• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Net Effect

Wilmington is a medium market at #75. The only non-comm's we have is a college station (U of Del) that isn't an NPR affilate, a high school station, and a Contemporary Christian Music station. The NPR affiliate is in Philly (market #6) WHYY-FM and Temple Univ's WRTI (Classical music daytime/Jazz after 6pm) which airs NPR news on the hour. So basically for NPR programming, we in Philly/Wilmington go to WHYY-FM.

Sure I understand that any syndicated show would be aired on a station that carries that format, like an oldies station carrying an oldies show from ABC, etc.

My point is with the commercial stations being so focused on making as much money as they fight over the same listeners as they ignore the others (those who'd listen to NPR rather than an FM music station all day), it seems to me that any of the previously mentioned NPR shows would have a short life in the commerical radio world or would be dumbed down for the larger mass appeal and not be of the same caliber as the NPR offerings.
 
it seems to me that any of the previously mentioned NPR shows would have a short life in the commerical radio world or would be dumbed down for the larger mass appeal and not be of the same caliber as the NPR offerings.

"Dumbed down?" Have you ever listened to Car Talk with Click and Clack, the tappett brothers? It's one of my favorite hours on the radio. But even the hosts of the show will tell you, it couldn't handle being dumbed down any further.

I also think you underestimate the audience for commercial radio. The masses might not want to listen to several straight hours of standard "listen because it's good for you!" NPR/PRI type programming. But in small doses, I don't see where the shows I mentioned couldn't fit into a commercial stations programming, especially a talk station's programming. They might be exiled to non-peak hours. They might be sponsored by a single sponsor in a semi-brokered arrangement. And they might be mostly on lower rated AM stations. But they could succeed. It just takes an imaginative station owner or manager to make them work.
 
Car Talk is a great show. Yes they fool around and act like they are morons, but they both do have college degrees and lots of ham (kind of how Jack Benny used to act like he was not be able to play the violin where actually he was a concert violinist who had performed at Carnegie Hall). "Click and Clack" have an extensive background in auto repair and truly know what they are talking about. They found a way to make a car fix it show very entertaining. I think part of what makes that show so funny is the fact that they are on NPR rather than WW1 or ABC. However, it is the one NPR show that could probably be a success on commerical radio in its present form other than having more spot breaks than they have on NPR, yet oddly enough there hasn't been a commerical version of any sort of fix it show that quite matches what these two guys have accomplished on NPR.

My point is, Limbaugh became a success in right wing political talk and now there are copy cats all over the place. Car Talk is a success, yet no one, that I know of, on any commercial network or syndicator has replicated a fix it talk show anything near to what NPR produces. In fact I don't know of any national fix it talk show other than Car Talk. So as commercial radio could do the type of programming NPR does, but chances are they won't. NPR has a unique niche in American radio and I don't see any national radio network or syndicator trying to replicate that programming or something similar at all. NPR is sort of like the American version of the CBC in Canada and the BBC in England. I agree with you that the radio networks/syndicators COULD do those types of programs, but the bigger question is WILL they. So far, there doesn't seem to be any indication that they are even remotely interested in doing such programming.

It would be great to see WW1 or ABC radio launch NPR type programming. That would provide even more choices for that type of radio listener. So if Talk of the Nation's topic wasn't of interest, you could tune in to what ABC radio had on for their NPR type show, etc. The only reason I can see why they don't do NPR type of programming is that it probably is far more costly to produce the NPR type shows than a talk show like Limbaugh or Hannity, or the music format show the networks produce. So the profit from the NPR type shows is far less and that's probably the bottom line to why the commercial networks, etc don't do NPR programming and why NPR is still needed. NPR doesn't have to make a profit like ABC or WW1.
 
So as commercial radio could do the type of programming NPR does, but chances are they won't.

I remember that exact same argument when I worked in Public Television. The conventional wisdom back when there were only three networks was that documentaries and how-to shows could only succeed on PBS. Then along came cable TV, and the History Channel, Science Channel, A&E, the Food Network, etc., have all taken over the kind of programming PBS used to have a lock on. And PBS is reduced to running Wayner Dyer self-help infomercials on pledge nights.

The introduction of HD radio, with all those new radio "channels", is going to open radio broadcasting up for niche programming the way cable enabled the TV networks that took over from PBS.
 
