REAL dangerous thinking: “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.”

[Holland Cooke]

For years, we’ve heard and read various Talk Radio industry figures theorize:
“Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.”

How incredibly self-centered of us.
We’re THAT interesting?
People are out there hanging-on-our-every-word?

And how convenient!
We-talk-you-listen radio makes money.
NOT.
Not anymore.

As Cher’s character said in “Moonstruck:” SNAP OUT OF IT!
As George Costanza put it: “Do the opposite!”

As we heard loud and clear November 4, people want-in-on the conversation, and they’ve had-it-up-to-here with business-as-usual.
Voters didn’t just reject Republicans and favor Democrats.
Voters rejected THE CONVERSATION ABOUT Democrats vs. Republicans.

Pull back and take the wide angle shot.
Consumer Reports and movie critics are out, blogs are in.
Rather than being-talked-at, people want to talk-with each other.
Do U txt?

Do you notice that — while people are spending more time using smartphones — they’re spending less time using radio?
Turn what-they-do-on-smartphones INTO radio.

Make callers the show.
As talent, your value is topic and technique.
Conceive, conduct, and barely-control the conversation.
Don’t dominate it.
Set the table, provocatively; then keep welcoming people in.

Read more, in my column in the next issue of Talkers magazine.
Meantime, you can flame me here, or click-to-Comment at www.HollandCooke.com

HAPPY THANKSGIVING,
HC

 

[landtuna]

One listeners opinion.....

Most call-in shows suffer from (a) opinionated rants from people who don't get out much and tend to believe everything they hear on hate radio or, (b) are so ignorant in the use of the English language their meaning is lost as it travels beyond their teeth. A third problem is that hosts frequently shut down a conversation should the caller be of a different opinion than the host or as a result of too little time allotted to the call. And never mind when hosts berate or constantly interrupt the caller (or just hang up).

Bottom line: talk shows will get my attention when a literate host has something to say and is given enough time in which to say it, whether I agree or not. Shows/stations with people-on-the-street callers are turned off immediately (this includes music stations/shows where callers are frequent).

 

[almaniac27]

I think there needs to be some sort of balance between the two. If any of you have Sirius or XM, a good example is Pete Dominick's show on POTUS, Sirius 110 and XM 130. He has an opinion, but he lets every caller talk and they have an open civilized discussion. He can go off on a monologue, but he doesn't shut down opposing viewpoints. I think it's what talk radio should be.

 

[del_griffith]

I hear these types of callers

1) Lunatics: From either side of the aisle. Host will either kill quickly or play with them ala cat and mouse.
2) Seminar Callers: Versed on one topic, but don't think outside the box.
3) Those who call to hear their voice: Need I go further.
4) Those who call from the opposite perspective that allows the host to make their point: Ususally a good host will use them to their advantage. A good shouting match or get off my phone type call.
5) Those who call from the opposite perspective who have a compelling on air presence and know what they are talking about: These folks are usually dispatched fairly quickly. And that's sad. Because those calls can be both compelling radio and educational.
6) Some 95 year old person who just had the oatmeal wiped from their chin and someone allowed them access to a phone.

 

[cm454]

Geeeeez. That ridiculous Dave Barber approach.

"The callers ARE the show".

Really?

I have never in my life tuned in to hear the callers.

Callers are a tool to be used by an entertaining persoanlity.

If you need callers to make your show, you're in the wrong business.

What talkradio needs MORE of, is hosts who are passionate, very opinionated, entertaining AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, not party-agenda-driven parrots.

There are hosts who have liberal opinions on some subjects and conservative opinions on others---all depends on the subject. That is how most people think anyway (vs. the ideologues typically heard). These type hosts are what the format needs most to break this stifling mold that discourages most, especially younger demos, from ever even sampling the format.

Talkradio's reputation preceeds it. That is not a good thing if you're interested in not just growth, but even maintaining the status quo.

 

[Holland Cooke]

MORE! MORE! Pile-on!

I have never in my life tuned in to hear the callers.

