Missoula’s Progressive Talk Radio Goes Off the Air

[RBA]

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/6640/C70/L37

"Getting people to listen wasn’t the problem – liberal talk radio was a huge hit in Missoula from the beginning.

Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show with a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations.

“Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The listeners were there – and the commercials were inexpensive.”

However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different story."

 

[dampier]

> “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The
> listeners were there – and the commercials were
> inexpensive.”
>
> However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> story."

Sounds more like bad management and excuses to me. I might buy the advertisers being afraid to put their name on libtalk, being this is Montana and all, but ratings should stand for something. Jerry Springer isn't poor from his TV show. Any show that can beat Rush Limbaugh should not have a problem getting advertisers.

 

[ajhenderson]

> http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/6640/C70/L37
>
> "Getting people to listen wasn’t the problem – liberal talk
> radio was a huge hit in Missoula from the beginning.
>
> Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in
> Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show with
> a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush
> Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations.
>
> “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The
> listeners were there – and the commercials were
> inexpensive.”
>
> However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> story."

Not a good day for AAR. And that share isn't exactly a clobbering.

 

[skyeye]

Excuses and Wishful Thinking

>
> Sounds more like bad management and excuses to me. I might
> buy the advertisers being afraid to put their name on
> libtalk, being this is Montana and all, but ratings should
> stand for something. Jerry Springer isn't poor from his TV
> show. Any show that can beat Rush Limbaugh should not have
> a problem getting advertisers.
>

Sorry, but this sounds like what they keep saying over on Oldies and Adult Standards boards: If I like it, it should sell. If it doesn't sell, it's because advertisers are prejudiced or management is incompetent.

Ratings count for more in larger markets where you have ad agency media buyers. In small markets (like Missoula)where you detail with local merchants, restaurants, car dealers, hospitals and lawyers, it's a different story.
1. People buy from their friends (there is a good reason why small market managers and sales reps make a point of joining local civic and business clubs).
2. People buy what they like (if I like it, it must be good and people should listen).
3. People buy what they think their friends listen to (often the same as number 2).
The problem is most of these local merchants tend to be Republicans (no surprise there). To the extent personal preferences drive advertising decisions, liberal talk can be a tough sell in small markets.

And as someone pointed out on a local board, talk radio tends to skew old. Even when ratings count for something, demographics count for more. CPM and ROI count for even more than that. Stations have trouble selling Oldies and Adult Standards. It's amazing that talk radio is able to survive at all.

The Missoula station is flipping to Jack. I'm sure there is cheering on some other board. Let's see how long that format lasts on AM.

In any case, it does not mean anything. Stations flip. Stations flip again. The world goes on. Relax. It's only radio.

PS: Correction to an earlier thread about Air America adding stations. The station in State College, PA takes Thom Hartmann only (delayed - after Rush). It's not a liberal talk station and it takes no programming from Air America's network.

 

[FloridaBear1776]

What is the viability of a medium that drives away listeners?

There's nothing to brag about in saying that AM radio can make more money broadcasting to fewer listeners.

I think we understand that commercials pay for programming. But if a station is all-infomercials, just what is being paid for? The listener gets no benefit, unless she is an 80 year old widow receiving a prayer cloth in the mail.

Brokered and preacher-teacher formats are like crack dealers taking up abandoned houses in an old neighborhood (the AM band), bringing property values down. KXXT was the equivalent of an urban homesteader, building value in a property that would eventually help stabilize the AM neighborhood. You may think the AM band is going to die in a few years anyway. But if you own AM stations, you ought to want your "neighborhood" to be a place that draws people in rather than driving them away.

KXXT was drawing people in. Its disappearance, and the lack of interest in the other "property owners" for bringing it back, points toward continued decline and decay in the neighborhood, a decline which will eventually force KTAR and KFYI and their counterparts around the country to flee to FM or become irrelevant.

The point of KXXT is not just the level of success it had achieved to this point, but the upside potential on a band with few growth formats. Remember that the station was less than 18 months into the format. It took KFYI years to build into what it is today, starting from the 1980s. This is like taking a promising seedling and pulling it out of the ground. It may get replanted somewhere else, but now that it's off the air, for whatever length of time, momentum is lost. If it pops up again in Phoenix, progressive talk will have to start from scratch.

