Stephanie Miller on Talk Decline

[Small Market Guy]

Those of us who have adult daughters who "walk arm-in-arm" with the views of Ms. Fluke don't find your verbiage very charming. When you are on the air, do you 'diss' your listeners in a similar fashion?

I HAVE AN ADULT DAUGHTER. Enough of the condescension.

Sandra Fluke is a political hack.

I don't insult civilians. Sandra Fluke is NOT a civilian. She's a political operative.

I sure hope you raised your daughters to not expect me to pay for their birth control pills. Because mine will pay for her own.

 

[davideduardo]

Funny, the most successful progressive hosts never worked for Air America Radio. Air America Radio failed because it was badly managed, badly produced, badly programmed, shoved onto weak sticks which did not have ratings before (and have not had ratings since), and because broadcasters would not or could not sell it properly and advertisers labeled it "controversial" and would not buy it.

No "new" format is going to displace a successful, well rated "old" format. So the idea that AA failed because the stations were not previously garnering good ratings is absurd. I've done several successful news-talk startups and none was on a successful station. Two went on to be #1 in their markets and another... coming from a 0.3 went on to tie or beat KFI in 25-54 quite regularly.

Advertisers had no client dictates to not buy "progressive" talk. They had some client dictates not to buy anything controversial ranging from Stern to Limbaugh. That is why you would have agency accounts on KFI in Dr. Laura that did not run any other time.

"Selling a station properly" is the worst cop out ever. If a station has low ratings, irrespective of format, it will not be easy to sell. And the prices will have to be commensurate with the audience delivery. Nothing you say can change the fact that it is easier to sell a top station than one near the bottom.

As to signals, many of the Air America signals, such as Miami, Portland, LA, Seattle, and quite a few others were viable. Even the much improved WLIB in New York would be able to compete with entertaining, compelling programming. Air America was simply not interesting. Good programming often overcomes signal disadvantages; the current #3 25-54 station in San Francisco does not cover 60% of the market.

It's funny that the post mortem of formats that "should have worked" all have the same "they did not do it right" in the statements. When Pulse failed to succeed with dance in New York, it was mostly blamed on the music selection...

 

[Small Market Guy]

Excuse makers for any failed format are always the same. They take it personally that their chosen format didn't work and they blame everything but the obvious answer to EVERY failed format.

PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO IT.

Every single failed experiment boils down to that one simple truth. You can blame weak signals and massive conspiracies all you want, but liberal talk radio on the COMMERCIAL side fails because no one is listening.

Now if you want my opinion, and it seems to be borne out by the numbers, liberals listen to public radio. Why would they switch to an inferior product with commercials?

 

[TheBigA]

I don't insult civilians. Sandra Fluke is NOT a civilian. She's a political operative.

Regardless of who she is or what she does, Rush made a mistake and apologized for his personal attacks. And advertisers decided that shows that make personal attacks on others are a bad environment for advertising. Not just his, but others were targeted. Numerous radio CEOs pointed to the incident as the reason why their companies had weak revenue results during that time, and most will say the format hasn't recovered. That's the point of the article mentioned in my OP. When the top dog in a format makes a mistake, the entire format pays the price.

 

[Avid Listener]

Now if you want my opinion, and it seems to be borne out by the numbers, liberals listen to public radio. Why would they switch to an inferior product with commercials?

As I've pointed out before, people with a liberal outlook on life enjoy distractions from serious issues more than hearing about them in-depth. In almost every radio discussion forum I've seen, either as a participant or a lurker, it is almost always the liberals who whine when anyone responds to their political comments with a direct rebuttal. You seldom see a conservative kvetch about liberals going "off-topic" in any discussion, but if the liberals are losing, then that's one of their first tactics to make the nasty conservative talk all go away.

The same is true when it comes to listening to the radio. Someone whose outlook on life is liberal would find the way NPR includes so many "lifestyle" and other stories that have nothing to do with significant current events, and who would prefer silence about issues that aren't going well for the liberal political bloc would definitely prefer the programming on NPR. Of course, even more people who'll support liberal political causes would prefer to just listen to music and not bother themselves with anything other than entertainment and distraction. I suspect that latter fact is the main reason why liberal talk radio consistently fails.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I HAVE AN ADULT DAUGHTER. Enough of the condescension.

Sandra Fluke is a political hack.

I don't insult civilians. Sandra Fluke is NOT a civilian. She's a political operative.

I sure hope you raised your daughters to not expect me to pay for their birth control pills. Because mine will pay for her own.

