success does not always breed imitation

[talkjim]

"Bottom line: If broadcasters saw any kind of successful track record with Progressive Talk, it would be copied across the country."

I'm starting a new thread with the above line from a post by Elephant, because we veered off the original subject matter of the election-oriented thread.

Elephant, I might have bought this statement a few years ago, but I no longer do. Local radio is a very conservative corner of the media business, and don't kid yourself into thinking that that fact doesn't have an impact as to what winds up on the air in terms of formats. Just because a market exists for a format, doesn't always mean that such a market is catered to.

KPOJ is a classic case in point. This station debuted in 2004, and saw instant success, and as of the most recent winter book, was the only one of five talk stations in Portland to show up top ten, 25-54. Of the other four talkers, three are conservative, and one is a comedy station. But the market for progressive talk didn't spring up overnight--it existed for years previous, while up to four conservative talk stations were fighting it out for a slice of the right-wing talk pie.

Just two months ago, the morning show at CC's progressive talk WINZ topped the morning show at sister conservative talk WIOD in the core talk demo, 25-54 men. But it was the WINZ show that got the boot and was replaced with syndication. Other shows that were ratings winners or building have been booted as well.

Numerous factors, other than economic and ratings considerations, can enter into decisions regarding the airing of this format and others. Trust me--there is a substantial industry bias against this format. Some of it is based on the startup of Air America four years ago, which admittedly, was notably lacking for quality. The irony is that the format has been on the air nationally for four years now, has had some time to mature, and the progressive shows--not only from Air America, but also from Dial Global and Nova M, are much better now. Yet the format continues to suffer from the ineptitude of its initial roll-out.

Some radio execs have said they can't sell the format. In many cases, that means they haven't tried hard enough and they haven't made strategic efforts. The potential buyers of this format are often the kinds of advertisers they aren't used to dealing with. It's certainly not the fault of the audience, which tends to be high quality, high income, and on average, about ten years younger than the aging audience for conservative talk.

 

[Don62]

Some radio execs have said they can't sell the format. In many cases, that means they haven't tried hard enough and they haven't made strategic efforts. The potential buyers of this format are often the kinds of advertisers they aren't used to dealing with. It's certainly not the fault of the audience, which tends to be high quality, high income, and on average, about ten years younger than the aging audience for conservative talk.

Good points, Jim.

We hear the same lame reasoning why radio won't play oldies anymore. "The audience is too old. We can't sell it."

With what happened at Miami's progressive talker, and how CC blew up its Columbus, Oh., leftist affiliate and filled it with conservative hosts that hardly get half of what the older station cumed, it's clear CC, the leading radio owner, has a built-in bias against progressive talk.

The solution, IMHO, is to return ownership limits rules, so big corporations and conglomerates that could care less about local community listenership needs, don't ruin radio much longer.

 

[talkjim]

With all due respect, Don, you're reading a few thoughts into my post that I didn't intend. I was a contributor to Nicole Sandler's morning show at WINZ, and a fill-in host there , and I have nothing but positive feelings toward all the people I dealt with in CC/Miami. My best guess about what happened there is that it was simply another budget cut--as we all know, there have been many many many of those throughout the industry.

My comments were directed for the most part at people and companies outside of CC--I say that because the generally unacknowledged reality is that if it weren't for CC--progressive talk might not exist right now as a national format. They made an early commitment at major signals such as KPOJ/Portland, WINZ, and KTLK/Los Angeles, among others, and they are still with the format at those stations and others. Al Franken did acknowledge this fact in his book, in which he referred to CC as Air America's best friend.

Here's a prime example of what I don't get though--and I'd be interested to hear any points of view I might be missing. How can it be that in Baltimore there are now four sports stations and no progressive talker? By the way, one of those stations is so far at zero in the ratings and two of the others aren't doing much better. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Signal_Faded]

Good points, Jim.
...it's clear CC, the leading radio owner, has a built-in bias against progressive talk.

The solution, IMHO, is to return ownership limits rules, so big corporations and conglomerates that could care less about local community listenership needs, don't ruin radio much longer.
[/quote]

I disagree...I have heard Gabe Hobbs, Vice-President of Programming, News/Talk/Sports Clear Channel, talk about how he saw potential growth for progressive talk at a convention 2 or 3 years ago. He did not talk like their was any bias...if anything he talked as if he would like to see more left leaning talkers out there. I think the problem is that CC and others have realized that it is not as profitable (yet) as it's conservative counterpart. I think you will see pockets of progressive talk success (ratings + revenue) and over time maybe that will grow. Right now though a progressive talker just won't fly in Dallas, Atlanta or Vegas.

