OMW: Springer canned from WTAM!

[nate81]

The wheels are in motion for a new, local late-morning show on CC's WTAM/1100. Air America/Premiere gabber Jerry Springer was dropped from WTAM's schedule as of half-an-hour ago. Wow. OMW has more.

- Nathan Obral<P ID="signature">______________
WTAM/1100: An Abuse of Radio Power!</P>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> The wheels are in motion for a new, local late-morning show
> on CC's WTAM/1100. Air America/Premiere gabber Jerry
> Springer was dropped from WTAM's schedule as of half-an-hour
> ago. Wow. OMW has more.
>
> - Nathan Obral

I don't know why no one has responded yet, so here I go.

This is WTAM's management finally smarting up and realizing that Springer's radio gig was/is a joke and meant to be an election boost. It failed there, so off he goes.

They need to find a capable, talented, local talk host. Preferably someone in/from Cleveland who knows the town. Hate to say it, but Frantz has been gone too long to qualify. They need not be radio host currently, but need to have radio training and experience.

Want my picks? Ok, here goes.

Larry Morrow
or
Chip Kullick

I'd be open to moving one of the news guys over (Greg Saber particularly), but the question is how much talk experience do they have. Packages are great, but long form is an art. However, no one knows the city and its nudniks better than Saber.

And, here's a long shot: Tim Taylor. He has radio experience, but he's recently retired. And it's news experience...but he's anchored, which is different.

 

[vjm]

Thank God!

Hopefully, Bob Frantz gets the gig.

Frantz can handle both general talk and sports talk solidly, so--if for example--the Tribe makes a trade, Frantz can talk about it and and do it as easily as if he were talking about Frank Jackson.

Now, in the mid morning slot, there will be some variety:

850-Greg Brinda (sports)
1100-Bob Frantz (local talk)
1300-Micheal Eric Dyson (urban/liberal)
1420-Laura Ingraham (conservative)

Now, we have to do something about Kevin Keane in the evenings.

 

[adz]

I'm wondering if Bob Golic, now at WNIR, would want to take a stab at Cleveland..former Brown..getting good numbers..would he make the jump?

 

[radiomayor2]

i find all this fascinating..........

it's about money.....you can make more with local than syndicated........and WTAM will increase the amount of commercials available by moving Springer off the station.....it is simple math...

it's' a feather in the cap of metheny et al, that they ae going back to local sted syndication.......

as much as i am a fan of larry morrow........and a big fan.......the mid morning taleny WILL BE one of those who audition....and i do no believe "the duker" is one of them................


> > The wheels are in motion for a new, local late-morning
> show
> > on CC's WTAM/1100. Air America/Premiere gabber Jerry
> > Springer was dropped from WTAM's schedule as of
> half-an-hour
> > ago. Wow. OMW has more.
> >
> > - Nathan Obral
>
> I don't know why no one has responded yet, so here I go.
>
> This is WTAM's management finally smarting up and realizing
> that Springer's radio gig was/is a joke and meant to be an
> election boost. It failed there, so off he goes.
>
> They need to find a capable, talented, local talk host.
> Preferably someone in/from Cleveland who knows the town.
> Hate to say it, but Frantz has been gone too long to
> qualify. They need not be radio host currently, but need to
> have radio training and experience.
>
> Want my picks? Ok, here goes.
>
> Larry Morrow
> or
> Chip Kullick
>
> I'd be open to moving one of the news guys over (Greg Saber
> particularly), but the question is how much talk experience
> do they have. Packages are great, but long form is an art.
> However, no one knows the city and its nudniks better than
> Saber.
>
> And, here's a long shot: Tim Taylor. He has radio
> experience, but he's recently retired. And it's news
> experience...but he's anchored, which is different.
>

 

[HHH]

>
> it's' a feather in the cap of metheny et al, that they ae
> going back to local sted syndication.......


Not sure about that. Jerry on radio was Metheny's idea, and he was reportedly his "talent coach". The idea of putting a liberal (or a "Lib" as Rush cutely likes to call them, so does that mean a conservative is a "Con"??) was a good idea in a sea of conservative hosts across the dial, but Jerry was a poor choice. I think CC did their usual thing of finding someone who is a one-dimensional cartoon character (like Triv) instead of a seasoned radio performer with chops and style.


>
> as much as i am a fan of larry morrow........and a big
> fan.......the mid morning taleny WILL BE one of those who
> audition....and i do no believe "the duker" is one of
> them................

Morrow is too mild. He would be eaten alive in the ratings.

