Salem adds Hannity in Boston

[mwebster]

All Access reports Salem's Boston news-talk outlet, WTTT 1150, will pick up ABC's syndicated Sean Hannity program (in addition to Paul Harvey News, as reported previously). WTTT is a no-show in the Boston 12+ AQH ratings and faces formible competition in a strong market for talk radio. Greater Media's WTKK had previously run Hannity on delay during evening hours (and as a sometimes "fill in" for Jay Severin, now syndicated by Westwood One, in PM drive). Salem's Michael Medved gets bumped to overnights.

Either Salem is going outside its own stable to strengthen the station line-up or ABC is doing "pay for play" to get Hannity cleared live (or both). As I noted in another post, pay for clearance seems to have become an economic fact of life in talk radio (much as it is with products fighting to get on supermarket shelves). There is more syndicated talk radio product available than any market can possibly clear and this makes it a "stations' market."

 

[raccoonradio]

> All Access reports Salem's Boston news-talk outlet, WTTT
> 1150, will pick up ABC's syndicated Sean Hannity program (in
> addition to Paul Harvey News, as reported previously). WTTT
> is a no-show in the Boston 12+ AQH ratings and faces
> formible competition in a strong market for talk radio.

Hannity's show made its national debut the day before the Twin
Towers fell. A couple months later, IIRC, it was picked up by
WRKO who ran it for a year or so, tape delayed (7-10 pm). Then
it was dumped in the fall of 2002, in favor of Michael Savage
(they wanted something live, not tape delayed). After a brief
stay at WAMG 890, it wound up at WTKK tape delayed, 10 pm to 1 am.
The return of Jay Severin via his national show (7-10) pushed
Laura Ingraham back to 10 pm to midnight, and Hannity to
Mid.-2 am, for one month: January 3 until Feb. 3. Then yes,
it's off to WTTT on Feb 6

5,000 watt signal with different day and night patterns. Not all
that strong. Yes, WTTT doesn't show in the 12 + ratings. They are
all syndie shows: Bennett, Gallagher, Praeger, Hannity (as of 2/6),
Medved, etc. Could be the signal drags them down, or competition
from WRKO and WTKK shows...Adding Hannity will give them some
visibility in the market. Of course a station like WTTT can be
run on the cheap by doing all syndie programs (in effect many
Air America stations are the same: Boston's two AAR affiliates
have all syndie hosts weekdays, and they get ratings about the
same as most AAR stations get--but at least they do show up
in the 12 + book. But same idea: all syndie hosts, a _little_
promotion (some billboards, etc.) but overall low budget,
and low ratings, but maybe _SOME_ ad dollars.

> Salem's Michael Medved gets bumped to overnights.

I thought he's going to 9 pm?

> Either Salem is going outside its own stable to strengthen
> the station line-up or ABC is doing "pay for play" to get
> Hannity cleared live (or both).

ABC not happy that Hannity was tape delayed, I'm guessing,
and they'd rather be live on a weaker-signal station than
tape delayed by some 9 hours on a bigger one.

As I noted in another post,
> pay for clearance seems to have become an economic fact of
> life in talk radio (much as it is with products fighting to
> get on supermarket shelves).

in effect that's what AAR is doing isn't it? Paying the likes of
WLIB to carry shows...

As for Salem going outside its stable, I think it's done that in
other markets. They run TRN's Laura Ingraham on Cleveland's
WHK 1420 IIRC.

 

[mwebster]

>
> in effect that's what AAR is doing isn't it? Paying the
> likes of WLIB to carry shows...
>
> As for Salem going outside its stable, I think it's done
> that in other markets. They run TRN's Laura Ingraham on Cleveland's
> WHK 1420 IIRC.
>

Exactly! That's the point. Everybody does it. Everybody has to do it. In the same way products have to buy their way on to supermarket shelves. Station owners are in the drivers' seat and they know it. It's no longer about who has a good show or who can build an audience. It's all about who plays Let's Make A Deal. Rush doesn't have to play the game. Stations pay him. Some, like Jay Severin, get cleared through corporate mandates (CBS Radio told some stations to carry his show). Stations in small markets may not get invited to play. Exceptions noted. Otherwise the name of the game is pay to play.

The WLIB situation is different, however. That's an LMA. AAR leases the station. But ABC is paying AAR to clear The Satellite Sisters on WLIB. AAR reportedly does pay at least some "affiliates" for clearances (just like most everybody else). Democracy Radio paid stations to clear Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz to get them started and presumably at least some of those payments continue under the shows' current owners.

