Mother of mercy, is this the end of local talk radio (as we know it)?

[Shoot From Hip]

If you ask me (and no one did), the reason "liberal talk" stations don't...as a rule...do well is that people who consider themselves liberal found their radio resources years ago. It's known as NPR, and in a number of cities the NPR stations are generating fabulous ratings. Moreover, my observation is that liberals may be choosing NPR because they don't like having talk show hosts tell them who (and what) is good and who's bad, they simply listen to the radio (again, NPR) and make their own judgments.

 

[Don62]

You should list WLS, Chicago, and also WFLA, Tampa,

Jay, are you listing WFLA as a station carrying mixed programming?
Not to be disagreeable, but the station's weekday programming (except for overnights and a.m. drive) is solidly wall-to-wall syndicated and conservative, with less local news.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Jay and Phil keep telling us it's just about money. But these "money" programming changes consistently result in wall to wall, round-the-clock one-note schedules of "conservative" hosts. You gotta wonder.

Does this disprove the money argument?

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

If you ask me (and no one did), the reason "liberal talk" stations don't...as a rule...do well is that people who consider themselves liberal found their radio resources years ago. It's known as NPR, and in a number of cities the NPR stations are generating fabulous ratings. Moreover, my observation is that liberals may be choosing NPR because they don't like having talk show hosts tell them who (and what) is good and who's bad, they simply listen to the radio (again, NPR) and make their own judgments.

NPR research* says the audience for NPR news and information programming reports themselves as:

Conservative or very conservative: 29%
Middle of the road: 30%
Liberal or very liberal: 31%

Not everybody sees NPR as liberal, most especially liberals who have complained that public radio has sold out to corporate sponsors and caved-in to the CPB. There is some evidence that people, liberal, conservative or whatever, may see programming that challenges their existing preconceptions as biased toward another side.

The difference between public radio and talk radio (liberal or conservative) audiences is more likely based on social, economic, educational and lifestyle differences. Check some of the demographic data for public radio news and information programming:

- 3 out of 4 listeners (75%) are in the "money demo" age segments (18-54). By contrast, Arbitron's Audience Composition Report for News-Talk-Information format stations for the same age range is 40%.

- 75% of NPR news and information listeners have household incomes over $50,000. Almost 2/3s have complete college; almost 1/3 attended or complete grad school. 58% read books. 63% vote.

I didn't immediately get the figures for commercial news/talk stations but the public radio crowd does not sound like the kind of people looking for tapes to improve their English, looking to clean up their credit report, or wanting to get rich quick by working from home.

Possibly conservatives who listen to public radio also like to make their own judgements. These people also seem to be the kind of people who were once the backbone of the Republican Party.
__________
* iowapublicradio.org/download/npr_fact_sheets.pdf

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Jay and Phil keep telling us it's just about money. But these "money" programming changes consistently result in wall to wall, round-the-clock one-note schedules of "conservative" hosts. You gotta wonder.

Does this disprove the money argument?

Once again, Dale, I don't see this as an either/or question. People's own preferences often shape their ideas of what will make money. To take a somewhat obvious and non-political example, it's not unusual for someone to think that programming the music he likes will make money. (The If You Build It, They Will Come theory of programming.)

Nobody is going to "prove" or "disprove" anything either way. But I'm curious. The pattern of talk radio programming changes is consistently right-ward. Radio's financial picture keeps getting darker. What's your explanation?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Once again, Dale, I don't see this as an either/or question. People's own preferences often shape their ideas of what will make money. To take a somewhat obvious and non-political example, it's not unusual for someone to think that programming the music he likes will make money. (The If You Build It, They Will Come theory of programming.)

Nobody is going to "prove" or "disprove" anything either way. But I'm curious. The pattern of talk radio programming changes is consistently right-ward. Radio's financial picture keeps getting darker. What's your explanation?

It is an either or actually, if it lost money would they be doing it? You, JML, live in a land of theory, the rest of us live in the world of reality. Radio is being hurt by new media, talk radio however is not. Talk radio can not be downloaded and loaded in an IPOD the way music can (stay with me folks I know shows like FTL do it successfully, but this is not the norm). Talk Radio is different and I don't think you can attribute radio's financial picture solely to talk radio. Local talk radio can not be done on birds and satellite and hopefully we see more in the future..

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

It is an either or actually, if it lost money would they be doing it? You, JML, live in a land of theory, the rest of us live in the world of reality. Radio is being hurt by new media, talk radio however is not. Talk radio can not be downloaded and loaded in an IPOD the way music can (stay with me folks I know shows like FTL do it successfully, but this is not the norm). Talk Radio is different and I don't think you can attribute radio's financial picture solely to talk radio. Local talk radio can not be done on birds and satellite and hopefully we see more in the future..

Maybe your "reality" is really a theory, and a not very well-grounded one.

Talk radio is part of radio's financial picture, and not the best part. Many (maybe most) top advertisers avoid placing their spots in political talk radio (and other "controversial" programming). Arbitron's Format Trends report says news/talk and talk get about a 12 per cent share of the radio audience. The percentage has stayed steady even though radio's total audience has been declining. Talk radio's audience is aging and down-market. You can tell that by listening to the spots and asking yourself who is being targeted?

Why do stations keep doing formulaic right-wing talk? What alternative does an AM station have? The established stations with good signals may not be losing money, but they are not making money like they were. They are still doing better than they could with brokered programming, foreign language or preachers. Ask yourself some of these questions and don't present the "reality" (actually management's theory) that gets handed to you.