 

[Tim]

> I'm wondering if Bob Golic, now at WNIR, would want to take
> a stab at Cleveland..former Brown..getting good
> numbers..would he make the jump?>


Golic very, very, very likely has a non-compete clause in his contract. Besides, he has an extremely easy gig in Akron that supposedly is $100,000+ per year.

Remember, guys...CC likes syndication for one main reason: it's cheap. Middays is not a huge income daypart for radio.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by John T. Arthur on 03/11/06 04:42 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[radiomayor2]

i say again...metheny etal are making the right move..
whether or not it ends up that 'TAM copies WLW's strategy...

local also means more avails and more chance for sales over all......
many clients don't by satellite delivered talk.....
trust me...limbaugh is a hard sell....even to conservatives, because you can't touch and feel him locally.......

they will succeed with this........(IMHO)


> >
> > it's' a feather in the cap of metheny et al, that they ae
> > going back to local sted syndication.......
>
>
> Not sure about that. Jerry on radio was Metheny's idea, and
> he was reportedly his "talent coach". The idea of putting a
> liberal (or a "Lib" as Rush cutely likes to call them, so
> does that mean a conservative is a "Con"??) was a good idea
> in a sea of conservative hosts across the dial, but Jerry
> was a poor choice. I think CC did their usual thing of
> finding someone who is a one-dimensional cartoon character
> (like Triv) instead of a seasoned radio performer with chops
> and style.
>
>
> >
> > as much as i am a fan of larry morrow........and a big
> > fan.......the mid morning taleny WILL BE one of those who
> > audition....and i do no believe "the duker" is one of
> > them................
>
> Morrow is too mild. He would be eaten alive in the ratings.
>

 

[HHH]

> Remember, guys...CC likes syndication for one main reason:
> it's cheap. Middays is not a huge income daypart for radio.
>


Tell that to WDOK!

 

[ajhenderson]

Trivisonno and the "public interest"

> Not sure about that. Jerry on radio was Metheny's idea, and
> he was reportedly his "talent coach". The idea of putting a
> liberal (or a "Lib" as Rush cutely likes to call them, so
> does that mean a conservative is a "Con"??) was a good idea
> in a sea of conservative hosts across the dial, but Jerry
> was a poor choice. I think CC did their usual thing of
> finding someone who is a one-dimensional cartoon character
> (like Triv) instead of a seasoned radio performer with chops
> and style.

People speak of Trivisonno like he's a total loser, but these are the same people who whine about stations not serving the "public interest". For example:

1) The old WERE was a paytoilet, and thus did not serve the public interest
2) PBS has similarly low numbers of viewers, but it does serve the public interest because it's educational

Trivisonno may not be educational (although that's subjective), but he has tons of listeners. Doesn't that mean, by way of argument #1, that he's serving Cleveland? We'd all like to think we're smarter than a high school dropout, but he's figured out how to get a lot of people, intelligent and otherwise, listening. Forget WTAM's cashing in on that... people are served because they listen.

[/soapbox]

 

[WIXYGrad]

Larry Morrow

>
> Morrow is too mild. He would be eaten alive in the ratings.
>
I would have to agree. Larry Morrow has had a good long run as the good guy of Cleveland Radio. He has a good job now doing some imaging for WCRF, and being the announcer for radio preacher Alistair Begg. I just can't imagine him going toe to toe with callers on controversial topics of the day.

 

[HHH]

Re: Trivisonno and the "public interest"

>
> People speak of Trivisonno like he's a total loser, but
> these are the same people who whine about stations not
> serving the "public interest". For example:
>
> 1) The old WERE was a paytoilet, and thus did not serve the
> public interest
> 2) PBS has similarly low numbers of viewers, but it does
> serve the public interest because it's educational
>
> Trivisonno may not be educational (although that's
> subjective), but he has tons of listeners. Doesn't that
> mean, by way of argument #1, that he's serving Cleveland?

I don't quite know what you mean in your points connecting ratings with serving the public interest. As if merely getting good ratings indicates automatic "public service". If that were the case, then WWF Wrestling would be "in the public interest" by virtue of its big ratings and Meet The Press (pretty low-rated) would not. I don't think anybody equates popularity with the public interest. Public taste maybe. Not public interest.

Triv's complete stupidity about world affairs, and his shameful statements about
"catching AIDS from silverware handled by a gay waiter" is hardly in the public interest. Promoting incorrect information as fact is hardly in the public interest. You can't catch AIDS from silverware! Experts have called him, written the press, etc, yet he said (get this) "I don't believe them". Now, anybody who has spent five minutes in radio know that Triv is doing is dumbell routine in order to cause talk and attract attention just like any circus clown.
Ratings are the name of the game, and "get them by any means" is the mantra of corporate radio. But, public interest? Oh, brother, stop it.

