NY Post: Why Did Female Talk Network fail?

[raccoonradio]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0820200...ot_air_opedcolumnists_carrie_lukas.htm?page=0

"Last Friday, GreenStone Media signed off for good. Why did this effort fail?...GreenStone offered the typical liberal fare - boasting of interviews with Ralph Nader and Alec Baldwin - but also included programming that was downright girly. Morning show segments included "Mean Mommy," with advice for mothers, and "What's up with Guys," providing insights into the elusive male brain."

Oh well...you'd think a network tailored to 51 per cent of the population would succeed. Of course I
think it only wound up on about 8 stations, some of them with pitiful signals. Would female talk work
if given another try?

Would it work if they tried to make it MORE political? Or do women prefer either music, or the existing
talk hosts out there?

The article did point out that some female talk hosts are great successes: Laura Ingraham (340
stations, 5 million listers) and Dr. Laura... but it concludes
"GreenStone Media's brand of tepid liberalism didn't appeal to women."

 

[photog]

Only my opinion as a female talk radio fan, but it seems like alot of the media geared toward women is either airhead like or victim like. Dr Laura and Laura Ingraham are both strong independent women who don't rely on their feminism on their shows. Take for example, Lifetime, television for women. Not appealing to me at all. It's all about women as victims. Yuk. I don't think the women who watch that station listen to talk radio.

 

[smedge2006]

I don't think the women who watch that station listen to talk radio.

Presumably, the idea is to get those women to listen to talk radio -- the audience that likes Laura and Laura is already there. What percentage of their "five million" listeners are women?

Scratchy AM signals are not the ideal place to try out this format -- how can it be declared a failure if it only got on eight stations? 99 percent of the potential audience never got to hear it. I'd say Greenstone's situation is more a testimony to the closed clubbishness of radio management and ownership than to the weakness of the idea behind it.

The article was written by someone trying to promote conservative talking points. Between this and Air America, never have I seen so much ink and gigabytes spent by alleged supporters of the "free market" to bash entrepreneurial ventures. Most entrepreneurs, of whatever political persuasion, fail most of the time.

 

[photog]

My point is the type of people who watch The View or Lifetime tv are not going to listen to talk radio, period. I'd listen to my favorite shows on scratchy AM or over the internet while it buffered every now and then. I feel like they are not the listening type buy maybe the visual type. I find myself listening to the Astros on the radio rather than watching them watching them on TV. Other talk radio people I know are similar that way, men or women. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, women who listen to talk radio are going to listen to good shows. Not necessarily shows geared to women. The shows geared to women are not going to appeal to women who already listen to talk radio.

 

[raccoonradio]

Just good old schadenfreude (watching AAR & Greenstone fail!). But if they succeeded, then fine--if it's
a product people want and it's done well, then no prob if it succeeds. Problems AAR had (beyond its programming) was weak signals, lack of promotion, and lack of daily local hosts in many cities. (As
for the programming, "Most Americans don't want to hear that their country stinks 24 hours a
day" as Bill O'Reillysaid...also, it seemed to narrowcast just to the far left not to a broader spectrum.

Liberals were entertained by Rush, Hannity, etc. (they do call in once in awhile) but conservatives didn't want to check out
Franken, S. Miller, etc. Either those on the right are close minded or the hosts in question
weren't entertaining. My bet is on the latter.

 

[SaltyDog]

Oh well...you'd think a network tailored to 51 per cent of the population would succeed.

I don't know why anyone is surprised that a network aimed at women didn't work out. No one ever started out with a goal to build a network aimed at men. It just kinda happened.

Think back to the late 80's. Imagine a bunch of conservative moneybags got together with a goal of building a conservative network, or a network aimed at men. If they did they would have failed miserably. For one thing, they would never have signed Rush Limbaugh. They probably would have signed up George Will and William F. Buckley. Pretty compelling radio huh?

