQ

 

[Delete My Account]

It doesn't seem that long ago that KIRO was a much more balanced and "smart" sounding station. Ross is the most credible voice left, and I'm not sure how long he's staying. It's inevitable, time and the business being what it is, but that station had a solid reputation for being intelligent radio.

There's still talent there, but it's certainly a different mood tuning it in now vs then. Part of the problem is, it's a hybrid. It's trying to remain credible on the news front, there's attrition in talent and fewer "names" - no disrespect to Stein and Skorheim but they're not legacies yet, nor are most of the other shows. Next to Ross, Curley's the next biggest name in talent at KIRO and while he's definitely a charismatic showman, serious depth isn't his main attraction. I liked him better with Tagney who could counter him. There's been so much turnover there and the lineup in flux - Monson's passing, the temporary Brandi Kruse and Spike & Stein, before they finally made the latter permanent. Nights has turned over from O'Neill to the underrated Jonathan Weir, to Dori's former producer with a ton of repeats, to CBS programming in the span of a year and some change. Letting Weir go was a mistake too IMO. His personal post about his final show on KIRO got more interaction than their own announcement of the new lineup. The guy was funny, and something different at night. How many hours of Biden/Trump talk does one market need?

I don't know what could be done to rebuild credibility and depth to Seattle talk radio. I don't gather anyone over there is developing new talent, preferring former TV anchors as fill ins and with the night shift gone network, the resources and air time don't appear to be there. It's a shame really, Seattle historically has been a really good market for the format being something more than endless dogmatic Rantz (pardon the pun.) It's almost like they'd rather do the bare minimum than develop talent - and there's been some pretty promising and experienced talent in and out of that place the past few years, mostly relegated to the traffic and news desks despite much more broad experience. I don't know if the PD has his hands tied and no resources, or just is managing a decline they feel is inevitable - but I know a lot of people in the format, outside of the bubble of syndicated right wing talk who always kept an ear on KIRO (and before that, KVI and KING) to hear something worthwhile.

It's threads like this that make me miss Blatherwatch. Now if you'll pardon me, I have some kids to boot off my lawn and a newspaper to read.

 

[Kelly A]

It doesn't seem that long ago that KIRO was a much more balanced and "smart" sounding station. Ross is the most credible voice left, and I'm not sure how long he's staying. It's inevitable, time and the business being what it is, but that station had a solid reputation for being intelligent radio.

There's still talent there, but it's certainly a different mood tuning it in now vs then. Part of the problem is, it's a hybrid. It's trying to remain credible on the news front, there's attrition in talent and fewer "names" - no disrespect to Stein and Skorheim but they're not legacies yet, nor are most of the other shows. Next to Ross, Curley's the next biggest name in talent at KIRO and while he's definitely a charismatic showman, serious depth isn't his main attraction. I liked him better with Tagney who could counter him. There's been so much turnover there and the lineup in flux - Monson's passing, the temporary Brandi Kruse and Spike & Stein, before they finally made the latter permanent. Nights has turned over from O'Neill to the underrated Jonathan Weir, to Dori's former producer with a ton of repeats, to CBS programming in the span of a year and some change. Letting Weir go was a mistake too IMO. His personal post about his final show on KIRO got more interaction than their own announcement of the new lineup. The guy was funny, and something different at night. How many hours of Biden/Trump talk does one market need?

And yet, KIRO is the number one N/T station in the market. How do you account for that?

I don't know what could be done to rebuild credibility and depth to Seattle talk radio. I don't gather anyone over there is developing new talent, preferring former TV anchors as fill ins and with the night shift gone network, the resources and air time don't appear to be there.

So you expect one of the top-rated stations in the market also to be a 'farm team'? When has that ever happened?

It's threads like this that make me miss Blatherwatch. Now if you'll pardon me, I have some kids to boot off my lawn and a newspaper to read.

Looks like the Torino could use a wax too.

 

[Delete My Account]

It's the only FM talker in the market.

I'm not saying what they do doesn't work somewhat. I'm saying there used to be more substance to the product, and the ratings have show slippage and I'm merely exploring why that is, and what if anything they could do to build the product back for a stronger future. The station has a great heritage and used to be one of the smartest and most well done stations in the format from a viewpoint balance and production standpoint.

The fact is, for being the "number one" station they have had a lot of instability over the past year or two, and the programming quality (and revenues that come from the quality of the programming) have decreased. If that's what people want, all fine and well, but it hasn't been a stable product and I don't see where the future growth will come from with what they're doing now.

