UpstateNYBill said:
Like I said, truth is the best defense to slander. If it walks like a duck, etc.
-
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
Right-Wing Talk is Dying: PPM Numbers Don't Lie
- Thread starter MattParker
- Start date
Like I said, truth is the best defense to slander. If it walks like a duck, etc.
radiophiler said:
This is the best explanation of what's really going on. It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with younger people not being interested in what's being offered.
I think Mancow's move from conservative-oriented shtick back to a more conventional morning show format is proof that there's no "next generation" in conservative talk radio. Mancow was their best hope.
smedge2006 said:
Puh-leeze. Mancow is a hack. Has always been a hack. Don't think his lack of success is a barometer of anything. There are plenty of conservative people between the ages of 25-54. Get someone on the air that knows what he's doing, and doesn't use a fake voice like Mancow, and you'll have a show that can do well.
It was never my intention to get into specifics, only to say that outside of KABC, KGO and some others, Talk Radio used to be a niche format. Most of the big stations that air the format now, used to be Full Service AC and before that, MOR. The fact that they ran Talk programming in the evening and overnight to what non-TV watching audience was available, doesn't make it a format unto itself. I never said there weren't any talk shows. It just occurred to me that you could say the same thing about the Sports format. Many of these same stations interrupted their regular programming for play-by-play coverage of sports attractions.
smedge2006 said:
Don't be confused...Mancow was Mark Masters best hope. This guy has been reinvented more than anyone I have ever seen. At this point even Mancow is probably wondering what type of show he is supposed to be doing. FM? AM? Morning Zoo? Political? Current Events? Entertainment?
semoochie said:
It was not a niche format. It was an expensive format and therefore restricted to major market stations. Before the mid-90s, talk stations did not do ideological or political talk full time. They did a mix of news blocks, comedy-talk in drive-time, personal advice, financial advice, sports ... (not unlike what is depicted on Frasier). And often they did political talk with both liberal and conservative hosts on the schedule. This includes the stations you have mentioned.
The blow torch talk stations evolved from full service, which evolved from block programming. They started out with personality hosts who played records. Gradually the hosts started talking more and playing fewer records.
And many talk stations continue to carry play by play sports.
Stations shifted from what we might call "full service talk" to conservotalk because (1) Syndicated shows became available and syndicated is cheaper, (2) Consultants persuaded management that consistency (meaning all right-wing, all the time) would keep people listening longer and keep them staying tuned from one conservative host to the next, (3) Because right-wing hosts reflect the biases and political predispositions of most station managers (and the people with whom they associate).
People are getting tired of Rush and his imitators. (1) Their act has gotten old. (2) The audience has gotten old. (3) Instead of speaking to and for populist discontent, they are spouting the party line. The tea-baggers have broken from both the syndicated hosts and the Republican party establishment they represent; the right-wing hosts are losing their base.
semoochie said:
Many stations now airing the talk format were top 40 powerhouses during the 1960s. In 1970, WMCA New York was one of the first to leave top 40 for talk. Others such as KQV Pittsburgh, WRKO Boston, WLS Chicago and WABC New York would later follow.
Semoochie's original point was that talk radio was "niche" format before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the format took off because of the doctrine's repeal.
The evidence does not support that. Highly opinionated hosts thrived in major markets while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. In fact, although there were fewer talk stations then, there are probably about as many strongly opinionated hosts doing political talk. The difference is the early hosts were restricted to one station. Today one host can easily end up on several hundred stations. Yes, there were some early attempts at syndication back then. Joe Pyne was briefly successful in syndication in the 60s but shows were recorded for syndication (no calls, just guests) and distributed on tape. Without the immediacy of live broadcasts and interactions with live callers, the novelty of Pyne beating up his guests quickly wore off.
Different stations arrived at talk radio by different routes. Some evolved. Some flipped. That is not directly relevant to Semoochie's claim that political talk radio was somehow suppressed by the Fairness Doctrine.
This whole Fairness Doctrine thing is a red herring perpetrated by Rush and the others. They need "enemies" against whom they can rant or there's no reason for people to keep listening. Ironically, public radio does much the same thing by bemoaning the loss of federal funding (which they claim is only a small portion of their operating funds anyway but somehow the loss of it will shut down public radio).
Another big difference between then and now. Talk stations had a wider-range of programs, hosts, styles and viewpoints. Stations went for more cume. In order to hold an audience, hosts had to disagree with each other (and some part of the audience) without being disagreeable. They had to work harder. If they offered controversy, they had to be engaging, entertaining and even funny. It's sort of like the line in Howard Stern's "Private Parts," in which NBC's research director reports people who hate Howard listen longer than people who like him because they "want to see what he'll say next." The early generation of political talk show hosts had to do that, too. So did Rush, early on.
The evidence does not support that. Highly opinionated hosts thrived in major markets while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. In fact, although there were fewer talk stations then, there are probably about as many strongly opinionated hosts doing political talk. The difference is the early hosts were restricted to one station. Today one host can easily end up on several hundred stations. Yes, there were some early attempts at syndication back then. Joe Pyne was briefly successful in syndication in the 60s but shows were recorded for syndication (no calls, just guests) and distributed on tape. Without the immediacy of live broadcasts and interactions with live callers, the novelty of Pyne beating up his guests quickly wore off.
