Stephanie Miller on Talk Decline

[FredLeonard]

Several factors not mentioned: (1) Local-live talk radio is an expensive format and was something only major market stations could afford to do. It was not an option in smaller markets. (2) Syndicated talk radio became an economic option with the advent of satellite distribution and lower-cost, higher quality long distance phone lines (for call-ins). (3) Station owners and managers tend to be conservative. Most come out of sales. The local business people they call on tend to be conservative. The people they meet at C of C lunches or the country club tend to be conservative. It is through that prism that narrow-focused ideological right-wing talk looks like a sound business decision.

And let's get to the real reason: The appeal of right-wing ideology and right-wing talk radio is to hate, anger and ignorance. Father Coughlin knew it. Hitler knew it. Rush knows it. Michael Jackson is a smart guy and his target demo is smart people. Most advertising is not effective with smart people, so smart people are not a desirable demo. The ad community wants young, mouth-breathers. Hence the appeal of sports talk.

 

[Avid Listener]

And let's get to the real reason: The appeal of right-wing ideology and right-wing talk radio is to hate, anger and ignorance. Father Coughlin knew it. Hitler knew it. Rush knows it. Michael Jackson is a smart guy and his target demo is smart people. Most advertising is not effective with smart people, so smart people are not a desirable demo. The ad community wants young, mouth-breathers. Hence the appeal of sports talk.

Hogwash. It's simply a matter of perspective. The left always accuses those who support traditional moral values as "hating" those who reject morality in favor of unrestrained hedonism. Those who express positive support for capitalism, free-market economies, rewards for hard work and achievement, and other traditional principles are usually demonized as "haters" or "ignorant". Throwing in comparisons to Hitler is typical of the hateful, angry, and ignorant practices of the left.

 

[ok walters]

Hogwash. It's simply a matter of perspective. The left always accuses those who support traditional moral values as "hating" those who reject morality in favor of unrestrained hedonism. Those who express positive support for capitalism, free-market economies, rewards for hard work and achievement, and other traditional principles are usually demonized as "haters" or "ignorant". Throwing in comparisons to Hitler is typical of the hateful, angry, and ignorant practices of the left.

Amen, brother. When you don't have an argument, you resort to name calling - but all the way to Hitler? Wow.

 

[wadio]

Most advertising is not effective with smart people, so smart people are not a desirable demo. The ad community wants young, mouth-breathers. Hence the appeal of sports talk.

I think that's exactly right. I've called them "uninformed" in other threads to avoid using the "s" word. But let's face it, stupid, gullible people are what advertisers want. Advertisers claim to be targeting younger demos, perhaps because younger listeners are short on life experience and tend to be more gullible. But I think it's really stupid listeners advertisers want regardless of age. I'd be surprised if a lot of stupid old people aren't responding to the snake oil commercials that are so prevalent on radio today.

 

[flybynight]

Hogwash. It's simply a matter of perspective. The left always accuses those who support traditional moral values as "hating" those who reject morality in favor of unrestrained hedonism. Those who express positive support for capitalism, free-market economies, rewards for hard work and achievement, and other traditional principles are usually demonized as "haters" or "ignorant". Throwing in comparisons to Hitler is typical of the hateful, angry, and ignorant practices of the left.

For over 5 years now I've heard many right wing hosts draw parallels between Obama and Hitler quite a few times since he's been in office. I've heard callers say Obama's going the same road as Hitler, is like Hitler, is gonna BE Hitler, etc. while the esteemed host sits quietly and says nothing to condemn those statements. Even a high profile guy like Glenn Beck with his many kool-aid drinkers NEVER misses an opportunity to draw parallels between the Obama administration and the third reich.

What Fred Leonard was referring to was the type of people those individuals, like Hitler, target because they're easily fired up. Ever try to talk to some of these horribly uninformed tea party types? They're prime real estate for the Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's of this world. Do you realize the chaos you could stir up with such a cadre of blind followers who will believe and follow just about anything you say? Scary crowd.
They cannot be reasoned with.

 

[Avid Listener]

For over 5 years now I've heard many right wing hosts draw parallels between Obama and Hitler quite a few times since he's been in office. I've heard callers say Obama's going the same road as Hitler, is like Hitler, is gonna BE Hitler, etc. while the esteemed host sits quietly and says nothing to condemn those statements. Even a high profile guy like Glenn Beck with his many kool-aid drinkers NEVER misses an opportunity to draw parallels between the Obama administration and the third reich.