 

[BinaryCodex]

> “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The
> listeners were there – and the commercials were
> inexpensive.”
>
> However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> story."
>

Perhaps all the advertisers were up there on Brokeback Mountain. ;=)

 

[talkjim]

>I write this as a person with a decades-long background in the news/talk format and progressive political leanings, who has always been comfortable with the idea of the free market determining what kind of content (both political and musical) finds its way onto commercial radio. But the situation in Missoula highlights an interesting dilemma. What happens when the traditional free-market business model just doesn't work and actually discriminates against a particular point of view?

Advocates of progressive talk radio have been told for years that if the format could spawn shows that are sufficiently entertaining and compelling to generate ratings, everything else would take care of itself--advertising would roll in, stations would profit, and bosses would be rich, fat and happy.

In this case, by all accounts, it seems that the programming department and talent more than performed up to expectations, yet the sales department either decided to rebel against the product, or didn't try hard enough to sell it.

It reminds me of a situation in a major-medium market in the Midwest a decade ago, when a progressive evening host, following a day-long menu of raging conservatives, managed to score big in the ratings, but was nonetheless let go, because the sales staff said they couldn't "sell it". Maybe instead, management should have suggested that if sales couldn't sell strong numbers, it was time for those salespeople to look for more suitable employment.

These examples and others serve to reinforce my point of view that the challenge confronting progressive talkradio in this nation goes far beyond the usual radio challenge of cultivating listenership and posting satisfactory ratings. We are up against a deeply embedded and sometimes hostile right-wing culture that pervades this business. Sometimes--certainly not in all cases--but sometimes this hostility is evident even in the face of easy money-making opportunities afforded by progressive talk formats.

That being said, I take my hat off to those in Clear Channel, Entercom and other chains with the foresight, vision and open-mindedness to give this new format the chance it deserves.

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/6640/C70/L37
>
> "Getting people to listen wasn’t the problem – liberal talk
> radio was a huge hit in Missoula from the beginning.
>
> Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in
> Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show with
> a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush
> Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations.
>
> “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush. The
> listeners were there – and the commercials were
> inexpensive.”
>
> However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> story."
>

 

[robbbc]

Re: Excuses and Wishful Thinking

> >
> > Sounds more like bad management and excuses to me. I
> might
> > buy the advertisers being afraid to put their name on
> > libtalk, being this is Montana and all, but ratings should
>
> > stand for something. Jerry Springer isn't poor from his
> TV
> > show. Any show that can beat Rush Limbaugh should not
> have
> > a problem getting advertisers.
> >
>
> Sorry, but this sounds like what they keep saying over on
> Oldies and Adult Standards boards: If I like it, it should
> sell. If it doesn't sell, it's because advertisers are
> prejudiced or management is incompetent.
>
> Ratings count for more in larger markets where you have ad
> agency media buyers. In small markets (like Missoula)where
> you detail with local merchants, restaurants, car dealers,
> hospitals and lawyers, it's a different story.
> 1. People buy from their friends (there is a good reason
> why small market managers and sales reps make a point of
> joining local civic and business clubs).
> 2. People buy what they like (if I like it, it must be good
> and people should listen).
> 3. People buy what they think their friends listen to
> (often the same as number 2).
> The problem is most of these local merchants tend to be
> Republicans (no surprise there). To the extent personal
> preferences drive advertising decisions, liberal talk can be
> a tough sell in small markets.
>
> And as someone pointed out on a local board, talk radio
> tends to skew old. Even when ratings count for something,
> demographics count for more. CPM and ROI count for even
> more than that. Stations have trouble selling Oldies and
> Adult Standards. It's amazing that talk radio is able to
> survive at all.
>
> The Missoula station is flipping to Jack. I'm sure there is
> cheering on some other board. Let's see how long that
> format lasts on AM.
>
> In any case, it does not mean anything. Stations flip.
> Stations flip again. The world goes on. Relax. It's only
> radio.
>
> PS: Correction to an earlier thread about Air America adding
> stations. The station in State College, PA takes Thom
> Hartmann only (delayed - after Rush). It's not a liberal
> talk station and it takes no programming from Air America's
> network.
>
Hold up now....

The station is FM. It was awarded to this company by the FCC along with a couple others becasue Missoula is underserved by FM radio. The stations are all 50kW. Whether or not the sales team is up to snuff is probably a fair question, whether or not talk is viable on FM is a fair question. FM stations are flipping to all sorts of things these days for kicks and giggles, and that is the well-run stations- this isn't much of a shock. The sales angle I don't buy- plenty of businesses buy ad space in independent newspapers that make AAR look Mainstream.

FM and AM are different worlds entirely. CC owns an AM station in Missoula and would be wise to pick up the slack. They could also Multi-cast the format on one of their FM stations. Sounds like bad management of these new FM's and a mediocre sales team.