As to "farm team" that is precisely what the night shift was, and why KIRO kept it live for so many years. Do you think they made money on that? At one point there were two hosts, a producer and a board op running a three hour live night show. PM drive - John Curley. Started in nights. Moved around the schedule till they found a fit for him. Gee Scott, morning co-host. Started on nights when he was put on KIRO. Spike O'Neill, veteran of the Bob Rivers show. Nights to learn the ropes of doing news/talk, now co-hosting noon to 3 PM. Jake Skorheim, currently co-hosting with Curley on PM drive - nights after Jonathan Weir.

So yeah, KIRO used the night shift for exactly that purpose. So when did it happen? Basically the past decade or so. At 97.3.

 

[Kelly A]

It's the only FM talker in the market.

I'm not saying what they do doesn't work somewhat. I'm saying there used to be more substance to the product, and the ratings have show slippage and I'm merely exploring why that is, and what if anything they could do to build the product back for a stronger future. The station has a great heritage and used to be one of the smartest and most well done stations in the format from a viewpoint balance and production standpoint.

And yet, they're the top N/T station in the market. Just because programming like 'The Jim French Show' was around back in the day, doesn't mean that sort of programming would be popular today.

The fact is, for being the "number one" station they have had a lot of instability over the past year or two, and the programming quality (and revenues that come from the quality of the programming) have decreased. If that's what people want, all fine and well, but it hasn't been a stable product and I don't see where the future growth will come from with what they're doing now.

So, are you saying they're popular because of instability? How does that work exactly?

As to "farm team" that is precisely what the night shift was, and why KIRO kept it live for so many years. Do you think they made money on that? At one point there were two hosts, a producer and a board op running a three hour live night show. PM drive - John Curley. Started in nights. Moved around the schedule till they found a fit for him. Gee Scott, morning co-host. Started on nights when he was put on KIRO. Spike O'Neill, veteran of the Bob Rivers show. Nights to learn the ropes of doing news/talk, now co-hosting noon to 3 PM. Jake Skorheim, currently co-hosting with Curley on PM drive - nights after Jonathan Weir.

The difference is that advertisers aren't interested in nights for radio. Morning drive, assuming you have unique demo-targeting programming, is the interest. Until that show, everything else is filler. One needs to pay for those personnel you mentioned.

So yeah, KIRO used the night shift for exactly that purpose. So when did it happen? Basically the past decade or so. At 97.3.

Media consumption and the advertising climate have changed significantly since this thing called the Internet came along.

 

[bobdavcav]

Even when I was in the market, I didn't pay much attention to KIRO. That being said, if you've got three times the audience as your next closest competitor then that audience is cut in half, you're still the #1 talker in the market, and that's what's happened to KIRO. So, perhaps Andy is right, but KIRO was so far ahead that they can still be the #1 station in the market even while losing half the audience.

 

[Delete My Account]

No, I wasn't saying they're popular because they're unstable.

I was saying that recently - the past year and a half to two, specifically seem to have a lot of instability. They're the "top" commercial news talk station, yes. But the conservative-only talk audience is split between their sister KTTH and KVI. If the conservative talk share in the market was combined, you'd have a station neck and neck with KIRO, the more "balanced" and better sounding, on FM talker in a blue market. Plus KUOW's strength. Factoring those things in, a lot of their showings lately haven't been impressive.

I also never made the claim the night show was a profit center. You specifically called out my "farm team" idea and I made the point that is exactly what KIRO was doing until this past May with that unprofitable shift. They would try talent there and let them get accustomed to the format. Curley, Scott, Stein, O'Neill, Skorheim all were night hosts first when they came to KIRO. You can't blame the internet for what they were doing literally till May 7th, 2024.

Monson's passing led to almost 7 months of vagueness on the part of KIRO management. They failed to use that moment to tastefully cross promote the fact that they had a completely conservative talk sister station in their own cluster, letting social media complaints run rampant promoting their competitor, KVI. They could have made the midday "auditions" more of a promotion for the station. There have been days when hosts literally did back to back shows because of the lack of fill in talent. One day I heard Stein and O'Neill, followed by Stein and & Elliker, and then a repeat of Stein & O'Neill from the same day for the night shift. That isn't the mark of a station poised for future growth. It's Seattle, not Spokane.

Their fill in bench appears very limited. Their brightest one is Mike Lewis, who (wisely) has a life outside of radio and got burnt out producing and solo hosting the aforementioned night show. He's well prepared, intelligent and can speak on any topic.

