STILL think "Talk Radio" means you-talk-they-listen?

[Holland Cooke]

Caution for windbag Rush Limbaugh wanna-be’s:

Information Technology marketing and forecast firm IDC reports that 70% of the digital information that’s “out there” has been created by individuals.

Sr. VP/Chief Research Officer John F. Gantz:
“Last year, despite the global recession, the Digital Universe set a record. It grew by nearly 62% to 800,000 petabytes. A petabyte is a million gigabytes. Picture a stack of DVDs from here to the moon and back. This year, the Digital Universe will grow almost as fast to 1.2 million petabytes, or 1.2 zettabytes."

Tough to conceptualize, eh?
A zettabyte = 1 trillion gigabytes.

These dizzying numbers remind us that people are no longer content to merely consume their media. They expect to participate, at-least collaborating; and they respond well to invitations to author content. So unless the-amount-of-time-callers-get-to-talk exceeds the-amount-of-time the host prattles-on, you’re sending-the-message that you’re Old Media.

But if you're poring over PPM data, you already know that.

Merely the messenger,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[musichead1029]

You're suggesting that PPM shows that ratings go up when callers are on talk shows over the host talking? I wanna see that data.

Wanting to be Rush Limbaugh is a pretty good reference point if you're serious about doing talk media. People tune in to hear Limbaugh's take on the issues. That is the extent of their preferred participation. People complain when Rush takes too many calls and on "Open Line Friday." They don't want to hear the callers, they want to hear the host. That people publish on the internet doesn't change that basic calculus.

Callers can make good props in the hands of the right host. And there's no reason that talk media can't implement two way features on their media sites. But a good host will still make or break that relationship.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Imply/Infer

You're suggesting that PPM shows that ratings go up when callers are on talk shows over the host talking?

Remember kids, only a speaker can imply, only a listener can infer.

What PPM is showing us generally -- and about 3 specific issues with Rush Limbaugh* -- is what's-NOT-working.

Research 101: You can't ask "Want more callers?"
Perceptual Research...perceives...how target listeners tick, how they use radio.
It doesn't work to ask laymen to design a radio format.

*

I wanna see that data.

Obviously, market-specific data is proprietary.

But as-soon-as-there-were-enough-meters-to-surmise, patterns emerged:
http://www.colemaninsights.com/repo...The PPM DNA of Rush Limbaugh - April 2008.pdf

 

[musichead1029]

I'm familiar with the 3-year old Coleman study, conducted in the infancy of PPM. It's remarkable in that it takes 23 pages to say absolutely nothing. Most notably, it makes value judgments about listener behavior, cautions that there is nothing in the PPM data to support any of the judgments, and then repeats them in conclusion. It makes observations about Limbaugh's program content that any listener could come up with and draws no PPM-based conclusions regarding them. It attempts to attribute small audience deltas to content, and then concludes that audience response to a program's content can't be discerned from the PPM data.

The laughable discussion of possible reasons why commercial breaks measured higher listenership than content blocks suggested that people might like the commercials. To be kind, the author of that option likely never sat through a talk radio commercial break. Despite high audience levels, the commercials are largely bottom-feeder firms selling get rich quick schemes. Someone ought to look into convincing value advertisers to grow a set and engage a sizable audience. Of course controversy can't hurt you when no one knows who you are or what you're selling.

Perhaps the most valuable portion of the report appears on pages 14 through 16, the section that begins

"Accurate audience measurement of many specific content elements is difficult."

and concludes with

"All of this in no way is meant to suggest that people are not responsive to content, but that perhaps PPM is just not going to be able to measure their responses as finitely as we had hoped."

The report does offer one useful insight:

We also believe that broadcasters need to be very careful about overanalyzing PPM data looking for granular information the methodology is not able to support.

But in March 2011, we get that.

I wanna see that data.

Obviously, market-specific data is proprietary.

Then on what do you base your contention that "unless the-amount-of-time-callers-get-to-talk exceeds the-amount-of-time the host prattles-on, you’re sending-the-message that you’re Old Media?"

The Coleman report is unrelated.

The ways people use the internet can supplement the consumption of one-way media like radio and fileplayers for entertainment. Nothing new about that.

The contention might begin to make some sense with regard to music radio, but people tune in to talk radio to hear the host and his content. Callers are props used by the host to modulate the content.

I'm sure your intention isn't to spam a radio discussion board, but where's the beef?

