NEED HELP WITH FM TALK LINEUP

[livingfruitvirus]

The Salem Network shows and Fox News Talk shows would be good choices. You can also look at Talk Radio Network's Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle and Rusty Humphries. For overnights, look into Doug McIntyre's Red Eye radio. You can also look at Westwood One's Dennis Miller, Fred Thompson, and Phil Valentine. Clear Channel also has Tampa-based syndicated Todd Schnitt (a.k.a The Schnitt Show) that airs during the same time slot as Hannity. Boston-based syndicated talker Howie Carr also airs during the same time slot.

If you want to go with all brokered talk (primarily live) here's how you can go. Since I don't know what time zone you are in, I'll use EST as a guide.

6-9am Bill Bennett (Salem), Quinn and Rose (CC)
9am-12noon Mike Gallager (Salem), Laura Ingraham (TRN), Brian and The Judge (FNT)
12noon-3pm Dennis Prager (Salem), John Gibson (FNT)
3-6pm Todd Schnitt (CC), Tom Sullivan (FNT), Jerry Doyle (TRN), Howie Carr (Entercom)
6-9pm Hugh Hewitt (Salem), Jason Lewis (Premier/CC), Roger Hedgecock (Radio America)
9pm-12midnight Rusty Humphries (TRN)
1am-5am Doug McIntyre's Red Eye Radio

You can fill in the empty time spots with a brokered show on a delayed basis. Hope this helps.

There's also Phil Hendrie 1am-4am on TRN, and John Batchelor every night from 9pm-1am on Citadel. Batchelor is a very underrated conservative talker, in my opinion. Also, most of those shows are barter based and don't require a fee, including the ones I mentioned, but if you want Howie Carr or Quinn and Rose, you'll have to fork over cash.

I like advice talk too. It's getting a bad reputation lately because the AM dial has turned into angry middle aged men over the past 10 years, but it's still just as helpful today as ever.

Todd Schnitt may win the award for the worst radio puker I have ever heard.

I once saw him in person 8 years ago. That voice of his is very close to his actual voice, minus vocal projection. I couldn't imagine hearing that in my ear all day.

 

[johnbasalla]

Why is it that Rush, Savage ... etc ... do well in so-called liberal markets, but it is assumed that liberal talkers would be a disaster in conservative markets?

Might the FM platform be a better place for liberal talk?

If we accept what is so often posted, that younger people don't listen to AM radio, and a significant number, euphorically speaking, "don't even know it exists", then if you start an FM talk station with so-called 3rd tier talkers, doesn't it seem that you might have a good chance of success because all those people don't listen to Rush, Savage ... etc ... and therefore might "warm" to your talkers more quickly?
Of course, the wild card is if the 3rd tier talker is 3rd tier because he/she isn't a good listen, then it wouldn't matter if they just happen to be on FM.

 

[johnbasalla]

I would recommend DENNIS PRAGER because he doesn't just talk politics and he makes listeners think.
He's also not a big blowhard like some of the others.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Why is it that Rush, Savage ... etc ... do well in so-called liberal markets, but it is assumed that liberal talkers would be a disaster in conservative markets?

Because it's failed every time it's been tried.

The reason liberal talk radio fails isn't because the listeners are younger and don't like AM radio. It doesn't fail because of some big conspiracy by Clear Channel. It doesn't fail because of dial location. And it doesn't fail for lack of talent.

It fails because liberal programming is everywhere. All of the TV networks, save one. Movies, music, most newspapers. If there were conservative media outlets everywhere, AM radio would have been dead 20 years ago.

Liberal talk radio failed in New York City. It's not going to work anywhere. Maybe there will be a station or two who can operate in the black, but to pretend like its a viable format is gambling at best.

This guy is asking for help making his station profitable. Not to program what you'd personally like. Liberal talk will put him out of a job. So will putting on conservative guys that no one listens to.

 

[johnbasalla]

Don C. makes a strong point. If liberal talk failed in New York City, then that's pretty close to being the end of the 'shooting match', so to speak. I also agree with the assessment of the ubiquitous nature of liberal media in all other avenues, but thought the questions might bring out something I hadn't thought of.
Has liberal talk had success in L.A. or San Fransicko (oops, now you know I listen to Doc Savage)?

I was not asking questions based on 'what I like'.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

If liberal talk failed in New York City, then that's pretty close to being the end of the 'shooting match', so to speak.

Perhaps liberal talk would work in some smaller markets that are liberal strongholds, but even conservative talk isn't doing so great in the big cities. Talk in general seems to do better in smaller markets, so perhaps liberal talk could carve a place for itself in small towns in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest? There is no shortage of talented hosts, at least on a national level. So the problem has to be with the format itself. It just doesn't have widespread appeal for some reason. Too much competition is just my personal guess.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There is no shortage of talented hosts, at least on a national level. So the problem has to be with the format itself. It just doesn't have widespread appeal for some reason. Too much competition is just my personal guess.