I'm not a Bonneville basher. Nor am I saying the business doesn't face certain realities. But it's also a reality that KIRO has a great legacy of being one of the best in the business at a very unique style of radio - FM talk that's politically varied, non-reactionary and urbane. It's had a richness of talent. Recently, it just seems the apathy has set in and they're throwing up their hands, resigning themselves to not being the station they could be. It may be "good enough" but it isn't great. And that station's had a legacy of being great.

It has to be factored in that it's a solid source of news and traffic with some banter. Heritage factors in. I'm not making the claim they're not "okay" at the moment. But the station suffers from a lack of vision, a sense of momentum. I'm not saying go back to Jim French. I happen to think the best one on the station for entertainment value is Curley, and he's not doing high-brow talk. Could care less about his politics, but when he's telling a story, or just riffing, he can be one of the best showmen in the business. But much of what comes out of 97.3 lately is just anemic and predictable. It's "competent" mostly but it isn't lively.

Ask yourself this... if they lost Curley in PM drive, and Ross retired from mornings (the voice of reason at that place) where would KIRO go? THAT is the problem they're facing. What's the succession strategy for a station with that level of heritage and reach? How do they maintain and grow?

 

[Kelly A]

I'm not a Bonneville basher. Nor am I saying the business doesn't face certain realities. But it's also a reality that KIRO has a great legacy of being one of the best in the business at a very unique style of radio - FM talk that's politically varied, non-reactionary and urbane. It's had a richness of talent. Recently, it just seems the apathy has set in and they're throwing up their hands, resigning themselves to not being the station they could be. It may be "good enough" but it isn't great. And that station's had a legacy of being great.

Just like musical tastes, what is considered quality varies from person to person. Since radio is broadcasting, all one can do is try to satisfy the requirements of as many listeners as possible. What you think is okay, is great to someone else.

It has to be factored in that it's a solid source of news and traffic with some banter. Heritage factors in. I'm not making the claim they're not "okay" at the moment. But the station suffers from a lack of vision, a sense of momentum.

So how do you account for them being the top dog N/T station if they "have no vision" nor momentum? You still haven't answered that question. Last time I looked, combined numbers between the AM and FM are rockin' the market. No other station comes close.

I'm not saying go back to Jim French. I happen to think the best one on the station for entertainment value is Curley, and he's not doing high-brow talk. Could care less about his politics, but when he's telling a story, or just riffing, he can be one of the best showmen in the business. But much of what comes out of 97.3 lately is just anemic and predictable. It's "competent" mostly but it isn't lively.

But see that's the thing; I always thought Jon Curley was a complete jerk trying to be a standup comic wannabe. Of course, I knew him in person and he was a complete jerk in person, so that colored my thoughts on his on-air performance. Again, the difference is taste. The idea is to come up with hosts and topics that attract the largest audience. Doing niche', inside humor stuff is a sure tune-out except for a few fanboys.
It's like those who used to swoon over Pat Cashman. I never got his schtick, and he did the same schtick over and over. It was just weird, but some liked the guy.

Ask yourself this... if they lost Curley in PM drive, and Ross retired from mornings (the voice of reason at that place) where would KIRO go? THAT is the problem they're facing. What's the succession strategy for a station with that level of heritage and reach? How do they maintain and grow?

Personally, I don't lose sleep about the future for KIRO hosts. They have a great management team that will find replacements if and when existing ones leave.

 

[Delete My Account]

They may be regaining some ground, but I saw some in-demo numbers (not the 6+ as we both know those are meaningless) and it wasn't good. Maybe it's working now better than then, but still.

My argument isn't that the transmitters will be turned off overnight. My position is that it's complacency even if you are "top dog" to allow so many repeats and to not project a more together image. The post-Monson months weren't handled by their management team in a way that solidified the position of their sister station (KTTH) against KVI. Ask yourself this.. if KVI and KTTH were one FM station, would KIRO's numbers look so good?

Part of what helps that station is the news department (led by a solid news director) and traffic. If you don't want music, right wing Rantz, or the tone of NPR, it's companionship and news from a heritage brand. Again - they're not going broke, exactly. But what's the succession plan here? It seems like every change from loss of a heritage talent to someone out sick or taking vacation, for the past year or so, has left them fumbling.