Yes, Salem has gone outside in other markets. LA, Philadelphia and Chicago carry Ingrham and Savage (that I can think of off-hand; there are probably other examples). TRN does play for pay, too.

One of AAR's problems is they don't own stations (like Salem). They are in the unfortunate position of having to do more paying than playing. They also don't have other formats contributing to the revenue stream (like Salem).

Pay for play is not bad or wrong. It just makes it hard to claim that clearances mean anything.

 

[ajhenderson]

> 5,000 watt signal with different day and night patterns. Not
> all
> that strong. Yes, WTTT doesn't show in the 12 + ratings.
> They are
> all syndie shows: Bennett, Gallagher, Praeger, Hannity (as
> of 2/6),
> Medved, etc. Could be the signal drags them down, or
> competition
> from WRKO and WTKK shows...Adding Hannity will give them
> some
> visibility in the market.

Dr. Laura was on at 9pm; is she going away. All of the Salem stations (if they can) clear Laura Ingraham, as questioned below, but since she's on WTKK, Salem got Dr. Laura. I say any non-SRN show is better than the standard fare. I have to give props to Salem for adding Mark Davis on a couple newstalkers in Texas and surrounding areas. A few, like WGKA/Atlanta, run Dave Ramsey, and one or two more, like KNUS/Denver, run Hannity (where he gets killed mind you, including by more than double by Ed Schultz in 25-54... not to reflect on Hannity, but on the fact that adding one good host to a crappy station doesn't help much).

> ABC not happy that Hannity was tape delayed, I'm guessing,
> and they'd rather be live on a weaker-signal station than
> tape delayed by some 9 hours on a bigger one.

This goes back to the point I made recently that I got crucified for; the network would rather have something that looks good on paper. A live clearance in market #11 in beter than something in the middle of the night on a better station. Fact is, Hannity will have fewer listeners, at least if/until WTTT does significant promotion, at midnight on 96.9 than live on 1150. Part of it could be a host preference, as Dr. Laura prefers to be on live and will move to much lesser stations to do so (when the CC #1 station in Tucson moved her to evenings, she asked to move live to an independent with 1/3 the 12+ share). However, ABC figures they can be on live, and although they already had Harvey for about two weeks, this gives them more leverage to get other crap cleared. Interesting how they picked up Paul Harvey and suddenly they have Hannity... nice move on the affiliate sales department, who Salem won't talk to if they don't have an existing relationship with you. Trust me, I know.

> As for Salem going outside its stable, I think it's done
> that in
> other markets. They run TRN's Laura Ingraham on Cleveland's
> WHK 1420 IIRC.

Anywhere they can get her.

 

[raccoonradio]

The station's site, talk1150.com, says in part:

03:00pm Sean Hannity: Tuned in to America Premieres Feb. 6!
06:00pm The Rest Of The Story (Paul Harvey) Premieres Feb. 6!
06:06pm The Hugh Hewitt Show
09:00pm The Michael Medved Show Starting Feb. 6!

No mention of Dr. L though her face is still on the main page of the site.
No mention of any "delayed till the weekend" airings.

> A live clearance in market #11 in beter
> than something in the middle of the night on a better
> station.

yes

Fact is, Hannity will have fewer listeners, at
> least if/until WTTT does significant promotion, at midnight
> on 96.9 than live on 1150. Part of it could be a host
> preference, as Dr. Laura prefers to be on live and will move
> to much lesser stations to do so (when the CC #1 station in
> Tucson moved her to evenings, she asked to move live to an
> independent with 1/3 the 12+ share). However, ABC figures
> they can be on live, and although they already had Harvey
> for about two weeks, this gives them more leverage to get
> other crap cleared. Interesting how they picked up Paul
> Harvey and suddenly they have Hannity... nice move on the
> affiliate sales department, who Salem won't talk to if they
> don't have an existing relationship with you. Trust me, I
> know.

<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

Yup, agreed

> Exactly! That's the point. Everybody does it. Everybody
> has to do it. In the same way products have to buy their
> way on to supermarket shelves. Station owners are in the
> drivers' seat and they know it.

> The WLIB situation is different, however. That's an LMA.

Right, they have the station from 5 am to midnight, I read.

> AAR leases the station. But ABC is paying AAR to clear The
> Satellite Sisters on WLIB.

interesting...no room for them on WABC I guess. What is Satellite
Sisters like--if political, do they lean left, right, or straight
down the middle, or is it lifestyle talk?

AAR reportedly does pay at least
> some "affiliates" for clearances (just like most everybody
> else).

yes, had heard it was that way in SF maybe. Maybe WLIB is paid by
Soros, etc., to run the AAR shows. (So the paycheck comes from
him and other backers, in the name of AAR, perhaps.)