I can't define what it is, but there is some ingredient missing that none of us has been able to isolate, identify, and verify.

How do we determine there is no shortage of talented hosts at the national level? To me the primary ingredient of talent is ability to connect with the audience. It is reported here that there are "liberal talkers" who are talented. What does that mean? That they are skilled in creating a program that would appeal to conservative listeners IF the content were liberal? Maybe the liberal thinking mind that would be interested in listening to a liberal talk talent expects a style of delivery that is compatible with the liberal mind.

If you attend a conservative church you are likely to expect a pastor who seems to be doing a sermon that is unscripted. If you attend a liberal church you are likely to expect a pastor who reads a scripted sermon from a manuscript.

I would propose to you that radio broadcasting has yet to discover what appeals to the mind of those people who would be enthusiastic listeners to programming that speaks the liberal message. And if you gather around you a group of potential liberal listeners in a focus group, they many not be able to tell you what they want to hear in a liberal broadcast, because they have never heard one they found appealing to them! Thus they are lacking the ability to tell you what it would be.

 

[smedge2006]

Liberal talk radio failed in New York City. It's not going to work anywhere.

Not to rehash an old argument, but it was on at first a second-tier signal -- 10,000 watts in a city full of skyscrapers and 50,000 watters. Judging it a failure on the experiences of the past five years is like judging
conservative talk radio a failure because one FM is tanking with it in Denver and another has failed in Lexington, Kentucky.

And it has been quite successful at WXXM in Madison, despite repeated efforts by the ownership to kill the format, it just won't die. WXXM is on FM, which may prove the point.

At the same time, choosing between that and the Rusty Humphries of the world is really like being between a rock and a hard place. It's too bad we don't have a regional model of syndication in this country, where stations would get the programming of the nearest big-market full-staff talker. WLW or WGN in the Midwest, WSB in the Southeast, etc.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

There is no shortage of talented hosts, at least on a national level. So the problem has to be with the format itself. It just doesn't have widespread appeal for some reason. Too much competition is just my personal guess.

I can't define what it is, but there is some ingredient missing that none of us has been able to isolate, identify, and verify.

How do we determine there is no shortage of talented hosts at the national level? To me the primary ingredient of talent is ability to connect with the audience. It is reported here that there are "liberal talkers" who are talented. What does that mean? That they are skilled in creating a program that would appeal to conservative listeners IF the content were liberal? Maybe the liberal thinking mind that would be interested in listening to a liberal talk talent expects a style of delivery that is compatible with the liberal mind.

If you attend a conservative church you are likely to expect a pastor who seems to be doing a sermon that is unscripted. If you attend a liberal church you are likely to expect a pastor who reads a scripted sermon from a manuscript.

I would propose to you that radio broadcasting has yet to discover what appeals to the mind of those people who would be enthusiastic listeners to programming that speaks the liberal message. And if you gather around you a group of potential liberal listeners in a focus group, they many not be able to tell you what they want to hear in a liberal broadcast, because they have never heard one they found appealing to them! Thus they are lacking the ability to tell you what it would be.

That could very well be the case. I know when I hear liberal shows, I tend to listen from a point of seeing how well they do radio. Surprisingly, of all people, the best one I remember hearing was Jerry Springer's Air America show. It really was much better than you'd expect. Alan Colmes also does a very good show.

Maybe that's why NPR does better than liberal talk stations. That's the form of programming that the liberal folks like, and it's already there. Trying to copy Rush Limbaugh with a different point of view probably isn't the answer.

But the competing media vying for liberal voices rears its ugly head again. Look at what happened with Rachel Maddow. She jumped to TV as soon as she had the chance.

 

[del_griffith]

Don C. makes a strong point. If liberal talk failed in New York City, then that's pretty close to being the end of the 'shooting match', so to speak. I also agree with the assessment of the ubiquitous nature of liberal media in all other avenues, but thought the questions might bring out something I hadn't thought of.
Has liberal talk had success in L.A. or San Fransicko (oops, now you know I listen to Doc Savage)?

I was not asking questions based on 'what I like'.

I believe there are a number of issues that come into play. Perhaps part of the problem in my opinion for what it's worth, liberal positions tend to work best when presented in a long form presentation, not short form like conservative talk radio is presented.

Conservative ideology is more rooted in traditional values which have already been long defined. It speaks more to our core instincts and traditions. Liberal theology takes some additional time to explain because it's concepts aren't always yet defined. Our natural tendency in our sound bite world is to go with what's easy to digest and understand. Conservative talk radio plays to that.