I agree with a lot of your posts about the changing landscape and challenges radio faces, but at the same time, if the strategy is just "when something happens, we'll put someone else on" - my point is they struggle to do that as is, and that's just on a part time basis. The ones "coming up" aren't strong or being developed into anything in line with the reputation of the station. I don't see it cutting through. Especially in a crowded multi-platform world. The heritage stations like KIRO at their best had talent that cut through. Which is what a John Curley, even for those who find him obnoxious, can do. Dave Ross the same, in the more intellectual way. You need a sense of boldness and confidence that previous programmers of that station had. Curley struggled in multiple time slots (remember the time he replaced the morning news and Gardner had to apologize for it in promos?) but they stuck with it and eventually the Curley/Tagney pairing sparked. Which is the thing about someone like Curley, you need the counter-argument from someone strong enough to volley with his personality.

To my knowledge, the current PD hasn't programmed at any other station in any other market. I'm not entirely sure of dates, but to my knowledge he hasn't helmed any truly new shows or developed talent. Which is what an engaged program director should be able to do in this format. I know for a fact there were multiple people in that building with larger market experience and greater Seattle experience that were doing traffic or on the news desk who could have not only filled in admirably on those days when they were running repeats, but represented a much more diverse set of talents and perspectives. Which not only from an on air point of view, but looking at podcasting and digital content would have benefitted a forward-looking strategy.

It comes down to if you think the programming of a format driven by current, daily changing events needs a proactive approach to growing new voices and talent for the future (whatever the platform) or if you think attrition should just be dealt with by "okay, next one up" and passive programming. It seems KIRO's choosing a passive approach and it's working for now. Except when you lose so much money in one year that corporate makes you cut 11 people in a day...and from what I understand, the fiscal losses were way beyond what losing Monson did to the budget. I mean, I'd be concerned and taking some actions to cut through the clutter programming wise...but -shrugs- And you'd think that when a talent's post about his last show on your station gets more attention and interaction than your post about your new lineup on your own station's page, maybe it would be a sign in the digital era you were missing something.

KIRO (AM) is programmed excellently. Smart talent, strong PD. And credit where credit's due, even though KTTH is not my jam, they stuck with a local angle more than a lot of stations in the format until they had to let Suits go and still with Rantz. He's built the national profile for his station and angle quite well for a signal of its size, and production wise it's a lot more contemporary and tight than most of the AM conservative talkers across the fruited plain.

Point of agreement - I never got Cashman either. Couldn't understand the passion for him. Or how he fit on a station that was home to Leykis, Don and Mike, and BJ Shea.

 

[Kelly A]

They may be regaining some ground, but I saw some in-demo numbers (not the 6+ as we both know those are meaningless) and it wasn't good. Maybe it's working now better than then, but still.

Gaining ground? What are you talking about? Go back a few threads and just look at the 25-54 market rankings. The AM and FM have almost identical equally good ranking in-demo which when sold combined, give KIRO a huge advantage. And that hasn't moved much over the past three or more books.

My argument isn't that the transmitters will be turned off overnight. My position is that it's complacency even if you are "top dog" to allow so many repeats and to not project a more together image. The post-Monson months weren't handled by their management team in a way that solidified the position of their sister station (KTTH) against KVI. Ask yourself this.. if KVI and KTTH were one FM station, would KIRO's numbers look so good?

Look I get it, another armchair PD thing based on your personal taste. You're certainly entitled, but I think your view is overly myopic because you aren't considering how the stations have/are consistently performing. KVI and KTTH aren't owned by the same company, so your question can't even be answered. They also compete against each other for the same audience. KIRO AM-FM complements the other by widening the overall demo with sports.

Part of what helps that station is the news department (led by a solid news director) and traffic. If you don't want music, right wing Rantz, or the tone of NPR, it's companionship and news from a heritage brand. Again - they're not going broke, exactly.

No, Bonneville isn't going broke. Good Lord.

But what's the succession plan here? It seems like every change from loss of a heritage talent to someone out sick or taking vacation, for the past year or so, has left them fumbling.

Seriously, a major market station has vacation relief all lined up. You shouldn't be losing sleep about that. And since radio talent is human too, they're entitled to take vacations and have a life outside of the station. The world won't stop rotating if talent takes time off, especially around Summer and Q4 when few new ad buys are rolling in the door.

I agree with a lot of your posts about the changing landscape and challenges radio faces, but at the same time, if the strategy is just "when something happens, we'll put someone else on" - my point is they struggle to do that as is, and that's just on a part time basis. The ones "coming up" aren't strong or being developed into anything in line with the reputation of the station.