Just for the sales end of it:

When gay magazines and newspapers first came out they were treated as pariahs by advertisers. So instead they focused on advertisers who were treated as pariahs. They accepted ads from Liquor companies, Cigarette companies, Condom manufacturers, head shops, personal ads- you name it. I know cigarettes are a no-go but the rest should be good bets (especially liquor) and I know I have missed a few. Expecting the Ford Dealership to fund your talk station might be going too far but how about the local liquor distributor? Maybe a distributor that hasn't had an advertising presence because of restrictions from other stations because of youth appeal- but now you let them run ads without even a "please drink responsibly" thingy on the end. Maybe you drop a few advertising standards. Let loose the hounds of hell, it's not like you are gonna turn off your listeners with ads for Bic and Zippo lighters, or hot singles after dark.

 

[robbbc]

Well, the vision of CC and Entercomm is only as far as the bottom line. Still, they haven't been flipping FM to conservative talk (which is still better IMHO, even though I am a liberal) except as a last resort. I haven't heard conservative talk in a while but the ads paled in comparison to FM music stations. I am guessing this is really an FM talk issue and not an issue with the talk format itself. AM news channels blow up the ratings but you don't hear about any FM news stations in the works. There has to be a reason at work here, and I am guessing it has to do with advertisers not wanting the talk market, in general. I still remember listening to Rush and hearing all about Gold Bond- it works on Jock Itch, Psoriasis, and Ringworm. Now that was some great advertising.

> >I write this as a person with a decades-long background in
> the news/talk format and progressive political leanings, who
> has always been comfortable with the idea of the free market
> determining what kind of content (both political and
> musical) finds its way onto commercial radio. But the
> situation in Missoula highlights an interesting dilemma.
> What happens when the traditional free-market business model
> just doesn't work and actually discriminates against a
> particular point of view?
>
> Advocates of progressive talk radio have been told for years
> that if the format could spawn shows that are sufficiently
> entertaining and compelling to generate ratings, everything
> else would take care of itself--advertising would roll in,
> stations would profit, and bosses would be rich, fat and
> happy.
>
> In this case, by all accounts, it seems that the programming
> department and talent more than performed up to
> expectations, yet the sales department either decided to
> rebel against the product, or didn't try hard enough to sell
> it.
>
> It reminds me of a situation in a major-medium market in the
> Midwest a decade ago, when a progressive evening host,
> following a day-long menu of raging conservatives, managed
> to score big in the ratings, but was nonetheless let go,
> because the sales staff said they couldn't "sell it". Maybe
> instead, management should have suggested that if sales
> couldn't sell strong numbers, it was time for those
> salespeople to look for more suitable employment.
>
> These examples and others serve to reinforce my point of
> view that the challenge confronting progressive talkradio in
> this nation goes far beyond the usual radio challenge of
> cultivating listenership and posting satisfactory ratings.
> We are up against a deeply embedded and sometimes hostile
> right-wing culture that pervades this business.
> Sometimes--certainly not in all cases--but sometimes this
> hostility is evident even in the face of easy money-making
> opportunities afforded by progressive talk formats.
>
> That being said, I take my hat off to those in Clear
> Channel, Entercom and other chains with the foresight,
> vision and open-mindedness to give this new format the
> chance it deserves.
>
> http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/6640/C70/L37
>
> >
> > "Getting people to listen wasn’t the problem – liberal
> talk
> > radio was a huge hit in Missoula from the beginning.
> >
> > Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in
> > Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show
> with
> > a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush
> > Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations.
> >
> > “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush.
> The
> > listeners were there – and the commercials were
> > inexpensive.”
> >
> > However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> > story."
> >
>

 

[robbbc]

> >
> http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/6640/C70/L37
> >
> > "Getting people to listen wasn’t the problem – liberal
> talk
> > radio was a huge hit in Missoula from the beginning.
> >
> > Just last fall, Cowan said, an Eastlan ratings survey in
> > Missoula and the Bitterroot showed the Al Franken show
> with
> > a respectable 3.6 percent of listeners – ahead of Rush
> > Limbaugh, who runs on two area stations.
> >
> > “Al Franken was huge,” Cowan said. “(He) clobbered Rush.
> The
> > listeners were there – and the commercials were
> > inexpensive.”
> >
> > However, selling ads during Al’s airtime was a different
> > story."
>
> Not a good day for AAR. And that share isn't exactly a
> clobbering.
>
That depends on what Rush was getting. If they were twice as much as Rush, I'd call that a clobbering.