What Fred Leonard was referring to was the type of people those individuals, like Hitler, target because they're easily fired up. Ever try to talk to some of these horribly uninformed tea party types? They're prime real estate for the Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's of this world. Do you realize the chaos you could stir up with such a cadre of blind followers who will believe and follow just about anything you say? Scary crowd.
They cannot be reasoned with.

When the parallels are clearly there, it's foolish to ignore them.

And you are correct about those who subscribe to the platform of the Tea Party. Reducing taxes and allowing people to live their lives in freedom without government control is such a terrible, evil agenda.

 

[TheBigA]

As far as the future of the format: Your position is always to do nothing. How courageous.

My position is do what makes money. Right now, doing traditional talk radio isn't a growth area. No one, including you, has demonstrated how doing generalist talk today in 2014 will attract younger demos. Nor has anyone demonstrated how doing generalist talk today will attract large audiences. Until someone does that without telling me about the past and what used to work, I'm not motivated to spend any money. Because I have loads of examples of non-conservative talk examples from the past that failed, including Blink FM in New York. CBS lost a ton of money on that idea. Plus, if I'm an owner, and I also have hot morning shows on my music stations, I'm already attracting young audiences with non-conservative talk, and I don't want any more competition to dilute that audience. Conservative talk won't steal audience from my music stations.

Most advertising is not effective with smart people, so smart people are not a desirable demo. The ad community wants young, mouth-breathers. Hence the appeal of sports talk.

The only catch with that POV is that talk radio was once very profitable, and the audience was once a very desirable demo. They were loyal and they listened. The radio was foreground entertainment for them. Then they got old or died. It has nothing to do with whether they're smart or not. Add to that the Fluke incident, that made conservative talk radio an unpleasant environment for advertising, and you get the current situation. That's what my OP was all about. Someone pee'd in the pool. And the other real issue that no one has mentioned is can ANY format revive the AM band? I'm starting to think the answer is no.

 

[FredLeonard]

The only catch with that POV is that talk radio was once very profitable, and the audience was once a very desirable demo. They were loyal and they listened. The radio was foreground entertainment for them. Then they got old or died. It has nothing to do with whether they're smart or not. Add to that the Fluke incident, that made conservative talk radio an unpleasant environment for advertising, and you get the current situation. That's what my OP was all about. Someone pee'd in the pool. And the other real issue that no one has mentioned is can ANY format revive the AM band? I'm starting to think the answer is no.

That's not a catch. That's the point. Talk radio was different and the audience was different - and more desirable to advertisers. Talk radio used to be a class act. No more. Hosts used be personalities who knew they had to be entertainers - not demagogues to rouse a narrowly defined rabble.

As music radio formats became more narrowly-focused and targeted, more music formats opened-up. Not so with talk.

Another change: Radio used to attract smart, creative people who wanted to work in it. No more.

 

[TheBigA]

Another change: Radio used to attract smart, creative people who wanted to work in it. No more.

That's a good point. I ask you: Would you want to succeed Rush? If I'm a smart, creative person, would I want to step into that minefield? No. Consider Adam Corolla. He's a smart creative person who did as good a job as anyone could trying to replace Howard Stern. He was not a conservative talker. He was funny and entertaining. When his contract was up, he started a podcast. Guess what: He discovered he could make more money doing less work with less company and FCC interference by owning his own podcast. He's not the only one. In another thread, we were talking about Tom Leykis, who is doing the same thing. Why would anyone take a job in AM talk when they could make more money doing podcasts?

Here's a recent example of a smart, creative host trying to replace a talk legend on an AM station: Elliot Segal. Elliot in the Morning is a successful morning show on an FM rock station in Washington DC. It's the same station that spawned Howard Stern and The Greaseman. Elliot does a traditional old school talk show, with phone calls, celebrity guests, and funny skits. He gets great ratings on WWDC, and is very profitable. So Clear Channel thought, let's put his show on an AM talk station in NYC. Seemed like a great idea. Exactly the kind of thing FlyByNight would do. Except he was replacing John Gambling on a station whose media age is 80. Elliot is half their age, talking about things senior citizens never think about. The show was a flop, and Elliot went back to DC.

 

[davideduardo]

ogical right-wing talk looks like a sound business decision.

And let's get to the real reason: The appeal of right-wing ideology and right-wing talk radio is to hate, anger and ignorance. Father Coughlin knew it. Hitler knew it.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law here. You lost.

