More local programming bites the dust!

[Witchlover]

No arguement here. That's pretty shallow. Boston Tea Party? Radio hasn't made that big a stir since Orson Welles and "The War of the Worlds."

I matched your shallow and raised you one. ;D

Boston Tea Party, you say? Sounds like a great idea! But say, can you put it on hold for a couple weeks while I talk to Corporate and run it past Legal?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I believe this is because broadcasting is being run by accountants in faraway places who eat, sleep and dream numbers; but who have lost track of the fact that there is an actual world out there beyond their balance sheets and financial statements. New thinking equals challenging the paradigm; challenging the paradigm equals taking risks. Taking risks may mean an occasional failure, which will have an impact on the bottom line. On the other hand, a competitor may innovate and gain advantage over your company. What happens is that the bean counters get together in their industry meetings and agree to very discreetly limit creative thought so that no single company gains an advantage and no single company assumes undue risk.

The most repeated phrase by those of us who love radio in these conversations about how to save the "Jewels" is: It's got to be Live and Local. That is not quite accurate. I continue to search for a term that would reshape the vision. What we are looking for lives in the same neighborhood as Live and Local, but has slightly different DNA.

The second most repeated phrase I read in all these threads is something along the lines of "Damn Those Bean-counters!" That is not quite accurate. When I left broadcasting I hung out with the bean counters. At times I was one. Some of the times of the the go-between helping the bean counters (accountants) actually communicate with the computer geeks.

Maybe what we need are more bean counters who are also (radio) programmers and performers, or have been programmers. That probably can't happen in the giant companies. We lament there is no longer a "farm system" where announcers/personalities can start in small stations and small markets and work their way to the big stations and big markets. Maybe our EVEN BIGGER problem is there is not farm system where small market bean-counters can work their way up to big markets, big stations.

In the 21st Century there will be bean counters involved in radio! Will they wear white hats or black hats?

If you are going to be in radio at least learn to talk to them. Or, learn to speak Mandarin Chinese. They may be where your next job is.

 

[JohnAllan]

You did that for me with your post about the dark mood of so many people who are big time players in the world of liberal talk and discussion. Subconsciously I knew that.... but on my own I don't know that it would have ever bubbled up to the top.

So what this to do with what we discuss on R-I boards? Today's world of broadcasting does not seem to be a place where creative, bubble-to-the-top, new-direction thinking is a big factor.

First off, I want to say that I ENJOY the DEEP DISCUSSION!! We need more of that, instead of the "they suck" post that infect this board.

Now, back to topic. When I was hired to run 1690 Air Atlanta, I had no idea what I was in for. My model of talk radio was Rush, Bortz, and the Kimmer. I was really shocked at what came out of New York when we flipped the switch. In fact, we had to call a few times over language. A couple of F bombs hit and we screamed FOUL! Now, I said that to say this. There is a place for Liberal talk. I think that if the big players would understand that this is still ENTERTAINMENT as well as informative, then they would stand a better chance of winning the ratings as well as the cash box.

A good example of getting the message, The Jerry Springer show. Before we got sold and turned into bird calls, Air America started carrying the Springer show. Jerry was NOTHING like his TV junk. He was inciteful, intelligent, and entertaining. He would discuss things without name calling and he NEVER berated a caller! He would hear the caller out and then give his side. He would tell you when he thought the "right" was wrong, and he would also tell you when the "left" had gone too far. I found myself listening to Springer, enjoying the show, and looking forward to the next day. I think Jerry did it right. He had humor and would even poke fun at himself and his TV image.

So, I don't think that we need more government intervention, we need better programming.

 

[ricksegers]

John--

You nailed it. It has long been my contention that liberal talk was missing the entertainment factor. Rush has said since Day One and continues to day that his job is to get the largest audience possible and hold them for as long as he can for the benefit of his advertisers. It's those on the left that made him important and maybe he's starting to listen their damning faint praise and believe it. An entertaining, funny liberal talk personality who does not suffer BDS and basically comes out of nowhere (as Rush did) would succeed. The landscape is littered with shows hosted by strong, intelligent people but they just weren't entertaining.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

John--

An entertaining, funny liberal talk personality who does not suffer BDS and basically comes out of nowhere (as Rush did) would succeed. The landscape is littered with shows hosted by strong, intelligent people but they just weren't entertaining.

"Entertaining" is a flexible, pliable word. For an otherwise somber, sarcastic, monolithic thinking person to just add "cutesy" to his/her style and say: "Now I'm entertaining. I'm ready to try again" may not be the answer. I guess I heard the Jerry Springer radio thing a couple of times. In reading John Allan's description of Springer's programs, I think there are several other words that ought to be put on the table for aspiring talk show performers and aspiring promoter/managers to evaluate as possible ingredients.

Respect/mutual respect.
Empathizing.
Encouraging.
Pragmatic.
Inquisitive.
Well informed.

There are other descriptions of this genre that would take time to squeeze out of my shriveled up memory.

What is so ironic about all this? Liberals in casual conversation would say these are all attributes of a Liberal, while being "fixed in concrete", sour and dour, bitter and rigid are all attributes of a Conservative.

To which we have to ask: Then why are the Liberals who attempted talk radio so lacking in these pleasant attributes... and while Conservative talk radio folk may not overly endued with warmth and cuddles do project some mixture of entertainment?

I guess in the end we have to recognize that we don't yet have all the answers to creating good radio when it comes to talk and information. There is much to discover and quantify.

 

[JohnAllan]

John--

An entertaining, funny liberal talk personality who does not suffer BDS and basically comes out of nowhere (as Rush did) would succeed. The landscape is littered with shows hosted by strong, intelligent people but they just weren't entertaining.