 

[ajhenderson]

> That depends on what Rush was getting. If they were twice as
> much as Rush, I'd call that a clobbering.

Never seen a Missoula book, and since it's a county market there are no 12+ numbers. But as one would expect, the nearest market in Montana with numbers available publicly shows the top station with one-fifth of the market. A 3.6 is a pittance.

 

[ajhenderson]

Re: What is the viability of a medium that drives away listeners?

> Brokered and preacher-teacher formats are like crack dealers
> taking up abandoned houses in an old neighborhood (the AM
> band), bringing property values down. KXXT was the
> equivalent of an urban homesteader, building value in a
> property that would eventually help stabilize the AM
> neighborhood. You may think the AM band is going to die in a
> few years anyway. But if you own AM stations, you ought to
> want your "neighborhood" to be a place that draws people in
> rather than driving them away.

In an idealistic world, sure. But you bring up KXXT, located in Phoenix which is ripe with religious formats and a 50kW brokered talker. Sure, it'd be great to have mass appeal formats on those stations, but in markets of any size, you can't have 60 stations all get 5 shares. Some stations will do very well and as a result, some will struggle for audience. Trying to be the ninth political talker, third standards station, or the third-string in whatever format you're in is stupid. It's not fair to make operators lose money just because you want certain formats on the air and others precluded. Blame the FCC for issuing some many CPs and licenses so that markets have become so overradioed and allowing CC and others to strangle independent operators by owning far-flung media empires that make it near impossible to compete with them for any significant amount of listenership. My view has always been that there are a certain number of formats that people want in any market: 1 or 2 news/talkers, 1 or 2 country, an AC, etc. In small markets, there's just enough signals; in larger ones, there are too many. Any signals that exceed the basic needs of the market will by definition by schlock operations that will never make any significant impact.

 

[skyeye]

Selling Liberal Talk

Jim and Rob,

Some very valid points (including those made in Rob's posts further down this thread).

It is not uncommon for the sales reps to have problems selling when a station (or cluster) adopts a new format. Local sales is about personal contact and often a new format requires generating new contacts. A new format also means selling a different product and maybe using a different approach. Even good sales reps may not cope well with change.

It appears the liberal talk stations that seem to do well locally are often part of a cluster. Libtalk may be a hard or just a different sell on its own, but it does seem to add value to a cluster package (in which the libtalk audience is bundled with conservative talk, sports talk and music formats).

People on this board keep talking about ratings. Stations need to look at sales. Air America, Jones, RAB, Clear Channel or somebody may need to start holding sales seminars on selling liberal talk (alone or as part of a package, but especially alone).

This has been mentioned here before but it bears repeating: Not all markets are the same. New York has no Country stations but in many markets Country stations dominate with huge shares. In some markets, talk does not do well (any kind of talk). Some liberal talk stations are not going to stick. Air America and Jones and the group owners need to be looking at which are the markets where libtalk can work. Air America especially tries to get on as many stations as it can, any place it can. When the format does not work, that makes it more difficult to introduce the format elsewhere where it might have a good chance.

Talk radio has done well on FM. Clear Channel has moved its syndicated talk programming to FM in a handful of markets to get younger demographic segments. It is rumored they are thinking about doing this in other markets. So far, the industry mind-set is play music on FM because AM is OK for talk and you can't do much else with AM. But some FM talkers like NJ 101.5 have done very well.

As for that liberal host with an evening slot on an otherwise conservative station: Sales reps don't care much about selling fringe dayparts. That's not where the money is. You work just as hard (maybe harder in this case) for a fraction of the commission you'd get for selling AAA rate periods.

 

[talkjim]

Re: Selling Liberal Talk

As for that liberal host with an evening slot on an
> otherwise conservative station: Sales reps don't care much
> about selling fringe dayparts. That's not where the money
> is. You work just as hard (maybe harder in this case) for a
> fraction of the commission you'd get for selling AAA rate
> periods.

You did a very thoughtful post-sounds like you have been around the business awhile. I fully realize that nights are not a big sales priority in talkradio--but this was a situation in which the station had a decent night signal, had a history of decent night spotloads, and had a plan for selling the night show. Ten years have gone by, but the story as I heard it, was that the sales people didn't claim they were being hindered by the daypart--they said it was the host, whose ratings were strong.

 

[FloridaBear1776]

Precisely...