I don't ever recall reading in FCC Regulations that there is one of of rules for political hacks, political operatives or political professionals as opposed to rules for "civilians". I think I remember that during the Fairness Doctrine era and the rules about providing time for reply, there was some distinction between "people of political prominence" who were expected to tolerate a certain amount of "being trashed on the radio" as opposed to "private citizens" which I guess is about the same thing as your use of the term 'civilians'.

Are there different FCC rules for (1) political professionals (2) political operatives (3) political HACKS? A follow-up would be: Are broadcasters such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc covered by the terminology "political hack"? Is there a registry system for professionals, operatives and hacks? If I take on some weekly air-time from my local station starting next month, where do guys like me and you turn of look up people so we know who are professionals, who are operatives and who are hacks?

Where can I buy the handbook that tells me how I can treat political professionals on the air, as well as how to treat political operatives and political hacks?

I also think you are much smarter than you pretend to be on the issue Fluke raised. Men sometimes think the issue is simply that a female takes a pill so the female will not get pregnant, thus if you can afford the pills, don't have sex. But the issue is much larger than that. The insurance industry has long taken the position that ALL health issues related to being a female are not really illnesses thus they shouldn't be covered by insurance. Sometimes the same pills that are useful in preventing pregnancy are also useful in reducing monthly pains associated with being a female. Sometimes these same pills are useful in treating a condition that will otherwise have to be treated with psychiatric remedies. This is simply a continuation of the fight that came to a head circa 1980 when it was finally made law that pre-natal care and delivery of babies is a legitimate medical expense that health insurance must cover.

You want to talk about a fun time in my life: I was the administrator of an employer's self-funded health plan for some very religiously conservative and political conservative people, and I had to be the bad guy trying to explain to them that legally I had to start writing checks to pay for the delivery of babies... which they had never done before.

In the current era of implementing "Obamacare"... talk-radio has not stepped up and explained to listeners what 'the law of the land' is. Talk Radio made a side-show out of Sandra Fluke... when the real issue is: What does current law say that a patient has a right to expect their insurance to pay for?

The Management of this site has made it pretty clear: This thread is NOT an appropriate site to mud-wrestle over the politics of what the law SHOULD or should not say. This thread is an appropriate place to discuss how talk radio deals with issues of the day, and then in turn how talk radio deals with citizens who gain a platform to promote or fight the issues of the day.

 

[TheBigA]

You seldom see a conservative kvetch about liberals going "off-topic" in any discussion, but if the liberals are losing, then that's one of their first tactics to make the nasty conservative talk all go away.

Are you calling the moderator a liberal? No one's asking you to go away...just stick to radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

No "new" format is going to displace a successful, well rated "old" format. So the idea that AA failed because the stations were not previously garnering good ratings is absurd. I've done several successful news-talk startups and none was on a successful station. Two went on to be #1 in their markets and another... coming from a 0.3 went on to tie or beat KFI in 25-54 quite regularly.

Advertisers had no client dictates to not buy "progressive" talk. They had some client dictates not to buy anything controversial ranging from Stern to Limbaugh. That is why you would have agency accounts on KFI in Dr. Laura that did not run any other time.

"Selling a station properly" is the worst cop out ever. If a station has low ratings, irrespective of format, it will not be easy to sell. And the prices will have to be commensurate with the audience delivery. Nothing you say can change the fact that it is easier to sell a top station than one near the bottom.

As to signals, many of the Air America signals, such as Miami, Portland, LA, Seattle, and quite a few others were viable. Even the much improved WLIB in New York would be able to compete with entertaining, compelling programming. Air America was simply not interesting. Good programming often overcomes signal disadvantages; the current #3 25-54 station in San Francisco does not cover 60% of the market.

It's funny that the post mortem of formats that "should have worked" all have the same "they did not do it right" in the statements. When Pulse failed to succeed with dance in New York, it was mostly blamed on the music selection...

Once again, the industry line. Plus some extra BS. Why bother with facts when you can make stuff up? (Another aspect of politics and talk radio turning most people off.) So exactly what were those stations that came from nowhere and tied or beat KFI?

And don't twist things. Theoretically, a weak stick AM which has never had much of audience (and is not on most people's mental radar) could come from nowhere to be a hit. But it hasn't happened in AM radio for more than 40 years. Blow torch right-wing talk stations evolved from well-rated full service stations. They never had to build an audience (mostly they've just lost most of the audience they once had). Progressive talk stations did about as well in most markets as the various second tier right-wing talk stations. How come people like you aren't out there talking about what failure Salem is?

And speaking of twisting things, the number three station in San Francisco has an urban format. They don't need to reach 60 per cent of the geographic market to reach almost all of their target demo. Nice try.