Because you're saying-so anonymously, it's tough to respond more specifically, not-knowing what-sort-of-radio-you've-been-exposed-to beyond your 30-mile radius. But that's not my point.

Smell the coffee.
The game changed.
Accelerated actually.
It was already changing, measurably.

As-if the listener's attention spans wasn't already short-enough 6 months ago, when Coleman Research (http://www.colemaninsights.com/ppmrush.htm) walked R&R Talk Radio Seminar attendees through that "PPM DNA of Rush Limbaugh" study data which demonstrated how his tune-in hits-the-floor just-MINUTES-into the opening blah blah blah.

Fast-forward to present day: Radio's #1 competitor -- that-little-voice-in-the-listener's-head-that's-thinking-about-something-else -- is now hollering through a bullhorn, pondering SURVIVAL.

Meanwhile, Sean Hannity's show just opened with screaming Rev. Jeremiah Wright sound...

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

PS: For most readers here, who are not in Rhode Island, here's the 411 on our fellow Ocean Stater's reference to "Dave Barber:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wZMUbwOrZU
Update: Dave is now PD of RI Capitol TV, the state-run "C-SPAN of Rhode Island."
Meaning, unlike-many-in-radio, he'll still be working in 6 months.

PPS: "And while I've got you..."
Since we're such an opinionated bunch here, let me also invite your thoughts on topics showing -- or anything else -- at www.ListenToAmerica.com

 

[cm454]

Re: MORE! MORE! Pile-on!

The game has changed.

As a host, YOU need to be at your entertaining best. YOU, the host.

Callers remain a tool. You cannot, nor should not, depend on them for your show's success. To do so would not only be lazy, but crazy.

And you can take THAT to the bank HC. (just be careful which bank).

Callers ARE NOT king. Entertaining hosts are. Good ones do all sorts of things to engage and entertain listeners. Taking calls is just one of them.

The format has been trending toward hosts who are less interesting, but more ideological and monothematic. It's depressing and uninteresting.

While many programmers gladly embrace this niche, it is poisoning the pool of potential listeners.

 

[Prais]

Just my opinion;
I wish Presiddent-elect Obama the best. I did not vote for him, as I am very Republican.

I don't like Holland Cook/ He too has that "blowhard: style... but this time he is CORRECT.

Since about 3 weeks priort to the election, I stopped watching Fox (which I once liked) and nbc (about 6 months ago). CNN and CBS have not been on my radar for over a year, They were/are ALL schills for O. Larry King and his questions are a better comedy show than Colbert.

I don't need an "interpreter" of the news, I need a fair reporter. I'm insulted by how (especially on my favorite am station WGN) the news people and the hosts treated McCain like a leper. When I e-mailed the GM about that, he pretended as though he didn't notice that. He told me about how "unbiased" the NEWS is. BALONEY!

I have recently been using the internet and C-SPAN.

Unlike you, CM, I enjoy hearing "the opinion of the people" their accents, and their (often) illogical views each day. Washington Journal is great.

Del-G's list of "problem callers" is also what makes listening INTERESTING - NOT some blowhard of an over-egoed host who is PAID to have a "passionate" opinion (who just looked it up on Google)on everything. THERE is the BORE!

I would RATHER hear the callers.

 

[cm454]

Just my opinion;
I wish Presiddent-elect Obama the best. I did not vote for him, as I am very Republican.

I don't like Holland Cook/ He too has that "blowhard: style... but this time he is CORRECT.

Since about 3 weeks priort to the election, I stopped watching Fox (which I once liked) and nbc (about 6 months ago). CNN and CBS have not been on my radar for over a year, They were/are ALL schills for O. Larry King and his questions are a better comedy show than Colbert.

I don't need an "interpreter" of the news, I need a fair reporter. I'm insulted by how (especially on my favorite am station WGN) the news people and the hosts treated McCain like a leper. When I e-mailed the GM about that, he pretended as though he didn't notice that. He told me about how "unbiased" the NEWS is. BALONEY!

I have recently been using the internet and C-SPAN.

Unlike you, CM, I enjoy hearing "the opinion of the people" their accents, and their (often) illogical views each day. Washington Journal is great.