What happened is that Ed McLaughlin was looking for people to syndicate and signed Rush AND Doctor Dean Edell. There was no grand plan to build a conservative and/or men's network. Since there was a market for Rush Limbaugh's style of talk, he succeeded. Not all conservative hosts did.

 

[smedge2006]

I don't know why anyone is surprised that a network aimed at women didn't work out. No one ever started out with a goal to build a network aimed at men. It just kinda happened.

Obviously you're not familiar with the history of sports talk radio or various "guy talk" formats.

Think back to the late 80's. Imagine a bunch of conservative moneybags got together with a goal of building a conservative network, or a network aimed at men. If they did they would have failed miserably. For one thing, they would never have signed Rush Limbaugh. They probably would have signed up George Will and William F. Buckley. Pretty compelling radio huh?

What happened is that Ed McLaughlin was looking for people to syndicate and signed Rush AND Doctor Dean Edell. There was no grand plan to build a conservative and/or men's network. Since there was a market for Rush Limbaugh's style of talk, he succeeded. Not all conservative hosts did.

But one thing was present in the 80's that was missing today: localism and a willingness by program directors of AM stations to try new things. Back then, talk stations had PDs who actually airchecked talent rather than plugging in syndicated product. A PD in Sacramento, at a station with tons and tons of heritage, gave Rush a slot -- had he not done that, McLaughlin would never had heard of him. That is one reason why liberal talk radio's rise has been so problematic. There is no place for things to happen "organically", there's no place to quietly develop the "liberal Rush Limbaugh" out of the spotlight. It would be much better if someone would set out, before trying to develop the Great Liberal Talk Network, to develop The Great Liberal Talk Station -- one whose ratings set a benchmark and awaken others to the possibilities.

 

[SaltyDog]

I don't know why anyone is surprised that a network aimed at women didn't work out. No one ever started out with a goal to build a network aimed at men. It just kinda happened.

Obviously you're not familiar with the history of sports talk radio or various "guy talk" formats.

Maybe I should let that pass since it looks like you're joking, but sports talk formats are sports talk formats, not guy formats. Like conservative News/Talk stations, the audience might BE male, but that wasn't the underlying goal, which was to get listeners interested, no matter their gender.

But one thing was present in the 80's that was missing today: localism and a willingness by program directors of AM stations to try new things. Back then, talk stations had PDs who actually airchecked talent rather than plugging in syndicated product. A PD in Sacramento, at a station with tons and tons of heritage, gave Rush a slot -- had he not done that, McLaughlin would never had heard of him. That is one reason why liberal talk radio's rise has been so problematic. There is no place for things to happen "organically", there's no place to quietly develop the "liberal Rush Limbaugh" out of the spotlight. It would be much better if someone would set out, before trying to develop the Great Liberal Talk Network, to develop The Great Liberal Talk Station -- one whose ratings set a benchmark and awaken others to the possibilities.

In some markets maybe there was all this localism, but not in the small (150-200) market where we launched a
talk station in the late 80's. It consisted of a pc running satellite programs. No pd. No jocks. No airchecks. No localism. Its debut book was better than several class C stations in the market which had a PD, localism, and jocks. It remains a player today.

The conventional wisdom about what's hurting radio sounds good, but it doesn't square with my actual experience.

I've been associated with stations that did everything cheap and "wrong" and were big ratings winners, and I've been associated with stations that did everything "right" and got their asses kicked in the ratings.

 

[smedge2006]

Maybe I should let that pass since it looks like you're joking, but sports talk formats are sports talk formats, not guy formats. Like conservative News/Talk stations, the audience might BE male, but that wasn't the underlying goal, which was to get listeners interested, no matter their gender.

Perhaps that could be said about WFAN, but many successful sports talkers around the country have aggressively tried to be "guy talkers" since the mid-90s, a stance recommended by prominent consultants such as Rick Scott. If it's slow season for play by play (in New York, non-baseball season; in the South, non-football season), talk about favorite movie babes or whatever. It may not be so apparent if most of the sports talk in your town is syndicated, since ESPN and Fox Sports try to stay away from the "guy" mentality (except overnights). But it's clearly what many locals are trying to do.