Different stations arrived at talk radio by different routes. Some evolved. Some flipped. That is not directly relevant to Semoochie's claim that political talk radio was somehow suppressed by the Fairness Doctrine.
This whole Fairness Doctrine thing is a red herring perpetrated by Rush and the others. They need "enemies" against whom they can rant or there's no reason for people to keep listening. Ironically, public radio does much the same thing by bemoaning the loss of federal funding (which they claim is only a small portion of their operating funds anyway but somehow the loss of it will shut down public radio).
Another big difference between then and now. Talk stations had a wider-range of programs, hosts, styles and viewpoints. Stations went for more cume. In order to hold an audience, hosts had to disagree with each other (and some part of the audience) without being disagreeable. They had to work harder. If they offered controversy, they had to be engaging, entertaining and even funny. It's sort of like the line in Howard Stern's "Private Parts," in which NBC's research director reports people who hate Howard listen longer than people who like him because they "want to see what he'll say next." The early generation of political talk show hosts had to do that, too. So did Rush, early on.
MattParker said:
You almost had me convinced you knew what you were talking about until this little nugget,
The very premise of this thread is rather flawed. Talk of any type performs poorly in PPM as compared with traditional diaries--it's that simple. Doesn't matter of it's hot-talk/morning shows, conservative, "progressive", Libertarian, etc... MOST talk shows have taken a hit due to the PPM methodology.
As for this statement:
This ties into my original point; the overall audience pool is smaller now because it is far more fragmented by the sheer number of terrestrial radio stations, satellite, internet/podcasts, etc. The perception is that talk radio--or in the case of the original poster--"conservative talk" is dying and that's not really true... it's just part of a fragmented audience.
As for this statement:
The problem here is that you're failing to consider that there were very few choices back when the fairness doctrine was in place. Fewer terrestrial stations, far fewer media outlets and even fewer perspectives on the radio... the hosts that were successful were doing so IN SPITE of the fairness doctrine.
This ties into my original point; the overall audience pool is smaller now because it is far more fragmented by the sheer number of terrestrial radio stations, satellite, internet/podcasts, etc. The perception is that talk radio--or in the case of the original poster--"conservative talk" is dying and that's not really true... it's just part of a fragmented audience.
I think we're having a dictionary discussion of the word, "niche". I think of it like the All News format, where it works very well in the top five or so markets but usually not at all below that. Talk Radio is commonplace virtually everywhere in the country whereas it used to exist full time only in "pockets".
KMGX said:
Don't be silly! When conservative talk fails it's because listeners hate conservatives and want Rush Limbaugh to die. When "progressive" talk fails it's because the signal was too weak, the salespeople were lazy, the New World Order didn't approve, the microphones didn't work right, and a million other excuses.
Your explanation is probably right, by the way.
Right-wing Talk radio has been dying for decades, if not generations, according to people who don't like it. There has always been music radio and there always will be. There has always been talk radio and there always will be. Recorded music has pretty much replaced live music and unscripted talk has pretty much replaced scripted talk. People's preferences in both music and talk are constantly evolving and programing always follows what listeners want to hear. I see no reason to expect any of that to change.
Apparently at least some on the right are frightened by the reports of talk radio's demise. Kathy Shaidle of World Net Daily rushed out this article asserting that conservative talk radio is "growing":
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=268201
She claims revenues and ratings are growing -- without providing any numbers or putting those numbers in context. For example, revenues may be up this year compared to last, but maybe not compared to five years ago.
She also insists that while progressives insist the listeners are past retirement age, the chief demo is 35-64.
Of course, that's the TARGET demo. The problem is fewer and fewer stations are meeting the target. Again, no numbers to substantiate her claims or refute the others.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=268201
She claims revenues and ratings are growing -- without providing any numbers or putting those numbers in context. For example, revenues may be up this year compared to last, but maybe not compared to five years ago.
She also insists that while progressives insist the listeners are past retirement age, the chief demo is 35-64.
Of course, that's the TARGET demo. The problem is fewer and fewer stations are meeting the target. Again, no numbers to substantiate her claims or refute the others.
Cut to the ultimate basics. There are only two things you can do on radio and be commercially successful. One is play music, and the other is to talk. Therefore, neither is going to disappear. What's played and talked about, and in what format, is the part that can change. I try (and admittedly) sometimes fail to not get too animated about these things because of the old adage... what goes around, comes around. Throughout most of the 1920s we saw a solid wall of Republican, big business supporting Presidents. That ended with the Great Depression in 1932 and the 20 year Democratic party stranglehold on the Presidency. However, in the ebb and flow of things, even the seemingly unstoppable President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with a large Democratic majority in Congress, still couldn't get the Senate/Congress' approval to stack the court... and that occurred in the later 1930s when FDR was still on a popularity high.
johnbasalla said:
Nobody said talk will die. But the style of party line bombast practiced by Rush, Hannity, Beck, Gallagher and Levin has run its course. The audience is aging. The audience is shrinking. There was a time when the industry was creative and responded to changes in public interest, in public taste and in the competitive environment. No more. The industry insist on hanging on to this type of talk apparently until Rush has become a tree falling in an empty forest.
- Status