 

[ABQRADIO]

Well taken, Musichead. Just an observation - at least on the level of national syndication, I see a direct reverse correlation between the number of callers and the time spent with them versus cume and average quarter-hour ratings. Simply put, more host time / less caller time generally equals higher ratings. Perhaps at the local level the concept of more caller time / less host time may apply, but that may very well be due to a lack of local host talent.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Pay off your credit cards ASAP.

OK, never mind.

Talk as long as you want.
Forget callers.
Assume that listeners have pulled-over-to-the-side-of-the-road, because you started talking.
They're taking notes on graph paper, hanging-on your-every-word.

And remember: The only thing people care about is politics.

Oh, and remember to holler.
That's "passion."

Don't worry about sounding-like the-muted-trombone when-the-grown-ups-talk in "It's A Charlie Brown Christmas."

And if he's not a Muslim, where's the dang birth certificate?

 

[musichead1029]

Re: Pay off your credit cards ASAP.

OK, never mind.

Talk as long as you want.
Forget callers.

Look at the comment section of most online articles and opinion pieces. Now imagine they're callers. Would you want to listen to that?

Assume that listeners have pulled-over-to-the-side-of-the-road, because you started talking.
They're taking notes on graph paper, hanging-on your-every-word.

Yeah, in an Arbitron diary.

And remember: The only thing people care about is politics.

Right. Sean Hannity or Opie and Anthony? That hot talk stuff really went over well with the money demos. And good luck making general lifestyle talk as compelling to younger demos as national politics.

Oh, and remember to holler.
That's "passion."

Hey, that Coleman report you cited said negative hollering - passion - got higher ratings than neutral or positive.

And if he's not a Muslim, where's the dang birth certificate?

Right!

Bill Ayers says he wrote the Obama memoir

Biden locks reporter in closet

Fiscal showdown in the capitol

Libyan war - WTF?

Great stuff!

In the hands of a good host.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Consider the irony.

In Olden Times, we could only READ the trades.
Now, we WRITE 'em.

Consider the irony of using-this-platform to argue-against on-air interactivity.

But why argue?
Let's just change the name.
Instead of "Talk Radio," simply call it "Listen Radio."

Let-the-record-show, however, that I posted this comment using what-we-used-to-call "a cell phone."

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Holland presents an interesting theory which is at least worth discussing.

On another thread in this NEWS/TALK forum I posted a related reply:

http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=187865.msg1653788#msg1653788


For the short term, maybe it looks like "I TALK, YOU LISTEN" is the winner.

But if TALK RADIO only talks and never listens, does it become "inbred" like the people in mountain hollows where they never venture out to find their mates. Come to think of it, some of today's top talkers may already be proof of "inbred brains" who have no ability to even evaluate the thinking of the opposing side.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Be CAREFUL! Be VERY careful!

Watch out!

It's risky business here to:
a) agree with ANY consultant about ANYTHING, and
b) touch The Third Rail, by even-dignifying-the-concept-that caller airtime might exceed rambling-host airtime.

Having offered that sober caution...

if TALK RADIO only talks and never listens, does it become "inbred" like the people in mountain hollows where they never venture out to find their mates. Come to think of it, some of today's top talkers may already be proof of "inbred brains" who have no ability to even evaluate the thinking of the opposing side.

Notice how Glenn Beck mispronounces "distribute?"

Emphasis in second syllable, right? ("dis-TRIB-ute")
As-opposed-to emphasis-on-the-third-syllable for "distribution" (dis-tree-BEW-shun)

Beck is SO-locked-into reciting-the-prevailing-narrative about "redistribution of wealth" that he hits the THIRD syllable, and says "dis-trib-UTE."

Listen, or watch on TV. You'll hear it. And you won't have to wait long. It usually comes up just-before or just-after he's hollered "DESTROY" or "VAN JONES."

For the short term, maybe it looks like "I TALK, YOU LISTEN" is the winner.

Heck, LONG-term!
It'll probably continue to be a reliable 5-share act.
And sound like the muted trombone to the other 95%.

 

[TheBigA]

Many years ago I said that someday, every person in this country will have their own radio station, each with an audience of one: Themself. No one will listen to anyone. We're half way there now. Most people listen to media they agree with, and attack media they don't, regardless of the facts. The weatherman says "It's raining," and people say "No fair!"

The problem with talk radio right now is that it requires the audience to agree, otherwise, they won't listen in the first place. That's really the big problem as we look for successors to Rush. Who has the credibility to attract an audience? A lot of stations are trying out retired politicians. Lot of them looking for work right now. But they come with their own baggage. The fact is that what I see is that the public is looking for a way to become even more empowered. They were raised with mommies who asked them to choose between hot dogs and pizza. They like to have the power to pick. Create a talk show that gives them that same choice, and you might have something.