How do you know that? Are they sending you tapes/audio from talent inside or outside the market interested in making a move for your opinion? And in today's business environment, you can't just create a new position to bring someone up that you think might be the future. There are state and federal labor hiring rules that a station/group must follow. If an opening comes up, I'm sure they post the opening like everyone else to comply with EEO and FCC rules.

I don't see it cutting through. Especially in a crowded multi-platform world. The heritage stations like KIRO at their best had talent that cut through. Which is what a John Curley, even for those who find him obnoxious, can do. Dave Ross the same, in the more intellectual way. You need a sense of boldness and confidence that previous programmers of that station had. Curley struggled in multiple time slots (remember the time he replaced the morning news and Gardner had to apologize for it in promos?) but they stuck with it and eventually the Curley/Tagney pairing sparked. Which is the thing about someone like Curley, you need the counter-argument from someone strong enough to volley with his personality.

Whatever. This cerebral nonsense is getting too thick. It's making my head hurt. Radio isn't some crazy pop psychological experiment. It's much, much, much simpler than that.

It comes down to if you think the programming of a format driven by current, daily changing events needs a proactive approach to growing new voices and talent for the future (whatever the platform) or if you think attrition should just be dealt with by "okay, next one up" and passive programming.

Can you predict what will be popular in the future? Or can you predict what will be popular with certain demographics in the future? If so, what are you doing on some radio discussion board? The point is; that nobody can predict what the audience will want, or what the world news cycle will bring. You take your best shot when you get there.

It seems KIRO's choosing a passive approach and it's working for now. Except when you lose so much money in one year that corporate makes you cut 11 people in a day...and from what I understand, the fiscal losses were way beyond what losing Monson did to the budget.

Over the many years I've been in the business, including corporate roles, cuts have needed to occur. Sometimes it's because some projects didn't yield results. Automation of workflows, or more often it's because the corporate entity needs to hit their financial targets before Q1, and every division needs to give back a percentage. Again, not that complicated.

Point of agreement - I never got Cashman either. Couldn't understand the passion for him. Or how he fit on a station that was home to Leykis, Don and Mike, and BJ Shea.

Well, at least we have that.

 

[Anti-wingnut]

I cheered every time Cashman got fired

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

And yet, KIRO is the number one N/T station in the market. How do you account for that?

In Seattle, KUOW is the #1 news and talk station by a decent margin.

 

[Kelly A]

But, if you combine the numbers of KIRO AM and KIRO FM? Especially from a sales perspective compared with just about any other Seattle station?
Dude!

 

[boombox4]

If you consider that KUOW isn't so high in the 25-54's (and presumably other key demos as well -- at least according to the most recent summary posted here on RD, in the April ratings thread) as it is in the 6+ ratings, that also has to figure in somewhere.

 

[Kelly A]

If you consider that KUOW isn't so high in the 25-54's (and presumably other key demos as well -- at least according to the most recent summary posted here on RD, in the April ratings thread) as it is in the 6+ ratings, that also has to figure in somewhere.

He was addressing my comment about who was the number one news station in the market. Technically, he's correct. KUOW is by rank, but it's a public station and doesn't benefit from those ratings like a commercial station would with national ad reps.

I threw in the "Dude!" (Los Angeles dialect) knowing he understands the difference

Which brings up a great point of distinction regarding Nielsen ratings that gets missed here a lot. A station, including a public one, can have great 6+ or in-demo ratings, but aren't necessarily able to turn that into financial success. And, for as much as we would like to believe, revenue income is the true measure of success, not just whether KUOW is ranked number one by Nielsen.

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

1. All three Bonneville properties are sold separately - at least on a local level. I don't know how they are packaged nationally, I would assume all the clusters (Bonneville, Hubbard, I Heart, Audacy) bundle whatever assets they have to make their deals. The only station that still has combined rating I believe is KNWN since you can't separate AM1000 and 97.7FM.
2. Yes, the power ratio of a non-comm and and a commercial station are completely different and you're 100% correct Kelly that's the most important piece. That being said, the resources and objectives are different. As a non-comm I don't believe that KUOW has to chase profit and cover overhead the same way a commercial station does (it's a different business model).
As to Andy's point about the quality of programming-
3. Right now, KIRO F owns their lane exclusively (they are the only FM news TALK station in the market) and their presentation both gets ratings and suits the needs of their advertisers. Unless another station jumped in ready to compete in a serious way - unlikely in the current environment- they (KIRO) enjoy the luxury of making talent decisions that suit their economics and maximizes their profit.