Dude, I saw those orders from the ad agency which specified no placing spots on Air America Radio stations (even in news or traffic). Copies of some of them were posted online. Your statement to the contrary is demonstrably false. Now, I have no issue with an advertiser wanting to avoid controversy. My problem is an advertiser who considers progressive talk controversial but not right-wing talk.

In most markets in which they operated, progressive talk stations were part of a cluster with a right-wing talk station, being sold by the same local sales people. Their existing client base was buying right-wing talk and many sales reps were reluctant to walk into those clients and start pitching progressive talk. The right-wing talk and progressive talk station in the cluster had the same PD (sometimes also a current or former right-wing talk host). And then you had a national talk program director bragging about being the "grim reaper" of progressive talk and trying to kill the format in markets in which it had respectable numbers.

What I describe is the same kind of industry bias against the concept of progressive talk you are showing now. Why is it you people can't stand the idea, even the possibility, of talk radio with a viewpoint other than your own?

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, the industry line. Plus some extra BS. Why bother with facts when you can make stuff up? (Another aspect of politics and talk radio turning most people off.) So exactly what were those stations that came from nowhere and tied or beat KFI?

Nothing like a good ad hominem to start off a discussion.

KTNQ, Los Angeles. It was even written up in a 3-page R&R spread in the late 90's for its young average age, it's 100% live and local programming and its KFI-level ratings.

The others were in markets with 4 and 11 news talk stations respectively.

And don't twist things. Theoretically, a weak stick AM which has never had much of audience (and is not on most people's mental radar) could come from nowhere to be a hit. But it hasn't happened in AM radio for more than 40 years.

Some of the immensely successful sports stations have been second-tier AMs. Of course, when an FM or better signal came on, the often got toasted... but a few, like KTCK in Dallas / Ft. Worth have made it despite the signal differences because they were good.

Air America was not fun, exciting and entertaining... key elements for a talk format. But they had the sector of progressive talk to themselves, and still could not make it work.

Blow torch right-wing talk stations evolved from well-rated full service stations.

The key word is "evolved". Nobody set out to create such a station... they happened based on the results of some hosts and the failures of others.

They never had to build an audience (mostly they've just lost most of the audience they once had).

Oh, yes the did. The ones that did not evolve are... like WGN... around 25th in 25-54, while the ones that moved with the younger potential audience (thse in the 40-54 range) grew for a long time. Of course, what change news/talk for all time was the advent of PPM measurement, which decimated the format. Former #1 KGO went to 17th in the PPM in 25-54 when the change happened... much of what you are blaming on "right wingers" is due to active rather than passive, memory based audience measurement.

Progressive talk stations did about as well in most markets as the various second tier right-wing talk stations.

No, they did worse and without competition. As I said, the progressive stations had no competitors for their segment, and still lost. How does it feel to be hoist on your own petard?

How come people like you aren't out there talking about what failure Salem is?

Because Salem has a different business model, and they are very profitable at it. So it is not a failure. Air America had the same business model as the KFI-WABC-WLS-KTRH's of the world, and it failed.

And speaking of twisting things, the number three station in San Francisco has an urban format. They don't need to reach 60 per cent of the geographic market to reach almost all of their target demo. Nice try.

The last book's #3 station in 25-54 is KBRG, a mostly South Bay signal. I said "in 25-54" and you countered with useless, meaningless 12+ numbers and misidentified the format.

And the one you think is #3 needs every ounce of signal possible, as r&b leaning stations in San Francisco get most of their audience from Hispanics and "other" and not from African Americans. The African American audience is actually less than a third of the total, with 70% of KMEL's audience being non-Black. KMEL is actually considered CHurhan, and has listenership in every part of the San Francisco MSA. In the last three books, it has averaged 8th in 25-54, not 3rd.

Dude, I saw those orders from the ad agency which specified no placing spots on Air America Radio stations (even in news or traffic). Copies of some of them were posted online. Your statement to the contrary is demonstrably false. Now, I have no issue with an advertiser wanting to avoid controversy. My problem is an advertiser who considers progressive talk controversial but not right-wing talk.

No agency would even have considered Air America, as it did not get big enough numbers nationally to have a no-buy order put out. No agency buys 37 deep.

In most markets in which they operated, progressive talk stations were part of a cluster with a right-wing talk station, being sold by the same local sales people. Their existing client base was buying right-wing talk and many sales reps were reluctant to walk into those clients and start pitching progressive talk.

As someone who has done multi-station cluster sales since 1965, I can tell you that sellers will always sell the easy station first. Only if the bad station has separate sellers will anyone bring in any money. In cluster sales at the agency level, the issue of format is often secondary to the point of not even being mentioned. It's about selling numbers.