In some markets maybe there was all this localism, but not in the small (150-200) market where we launched a talk station in the late 80's. It consisted of a pc running satellite programs. No pd. No jocks. No airchecks. No localism. Its debut book was better than several class C stations in the market which had a PD, localism, and jocks. It remains a player today.

The conventional wisdom about what's hurting radio sounds good, but it doesn't square with my actual experience.

I've been associated with stations that did everything cheap and "wrong" and were big ratings winners, and I've been associated with stations that did everything "right" and got their asses kicked in the ratings.

There are always exceptions... but if everybody did things the "wrong" way, where would the next Limbaugh come from?

I think it's ridiculous that there's no local talk station or locally originated (non-paid) talk show in a market as big as Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida (number 74) -- not counting an Englewood station that's really out of market.

 

[SaltyDog]

I think it's ridiculous that there's no local talk station or locally originated (non-paid) talk show in a market as big as Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida (number 74) -- not counting an Englewood station that's really out of market.

I think it's unfortunate, but I don't know about "ridiculous". If I thought I could make a go of it, I'd put together a business plan, pitch it to investors and take a run at it. I'm not confident that it would work out.

 

[dampier]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0820200...ot_air_opedcolumnists_carrie_lukas.htm?page=0

"Last Friday, GreenStone Media signed off for good. Why did this effort fail?...GreenStone offered the typical liberal fare - boasting of interviews with Ralph Nader and Alec Baldwin - but also included programming that was downright girly. Morning show segments included "Mean Mommy," with advice for mothers, and "What's up with Guys," providing insights into the elusive male brain."

This from the sexist NY Post that was whining up a storm that Katie Couric would anchor the news in Iraq leaving her children without a mommy if something happened, all while not minding a bit when the male anchors did it. Somehow I don't think the NY Post is the go-to paper to check the pulse of American women on anything.

A network for women that is "girly." Wow... that's some insightful reporting there. Duh.

Oh well...you'd think a network tailored to 51 per cent of the population would succeed. Of course I
think it only wound up on about 8 stations, some of them with pitiful signals. Would female talk work
if given another try?

I'm not sure there is a clamoring for a female talk radio format. I haven't seen much interest in a male-only talk radio format either. I think people listen to individual shows and hosts, not a network or a station. The NY Post's characterization of the format as somehow liberal as a side swipe suggestion why it failed is just more nonsense from this Murdoch-owned paper. And Alec Baldwin has hardly been a regular on any station or format, especially after the answering machine incident.

That the startup ended up on weak stations and almost no promotion is probably a key reason why they couldn't hang on. If you don't advertise your station and its programming, how do you expect people to find it? You really need some deep pockets to launch a network. And again, I'm not convinced this was a niche that needed to be filled with a dedicated format in the first place.

Would it work if they tried to make it MORE political? Or do women prefer either music, or the existing talk hosts out there?

The article did point out that some female talk hosts are great successes: Laura Ingraham (340 stations, 5 million listers) and Dr. Laura... but it concludes
"GreenStone Media's brand of tepid liberalism didn't appeal to women."
[/quote]

Yeah, that's it. "Tepid liberalism." Was this an actual article or an editorial, and in the NY Post, how can you tell the difference?

Dr. Laura and Laura Ingraham are hardly "great successes." The former's glory days are long past her as her listeners got wind of Dr. Laura's own imperfections (and although it's fun to hear a host trash a caller, there are limits when your own life can't stand the scrutiny). And Ingraham is part of the second tier of talk programs, either relegated to a shifted timeslot or picked up by the second tier conservative talk station in a market looking through the leftovers.

And here's another non-surprise - most of Ingraham's listeners are men.