In addition, liberal talk has never really found a solid signal to gain a foothold. Closest I can think of is WCKY in Cincy, although Cincy is a fairly conservative area.

And I do have one question. It's been pointed out that liberal talk radio failed in NYC? Couldn't the same be said about true core conservative value talk radio? Has WNYM been a success? It has a .2 share in the NYC ratings. The signal has been enhanced to where it throws a pretty solid city grade signal. Yet it just about in the vortex of the toilet flush ratings. Sure there is competition. But this is true solid conservative talk radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Conservative ideology is more rooted in traditional values which have already been long defined. It speaks more to our core instincts and traditions. Liberal theology takes some additional time to explain because it's concepts aren't always yet defined. Our natural tendency in our sound bite world is to go with what's easy to digest and understand. Conservative talk radio plays to that.

That paragraph sounds like something Frank Luntz would craft!

I understand exactly what you are saying. At first glance it seems to ring so true. And it is an example of why radio management, radio programmers and radio talent seem to find it impossible to craft a programming format that is truly appealing and exciting to potential listeners who do not agree with Conservative ideology.

Before my friend amfmxm comes riding in to remind me of some stations that have had success with programming to the Liberal side, I think we all can agree at the end of the conversation that Conservative focused radio programming has flourished like a "prairie file" consuming sage grass and sage brush. And we also observe that Liberal focused radio hasn't truly caught fire even with the use of charcoal lighter fluid!

There are other ways to phrase what you said.... not to try and prove you are wrong, but to illustrate how the prairie fire burns so well. What if I said "Conservative ideology is more rooted in populist values."

To say "Liberal theology takes some additional time to explain because it's concepts aren't always yet defined" transmits the message: Conservative values are fixed and permanent. And as one who attached himself to the Conservative movement in the days of Barry Goldwater...... I can tell you that as time brought us the era of Ronald Reagan, the era of Newt Gingrinch, the era of Jack Abramof-Tom Delay-Dick Cheney and now the Tea Party era.... a good radio manager, programmer, or talent soon has to come face to face with the possibility that Conservative values are no more or less fixed than are Liberal values.

You followed my lead and you used the word "theology" in your post. So excuse me while I bring in an image tossed around by theologians in their inter-mural battles: "You can express cheap grace with tee-shirt slogans and bumper stickers. To express true grace may require some lectures and maybe a book or two."

Here is the responsibility and citizenship issues that radio managers, programmers and talent have to struggle with. When we venture into programming that addresses political issues, do we have some kind of responsibility that we do not take on when we program music or drama or sports or straight news? When we venture in programming that addresses political issues, have we become bio-scientists who in addition to making a living at what we do, we have begun tinkering with the DNA of our nation, our civilization?

Will our grandchildren be grateful to us if we leave them with a civilization that has the sophistication of a tee shirt slogan, a philosophy that fits on a bumper sticker?

Any talk radio manager, programmer or talent who cannot make liberal radio and conservative radio equally attractive should consider getting out of broadcasting and either running for office or becoming active in campaign management. Maybe you are more of a politician than a programmer/communicator.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

And I do have one question. It's been pointed out that liberal talk radio failed in NYC? Couldn't the same be said about true core conservative value talk radio? Has WNYM been a success? It has a .2 share in the NYC ratings. The signal has been enhanced to where it throws a pretty solid city grade signal. Yet it just about in the vortex of the toilet flush ratings. Sure there is competition. But this is true solid conservative talk radio.

It's all relative, I suppose. WABC certainly does well enough for itself. But if New York City can only support one conservative station, and no liberal stations, that goes to show the viability of political talk as a whole. Neither format is burning up the charts in big cities.

 

[amfmxm]

Thanks for the shout-out, GRC. I hadn't participated in this particular thread because I thought that the early contributions were pretty logical... and then just had not checked back. But I do see it has wandered back into liberal-bashing. Give me a 670/WSCR, a reasonable operating budget, and a market like Chicago, and I'll give you a progressive talk monster. Give me a lousy stick & no budget and it will get its ass kicked.

As to this guy's (RadioAMFM) quandary, it really is difficult to provide logical advice without knowing a whole lot more about the situation.

How big is the market? How many stations are in the market--and what is the current format lineup of those stations. Is the FM in question (the one he wants to change) a Class A/B/C? Are the competitive AM's he references 50-kw monsters or 250-watt daytimers at the right end of the dial?

A huge FM with second-rate talent can swamp a Class C (IV) AM with 1-kw @ 1490 and a 70-year old ground system--even one with Rush/Sean/Glenn.

In other words, content is just one piece of the puzzle--and we don't know what the other pieces are. To that same point, if this guy's FM is a tiny rim-shot that covers lots of corn but few people, the whole exercise might be worthless. Hard to say.