What I describe is the same kind of industry bias against the concept of progressive talk you are showing now. Why is it you people can't stand the idea, even the possibility, of talk radio with a viewpoint other than your own?

I prefer a format with as little politics as possible, and I did it in LA... as PD. What we were was entertaining and what were were not is agenda driven.

 

[flybynight]

I wish many on this board would STOP assuming that anyone who thinks a talk station doesn't need to be far right wing dogma 24/7, instead wants some liberal/progressive format.

Conservative listeners have always been listening to talkradio. Yes, they actually heard others opinions before the Rush brigade took over. Oh, the pain! Since then, conservatives still listen....and many others have left----and not because they were liberal, but because the far right wing dogma is extremely alienating, as quite a few newstalkers have found out.

I have known many people across the ideological spectrum and the majority, whether liberal, moderate or even conservative, have grown tired of the schtick. It's just boring and predictable.

 

[TheBigA]

Dude, I saw those orders from the ad agency which specified no placing spots on Air America Radio stations (even in news or traffic).

I don't know about that, but as I said in my OP, I am still seeing sales instructions today that say "Cannot air in Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or in or adjacent to other controversial programming." Those instructions are sent to any station that runs agency spots, any station that carries syndication, and any station that must air spots as part of a radio network. That's the point of this thread, that negative talk is hurting the overall talk format. Hurting it as far as revenue, as far as audience, and as far as potential growth. I think it's one reason why you're not seeing any new talk launches taking place right now. Why try to start a new talk show when it won't get advertiser support?

 

[FredLeonard]

David, your own political predisposition is apparent here. But, just for fun....

Progressive talk and Air America Radio are not the same thing. Any more than public radio and NPR. But you people on the right keep insisting on collapsing the two.

Air America was not fun, exciting and entertaining...

Agreed.

So, how would you have done it? Voting records and polls show a lot of people learning progressive out there. There's a potential audience for progressive talk (or aren't you willing to admit that?).

No, they did worse and without competition. As I said, the progressive stations had no competitors for their segment, and still lost. How does it feel to be hoist on your own petard?

I'll let you know when it happens. Once again, you are (to phrase it nicely) taking liberties with the facts. AQH numbers for progressive talk stations and for Salem talk stations (or other second tier right-wing talk stations) were consistently close. My point was, you don't call Salem a failure. Their talk stations don't make money either but they are supported by their religious stations and pay to play preachers. The typical conservative double-standard at work.

As someone who has done multi-station cluster sales since 1965, I can tell you that sellers will always sell the easy station first.

Except for Clear Channel selling two opposing talk stations. It is evident, Clear Channel (controlled by Bain Capital) wanted the format to fail and were running progressive talk to head off threatened restoration of the fairness doctrine.

 

[davideduardo]

David, your own political predisposition is apparent here. But, just for fun....

You have no idea what my political predisposition is. In radio programming, I have preferred to not concentrate on politics, preferring rather to focus on all manner of current topics, which may or may not have a political aspect to them.

Progressive talk and Air America Radio are not the same thing. Any more than public radio and NPR. But you people on the right keep insisting on collapsing the two.

Since the only major effort to syndicate or distribute a full slate of progressive talk has been Air America, it is the poster child of that quadrant of talk.

Agreed.

So, how would you have done it? Voting records and polls show a lot of people learning progressive out there. There's a potential audience for progressive talk (or aren't you willing to admit that?).

I would not have made politics the core of the station, nor would I have looked for hosts who were angry most of the time. I would look at lifestyle and all the other common interests of those who may have voted Democratic or independent recently. It would take research to find out what those elements are but there have to be things besides the pure politics issues that are also of interest.

I'll let you know when it happens. Once again, you are (to phrase it nicely) taking liberties with the facts. AQH numbers for progressive talk stations and for Salem talk stations (or other second tier right-wing talk stations) were consistently close.

That's a totally apples to crankshafts comparison. Compare left to right or something like that. Don't compare the second string talker with the only progressive talker. Compare KTKN to KFI, not to KRLA.

My point was, you don't call Salem a failure. Their talk stations don't make money either but they are supported by their religious stations and pay to play preachers. The typical conservative double-standard at work.

They do make money, or their shareholders would not put up with it... their board would not, either. They just make less money than the "bigger" station in their markets. This is a frequent question in their annual shareholder meetings, and it is always answered with statements about the gross billings levels of those stations.

Except for Clear Channel selling two opposing talk stations. It is evident, Clear Channel (controlled by Bain Capital) wanted the format to fail and were running progressive talk to head off threatened restoration of the fairness doctrine.