The music industry has already discovered this. Years ago, they launched their own label-owned web sites with original content, and no one went there. The public loves music. They just don't like to be sold.

 

[musichead1029]

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Broadcast radio is primarily a one-way communications medium. One to many. People can call in, via a separate channel (the telephone) and offer their view. Some hosts are good at fielding calls and making them a positive part of the program flow. But it's easy to either get side-tracked or hit a dead end with callers. The really good hosts that have a lot to offer on their own don't need callers or use the callers merely to move the show forward in the direction they were going already.

Most listeners tune in for the host and the take on the topics, not the callers.

There are hosts that choose to make callers part of the show and are good at it. Michael Savage lets callers point him in a direction and he goes with it. Sometimes it leads nowhere, but Savage jumps all over the place himself, so he makes it work. Rollye James on XM engages the callers at length and does a great job at it, though her show is slower paced and aimed at an attentive audience (often captives - long haul truckers make up a significant portion of the audience. Unfortunately the show ends Thursday. Thanks for nothing, Clear Channel and good luck with future endeavors, Rollye). Doug McIntyre on the overnight Red Eye Radio is great with callers as well, though I think he'd be just as good without them. Overnight is a prime time to use callers to make a connection with an audience that is sometimes isolated from other human contact.

Callers may be a prime element of local talk shows, but in the current talk radio climate, where some of the best shows are national, the callers aren't the point of a successful talk show, just one of the elements used to enhance what the host already brings to the microphone.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Well I guess that pretty much settles it then.

And while we're all here, let me offer to buy y'all a drink in Las Vegas, while you're in town for the NAB convention next month. If you'll be around Saturday, come drink-up and pig-out and meet client Donny Osmond at a grip-N-grin we're doing 5-7PM at The Flamingo.

RSVP [email protected]

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Broadcast radio is primarily a one-way communications medium.

Your operative word: IS. Broadcast radio IS. Some of the rest of us are asking the questions: Will this remain viable? Does it serve any viable need in society, or is it popular because it is currently the ONLY game in town.

Some hosts are good at fielding calls and making them a positive part of the program flow. But it's easy to either get side-tracked or hit a dead end with callers.

It is easy to get side-tracked by callers when the issues you choose to support and talk about don't have the kind of integrity to stand the light of open discussion. If there were talk-show hosts who understood "Middle America" and they chose to talk about the issues embraced by Middle America, you might find that Talk Radio can actually be a two-way media.

Most listeners tune in for the host and the take on the topics, not the callers.

What you are saying is that Talk Radio is the radio equivalent of a high school pep-rally and the people who currently listen to talk radio come waltzing in shaking their pom-poms, not to discuss the pros and cons of quarter-back strategy.

Callers may be a prime element of local talk shows, but in the current talk radio climate, where some of the best shows are national, the callers aren't the point of a successful talk show, just one of the elements used to enhance what the host already brings to the microphone.

To repeat my opening comment: we are discussion whether what is the current radio climate is viable going forward from here and now.

 

[Holland Cooke]

STOP! STOP!

What are you doing here???

RIGHT NOW, TCM is showing "Annie Hall!"

 

[musichead1029]

I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Broadcast radio is primarily a one-way communications medium.

...Some of the rest of us are asking the questions: Will this remain viable? Does it serve any viable need in society, or is it popular because it is currently the ONLY game in town.

It's popular because of the content - whether it's a web TV forum like Ustream where people chat alongside the show with each other and the host occasionally acknowledges the chat room or a satellite link to a cable system or C-SPAN's daily call in show with all political stripes represented. Leo Laporte hosts his weekend tech shows on audio, video and chat channels simultaneously. The format is identical to any good radio talk show with the addition of the real-time chatroom input.

The forum is always going to be secondary to the content - first and foremost the host and his topics.

Some hosts are good at fielding calls and making them a positive part of the program flow. But it's easy to either get side-tracked or hit a dead end with callers.

It is easy to get side-tracked by callers when the issues you choose to support and talk about don't have the kind of integrity to stand the light of open discussion. If there were talk-show hosts who understood "Middle America" and they chose to talk about the issues embraced by Middle America, you might find that Talk Radio can actually be a two-way media.

The nature of the content isn't getting in the way of caller participation. It's the quality of the caller content vs the host content that determines the mix. You act as if none of this has ever been tried before. We're where we're at after 40+ years of talk radio experience.

