Savage said:
We selected the programs we did for WYSL because they are the most viable shows according to available national data. Laura Ingraham has almost 500 affiliates and its the fifth-biggest show in the format, ranking behind Rush, Hannity, Savage and Dr. Laura in that order. She has a weekly national Arbitron cume exceeding 5 million, as compared with Rush's 13.5 million (Talkers Mag citing Arbitron at the time we affiliated.) Laura has grown considerably since then. Nationally she's considerably bigger than Glenn Beck who's tied for 6th place with Neil Boortz and Mike Gallagher.
I don't pay much attention to station affiliation because there are a ton of me-too conservative talk stations out there in every market, usually with one dominant talker and then another station doing much worse with the leftovers. Audience numbers are important, but let's also consider the number of stations airing each show and look at the average number of listeners per station. Using your numbers, let's compare Stephanie Miller with Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly with Ed Schultz:
Laura Ingraham On just under 500 stations (let's use 475) and have 5,000,000 listeners. That equals an average of 10526 listeners per station.
Stephanie Miller On just about 60 stations and has 1,250,000 listeners. That equals an average of 20833 listeners per station.
Bill O'Reilly On more than 400 stations (let's use 400) and has 3,250,000 listeners. That equals an average of 8125 listeners per station.
Ed Schultz On about 93 stations (according to their website) and has 3,000,000 listeners. That equals an average of 32258 listeners per station.
I'm not sure how the math of choosing more conservative talk, which nets the average station fewer listeners than the two Jones talkers is a winning formula. Radio Moscow used to broadcast on 19 frequencies at the same time to saturate the airwaves too, but that never meant it was the most listened to radio station on the dial. If either liberal show was on 400-500 stations, they'd be doing great, but there remains a reflexive "concern" about libtalk as a format even when the numbers tell a fascinatingly different story. Of course, radio stations like WROC running the format will be stuck towards the bottom of the heap no matter what they run on the station. But that's not because of the programming - it's the fancy free "who cares" attitude of Entercom management that frankly ignores the station, has never promoted it, and obviously isn't even aware of technical faults unless listeners call and complain. I guarantee more of the same with sports talk.
Dennis Miller is too new so I don't have national numbers for him. Same deal for Quinn and Rose, but I personally know and like Jim Quinn, having had him as my morning guy on 13Q Pittsburgh. I think he's very funny and very smart.
But you put his show on your station anyway, when there are clear indications that Dennis Miller is much more likely to be somewhere in the Jerry Doyle neighborhood of conservative talk and not in the same ballpark where shows like Ed Schultz have done better. And Jim Quinn is fine to add because you think he's funny and smart, but Miller either isn't in your view, or you want to use a different standard when considering whether a show like hers has a place on your station.
This is precisely the kind of thinking I find common among radio execs that are comfortable with more of the same. Let's be honest, however. Let's admit this is more about your personal judgment and bias going into programming decisions and less about any scientific approach, because you have to fix the facts around the narrative to make the latter argument work.
Compare this with some of the liberal talkers. Ed Schultz has a weekly cume of 3 million and is in a 6-way tie for 8th place, with Stephanie Miller coming in at 1.25 million in a 7-way horse race at unlucky 13th place with Alan Colmes, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes (RIP) and others. There isn't any comparison in terms of track records, stability of affiliation or audience size. Schultz is the only liberal talker among 24 hosts ranked in the top ten.
Again, you seem to be using different standards. You added Dennis Miller but he has absolutely no track record whatsoever, while Schultz actually does. And most of the track record you refer to extends to far less than a decade for most of these hosts (O'Reilly 2002, Levin about a year, etc.) What is different is a handful of distributors pack more of these hosts on the satellite to deliver to stations, a good number of them small rural outlets serving tiny audiences.
I don't think WYSL represents "more of the same" any more than competing TV stations offer merely "more of the same" when they schedule competing 6pm and 11pm newscasts against the local number-one TV station, or when WAXC challenged WBBF for top 40 supremacy. Not everybody likes Rush or Beck or Lonsberry. WYSL offers a competing product and a choice for listeners. Judging from the station's overall 40% revenue growth since AP dumped all-news in 2005, the metamorphasis to talk has been a great thing for the station.
There is no comparison between an unbiased newscast and opinion talk radio. Conservatives and liberals can, and do watch WHAM-TV news in equal numbers. Liberals may listen to conservative talk radio for the occasional curiousity factor, but there is no doubt that the primary listeners to that kind of opinion talk are the "amen corner."
I made the reference to the secondary conservative talk station is a market being more of the same, because that is exactly what it is. Your ratings will plateau just as they have in most other markets with a second conservative talk station because the majority of listeners will be tuned to the primary conservative talker, which will also pick off any breakout show that does seem to be doing particularly well for the second tier station. That was exactly what happened when Rush Limbaugh disappeared from WYSL and went to WHAM. If there is a tear in the fabric of space, and Dennis Miller becomes a mega radio star, he won't be on WYSL for long. Neither will Bill Nojay if his career takes off and draws significant numbers. Meanwhile, you end up ignoring a considerable underserved audience altogether which could be yours for the taking. Why ignore it?
Augmented with our local talker Bill Nojay, now syndicated regionally to seven stations (with three more affiliates ready to go) the WYSL formula is working quite well. In any case I don't think it's fair or accurate to characterize Ingraham, O'Reilly, Dennis Miller and Quinn as has-been/also-ran/third-rate products.
I think when you really drill down into the numbers, review their daily show topics and talking points, and the history of what stations typically carry these hosts (excluding Quinn who I have never heard or heard of before), I think it's absolutely an apt description of all three. If there was a clamoring for any of them in significant numbers, they would be running on WHAM and not WYSL. That's why I encourage you to expand your horizon beyond finding comfort in the second tier conservative talk format. If you're willing to give a washed up comic like Dennis Miller a shot, why not an Ed Schultz who has a proven track record and audience that Miller doesn't have?