Radio_Realist said:
So as commercial radio could do the type of programming NPR does, but chances are they won't.

I remember that exact same argument when I worked in Public Television. The conventional wisdom back when there were only three networks was that documentaries and how-to shows could only succeed on PBS. Then along came cable TV, and the History Channel, Science Channel, A&E, the Food Network, etc., have all taken over the kind of programming PBS used to have a lock on. And PBS is reduced to running Wayner Dyer self-help infomercials on pledge nights.

The introduction of HD radio, with all those new radio "channels", is going to open radio broadcasting up for niche programming the way cable enabled the TV networks that took over from PBS.

Good points. Could 'progtalk' ( or at least some of the weaker versions, Like Franken or Malloy ) be saved by HD radio?
 
I don't think HD will ever save a weak product! Face it, companies that invest the money into the production and delivery of the programs will have to generate enough revenue to show a profit!

I would equate satellite radio with cable TV more than HD. You pay for cable, you pay for satellite. You buy cable for the channels you want and you get dozens of channels you never watch or care about. Same with satellite - pay a monthly fee, listen to whatever you want.

The bulk of satellite revenue comes from subsctiptions rather than advertising. The more reasons they can offer for someone to pay the $10 a month, the more subscribers they have. They could care less about what you actually listen to.

So, could PT be saved by satellite? Real questions is will libs pay to listen? I doubt it. The would want it given to them.
 
So, could PT be saved by satellite?

This isn't about liberal talk. It's about the kind of niche programming that NPR/PRI offers. Such niche programming can be very profitable, if marketed correctly. Specialized niche programming that appeals to very narrow but distinct markets can be very desireable to select advertisers.

For example, if I ran a gourmet cookware store, I wouldn't buy any airtime for commercials on any mass-market radio station, even if it had great ratings. But, if a show like "The Splendid Table" was on a commercial station's HD side channel, I'd be tempted to sponsor the entire show. There might not be a lot of listeners, but each one of them would be a potential customer for me.

Look at the commercials on cable networks like The Food Network. Companies like Calphalon find advertising there to be worth the money, because "foodies" watch the Food Network, and "foodies" buy high-end cookware. It's the same with power tools on DIY or automobile performance parts on the Speed Network.
 
One aspect of the cable TV doing PBS type programming you've over looked. When you buy cable TV for your home, you must buy all of it or get none of it. You aren't allowed to pick and choose which stations you want to pay for, you pay for all (you may be able to block them out so that your kids can't view them, but you still do receive them and still do pay for them). From what my local cable company told me the distributors of the popular cable stations also own unpopular cable stations too and they require the cable companies to carry the less popular ones in order to get to also carry the popular ones. So, if the viewers actually had a real choice in which cable channels they paid for and could literally deselect ones and save money would the History channel, Discovery, etc survive? Sure the same folks who listen to NPR and watch PBS would probably pick those type of channels for their cable selections too, but would the large masses pick those stations? Do the large masses listen to NPR or watch PBS vs watching CBS, NBC, CBS, or Fox? So if the cable companies were not forced to carry the less popular cable stations, we probably would only have NPR and PBS for those types of programs as the cable companies would drop those channels as not being profitable or so that they could get an even larger profit than they now make.
 
When you buy cable TV for your home, you must buy all of it or get none of it.

When you buy an HD radio, you get all of the "in between" stations on the dial, not just some of them. Don't confuse HD with satellite radio. And don't get too carried away with an example of something similiar (cable TV) presented to simply make a point. The original issue (which you started in a different thread weeks ago) was whether or not NPR/PRI type programming could work on commercial radio.

Instead of arguing over the details of an analagy presented as an illustration works or not, why not concentrate on the subject that you started? I didn't "overlook" anything. Read what I wrote about niche advertisers being willing to spend money on niche market programming. That's the important issue, not a digression about why the niche channels are on cable TV.

With HD radio, there will be more stations to listen to on the radio. The issue then is what kind of programming will the broadcasting companies put on those channels. I submit that one or two of them could have commercial programs similar in content to what's on NPR/PRI, and that they could make money.
 
Radio_Realist said:
When you buy cable TV for your home, you must buy all of it or get none of it.

When you buy an HD radio, you get all of the "in between" stations on the dial, not just some of them. Don't confuse HD with satellite radio. And don't get too carried away with an example of something similiar (cable TV) presented to simply make a point. The original issue (which you started in a different thread weeks ago) was whether or not NPR/PRI type programming could work on commercial radio.