Most listeners tune in for the host and the take on the topics, not the callers.

What you are saying is that Talk Radio is the radio equivalent of a high school pep-rally and the people who currently listen to talk radio come waltzing in shaking their pom-poms, not to discuss the pros and cons of quarter-back strategy.

The vast majority tune in to listen to the host. What's the caller participation level of an average talk show, about 3%? If you prefer a talk format where the callers are allowed time to get their entire point across in minutes rather than seconds, check out C-SPAN's Washington Journal starting at 7AM ET. They conveniently label each caller by ideology and the host stays out of the way once a caller begins other than to ask a follow up or move the show along.

Callers may be a prime element of local talk shows, but in the current talk radio climate, where some of the best shows are national, the callers aren't the point of a successful talk show, just one of the elements used to enhance what the host already brings to the microphone.

To repeat my opening comment: we are discussion whether what is the current radio climate is viable going forward from here and now.

Content rules. The forum is secondary. Pros create more compelling content than callers. Hence, the professional host will be the focus of successful talk shows for the foreseeable future, the nature of the delivery technology notwithstanding.

 

[TheBigA]

Content rules. The forum is secondary. Pros create more compelling content than callers. Hence, the professional host will be the focus of successful talk shows for the foreseeable future, the nature of the delivery technology notwithstanding.

We have several threads in this section where the general consensus is that the current crop of talks host have peaked. And we've also noted how talk radio tends to appeal to an older demographic. So that leads me to believe that talk radio as we know it needs to reinvent itself for a younger, more interactive generation. And as you point out, some callers are dull. That's why some shows use phone screeners. That's why Premiere offers professional callers. I'm not saying a call-in show is better than a good strong host. But we seem to have a shortage of good strong hosts who can do more besides lecture. The goal here is to eliminate the single talking head, and create something more interactive. A conversation is more compelling than a lecture. Ask any college kid.

 

[radiowizard101]

Where are the Jean Shepherd's or Brad Cradal's in our current talk culture? There were some wonderful radio hosts on the airwaves when I was a much younger listener. It seems that the Radio Business has lost all sight of real talent and has only embraced blandness.

Try asking anyone between the ages of 18-34 what AM station they currently sample. The most likely answer is "What's AM"? or they'll say something like... "I think that's what my grandfather listens to" The constant blabbering about politics in a steady diatribe of SAMENESS is what RUINED the AM band. Sheer stupidity in the Programming Brainchild of consolidated media.

If Radio is to survive competition with New Media, it will need to embrace NEW IDEAS. Radio must get away from SYDICATION FEVER and broadcast as a LOCAL service. This means giving the Programming reigns back to the LOCAL station. The McDonaldization of local radio is a recipe for failure.

And while I'm on my soapbox... All you engineers out there... Please get rid of the NRSC mask that smothers the audio quiality of AM receivers. Let's get back to full spectrum audio for AM. Masking audio at 5khz or 6Khz is another AM killer that should have never been adopted. This one little technical gesture just might make some stations consider a music format for one of their AM properties. (OH MY GOD!!! MUSIC ON AM?????? BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!)

I feel much better now. Your thoughts?

 

[TheBigA]

Where are the Jean Shepherd's or Brad Cradal's in our current talk culture? There were some wonderful radio hosts on the airwaves when I was a much younger listener. It seems that the Radio Business has lost all sight of real talent and has only embraced blandness.

You're calling Glenn Beck and Howard Stern "bland?" Really?

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE You're calling Glenn Beck and Howard Stern "bland?" Really?

As any Beck listener knows, that's pronounced "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY?"
Often accompanied-by: "GOT it???"

About Stern: No impression. As he is to most listeners (who are not satellite radio subscribers) Stern is invisible to me.

About Beck: "Bland" might be a less-useful term than "beat."
His TV ratings are down, and he never had as-consistent-a-radio-ratings-story as Rush Limbaugh.

And it was predictable that his narrative would mature:

The world will end tomorrow! No, wait a minute. Did I say tomorrow? I meant day-AFTER-tomorrow. No! THURSDAY. Yeah, that’s it, the world will end Thursday. A-week-from-Thursday I meant. So run to the cellar, and stack-up gold and guns and non-hybrid seeds and freeze-dried beef stroganoff. And remember to enter Promo Code “Glenn.”

Hysterics DO have short-term impact.
But, eventually, when-the-sun-comes-up-again-tomorrow?
As Alvie Singer deadpanned to Annie's brother Duane, "I'm wanted back on Planet Earth."