 

[dampier]

(As for the programming, "Most Americans don't want to hear that their country stinks 24 hours a
day" as Bill O'Reillysaid...also, it seemed to narrowcast just to the far left not to a broader spectrum.

This is another bit of nonsense pulled out of thin air by Bill O.

1) Disagreeing with the current administration in power (as 75% of Americans now do) has nothing to do with whether you think one's country "stinks" or not. But that's typical for O'Reilly and friends, who cannot seem to pick up the fact that criticizing a failed administration has nothing to do with hating America or democracy or anything else. It's a very weak argument, but what else does he have.

2) Anyone see Bill O'Reilly's radio ratings these days. I think he should be awful careful about diagnosing what is wrong with other people's talk shows.

Liberals were entertained by Rush, Hannity, etc. (they do call in once in awhile) but conservatives didn't want to check out
Franken, S. Miller, etc. Either those on the right are close minded or the hosts in question
weren't entertaining. My bet is on the latter.

Las Vegas wants you to come and visit them right away with bets like this. When I think of "entertainment," listening to a pill popper carry buckets of water for the Bush Administration and make excuses for them, or a guy who can only read talking points just isn't my idea of entertainment. Al Franken wasn't that much of a thrill for me either. But Stephanie Miller is the closest thing to the Daily Show for radio there is, and if there is a rising star in talk radio out there, she's absolutely one of them.

Liberals aren't necessarily "entertained" by Limbaugh and Hannity, especially these days with their wildly unpopular political views. But for a lot of America that cannot receive anything but conservative talk radio, what other choices do they have? I have no doubt outfits like Entercom who counterprogram libtalk on their stations have effectively peeled away most of the liberal audience that wanted to hear political talk radio but used to be stuck with Limbaugh and friends. And if that can knock a few points off a dominant AM talker's ratings, especially if owned by another conglomerate in the market, that's happy news for them in trying to boost their own cluster's ratings. A number of the advertisers on Entercom-owned stations obviously were sold a package run on several stations in the local cluster. I've talked to a few local advertisers who were sold on cumulative reach of the Entercom cluster and got ad runs on the whole group of stations for a package price.

And there are conservatives who listen to liberal talk radio as well, but that's more by choice than by necessity because conservatives have traditionally had a wider choice of shows in the past whereas liberals have not. Miller's show does attract a number of people who wouldn't spend five minutes with Mike Malloy or Randi Rhodes, if only because her show never takes itself too seriously and a lot of the humor is more at Miller's expense. That irreverence is a lot easier to take than someone hollering at you for three hours.

 

[dampier]

It would be much better if someone would set out, before trying to develop the Great Liberal Talk Network, to develop The Great Liberal Talk Station -- one whose ratings set a benchmark and awaken others to the possibilities.

That would describe Randi Rhodes who was the number one talker in West Palm Beach, or Thom Hartmann who is quite popular in Portland. If Air America started syndicating just Rhodes at the outset, it probably wouldn't have had the high profile extended to it by Al Franken, who was sort of the de facto marketing/publicity campaign for the network. Mike Malloy had experience too, but I suspected when he was doing local talk in Chicago it was more restrained that he was on Air America. But again the issue was getting conservative talk stations to carry a liberal show - any liberal show, and they just wouldn't do it, so the only way was to launch a format and convince stations running non-talk formats (or the second tier conservative talker) to flip to libtalk and give it a try.

Ed Schultz does have a point when he reminds his audience that there are radio conglomerates out there who run absolutely zero progressive talk radio shows, even in blue states. Schultz is beating a number of conservative talk shows himself and has proven his show a viable ratings success, and these groups still won't carry his (or any other liberal) show. His point is that the problem here is in the ownership of the stations. Even Fox News Radio has to sell Alan Colmes as a liberal show for conservative listeners.

With this landscape, launching a network was really the only option out there, and Schultz and Jones Radio have benefitted from that as well, as their shows are predominately on Air America-affiliated stations.