On the other hand, if RadioAMFM was just posing the question to start up conversation... it worked!

 

[LibertyNT]

WBAP does pretty good in Dallas.
We have had Liberal Talkers out here in the Past (910 Air America, 1360 Rational Radio)
Neither have done good and are now Different Formats. 910 went Catholic. 1360 is Spanish.
WBAP is the only clear winner of the political talkers out here. 570 is waaayyyy behind and 1160 doesn't even show up.
So I'm thinking most markets can Only really support one Political Talker.
btw our NPR isn't that high in the ratings either. 'BAP beats it by a mile.

 

[smedge2006]

We have had Liberal Talkers out here in the Past (910 Air America, 1360 Rational Radio)
Neither have done good and are now Different Formats. 910 went Catholic. 1360 is Spanish.

It's tough to keep a format on the air when there are churches and outright crooks (see the Houston board) willing to offer more money. The only way liberal talk is going to stay on the air -- buy, don't lease.

 

[northwoods]

The Salem Network shows and Fox News Talk shows would be good choices. You can also look at Talk Radio Network's Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle and Rusty Humphries. For overnights, look into Doug McIntyre's Red Eye radio. You can also look at Westwood One's Dennis Miller, Fred Thompson, and Phil Valentine. Compass Media also has Tampa-based syndicated Todd Schnitt (a.k.a The Schnitt Show) that airs during the same time slot as Hannity. Boston-based syndicated talker Howie Carr also airs during the same time slot.

If you want to go with all brokered talk (primarily live) here's how you can go. Since I don't know what time zone you are in, I'll use EST as a guide.

6-9am Bill Bennett (Salem), Quinn and Rose (CC)
9am-12noon Mike Gallager (Salem), Laura Ingraham (TRN), Brian and The Judge (FNT)
12noon-3pm Dennis Prager (Salem), John Gibson (FNT)
3-6pm Todd Schnitt (Compass Media), Tom Sullivan (FNT), Jerry Doyle (TRN), Howie Carr (Entercom)
6-9pm Hugh Hewitt (Salem), Jason Lewis (Premier/CC), Roger Hedgecock (Radio America)
9pm-12midnight Rusty Humphries (TRN)
1am-5am Doug McIntyre's Red Eye Radio

You can fill in the empty time spots with a brokered show on a delayed basis. Hope this helps.

I forgot to mention in the 6-9pm EST slot there is also Compass Media's Pacific Northwest-based Lars Larson as a possibility.

 

[northwoods]

WBAP does pretty good in Dallas.

WBAP would probably do better if they put Mark Davis on a half hour earlier. I'd rather see his show go from 8-11am instead of 8:30-11am.

 

[Rusty Muck]

A show where the callers were the major ingredient of the program is "old fashioned" in the mind of some people but it is the way we came into the current genre of Talk Radio. An "Aunt Bea" type host can make it work. Do consider a female host as young men may be more likely to begin to see themselves as the future Rush or the future someone else and then you end up with a third-tier me-too ho-hum product. Also consider bringing in some people to be interviewed. I know. It's so 1960s.... but only those of us with radio experience or who are radio groupies know that. You audience hasn't gone to radio announcer school and they don't know that such a show is un-cool. They might be so naive as to like the program and tell their friends about it.

Look at WNIR-FM in Akron - a heritage NT station, owned by the same family since the late 1960s. They are predominantly local from 5:30AM to 11:00PM on weekdays, and from 6:00AM to 10:00PM on weekends. WNIR still does their programming old-school style. (How old-school? They still conduct a weekly remote at a nearby car dealership with an un-equalized phone line!)

It's far too much to ask for an upstart like this, but a it's tightly local station with a mom-and-pop ownership, and with modest syndicated programming overnights... and they've been ranked at the top of the Akron ratings for years and years.

 

[travisl5678]

I've heard that TRN is taking new FM Affiliates now but here's some other ideas
1.Fox News Radio, branded as Fox Talk... ,even if the hosts are not big names they still can and do sell well. KFBK 1530 in Sacramento,CA is a rated #1 heritage AM that has Tom Sullivan Middays 12-3 after Rush. Plus If you do want a little bit of left wing talk,they syndicate Alan Colmes as well. Here is a link to their website http://foxnewsradio.com/#axzz0qxaz8AHw
2.If you want to have local news,and save money a good idea may be to make a deal with a local TV station to carry an audio simulcast of their newscasts, I've heard of this being done in a few small markets
If you have any questions about these ideas of want me to expand on them,feel free to send me a Personal Message here on the Boards or E-mail me, Good Luck!

 

[travisl5678]

One more thing, whatever you decide to do Stay Away From Progressive Talk! it has failed even when it is tried in liberal markets and will fail even worse in your market.