Instead of arguing over the details of an analagy presented as an illustration works or not, why not concentrate on the subject that you started? I didn't "overlook" anything. Read what I wrote about niche advertisers being willing to spend money on niche market programming. That's the important issue, not a digression about why the niche channels are on cable TV.

With HD radio, there will be more stations to listen to on the radio. The issue then is what kind of programming will the broadcasting companies put on those channels. I submit that one or two of them could have commercial programs similar in content to what's on NPR/PRI, and that they could make money.

This begs another interesting question, which should be started in a whole new thread. Since 'HD' radio is an enhanced listening option ( like HD TV is an enhanced TV option ) wouldn't most of those new channels go directly to music programming since talk radio does not need 'HD' as much as the music side of it?
 
Since 'HD' radio is an enhanced listening option ( like HD TV is an enhanced TV option ) wouldn't most of those new channels go directly to music programming since talk radio does not need 'HD' as much as the music side of it?

I was told that in this usage, HD doesn't stand for "High Definition", it stands for something else. I'm not a techie, but I was told HD will mean higher quality for the regular FM channels, plus extra channels that are only as good as regular FM is now. Plus, even though talk doesn't need high definition, when all the channels have it, you reach a point where there's just not enough music that auditorium tests well enough for anyone to broadcast it to fill up all the available channels.
 
There are very few similarities between HD TV and so-called HD radio. Firstly, what is now being offered and almost universally rejected by radio listeners as HD radio is not High Definition. It is more analogous to video compression which enables a cable system to offer more channels using the same amount of band width. So right away so-called HD radio is in trouble. Since there is no virtually no difference in the technical quality of the existing and new programming offered it doesn't offer the dual enhancement that HD offers i.e. better picture quality and some new programming. Will new programming be enough to attract listeners. I doubt it. If someone wants more programming choices they are not going to fork over $200 to buy a HD receiver. They will most likely chose satellite radio.
 
I agree Barooosk. Basic Cable may offer 60-70 some channels, but other than the few speciality stations like the History Channel, Discovery, Animal World, Weather Channel, etc the rest offer the same ole stuff except now they are reruns.

My guess is HD radio will do the same thing. Radiorealist believes we'll see some NPR type programming. I don't think so as that type of programming is more expensive to produce and requires more effort than having one person on as a talkshow host who gets to rant about politics, or a music format where you voice track the DJ and simply have a 150-250 song playlist.

The other issue is today's radio advertisers aren't interested in getting the so called niche listeners or you'd still hear Standard's stations, Classical Music stations, Country Gold, Oldies from 50's and 60's, radio drama's, quiz shows, musical variety shows, etc. They all want the youngest listener and cater to that group. So even though a city like Philly which has a boat load of FM stations all basically aim their programming at the same group of people. We keep hearing how the ad agencies won't buy time on a station that skews too old and much of what you'd hear on an NPR station wouldn't appeal to the majority of 12 to 39 year olds. If it did, your local NPR station would be the #1 or #2 station in your market. If that sort of programming was what the 12-39 year old demo's wanted, then Radiorealist would be correct, but it isn't so I don't believe we'll be hearing ABC radio, WW 1, etc providing such programming in the near future. I'm sure that Phil Boyce from ABC radio, who's the talkshow geru of Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, etc, who's been posting on this board, would program such programming in a heartbeat if he thought he could make money for his network with it. So I didn't forget my topic. I just don't believe the commercial radio stations, owners, networks, ad agencies, etc, will go to the trouble to provide that sort of radio programming, thus leaving NPR and College stations to fill the gap.
 
Radiorealist believes we'll see some NPR type programming.

First, don't credit me with believing things that I do not believe. The issue in this thread has been whether or not NPR-type programming could work. I am on record as stating that it could work, and that it would take imaginative broadcasters to make it work, and that "imaginative broadcaster" is an oxymoron. I do not believe that we'll hear NPR type programming on the new HD channels. No one ever "sees" radio programming.

I've also gone to some lengths to point out the incredibly wide range of NPR/PRI programming. There is a plethora of different program styles, some of which might be more commercial radio friendly than others. In any case, the main thing about NPR/PRI programming is that it consists of programs, as in specific shows that last for a specific length of time. Nowadays, few people in radio can even grasp the concept of specific shows on the air instead of just continuous "programming".