Clear took about a dozen AMs and gave them to the Air America experiment... very significant stations in a number of cases. They gave them far more time to succeed than they would have given a dog music format, and they made no money. Finally, after losing for a looooong time in "radio years" they looked for alternatives. While Bain may have board presence, you are making too much of the politics and not enough of the fact that Bain and CC's main interest is in making money with whatever format works. Progressive talk did not work.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Are there different FCC rules for (1) political professionals (2) political operatives (3) political HACKS? A follow-up would be: Are broadcasters such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc covered by the terminology "political hack"? Is there a registry system for professionals, operatives and hacks? If I take on some weekly air-time from my local station starting next month, where do guys like me and you turn of look up people so we know who are professionals, who are operatives and who are hacks?

What does the FCC have to do with anything? And yes, Hannity/Limbaugh/etc. are political hacks. If someone wants to call Rush a "slut", go ahead.

This false narrative that Sandra Fluke was just some wide eyed innocent person who didn't deserve scrutiny is ridiculous.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Regardless of who she is or what she does, Rush made a mistake and apologized for his personal attacks. And advertisers decided that shows that make personal attacks on others are a bad environment for advertising. Not just his, but others were targeted. Numerous radio CEOs pointed to the incident as the reason why their companies had weak revenue results during that time, and most will say the format hasn't recovered. That's the point of the article mentioned in my OP. When the top dog in a format makes a mistake, the entire format pays the price.

I wouldn't have used the words Rush did (even if they were taken out of context by his critics), but Sandra Fluke did deserve scrutiny.

I wish many on this board would STOP assuming that anyone who thinks a talk station doesn't need to be far right wing dogma 24/7, instead wants some liberal/progressive format.

It's obvious that's what some people here want. Especially when they start using talking points like "Bain Capital" and claiming conservative people don't read.

If that's the case, how the hell does Mark Levin have so many #1 best sellers?

 

[TheBigA]

I wouldn't have used the words Rush did (even if they were taken out of context by his critics), but Sandra Fluke did deserve scrutiny.

"Scrutiny" isn't entertainment. That's what's missing here. Talk radio is supposed to be entertainment, not a trial. The fact that it's become a trial of personalities is exactly why it's suffering in terms of revenues and ratings. Advertisers recognized that they simply don't want to be associated with the entire discussion any more. It's not a discussion that's good for business. It's not conducive to selling Happy Meals. No surprise there. And the general audience is simply tired of the whole thing.

 

[Small Market Guy]

By the way, Fred: Are you ever going to apologize for the racist comments you made about John Watson only having a job because he's black?

(For those that don't know here's the post.)

Sounds like that's exactly what's happening. But I guess the station gets affirmative action points for Watson because it can't be drawing power. How many different hosts trounced him?

Yep, you "progressives" are so civil and classy.

 

[Small Market Guy]

"Scrutiny" isn't entertainment. That's what's missing here. Talk radio is supposed to be entertainment, not a trial.

I don't disagree. These guys weren't crying foul when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". It's the exact same thing. Public personalities have to be prepared for a certain amount of name calling. It's part of the game, for better or worse. Sandra Fluke is a lobbyist. She's a public figure, subject to the same ridicule as anyone else in public life.

 

[TheBigA]

Public personalities have to be prepared for a certain amount of name calling.

But once again, it's not entertainment. Being mean isn't entertainment. I don't care how you rationalize it. No one is laughing. No one is being entertained any more. Calling people names is not my idea of great radio. It's childish and mean.

 

[Avid Listener]

I have known many people across the ideological spectrum and the majority, whether liberal, moderate or even conservative, have grown tired of the schtick. It's just boring and predictable.

That sounds very similar to my own observations about ultra-short playlists in music formats dedicated to vintage recordings and//or specific musical genres. When I make that observation, the automatic knee-jerk response is usually "but it tests well" and/or "but it gets good ratings".

As I see it, the fact that some listeners have grown tired of one particular schtick doesn't mean that they'll automatically flock to some new programming paradigm. The fact remains that people who have a liberal political outlook and who want to hear spoken-word radio programming about politics are too small of a segment overall to sustain high radio ratings. Granted, the "birds of a feather" principle means that those who are liberal and who also want to hear the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh might have what seems to them to be a large circle of similarly-minded friends. But that doesn't prove that there is a big enough market for that sort of programming to enable it to succeed.

Petty nitpicking over details is pointless. Isolated examples of minor successes that might have bucked a trend have little meaning. Nationwide, the only market segment in the year of our Lord 2014 that is large enough to sustain a radio format based on pundits talking about events in the news is politically conservative.