Del-G's list of "problem callers" is also what makes listening INTERESTING - NOT some blowhard of an over-egoed host who is PAID to have a "passionate" opinion (who just looked it up on Google)on everything. THERE is the BORE!

I would RATHER hear the callers.

You are confused.

First of all, I didn't say I don't want to hear other people's (callers) opinions. I just said I tune in spcifically for a host and how they deal with everything (material, calls, etc.)

Second: You included FOX along with those others you claim were pushing Obama.

Huh?

 

[Prais]

CM Said, "I am confused."

Maybe. I've been up too long. Strike the Fox comment.

CM said; First of all, I didn't say I don't want to hear other people's (callers) opinions. I just said I tune in spcifically for a host and how they deal with everything (material, calls, etc.)

CM, Sorry, that was MY interpretation of what you said. My opinion is quite the opposite of yours, anyway. That's what makes the world go 'round.

 

[smedge2006]

I hate to admit to agreeing with Holland Cooke, but I too think the days of the Cult of the All-knowing Host are numbered.

If you didn't listen to talk radio pre-Rush, or if you lived in a crummy town that didn't get talk radio before Rush and the Satellites hit, you didn't hear many of the great local hosts who were compelling, controversial and played off phone calls. The beautiful thing was, in the days before producers screened with the goal of "making the host look good" rather than making the station compelling, sometimes the caller won one. Which kept listener interest, like waiting for a car crash in NASCAR.

Even the shows with a milquetoast host had some interesting content, perhaps because callers felt less intimidated and rushed. I was listening back recently to a clip of a talk show from 1984 -- featuring a host who never expressed an opinion about anything -- and I was surprised at how intelligent and thoughtful the callers were. But of course there was no demonization of half the country going on, so of course it would fall flat, according to conventional wisdom today.

Sure there are the regulars and the cranks who can be played like a violin. But there are others who don't call because of the atmosphere, or don't get on because they're weeded out by screening as "too smart for the room", who could make great contributions of content if welcomed. And the best news is, it's all FREE content! Something else to consider in these times -- a host whose sole contribution to the program consists of "what do you think" may not be compelling enough to draw on his own -- but he'll probably come a lot cheaper than a "personality" -- perhaps even cheaper than the highest tier of syndicated shows that operate on cash plus barter.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"I don't like Holland Cook...but this time he is CORRECT"

I'll take it!
Besides, you're not SUPPOSED to like consultants.
They're very bad people.

And here's a tip for your web site: ALSO register the domain name that is the-most-common-misspelling of your name.

About 10 years ago, a General Manager told me "Your web site is down."
Tempted to panic, I looked over her shoulder as she typed-in www.hollandcook.com

Whereupon I quickly acquired THAT name and (here's what to tell your webmaster) "did a re-direct," so it too points to www.HollandCooke.com

Similarly, any-of-the-following will take you to ListenToAmerica.com:
www.ListenToAmerica.TV
www.ListenToTheUSA.com
www.ListenToTheUSA.TV
www.ListenToTheCity.com
www.ListenToTheCity.TV

Make it as-easy-as-possible to be found.

I hate to admit to agreeing with Holland Cooke

No need to either praise OR shoot-the-messenger.
If it'll help, you can instead agree with Jon Coleman...but he too is merely reporting (in his case with firm data) whassup.

Good evening from the TOP thread on the News/Talk board,
HC

 

[quadraphonic]

Dangit that last caller stole my thunder.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

My re-formulation of HC's ideas:

I think HC would be on more solid ground if he made a two-level assertion...

Level #1 - “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.” As I noted below, listeners still tune in to hear what entertainers and opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.

Level #2 - But then after hearing what Rush/Sean/Cowherd/Rome have to say on a topic - then "Listeners want to blog, text on cell phones, go on internet message boards, and write comments in facebook" about what the compelling hosts had to say - did they agree, where was the host right or wrong, what they would have said, what did they fail to mention, etc, etc, etc.

====================================================================

I think HC is correct on one point, but not-so-correct on another.