And even in terms of public taste, it is not the public at large, but the public who is listening to radio or watching TV at any given moment (which is only a small percentage of the overall population). Fox News claims to be "America's #1 Source for News" based on their #1 ratings. But, remember that MOST people in the population at large are NOT watching Fox (or anybody else regularly). If there are 100 people in a town, and 5 listen to station X, and 2 listen to station Y, and 1 listens to station Z, you can expect station X to say "Number one in town, by twice as many as our next competiton". They sound so big and influential, when in reality the vast majority ofthe population dosen't give a rat's butt.

Let's keep all of this in perspective.






> We'd all like to think we're smarter than a high school
> dropout, but he's figured out how to get a lot of people,
> intelligent and otherwise, listening. Forget WTAM's cashing
> in on that... people are served because they listen.
>
> [/soapbox]
>

 

[gretschbo]

> Thank God!
>
> Hopefully, Bob Frantz gets the gig.
>
> Frantz can handle both general talk and sports talk solidly,
> so--if for example--the Tribe makes a trade, Frantz can talk
> about it and and do it as easily as if he were talking about
> Frank Jackson.
>
> Now, in the mid morning slot, there will be some variety:
>
> 850-Greg Brinda (sports)
> 1100-Bob Frantz (local talk)
> 1300-Micheal Eric Dyson (urban/liberal)
> 1420-Laura Ingraham (conservative)
>
> Now, we have to do something about Kevin Keane in the
> evenings.
>
I listened in this morning at 9:00am
and must admit I happen to like Springer-
He was a nice change from that overblown bag
of excrement Rush Limbaugh-
Mind you I live in Canada(London Ont)-
Was it Bob Franz on this AM?
I sure hope the station is going to do better
then that clown they had on this morning
in Springers spot-
What a jerk- Rattling so quickly I was unable
to catch his drift half the time-
Talking over callers and in general being
all that is bad(in my opinion) as a talkshow host-
I think someone doing 'on air card tricks'
would be better then that guy-
Gretschbo

 

[UnknownError]

Look,

What MANY of you fail to realize is that the move to springer wasn't about poor ratings or programing from Glenn Beck. It was PURELY a revenue decision. Cleveland is an extremely liberal town, and with WHK on the scene stealing conservitalker revenue from TAM, CC decided that the market for conservative talk was tapped. So, in a "brilliant" move, they decided to tap the untapped lib talk market!... Well... Didn't go so well did it...? That's because libs don't spend money, the audience isn't the same, and MOST buisness owners who WOULD advertize are conservative, even in this town! They don't care about ratings in the mid morning time slot, (they've dropped to around a 6 share in their own demo!) they care about money. First of all, Glenn Beck has verry little room for local spots, as little as 6 mins an hour. Springer has only 1 or 2 mins of network spots in his show per break! MUCH more room for local spots!

So, if you look at it from a PD standpoint there are alot of potential gains from switching to springer... but... unfortunately springer is an idiot and his radio show is un-entertaining.

Let me know what you all think!

~Me

 

[HHH]

> Look,
>
> What MANY of you fail to realize is that the move to
> springer wasn't about poor ratings or programing from Glenn
> Beck. It was PURELY a revenue decision. Cleveland is an
> extremely liberal town, and with WHK on the scene stealing
> conservitalker revenue from TAM, CC decided that the market
> for conservative talk was tapped.


WHK stealing revenue? You really think so? They have no ratings, and I don't hear many local advertizers. Those few that I hear seem to be package deals with The Fish.


So, in a "brilliant"
> move, they decided to tap the untapped lib talk market!...
> Well... Didn't go so well did it...? That's because libs
> don't spend money,


Libs don't spend money? HUH??? What?


the audience isn't the same, and MOST
> buisness owners who WOULD advertize are conservative, even
> in this town!

Advertizing does not work that way. There are three reasons why most people advertize: ratings, ratings and ratings. The only thing they look at is demos.
You really think Giant Eagle cares about the political bent of their shoppers?


They don't care about ratings in the mid
> morning time slot, (they've dropped to around a 6 share in
> their own demo!) they care about money. First of all, Glenn
> Beck has verry little room for local spots, as little as 6
> mins an hour. Springer has only 1 or 2 mins of network
> spots in his show per break! MUCH more room for local
> spots!
>
> So, if you look at it from a PD standpoint there are alot of
> potential gains from switching to springer... but...
> unfortunately springer is an idiot and his radio show is
> un-entertaining.
>
> Let me know what you all think!
>
> ~Me
>


By the way, I just love the term "Libs" (popularized by the ever-cute Rush Limbaugh). Does that mean a conservative is a "con"? Just asking.