...Which is why it's time to clean up the AM neighborhood and encourage all these preacher stations and colon cleaner stations to go off the air. Let's hope HD radio will force a lot of these skinny kittens to close down, leaving enough for a medium sized AM to survive with actual programming. That's what radio is missing now, a middle class of stations. It's either Clear Channel or some small time operator running the No Tell Motel of the airwaves.

But that doesn't take away from the arguments that 1) Air America was a growing product in Phoenix that got yanked too soon, and 2) there are WAY too many religious stations in PHX.

 

[robbbc]

> > That depends on what Rush was getting. If they were twice
> as
> > much as Rush, I'd call that a clobbering.
>
> Never seen a Missoula book, and since it's a county market
> there are no 12+ numbers. But as one would expect, the
> nearest market in Montana with numbers available publicly
> shows the top station with one-fifth of the market. A 3.6 is
> a pittance.
>
Not to belabor the point, the comment was that Franken was clobbering Rush in Missoula- Rush *may* have been getting a 1 share, that is a clobbering versus 3.6. Not overall ratings etc. I get your point, though- 3.6 is not much in the way of bragging rights all things considered (FM station, small market, et cetera).

 

[ajhenderson]

Re: Precisely...

> ...Which is why it's time to clean up the AM neighborhood
> and encourage all these preacher stations and colon cleaner
> stations to go off the air. Let's hope HD radio will force a
> lot of these skinny kittens to close down, leaving enough
> for a medium sized AM to survive with actual programming.
> That's what radio is missing now, a middle class of
> stations. It's either Clear Channel or some small time
> operator running the No Tell Motel of the airwaves.

I may agree that this produces weak radio, but what is the solution? Banning certain groups from owning stations? Should we become a fascist country to preclude some from spending their own money to engage in free speech? If a middle class could own stations and make money, they would. And we increasingly see such operators (like James Crystal in this case) cashing in their chips because taking a big pile of cash now is a lot more favorable than scraping in a few bucks a year with all the headaches.

> But that doesn't take away from the arguments that 1) Air
> America was a growing product in Phoenix that got yanked too
> soon, and 2) there are WAY too many religious stations in
> PHX.

For my tastes and yours, but your point is incorrect. The market dictates what is too much, and if 7.5 religious stations (a couple in Spanish, BTW) can survive and make money, then the market disagrees with you. Most of these operations aren't concerned about "spreading the word"; they're worrying about making money (there are exceptions of course). But again, I ask you... what formats would you suggest take over some of the religious signals? The best solution if you only want to "clean up the band" is to have people turn licenses in... don't wait for that to happen. Don't worry, though, it's not like anyone who actually consumes radio rather than works in it has even heard about the unlistened to stations we complain about every day. They only think about the stations they listen to.

 

[FloridaBear1776]

Re: Precisely...

>
> I may agree that this produces weak radio, but what is the
> solution? Banning certain groups from owning stations?
> Should we become a fascist country to preclude some from
> spending their own money to engage in free speech?

I was talking about the expense to upgrade to HD not being worth it for smaller owners, encouraging them to cash in and get out, as well as it being worth others' while to buy up stations and reduce interference. I would think brokered stations would be prime candidates for such a move because they operate with a short-term outlook (milking a cash cow rather than rebuilding the brand).

Fascistic to decide licensees on merit? Y' know, what John R. Brinkley did with KFKB in Kansas promoting his goat gland clinic in 1930 was no worse than what a lot of the health talk infomercials and near-infomercial shows do today. Yet he lost his license and was forced to move to Mexico. Then the Feds chased him over the border and strong-armed the Mexicans into closing down his radio station there, too. Was the FCC's ancestor, the FRC, being fascistic when it canceled his permit to print money?

>
> For my tastes and yours, but your point is incorrect. The
> market dictates what is too much, and if 7.5 religious
> stations (a couple in Spanish, BTW) can survive and make
> money, then the market disagrees with you. Most of these
> operations aren't concerned about "spreading the word";
> they're worrying about making money (there are exceptions of
> course). But again, I ask you... what formats would you
> suggest take over some of the religious signals? The best
> solution if you only want to "clean up the band" is to have
> people turn licenses in... don't wait for that to happen.
> Don't worry, though, it's not like anyone who actually
> consumes radio rather than works in it has even heard about
> the unlistened to stations we complain about every day. They
> only think about the stations they listen to.
>

Again, I think the expense of HD will be a strong incentive for some to turn them in. I can guarantee there are a lot of people in Phoenix who just discovered (in losing their station) how crummy the AM dial truly is.