(Hitler was not a "conservative" as much of his "platform" from "Mein Kampf" to the actual implementation of his ideas was to appeal to the "have nots" and those most affected by W.W. I by finding privileged or somehow unique groups to assault and blame.

Michael Jackson is a smart guy and his target demo is smart people.

Yet his show, in a "more intelligent" market where an NPR station now much of the time beats 'em all, did not work. And in LA, faced with competition from KFI, he lost. As a reasonably bright, reasonably educated and well-read and well-traveled person, I found Jackson pedantic, haughty and boring. In other words, he was not everyone's cup of tea and when another station served coffee, he lost.

Most advertising is not effective with smart people, so smart people are not a desirable demo. The ad community wants young, mouth-breathers. Hence the appeal of sports talk.

That's not true. Smart people want to know about new products, new designs, improved prices or sales. They just tend to be less susceptible to puffery and will be more likely to be convinced based on facts as opposed to being swayed by theatrics.

 

[davideduardo]

Several factors not mentioned: (1) Local-live talk radio is an expensive format and was something only major market stations could afford to do. It was not an option in smaller markets. (2) Syndicated talk radio became an economic option with the advent of satellite distribution and lower-cost, higher quality long distance phone lines (for call-ins). (3) Station owners and managers tend to be conservative. Most come out of sales. The local business people they call on tend to be conservative. The people they meet at C of C lunches or the country club tend to be conservative. It is through that prism that narrow-focused ideological right-wing talk looks like a sound business decision.

You are forgetting 4) Liberal / progressive talk fails to generate ratings.

Even Air America, which had investments from "angels" like George Soros, and which assembled a credible lineup of liberal and progressive hosts could not generate ratings. Even in the best success case, Portland, OR, initial good ratings performance quickly fell and in other markets where there was a good signal put on the format, there was never enough listening for the format to be salable.

 

[flybynight]

Here's a recent example of a smart, creative host trying to replace a talk legend on an AM station: Elliot Segal. Elliot in the Morning is a successful morning show on an FM rock station in Washington DC. It's the same station that spawned Howard Stern and The Greaseman. Elliot does a traditional old school talk show, with phone calls, celebrity guests, and funny skits. He gets great ratings on WWDC, and is very profitable. So Clear Channel thought, let's put his show on an AM talk station in NYC. Seemed like a great idea. Exactly the kind of thing FlyByNight would do. Except he was replacing John Gambling on a station whose media age is 80. Elliot is half their age, talking about things senior citizens never think about. The show was a flop, and Elliot went back to DC.

Except that's NOT what I would've done at all. Segal couldn't have been a more inappropriate choice for WOR, no matter what demo they were trying to get. The Segal simulcast is still shrouded in mystery, as few are clear on what CC's intentions really were. They had been negotiating with Scott Shannon not long before the Segal debacle, so when that fell through, Segal was likely a placeholder until they figured out what to do long term.

Segal isn't/wasn't doing talk on DC-101. He was doing a silly, raucus morning zoo-ish kind of show.

Also, to clarify history: WWDC did not spawn Stern or Greaseman. Stern was already evolving into his persona while at WCCC, and then more-so at W4. Greaseman was already reaching radio legend status when he landed at DC-101. If anything, he was spawned in Rochester, or certainly at WAPE in Jacksonville.

 

[TheBigA]

You are forgetting 4) Liberal / progressive talk fails to generate ratings.

Even in San Francisco, a politically liberal town, KGO saw it's ratings plummet as the hosts and the audience got older. That's what we're talking about here. The audience for AM talk, regardless of the approach, is too old. Refocusing from conservative talk to a broader approach won't solve the demographic problem. And looking at San Francisco once again, moving Rush from KKSF (where he got a respectable 2 share) to KNEW dropped both stations to 1 shares. Not a good move for either station, or the format in general. KKSF, which is an old school, broadly focused talk station, has been unable to replace Rush's numbers, even with local legend Gil Gross or a younger, well known personality like Frosty.

 

[flybynight]

You are forgetting 4) Liberal / progressive talk fails to generate ratings.

Even Air America, which had investments from "angels" like George Soros, and which assembled a credible lineup of liberal and progressive hosts could not generate ratings. Even in the best success case, Portland, OR, initial good ratings performance quickly fell and in other markets where there was a good signal put on the format, there was never enough listening for the format to be salable.