I think that part of it might be the nature of the listeners from each side of the political spectrum.

NPR, called by some a "Liberal Service", is actually pretty balanced. They generally have a representative from both sides on every issue piece. But it is a good thing that they are on public radio to a smaller, more savvy audience, because as a mass-service, articulate presentations which show both sides don't have enough fireworks to create ratings. The mass audience wants eveything to be a simple blood sport, so--commercially--it is better to just have a "pit bull" on the air throwing stones, with easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys".

The model seems more natural to the right wing, which some say is based on exclusion. When the Liberals--who are always trying be inclusive of everybody and everything (to the point of often being ridiculous)-- try a "blood sport" approach on AM talk radio, it does not come off.

I know many "Liberals" who may agree with Randy Rhodes, for example, but can't stand the presentation (yelling, sweeping generalities, demonizing, etc). For some reason (I don't know why) the right wing is less hung up on such things when it comes to AM talk radio, as evidenced by the ratings of Rush and Hannity, who demonize Liberals literally every single minute of their shows.

That is really the only explaination that I can give you. The dominance of conservative (is Bush really a conservative, by the way?) talk radio does not match the political fabric of the nation, which is about 50-50.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Look,
>
> What MANY of you fail to realize is that the move to
> springer wasn't about poor ratings or programing from Glenn
> Beck. It was PURELY a revenue decision. Cleveland is an
> extremely liberal town,

The city, yes. Inner suburbs, a little bit. The metro as a whole--not so much. Not really conservative either. But it's not liberal central.

> and with WHK on the scene stealing
> conservitalker revenue from TAM,

I've got an idea who this is. I've thought it for a while. But, the profile throws me for a loop. Still, I dunno. Ghost of Luczak hangs in the air.

And just think--talking more about WHK may very well get ONE person here listening to your station. That's a 100% increase! Bravo...spill the wine.

> CC decided that the market
> for conservative talk was tapped. So, in a "brilliant"
> move, they decided to tap the untapped lib talk market!...
> Well... Didn't go so well did it...?

Not really, no. Could be the host; could be liberal talk radio as a genre. We don't know.

> That's because libs
> don't spend money,

Tell that to George Soros, Peter B. Lewis, Laurie David, and the posters on DailyKos--and to Sherrod Brown's supporters.

> the audience isn't the same, and MOST
> buisness owners who WOULD advertize are conservative, even
> in this town!

De minimus, even if it wasn't wrong. If you really think that businessmen anywhere, let alone here, tailor their advertising based on their own personal political views, you're crazy. Progressive Insurance is run/owned by the aforementioned Lewis. He's a frustrated hippie lib and a main financial supporter of MoveOn.org and some of the more extreme liberal political organizations in America. Know where I hear Progressive commercials? In the middle of the Limbaugh show. Know why? Because people listen to Limbaugh, and when people listening hear about saving on car insurance, they buy car insurance. They don't investigate the company's political proclivities normally. I knew about Progressive's owners' politics, but know who my insurance carrier is? Yep.

> They don't care about ratings in the mid
> morning time slot, (they've dropped to around a 6 share in
> their own demo!) they care about money. First of all, Glenn
> Beck has verry little room for local spots, as little as 6
> mins an hour. Springer has only 1 or 2 mins of network
> spots in his show per break! MUCH more room for local
> spots!
>
> So, if you look at it from a PD standpoint there are alot of
> potential gains from switching to springer... but...
> unfortunately springer is an idiot and his radio show is
> un-entertaining.

Yes, but that was known before they put him on the air. EVERYONE on this board questioned the Springer pick. But the potential gains of a new audience are negated by the bookend programming, the status of the host, and the proclivity for long term placement in the schedule (I tend to think that Clear Channel was stroking Springer's ego and that Springer wanted to use the show as an appendage of his statewide campaign, which died on the vine).
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 03/14/06 02:32 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[ajhenderson]

So that means Rush is gone?

> What MANY of you fail to realize is that the move to
> springer wasn't about poor ratings or programing from Glenn
> Beck. It was PURELY a revenue decision. Cleveland is an
> extremely liberal town, and with WHK on the scene stealing
> conservitalker revenue from TAM, CC decided that the market
> for conservative talk was tapped. So, in a "brilliant"
> move, they decided to tap the untapped lib talk market!...
> Well... Didn't go so well did it...? That's because libs
> don't spend money, the audience isn't the same, and MOST
> buisness owners who WOULD advertize are conservative, even
> in this town! They don't care about ratings in the mid
> morning time slot, (they've dropped to around a 6 share in
> their own demo!) they care about money. First of all, Glenn
> Beck has verry little room for local spots, as little as 6
> mins an hour. Springer has only 1 or 2 mins of network
> spots in his show per break! MUCH more room for local
> spots!