"Entertaining" is a flexible, pliable word. For an otherwise somber, sarcastic, monolithic thinking person to just add "cutesy" to his/her style and say: "Now I'm entertaining. I'm ready to try again" may not be the answer. I guess I heard the Jerry Springer radio thing a couple of times. In reading John Allan's description of Springer's programs, I think there are several other words that ought to be put on the table for aspiring talk show performers and aspiring promoter/managers to evaluate as possible ingredients.

Respect/mutual respect.
Empathizing.
Encouraging.
Pragmatic.
Inquisitive.
Well informed.

What is so ironic about all this? Liberals in casual conversation would say these are all attributes of a Liberal, while being "fixed in concrete", sour and dour, bitter and rigid are all attributes of a Conservative.

GRC (Can I call you GRC?)

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. Your list of words are right on target. I did want to add that in my experience, the above: "these are all attributes of a Liberal, while being "fixed in concrete", sour and dour, bitter and rigid are all attributes of a Conservative." I found that to be basically reversed, at least when it came to the show hosts that I met and worked with. Now that didn't apply to everyone. Just as it doesn't on the right either. I don't think we are talking about "recycling" a talk show host, but finding someone that can be the total package. Someone that can be everything on your list. Only I would add entertaining to that list as well.

And just so that you will know, I am basically conservative (and the owners of Air Atlanta hired me anyway!). I just love a challenge in radio programming. I think that the statement that "Liberal radio doesn't work" is wrong. I think that it hasn't been done right yet. All the conservatives that followed Rush had a template. I think the left should use Rush as a template as well. Now I don't mean do and say the exact things only reverse the politics! I think someone could put it all together and give Rush a run for his money. And quite honestly, I would like to see it done.

I don't know Rick's politics (and for the sake of this discussion, it's not important) but I think Rick would like to see the talk world "shaken up" as well. I think it's a bit boring that one side dominates the airwaves.

 

[Ben Sandifer]

If we can dig a little deeper in this discussion, here's my take. The research has always shown that the music was the most important thing about radio. While this may be true, it's not the only thing. When music radio first started, it was more personality-oriented. The music drove the format, but the deejay drove the music. If music was all that mattered radio would have been totally replaced by records, cassettes, CD's, MP-3 players long ago. This may finally be happening, thanks to new technology combined with music radio's own self-destruction. The music stations all sound alike, because there's usually a corporate "programmer" making them all sound alike. A country station in Columbus sounds no different than a country station in Savannah. The music lists are pre-programmed (even before the days of voice-tracking), with fewer and fewer songs that all "test well." Just because they "test well" doesn't mean the listeners want to hear them over-and-over-and-over. The liner cards are all written out, so there's no place for personality in music radio, other than a few select morning shows. A well-trained monkey could work in music radio today (hopefully the ASPCA and PETA people won't allow this to happen). So the real "personality" of the business has migrated to talk radio. I contend that this is one of the reasons for the growth and success of talk radio in the last 2 decades. Rush came from the days of personality-driven music radio and understands all of the elements that made it successful. Whether you agree with his politics or not, the man is a brilliant broadcaster and know how to use radio to attract and keep a very large audience. The same applies to many other talk show hosts, though perhaps not as good as Rush. I know Boortz worked in music radio in Texas. I'm not sure about Hannity. There's a huge difference in the broadcasters who become talk-show hosts and the politicians who get their own talk-shows on radio. Now back to the thing about the music - I worked in Macon during the beginning days of Capricorn Records, which went on to become the largest independent label in the world. Being locally owned, WNEX, under the programming leadership of Terry Taylor, had the unique fortune to recognize the potential of this record label and the music that would become labeled "southern rock." We played everything Capricorn brought to the station. I remember the day they brought a reel-to-reel tape in with a song that had not even been pressed to record. They thought they might have had something good, and were thinking about releasing this as a single, but wanted us to play it and see what our listeners thought of it. Turns out, the song was "Keep On Smiling" by Wet Willie. This type of thing couldn't happen in today's corporate radio environment. Will the industry come back to this? Who knows - maybe after the corporate way doesn't work and they start selling off stations to cut their losses. There will come a point when there are no more personnel cuts that can be made. They'll either have to sell off stations, or the last person laid-off will need to turn off all the transmitters on their way out of the building.

 

[fussbudget]

Great insight Ben! Regarding Sean Hannity, I know Sean. I can't ever recall him mentioning any work as a DJ. He was hired at a Huntsville talker, snapped up by a forward thinking Eric Seidel at WGST and his career skyrocketed from there.

 

[JohnAllan]

Rush came from the days of personality-driven music radio and understands all of the elements that made it successful. Whether you agree with his politics or not, the man is a brilliant broadcaster and know how to use radio to attract and keep a very large audience. The same applies to many other talk show hosts, though perhaps not as good as Rush. I know Boortz worked in music radio in Texas. I'm not sure about Hannity.

Hey Ben, welcome to the discussion. And you are right on target. Those who came from the "personality" days of radio tend to know how to use their talent to attract and keep large audiences. I don't think it is just the "political" angle that applies here.

So let me turn the question to you, Ben. How would you go about putting together a SUCESSFUL Liberal talk show?

 

[kturnerga]

Mr. Ben
You hit the nail on the head! Yes, music is very very important. But it takes packaging through personality. In the Eighties we had CHR's and others trying to grab listeners with contests, jocks, etc. I loved the idea of radio stations playing the same tunes when I was a teen. I hated to be cheated out of some good cuts. Then again I didn't know about business and satisfying listeners- much less the innovation factor. Of course I loved the idea of a station's indigenous novelty songs catering to its audience and market.

C'est la guerre

KT