> One of AAR's problems is they don't own stations (like
> Salem). They are in the unfortunate position of having to
> do more paying than playing. They also don't have other
> formats contributing to the revenue stream (like Salem).
>
> Pay for play is not bad or wrong. It just makes it hard to
> claim that clearances mean anything.
>
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[mwebster]

Satellite Sisters

>
> interesting...no room for them on WABC I guess. What is
> Satellite Sisters like--if political, do they lean left, right, or
> straight down the middle, or is it lifestyle talk?
>

It's a chick show. I guess that would be a sub-genre of lifestyle. A bunch of well-off money-demo White women sitting around talking about stuff that well-off money-demo White women sit around and talk about. It's not unlike Baba Wawa's "The View." The hook is that they are all sisters and live in different places around the world (hence they need to be hooked up by satellite).

The show is fed live 12 pm to 3 pm. It's syndicated competition is probably Dr. Joy Browne from WOR Networks. I don't see it as a late night show, nor as a show for a political talk station (left or right) - money issues aside.

AM Radio has become like Bialystock and Bloom. You can make more money with a flop than a hit with: (1) Brokered programs, (2) Infomercials, (3)Paying Preachers and now (4) Pay for play talk shows.

>
> yes, had heard it was that way in SF maybe. Maybe WLIB is
> paid by Soros, etc., to run the AAR shows. (So the paycheck comes
> from him and other backers, in the name of AAR, perhaps.)
>

According to the O'Reilly-Maloney piece, Soros is not currently contributing. The piece implied the guy from Real Networks is putting a lot of money in (which makes it puzzling that the WLIB audio stream is so screwed up). Of course, Real used to be dominant audio format and provider online, until Microsoft cleaned their clock. I don't think anybody would hire him based on his track record, so it must be for his ability to write checks.

 

[ibezdechi]

Re: Satellite Sisters

The Satellite Sisters is a trainwreck...unlistenable....

They can't POSSIBLY have a real following.


> >
> > interesting...no room for them on WABC I guess. What is
> > Satellite Sisters like--if political, do they lean left,
> right, or
> > straight down the middle, or is it lifestyle talk?
> >
>
> It's a chick show. I guess that would be a sub-genre of
> lifestyle. A bunch of well-off money-demo White women
> sitting around talking about stuff that well-off money-demo
> White women sit around and talk about. It's not unlike Baba
> Wawa's "The View." The hook is that they are all sisters
> and live in different places around the world (hence they
> need to be hooked up by satellite).
>
> The show is fed live 12 pm to 3 pm. It's syndicated
> competition is probably Dr. Joy Browne from WOR Networks. I
> don't see it as a late night show, nor as a show for a
> political talk station (left or right) - money issues aside.
>
>
> AM Radio has become like Bialystock and Bloom. You can make
> more money with a flop than a hit with: (1) Brokered
> programs, (2) Infomercials, (3)Paying Preachers and now (4)
> Pay for play talk shows.
>
> >
> > yes, had heard it was that way in SF maybe. Maybe WLIB is
> > paid by Soros, etc., to run the AAR shows. (So the
> paycheck comes
> > from him and other backers, in the name of AAR, perhaps.)
> >
>
> According to the O'Reilly-Maloney piece, Soros is not
> currently contributing. The piece implied the guy from Real
> Networks is putting a lot of money in (which makes it
> puzzling that the WLIB audio stream is so screwed up). Of
> course, Real used to be dominant audio format and provider
> online, until Microsoft cleaned their clock. I don't think
> anybody would hire him based on his track record, so it must
> be for his ability to write checks.
>

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Satellite Sisters

> According to the O'Reilly-Maloney piece, Soros is not
> currently contributing. The piece implied the guy from Real
> Networks is putting a lot of money in (which makes it
> puzzling that the WLIB audio stream is so screwed up). Of
> course, Real used to be dominant audio format and provider
> online, until Microsoft cleaned their clock. I don't think
> anybody would hire him based on his track record, so it must
> be for his ability to write checks.



How many times are you going to cite the O'Reilly-Maloney piece as a reliable source on anything. O'Reilly and Maloney are two blow hards with an axe to grind. Besides nothing in Maloney's piece was sourced. It was all based on hearsay. Pretty soon you are going to start quoting News Max or better yet Mein Kamph. What kind of fools do you think are believing your spewings on this board. As you posted as a reply to one of my posts about two weeks ago.

"Go away, kid, you are bothering people."

<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by barooosk on 01/29/06 11:28 PM.</FONT></P>