There are plenty of shows with 3-4 min/hr of network spots... why not have them on? Michael Savage only takes 3 minutes! Beck switched to having his first two TOH half-hours commercial free for a reason... greater TSL, blah, blah, etc, etc.

With this argument, Rush Limbaugh would be on no stations because his avails are slimmer and he demands a huge pile of cash upfront. Well, WBAL is realizing that, but they're the first in 19 years.

And the Indians, Cavs, and Browns; gets people listening, but you've got to pay. Obviously, you can't have 24 hours of low-revenue audience building and prestige, but it doesn't hurt to have some.

 

[HHH]

Re: So that means Rush is gone?

> There are plenty of shows with 3-4 min/hr of network
> spots... why not have them on? Michael Savage only takes 3
> minutes! Beck switched to having his first two TOH
> half-hours commercial free for a reason... greater TSL,
> blah, blah, etc, etc.
>
> With this argument, Rush Limbaugh would be on no stations
> because his avails are slimmer and he demands a huge pile of
> cash upfront. Well, WBAL is realizing that, but they're the
> first in 19 years.

There is also another reason for the WBAL move that nobody seems to want to talk about. Rush's demos are aging fast, and he is NOT building a significant newer, younger audience on the front end, who tend to be more cynical and will not swallow spoon-fed, unchallenged statements from Rush so easily. Also, even some conservatives are finally rejecting Rush's lockstep, Johnny-one-note show, which is becoming tired, boring and predictable. No guests. Just Rush blathering on about how evil "the Libs" are with a bunch of callers who parrot "mega-dittos, Rush" "anything you say, Rush".

If this guy is so good, why does he not tangle with some guests of opposing opinion? It certainly would be more compelling than his monologues.

You rarely see him on the Sunday TV shows, and almost never in a roundtable where he has to actually defend his statements.

His insulation will probably be his eventual downfall.

 

[WIXYGrad]

Re: So that means Rush is gone?

Also there are plenty of Rush clones out there. Laura Ingrham comes to mind.

 

[UnknownError]

Re: So that means Rush is gone?

> > What MANY of you fail to realize is that the move to
> > springer wasn't about poor ratings or programing from
> Glenn
> > Beck. It was PURELY a revenue decision. Cleveland is an
> > extremely liberal town, and with WHK on the scene stealing
>
> > conservitalker revenue from TAM, CC decided that the
> market
> > for conservative talk was tapped. So, in a "brilliant"
> > move, they decided to tap the untapped lib talk market!...
>
> > Well... Didn't go so well did it...? That's because libs
>
> > don't spend money, the audience isn't the same, and MOST
> > buisness owners who WOULD advertize are conservative, even
>
> > in this town! They don't care about ratings in the mid
> > morning time slot, (they've dropped to around a 6 share in
>
> > their own demo!) they care about money. First of all,
> Glenn
> > Beck has verry little room for local spots, as little as 6
>
> > mins an hour. Springer has only 1 or 2 mins of network
> > spots in his show per break! MUCH more room for local
> > spots!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are plenty of shows with 3-4 min/hr of network
> spots... why not have them on? Michael Savage only takes 3
> minutes! Beck switched to having his first two TOH
> half-hours commercial free for a reason... greater TSL,
> blah, blah, etc, etc.
>
> With this argument, Rush Limbaugh would be on no stations
> because his avails are slimmer and he demands a huge pile of
> cash upfront. Well, WBAL is realizing that, but they're the
> first in 19 years.
>
> And the Indians, Cavs, and Browns; gets people listening,
> but you've got to pay. Obviously, you can't have 24 hours of
> low-revenue audience building and prestige, but it doesn't
> hurt to have some.
>
--------------------------------

First of all, RUSH commands quite an audience and you can't have more then one of those in your mid-morning/daypart hours... I.e. Glenn and Rush. Like you said, you only need one of those. Yes, Glenn goes spot free at the toh, another reason cc would drop him. Not enough revenue generation. They figure RUSH's show is stronger then Beck's (that's debatable) and they'd rather sell springer to tap a new "uptapped" lib talk market!

The sports are garbage. There's almost NO local spots that can be sold durring the games, most is pre/post game.

~me