On news/talk stations around the country, the Paul Harvey newscast and his show "The Rest of the Story" was presented as a program. I believe that if NPR had to drop Terry Gross's Fresh Aire, she could re-package her show into commercial radio-friendly half-hour or quarter-hour chunks. I believe that if Car Talk were cancelled by NPR, it could be repackaged successfully as a daily syndicated quarter hour. I don't believe that will happen. I think it could happen.

much of what you'd hear on an NPR station wouldn't appeal to the majority of 12 to 39 year olds.

And much of it does. Again, you need to break your thinking out of the paradigm of continuous programming. I was listening to NPR's newscast on my commute home today. They had a news report on about the classic car auction in Arizona where someone paid $5.5 Million for Carroll Shelby's personal Cobra. Are you telling me that males aged 12 to 39 years old wouldn't be interested in someone talking about the ultimate muscle car? Or are you trying to convince me that a chain of stores who sold high performance auto parts wouldn't want to buy commercial time on a quarter-hour report on automotive news that was scheduled each day from 5:15 PM to 5:30 PM during evening drive time?

I'm sure that Phil Boyce from ABC radio, who's the talkshow geru of Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, etc, who's been posting on this board, would program such programming in a heartbeat if he thought he could make money for his network with it.

And I'll bet that if Phil Boyce was suddenly handed double the number of stations he already has, he wouldn't consider doing different things with those extra stations to generate additional, incremental business without doing anything to jeopardize his existing core stations. What broadcasters are doing now is their best ideas for maximizing profits with the resources they have. Give them more resources and more opportunities and some of them will try new things while most of them will simply play it safe.

In any case, you won't see innovative and imaginative programs on the radio coming from divisions of mega-corporations. But not every station in America is owned by Disney, Sony, or Clear Channel. There are still some broadcasters in radio who aren't little cogs in a big corporate machine. Those are the broadcasters who might attempt innovative new programming.
 
So we both probably can agree that NPR type programs COULD work on commercial radio, but chances are WON'T be given the opportunity.
 
Public radio and television stations are able to produce quality programming because they receive government and corporate funding and listener support without regard to ratings, and, because they don't have to sell day parts, their goal is simply to achieve an aggregate market share. But many shows are, in fact, successful, even if they lack the audience base in some markets sufficient to generate profitable commercial station revenues. For example, when the 20+ year-old "A Prairie Home Companion" goes on the road, their multiple live performances in each market generally sell out. And the products they license generate revenues for PBS and NPR as well as for the show and Garrison Keillor. Oscar Brand's folk music program on WNYC is the longest-running show on radio, having been on the air continuously since 1945. And long before we had conservative talk radio, Bill Buckley's TV program was a television landmark for conservatives and liberals alike. And, of course, there's Sesame Street and all the other CTW programming, and "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood," shows that have made public television a household necessity for more than two generations.

Public television does, of course, have an advantage over public radio in that it usually occupies one of the major VHF channels, with, in some markets, another public station broadcasting on a UHF channel. But then some public radio stations, like New York's WNYC, broadcast on both AM and FM, generally with different formats, but with some programs, like "A Prairie Home Companion," simulcast. And WNYC-AM is hard to miss, as it is conveniently sandwiched between WABC and WCBS, instead of clustering with other non-coms and college stations at the low end of the FM band.

But, while commercial talk stations like WABC simply program their format during the week, they often get more creative on the weekends with niche programs like WABC's long running "Religion on the Line," Bob Brinker's "Money Talk," Mark Simone's popular saturday night oldies show (he used to do one exclusively on Sinatra), lone liberal Brian Whitman's sunday show (which also airs on KABC), self-made media phenom Matt Drudge's often news/embargo-breaking sunday night show, and the popular syndicated overnight program, "Coast to Coast," which airs all week with the legendary, and some times enigmatic, Art Bell back on the weekends. And then there's that brilliant day-long rock and roll retrospective that Johnny Donovan puts together each year, reminding us older folk that there once was a WABC that you could dance to no matter what your politics.

