Savage said:
Phillip, I find your assessment of our motives and means by which we program our station somewhat harsh. Of course nobody applies the arithmetic formula you used, dividing national cume by number of affiliates. We took a look at the available programming to make our decisions- at the time, recall WROC had many of the programs you are thumping for already under contract, so they weren't available to us even if we had wanted it then. You're looking at some ideology-based approach as opposed to the realities of running a business in a very tough environment, with, I will add, an unfortunate lack of respect expressed in your attitude.
Now you know historically I have consistently praised WYSL for its local ownership and talent as well as shared my own concerns about WBZ's destruction of your signal over large parts of your coverage area from their digital slop, so you should be perfectly aware I am not out to slam you or your station personally. I am debating the arguments you personally used to defend your programming decisions, nothing more, nothing less. In short, it's nothing personal against you.
I listen to various arguments against certain radio programs or formats from station management that "won't work" because they don't draw listeners or ratings, and they throw numbers into the mix which frankly just do not make sense. Part of this rhetoric also ends up in right wing talking points from time to time. I'm not suggesting you are some right wing tool, but I am not persuaded by the arguments you raised in your original post either, which is why I wanted to drill deeper.
Putting myself in the position of a listener for a moment, and there are some that have been drawn here from outside of the industry because of the format change, I'm not sure they'd be convinced that my argument regarding the average number of listeners tuning to a radio program on a station is irrelevent because nobody in the business does that. Local radio is a business that lives or dies based on the number of listeners to an individual station, not to the sum total of the audience to a show across the country on more than ten times the number of stations, many in very small markets. So that begs the question if a competing show can generate more listeners per station than an incumbent program, why is that irrelevent, especially considering the type of stations that usually run liberal talk are hardly the flaming torch-powered outlets in a market, and come with the added disadvantage of near zero promotion.
Respectfully, you papered over the entire argument by simply saying, it's not done that way. But aren't numbers important?
Additionally, you mentioned that said programs were not available to you at the time you chose alternatives, which are now under contract. That's understandable, of course, but the point of this thread was more about programming decisions going forward now that 950 is going to switch to satellite sports. Now those shows presumably do become available, and upon contract renewal for existing programming, could be considered, although everything I've seen from your remarks would suggest that they really wouldn't be, for a variety of reasons (position nationally, your personal opinion of those shows, etc.)
Further, you have accused me of injecting politics as the primary basis of my argument, dismissing the math with an accusation that I am sounding like a "lefty zealot crank," and in fact that's not the primary motivation of my posting to you. Instead, it's to proffer the argument that injecting VARIETY into the programming lineup, with different views represented, may be more successful than simply running an all-conservative talk format in competition with a far, far more popular conservative talk station already on the local dial. That means you attract an audience that would not consider WYSL because they are not going to waste their time with Loofah Boy, or the other "me-too" shows, but *would* listen to a show that runs in opposition to what WHAM is running. It's called counter-programming, and it's about increasing ratings from it. Nobody is suggesting you drop every conservative show, but finding room for Dennis Miller while dismissing Ed Schultz, which you seemed to do earlier on in this discussion (and not for the availability reason, which is legitimate) just doesn't add up to me. Assuming both hosts were available, would you choose Dennis Miller who is just getting into the talk radio scene recently and has no track record, or Ed Schultz who does. What I am trying to ascertain is what exactly goes into that choice, not because I think you are a Kool-Aid drinking Fox viewer, but because some of your earlier comments on this topic seemed exceptionally dismissive of the kinds of shows WROC has run.
Your comments to the effect that if WYSL were ever to attract any programming of merit it would immediately leave our station is mean-spirited. You have no idea how successful the station is.
The decision by talent or a program distributor to move to a higher-rated station, if they achieve success, is no more mean-spirited than the distributor of Rush Limbaugh deciding they'd rather be on WHAM, delayed, than on WYSL. As you've said, this is a business, and nobody has suggested that decisions like that, which happen every day in the radio business, are intended to be a personal slam on you or WYSL. The simple fact is, any show that has the potential to win placement on the #1/#2 station in a market is going to choose not to renew their contract with your station because you cannot deliver the same numbers that that #1 station can. You know that, and I'm surprised you would take my suggestion of that as a personal, mean-spirited comment towards you, because of course it's not. If Bill Nojay is offered a syndication deal by an outfit out of NYC, and suddenly WHAM wants his show and the contract with WYSL has come up for renewal, will that national distributor choose WHAM or WYSL?
You're sounding more like a lefty-zealot crank in this post. If you don't like our programming just don't listen. Or as Sir Rox says, go raise the capital, put your own stick on the air and your butt on the line.
With respect, you've avoided addressing most of what I posted and discuss the analysis of the numbers, the benefits or challenges of counter programming, and the public service that providing programming to listeners who share different points of view, and fallen back on Sir Rox's usual one-liner dismissal gun of "buy your own" and, sadly, a misinterpretation of my remarks as somehow being a personal slam against you. I'd also say it's hardly fair to adopt a wounded doe position on me being harsh and then engage in name calling yourself, but I assume that comes from feeling I was somehow attacking you personally, so let's just call that a draw and move on.
What this discussion reinforces is the perception that I have developed over the years that programming decisions are often made based primarily on personal likes and dislikes (and what a business owner, generally a conservative, will buy ads for, of course) and whatever has worked before somewhere else, which is fine if that is openly admitted and you are willing to stand the inevitable replies that will come from listeners who still believe the airwaves belong to the public and should respect some modicum of diversity. I don't personally believe either still exist post deregulation, which is one of the reasons I am an XM subscriber these days. I think a lot of listeners have figured this out as well as have just stopped listening altogether, especially among younger audiences.
You are right that, as station owner, you get to do as you wish - it is your station. And listeners get to decide whether they agree with your program philosophy or not, and probably some, like myself, share comments about that philosophy from time to time.
But regardless of anything else, I continue to support WYSL and applaud its willingness to provide a local perspective, and have done my part in complaining to the FCC about the IBOC nightmare on your signal, even if I don't personally listen to most of your programming. And I want to reiterate that there should never be an interpretation of my arguments as having a lack of good will towards you personally, because it would never be my intention.