Voters didn’t just reject Republicans and favor Democrats.
Voters rejected THE CONVERSATION ABOUT Democrats vs. Republicans.

Pull back and take the wide angle shot.

On this point I agree, N/T listeners are tired of the same old tired talking points.

This is why I started this thread on here last year:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,86597.0.html

Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking about "issues."

====================================================================

For years, we’ve heard and read various Talk Radio industry figures theorize:
“Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.”

How incredibly self-centered of us.
We’re THAT interesting?
People are out there hanging-on-our-every-word?

And how convenient!
We-talk-you-listen radio makes money.
NOT.
Not anymore.

As Cher’s character said in “Moonstruck:” SNAP OUT OF IT!
As George Costanza put it: “Do the opposite!”

Consumer Reports and movie critics are out, blogs are in.
As we heard loud and clear November 4, people want-in-on the conversation, and they’ve had-it-up-to-here with business-as-usual.

Rather than being-talked-at, people want to talk-with each other.
Do U txt?

Do you notice that — while people are spending more time using smartphones — they’re spending less time using radio?
Turn what-they-do-on-smartphones INTO radio.

Make callers the show.
As talent, your value is topic and technique.
Conceive, conduct, and barely-control the conversation.
Don’t dominate it.
Set the table, provocatively; then keep welcoming people in.

Read more, in my column in the next issue of Talkers magazine.
Meantime, you can flame me here, or click-to-Comment at www.HollandCooke.com

On this point, I get the point HC is making about interactivity and new social media - but I think he's stretching the point a little too far.

Listeners still tune in to hear what entertainers and opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.

I don't believe “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling callers.”

When it is called the "Callers to the Rush Limbaugh" show or the "Callers to the Sean Hannity/Dave Ramsey/Dr. Laura/Colin Cowherd/Jim Rome" show - then I'll believe HC.

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE “then I'll believe HC”

I should clarify.
You don't need to believe me if it's not comfortable to.

Just make a note on your calendar: May 26, 2009, six months from now.

Let's all reconvene here and see how "The I-I-I Me-Me-Me I-Talk-You-Listen-Democrats-Bad-Republicans-Good Show" is doing then.

We can also check some stock prices.

Meantime, you can marginalize what-I-am-merely-reporting-here as "assertions," rather than data.
But you do so at-the-risk-of counting-peanuts-instead-of-elephants.
NOT an opinion:
November 4, while Republican Radio ranted, the Democrat with the best Facebook page won.

The notion others cling-to here that people will FIRST stop-what-they're-doing-so-we-can-tell-them-how-WE-feel...THEN interact-with-each-other-about-it is as antique as it is arrogant. Radio sure DOES feel threatened by the societal shift from cram-downs-from The Authorities to the new tech-enabled democracy.

But maybe you missed the story week-before-last about Google.
Google is now 7-10 days AHEAD OF The Centers for Disease Control at spotting flu outbreaks, based on Search.

 

[cm454]

Re: RE “then I'll believe HC”

Holland,

You are mixing two different things together.

I have been preaching for quite some time, that the "my side is good/your side is bad" nonsense is dramatically limiting the growth of the talk format. I have said repeatedly that the format's reputation precedes it---meaning, younger demos especially, will never even bother with what they automatically perceive to be right vs. left--and mostly all-conservative all-the-time radio.

That is not necessarily the same as what you are describing as "I talk, you listen" radio.

While there simply aren't enough hosts who dare to be individual enough to NOT follow a party line on all topics known to man, it is without question incumbent upon ANY host, to BE the main attraction. The callers are a tool to use to entertain the audience, but you damn well better be able to do at least as good a job holding that audience if the phones are slow that day.

You want a star hosting that show, fielding calls, pontificating about God-knows-what.

Again, this is wholly different than "Republicans good/Democrats bad".

 

[Holland Cooke]

"without question?"

it is without question incumbent upon ANY host, to BE the main attraction.

"Without question?"

THAT is scary.

"...if the phones are slow that day?"
Blame it on THE PHONES?
Or...maybe listeners just don't "get it?"
Isn't it OUR job to "get" THEM?

This familiar phones-are-slow-today malarkey presumes that (a) topic and (b) solicitation technique were appropriate.

But there's no need to argue about this stuff...now.
Just mark down May 26, 2009.

Meantime, I've got to return calls to a couple GMs who've had-it-up-to-here with weekend re-runs, morning drive features, rate increases, and other cram-downs from a couple national hosts whose-names-you-can-probably-guess.

And I invite you to be just-a-TAD-more-curious about this callers-are-merely-ornaments-to-The Host comfort zone too much of talk radio crouches in.

BEST moment of talk radio I heard week-before-last when Big Three Automakers went to Washington with-tin-cups-extended was NOT anything Rush or any of his army of local wanna-be's pontificated. It was a caller, who said:

"HERE'S WHAT I WISH WE HEARD FROM ONE OF THOSE SUITS: 'THOSE OTHER TWO GUYS FLEW HERE ON THEIR CORPORATE JETS. I JUST DROVE FROM DETROIT TO WASHINGTON...IN A TOYOTA! AND HERE'S WHAT I LEARNED...'"

 

[gr8oldies]

Is there a host or station doing the type of talk radio you propose? OK, I'll watch the date but what are you predicting? Rush, Sean, etc lose half their audience? All of their audience? Your new approach to caller driven radio sweeps teh nation by storm?

 

[Holland Cooke]

Does ANYBODY notice the laughable irony of this conversation?

Y'all-who're-dissing the power of User-Generated-Content: NOTE WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE.

YOU YOURSELF are making my point, simply by being here.

Your "host" [the knucklehead provocateur whose post started this thread]:
a.) chose a topic likely-to-be-of-interest-to this audience,
b.) scripted his open,
c.) stated his unambiguous position on it, then...
d.) prolonged the conversation by interacting with...(ready?)...CALLERS [you-who-posted, agreeing/disagreeing], while...
e.) non-callers [non-posters] listened [read].

What a concept.

This sure WOULDN'T be the top thread on the News/Talk board if it was just an essay by me.
Instead, it's AN INVITATION.
You are the show here, not the host.
All I did was set-the-table.

This whole "station" [radio-info.com] is popular because of YOU, not me.

"Who's next?"

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

PS: Coming attractions: Here, end-of-next-week, my notes from Arbitron's annual Consultant Fly-In conference at ratings HQ in Columbia MD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNU3l4GapXw). I know, I know...a two-day conversation about audience measurement might not SOUND scintillating. But, given the velocity of change, the data they always share so instructively should be of interest...

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: Does ANYBODY notice the laughable irony of this conversation?

Y'all-who're-dissing the power of User-Generated-Content: NOTE WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE.

YOU YOURSELF are making my point, simply by being here.

Your "host" [the knucklehead provocateur whose post started this thread]:
a.) chose a topic likely-to-be-of-interest-to this audience,
b.) scripted his open,
c.) stated his unambiguous position on it, then...
d.) prolonged the conversation by interacting with...(ready?)...CALLERS [you-who-posted, agreeing/disagreeing], while...
e.) non-callers [non-posters] listened [read].

What a concept.

This sure WOULDN'T be the top thread on the News/Talk board if it was just an essay by me.
Instead, it's AN INVITATION.
You are the show here, not the host.
All I did was set-the-table.

This whole "station" [radio-info.com] is popular because of YOU, not me.

"Who's next?"

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

PS: Coming attractions: Here, end-of-next-week, my notes from Arbitron's annual Consultant Fly-In conference at ratings HQ in Columbia MD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNU3l4GapXw). I know, I know...a two-day conversation about audience measurement might not SOUND scintillating. But, given the velocity of change, the data they always share so instructively should be of interest...

But we don't have the same time constraints as radio talk show callers.
Or the same topic constraints.
And we can go back and edit our stuff a lot more on the fly until it's "just right."
And we're probably a sight bit more interesting, in the main.

I'm all for making calls more prominent in talk radio, but they have to be interesting [however that would work out in each instance, probably differently for each 'character'] enough to warrant it....