It is sad, though, that, on many stations, programming has replaced actual programs. If one of WABC's weekday shows drops in the ratings, all Phil Boyce has to do is replace the host, tweak the show's format a bit, and the slot gets a new lease on life. Of course, hosts like Rush and Sean Hannity would be hard to replace, but then their shows are so successful that they'll never have to be. But stand alone programs can be risky, especially when they are in competition with programs on other stations. I listen to WABC almost exclusively, pretty much day and night, but, on Friday nights, when the station airs those repetitive, albeit highly profitable, infomercials about John Wayne's colon, I jump ship for WOR's Joey Reynolds and hang there the rest of the night.
 
But many shows are, in fact, successful, even if they lack the audience base in some markets sufficient to generate profitable commercial station revenues.

That's what I've been saying in several posts in this thread. Some people who work in radio can't get past the concept of "programming" as a continuous process with different people slipping in front of the mic from time to time, but the "programming" just slides along unchanged. The NPR/PRI model is a throwback to a time before most people working in radio were alive, when radio stations broadcasts "programs", aka "shows". When one show ended and another show began, the program changed. It's not like when Rush gets up and Hannity sits down and the programming doesn't really change, aside from a different voice and bumper music.

Anyone who listens to weekends on most smaller market stations or who listens to the handful of remaining daytime AM stations scratching out an existence with brokered time programming are already familiar with commercial programs that would conform to the NPR/PRI mold. That's especially true when one looks at the extreme breadth of the NPR/PRI program line-ups. Anyone who attempts to categorize all NPR/PRI shows together into any sort of group is doomed to failure. It's too diverse.
 
Andrew Kent said:
I listen to WABC almost exclusively, pretty much day and night, but, on Friday nights, when the station airs those repetitive, albeit highly profitable, infomercials about John Wayne's colon, I jump ship for WOR's Joey Reynolds and hang there the rest of the night.

Are you a liberal or a masochist?
 
Barooosk asks, because I'm a liberal who listens to WABC:
"Are you a liberal or a masochist?"



I often think it's comical
That nature always does contrive,
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
Or else a little conservative.

- W.S. Gilbert -

I really am a liberal - an old fashioned liberal and not a reinvented radical Kool-Aid drinker -so I have no problem listening to opinions with which I might disagree. Much of the time, I just use it as "background music" while I do other things. It breaks the solitude. But I also listen to get perspective on the political issues of the day. You see, if I only listened to liberal commentators, I might never hear the other side because so many of those who call themselves liberals don't recognize any side other than their own, and most conservatives don't bother to listen to, or call, so-called liberal shows. Not that all conservative hosts are so accommodating, but hosts like Rush and Sean will let liberals comment, even if they end the call by insisting that the caller is wrong instead of saying, "Mmm, you have a point." My main complaint is that so many conservatives tar all liberals with a broad brush, suggesting that we're all a bunch of unpatriotic Marxists or that we're all so blinded by Bush hatred that we can't think an original thought. But then so many leftists consider all conservitives to be Fascist bigots and all people of faith to be bible-thumping holy rollers. It's so sad that people can be so shallow, or that they are willing to obscure responsible skeptical inquiry to make a point.

If I've learned one thing from listening to talk radio, it's that both sides try to position themselves by polarizing the public and that there is so much hypocrisy at both ends of the political spectrum that nobody should be throwing any stones. But I do find it safer to form my own opinions by listening to people who aren't likely to sway me from my core beliefs than to let my fellow "progressives" inundate me with left-wing talking points but with no cogent explanation as to why I should support them. Of course I also listen to liberal hosts when I can find them. I try to catch Brian Whitman when I can, I think Ron Kuby and WOR's Lionel are two of the smartest people on radio, and I might even subscribe to Sirius just to hear Lynn Samuels, who I learned recently (from this board) is now alive and well on the bird.

Actually, my WABC addiction started a number of years ago when my small clock radio was literally stuck on WABC, i.e., the dial wouldn't move. I began listening to Rush, and Curtis and Lisa, and, before long, they all became my roommates. Eventually I got a new clock radio, but, as old habits die hard, I couldn't break the addiction and even started listening in the car. Lynn Samuels, Lionel, Joy Behar, and a few other liberals became my embedded compatriots, and I found that I could get more dimension, and more colorful narrative, on the issues of the day from WABC than I could from the all-news stations to which I had been previously addicted. Now I do have a decent stereo and an extensive and eclectic music and video collection, but these lay fallow, as does my television, most of the time, while I spend hours on my computer with WABC wailing in the background. Misplaced priorities? Perhaps. But Masochism? Definitely not.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom