FightingIrish said:
I have news for you. No full-service network or media venture the stature of AAR is "raking in the bucks" after only two years on the air. It takes years to get in the black.
Is Relevant Radio making money? Educational Media Foundation? Salem's secular formats? Hell, how about Radio Disney?
And nobody but the people at AAR know how profitable or unprofitable it is, since it's a privately held company. Are you privvy to some inside financial information, or just winging it?
If they've got the cash flow, they have every right to decide what to program. And I don't think they need financial advice from critics who don't like their product anyway.
And late evening shows can work on radio. Look at Phil Hendrie, Art Bell, Larry King, Lionel. Stations need stuff to plug in here, and believe it or not, there are people listening (though not as many as during the day). Sure beats running static.
Premiere Radio feeds news-talk programming 9am to 6pm and 1am to 5am.
TRN has live feeds 9am to 6pm and 7pm to 1 am.
ABC feeds live news-talk 12pm to 9pm (two shows between 6 and 8 pm)
Westwood One provides live talk programming 5 am-10 am (two programs 5 to 6 am), 12pm to 2 pm (two shows 1 to 2pm), 6pm to 1am (two shows 7 to 9pm).
Radio America does live feeds 4am to 1 pm and 3 pm to 9 pm.
WOR Network shows go live 12 pm to 3 pm, 9 pm to 9 am.
Fox Radio has live shows 9 am to 12 pm, 6 pm to 9pm and 10 pm to 1 am.
Jones Radio feeds liberal talk shows from 6 am to 12 pm and 3 pm to 6 pm and other talk (libertarian and consumer advice) 10 am to 4 pm.
The leading talk syndicators feed when they have a viable product and a competitive entry. They don't waste their money producing shows that don't sell just to fill time.
I do not claim to be privy to AAR's financial numbers. I am aware they continue to require seed funding from the Drobnys and other backers. As you state, no one would expect money to be rolling in at this point under the best of circumstances. I do say it would make business sense for AAR to make the best possible use of their resouces and cull poorly-performing entries. The same applies to any business, in any field, in a similar situation.
AAR's conceit was to imagine themselves a "full service" network like those you site, who (from all available indications) are mostly not making money either. These turn-key "networks" are pretty much consigned to low-power, low-revenue automated stations with few listeners. They are the minor leagues of national program distribution (the one possible exception being ESPN Radio). They serve niche audiences and are only able to make money only by keeping operating costs low. If that is all AAR aspires to, then so be it. But AAR says they want to play ball with big kids.
You are right, it's their money (or Sheldon Drobny's money). They can waste it if they want to.
But sometimes static makes better business sense. Progressive talk stations would do better with ballgames in the evening and brokered programming on weekends - stuff they can sell, even when noboby's listening.
PS: Larry King does not do a radio show any more (Westwood One distributes edited audio from his CNN show). Jim Bohannon took over the radio show after King's heart attack almost 20 years ago, and still does the show. Phil Hendire quit his show in June (no replacement, Premiere is "running static" in the time slot) . George Noory took over Art Bell's show during week (Bell currently does weekend broadcasts) almost 10 years ago. All these graveyard shift programs had more buzz than audience or revenue. But they were (and are) cheap to do and therefore could show black in. Such programming makes more sense for a large, profitable distributor as "value-added" features than for a company in AAR's apparent financial situation.