Show me ONE, just ONE market where non-conservative talk was given a thriving heritage station to work with---and I don't mean a station like WWKB/Buffalo, where they have 50,000 watts, a long heritage, but nobody checking out the frequency for over 15 years before turnkey satellite talk with NO local news, weather or traffic was finally programmed.

I had no regard for AA, as it was boring. But let's please STOP acting like ANY talk format had a chance on the stations/frequencies that these non-conservative formats were put on. We have already seen that even Hannity and Limbaugh CANNOT succeed on such stations/frequencies when they're booted from long-established heritage stations.

 

[TheBigA]

Segal isn't/wasn't doing talk on DC-101. He was doing a silly, raucus morning zoo-ish kind of show.

You're playing around with definitions. He wasn't playing music. He was ENTERTAINING people with non-conservative talk. It's funny, creative, and appeals to younger demos. You want something that will appeal to people your age, and those people are not in the demo any more. My point is that there is no way to fix the fundamental problem of AM talk, which is aging demos. Scott Shannon was a creator of morning zoos! He wouldn't have done the kind of issues-oriented talk you want. Or if he did, he'd have gone over like David Lee Roth.

Name some names. Let's say Jeff Bezos buys a radio station and gives it to you to program. Who do you hire as your morning host? Name someone under 65 who people respect who can attract listeners under 55 with issues-oriented talk.

 

[flybynight]

You're playing around with definitions. He wasn't playing music. He was ENTERTAINING people with non-conservative talk. It's funny, creative, and appeals to younger demos. You want something that will appeal to people your age, and those people are not in the demo any more. My point is that there is no way to fix the fundamental problem of AM talk, which is aging demos. Scott Shannon was a creator of morning zoos! He wouldn't have done the kind of issues-oriented talk you want. Or if he did, he'd have gone over like David Lee Roth.

Did you actually HEAR Segal's show? It doesn't seem like it. By "younger", I don't mean 18-year-olds.

I never said Shannon would've been a great choice.

 

[TheBigA]

Did you actually HEAR Segal's show? It doesn't seem like it. By "younger", I don't mean 18-year-olds.

Nothing wrong with 18 year olds. How can you get an 18 year old to listen to issues-oriented talk? On AM radio? If you have a way, I'd like to know.

Who would you hire that could get listeners under 55 to listen to issues-oriented AM talk radio?

 

[flybynight]

Nothing wrong with 18 year olds. How can you get an 18 year old to listen to issues-oriented talk? On AM radio? If you have a way, I'd like to know.

There really isn't a way to get a lot of 18-year-olds to listen to talkradio. Some may listen, as they currently do, the format really isn't meant for them. Never has been.

Who would you hire that could get listeners under 55 to listen to issues-oriented AM talk radio?

This is why the format is doomed. The march to the far right has been ongoing for so long now, there really isn't anyone in the pipeline, at least as far as I know. Where would they have been working all this time? The ideological bent that the format foolishly adopted has basically salted the earth where anything non-conservative would've been working.

 

[TheBigA]

This is why the format is doomed. The march to the far right has been ongoing for so long now, there really isn't anyone in the pipeline, at least as far as I know. Where would they have been working all this time? The ideological bent that the format foolishly adopted has basically salted the earth where anything non-conservative would've been working.

Oh come on now. Where is your pioneer spirit? Show some courage! That's what you said to me!

There are LOTS of people in the pipeline. You just don't like any of them. How do you expect people in radio to risk millions of dollars on your idea when you don't have an example? You need someone to be your pioneer. Someone who does issues-oriented talk in an entertaining and creative way that isn't silly or childish, and can appeal to Gen Y. That sounds to me like Stephen Colbert, but he's already got a gig. But where there's one, there might be more.

 

[davideduardo]

Show me ONE, just ONE market where non-conservative talk was given a thriving heritage station to work with---and I don't mean a station like WWKB/Buffalo, where they have 50,000 watts, a long heritage, but nobody checking out the frequency for over 15 years before turnkey satellite talk with NO local news, weather or traffic was finally programmed.

WINZ Miami. Well known, 50 kw AM with a heritage in talk going back to Neil Rogers and others in the 80's... full market daytime signal and fair night signal (better than all but one of the local AMs). It never did anything.

Nobody gives "thriving" stations to a new format... so all the Air America affiliates were not doing well when they converted. No different than launching sports on a poorly performing AM. Of course, most of the decent signal sports launches have worked as there is an audience for that.