A curious thing you might want to wonder about: Here is an extremely successful station like NJ 101.5 with a new style of non-partisan, non-idelogical "water-cooler" talk (for lack of a better name for it). Very successful. Very profitable. Good at reaching the money demos. Both Jay and Phil say they admire it. Usually radio rushes to imitate some "new thing" that seems to be working somewhere. But not this. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has tried to replicate NJ 101.5 and instead stations are sticking with Beck-Rush-Hannity doing one-note conservative talk. Why? I'd be interested in your "theory."

"Nothing is more practical than a good theory." - Kurt Lewin

 

[jaymarvin]

Don, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about back in the days when I worked at those stations. Not now. And Julius you have every right to your views. But having views and having facts are not the same. Yes, I think how long you've been in radio does matter, and it matters a lot. Because you see all kinds of things. I'm not saying I'm 100% right. I can only tell you what I see and have gone through. Almost all the stations I've worked at have made programing changes based on money. The thing that has been done that is wrong is Telcom96 and the deregulation of radio started under Reagan. Not everyone can own a radio station. So the question should be asked what price should companies pay the public for the use of them? Money? Most people would say yes. But what else? News? A balance of views? I would say yes. Broadcasting is not like GM. The airwaves belong to the public. So what's the price for that? This is really what should be talked about.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Julius you have every right to your views. But having views and having facts are not the same. Yes, I think how long you've been in radio does matter, and it matters a lot. Because you see all kinds of things. I'm not saying I'm 100% right. I can only tell you what I see and have gone through. Almost all the stations I've worked at have made programing changes based on money. The thing that has been done that is wrong is Telcom96 and the deregulation of radio started under Reagan. Not everyone can own a radio station. So the question should be asked what price should companies pay the public for the use of them? Money? Most people would say yes. But what else? News? A balance of views? I would say yes. Broadcasting is not like GM. The airwaves belong to the public. So what's the price for that? This is really what should be talked about.

Jay,

Yes, you've got more time in radio than I. You've also gone further in radio than I. As in almost anything else, the view is different at the top (stations such as WLS) than it is further down. At the same time, I've spent time out of the biz and have been able to look at business in other fields. And I've looked at mass communication from a social research perspective. That gives me a breadth of experience I think is also valid and useful. I'm not as close to things as you but maybe that's not bad.

I never got a chance to get close to big corporate owners and managers, as maybe you have. But further down the mountain, I've worked for some small group and individual owners and managers who had strong political views and made programming decisions based on those views. Yes, they wanted to and expected to make money. Sometimes they seemed to be "pandering" to an audience of people they looked down. Other times they seemed to think how they felt is how "everybody" feels and they were expressing a common sentiment. (It's sort of like how some religious people can't understand how anybody could possibly object to prayers in schools or public meetings.) In either case, their decisions to make money came out representing a particular viewpoint.

For a long time, like you, I accepted the idea that programming decisions were just about money. Then I looked at what happened to the value of broadcasting stocks I had bought (and eventually sold at a loss). If right-ward programming decisions were based on money, it seems time to question that strategy. I also don't see much evidence the industry is willing to do this.

There are a lot of liberals in this country and they have money to spend. Radio doesn't seem interested in programming them and advertisers don't seem interested in selling to them. In a way, liberals often seem dismissed as a deviant group. (Notice: Mel Karmazin calls his conservative talk channel Sirius Patriot and his liberal talk channel Sirius Left.) Given the diversity of views in the general population, it doesn't seem market forces are working in radio. If decisions are about money, market forces should work.

I don't know what motivates programming decisions. I do see the effects and I'm not disposed to take management's explanations on faith - as gospel. My experience tells me that the people in charge don't always know what they are doing (in radio or any where else). I never underestimate the power of hubris, or being surrounded by people who keep telling you that you're right. (In cybernetics, a system operating only on positive feedback oscillates out of control.)

I think the questions you raise at the end of the paragraph are good ones and should be talked about. The era of broadcasting you described in your blog was highly regulated and profitable. I've rethought my views on deregulation. If radio didn't convince me that regulation sometimes works , air travel did. I would not object to rolling back the clock at this point.

I did not intend to come off like I knew something here. My intent was to raise some questions and question some pervasive assumptions. I'm not sure how this fits in here, but I am reminded of something a station owner I worked for (in Denver actually) said. He had made his money in another field and bought an AM-TV combo (710 and channel 9). When asked about his lack of experience and his ability to manage a staff of experienced broadcasters he said (recalling from memory) "I may not know how to make an apple pie but I know when one doesn't taste right."

 

[B.B. Lean]

Why do you assume the talk stations are the ones causing the stock prices to drop? Perhaps it has more to do with radio companies losing touch with what music people want to hear, and the music industry failing to adapt to the changes in music delivery methods? Is that possible, or is it because most talk stations (which make up a small percentage of most companies radio portfolios) lean conservative?

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Why do you assume the talk stations are the ones causing the stock prices to drop? Perhaps it has more to do with radio companies losing touch with what music people want to hear, and the music industry failing to adapt to the changes in music delivery methods? Is that possible, or is it because most talk stations (which make up a small percentage of most companies radio portfolios) lean conservative?

All of the above.
"Losing touch" is probably part of the problem for music and talk.

 

[willcail]

As a fan of Radio it seems that syndicated fare, infomercials is cheaper to program for. That goes for "brokered" shows as well. In Columbus Ohio, I listen to Open Line on WTVN verses to syndicated fare and best of of my top three radio stations, WVKO AM, WOSU AM and WCBE FM. Just to hear local opinion. I hope Gary Richards will make good on his promise and do some local shows.

 

[Phil Boyce]

You want sources from me and others, meanwhile we are supposed to take your word for everything.

Mother of Mercy...is this the end of this thread? God I hope so.

 

[jaymarvin]

Great point,

 

[ABQTom]

Great point,

And I'll correct the comma with a period, just to make sure that it's over.

Thanks Jay for your comments.