What the medium has failed to do is capture the attention of the other side. Liberals love to listen to Rush for two reasons...1) To hear how absurd the other side is and 2) he is entertaining. Ed Schultz doesn't do that for the everyday right winger.

Hope I stayed on topic...sorry if I veered off too far.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Conservative talk works, in some markets it works on 4 stations. The minute these group owners think they can make a buck of it they will.

Oh but they are conservative... so what?

You think they like Spanish stations? You think they even know what's on them? No they see $$$, when they see $$$ with toaster talk or progressive talk you will see more of it.

None of us KNOW what the bottom line revenue wise is at the Portland station or the Miami AM drive battle, revenue wise, between WIOD and WINZ really was.

BUT

We all KNOW ratings do not = $$$, nor does $$$ require ratings.

This is about $$$.

 

[smedge2006]

Conservative talk does not work on FOUR stations in every market. The third or fourth stations usually have shares that are expressed as fractions. The reason the third and fourth stations stick in is either: 1) they have no idea what else to do with their marginal AM facilities, or 2) they're owned by companies controlled by ideologues, such as Salem Communications.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

We all KNOW ratings do not = $$$, nor does $$$ require ratings.

This is about $$$.

QFT, as they say ("quoted for truth").

Just ask the fine folks LMAing Columbus, Ohio's current liberal talker, WVKO/1580. Their general manager got on the air in exasperated tones before the just completed general election, complaining that Democratic/left-leaning candidates were not supporting the radio station by buying time on it.

Their reasoning, according to Mr. Richards? "We don't need to buy commercials on WVKO, your listeners are already voting for us."

But it isn't just political ads we're talking about here.

Simply put, local managers who've run progressive talkers will tell you...it's a much more difficult format to sell.

Sure, you can get the left-leaning "community minded" businesses or groups in small numbers. Sure, you can (especially in liberal markets like Portland) get locally-owned commercial businesses who support the station to pay for advertising.

But outside these parameters, it's tough to make enough money on progressive talk for a station to survive. CC decided it could hang in there because of the economics of cluster selling, hoping they could get tandem buys, but eventually gave up in all but a small number of markets.

Sports, meanwhile, outsells its ratings by many times. The sports station could actually have lower ratings than the liberal talk stations, but advertisers climb aboard for sports...it's the quickest way to assure you're reaching a certain male demographic.

Stations like KPOJ in Portland are successful, in part, because KPOJ's political lean matches the dominant lean in the market. That isn't always needed, but helps a lot.

WINZ was going up against a different problem...the English-language share of the Miami market is presumably shrinking. It was apparently "doing well", but go reread the above about ratings not necessarily translating into cash.

 

[Don62]

With all due respect, Don, you're reading a few thoughts into my post that I didn't intend.

Mr. Nit Picking, I don't care what you intended.
I was responding to what you posted, not what you intended. Your posts indicated some negative things about how radio owners have treated the format.
To wit:

[size=10pt]Local radio is a very conservative corner of the media business, and don't kid yourself into thinking that that fact doesn't have an impact as to what winds up on the air in terms of formats. Just because a market exists for a format, doesn't always mean that such a market is catered to.

...
Just two months ago, the morning show at CC's progressive talk WINZ topped the morning show at sister conservative talk WIOD in the core talk demo, 25-54 men. But it was the WINZ show that got the boot and was replaced with syndication. Other shows that were ratings winners or building have been booted as well.

...there is a substantial industry bias against this format. Some of it is based on the startup of Air America four years ago, which admittedly, was notably lacking for quality. The irony is that the format has been on the air nationally for four years now, has had some time to mature, and the progressive shows--not only from Air America, but also from Dial Global and Nova M, are much better now. Yet the format continues to suffer from the ineptitude of its initial roll-out.

Some radio execs have said they can't sell the format. In many cases, that means they haven't tried hard enough and they haven't made strategic efforts. The potential buyers of this format are often the kinds of advertisers they aren't used to dealing with. It's certainly not the fault of the audience, which tends to be high quality, high income, and on average, about ten years younger than the aging audience for conservative talk[/size].

Good for your work with Ms. Sandler, who had a good show but was canned because it thumped CC's conservative morning show.
You might look at how I agreed with your post instead of being so quick to slam me for some pereived difference.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Conservative talk "works" in the sense that's it's an easy sell (albeit for all the wrong reasons) and you don't have to fend off calls from ninety year-old reactionaries complaining that you're "too liberal"...

In the long run, the follow-the-leader mentality will be the ruin of radio...

 

[talkjim]

"Good for your work with Ms. Sandler, who had a good show but was canned because it thumped CC's conservative morning show.
You might look at how I agreed with your post instead of being so quick to slam me for some pereived difference."

I didn't slam you, Don--not even close. I simply attempted to clarify and perhaps modify some of my previous remarks.

 

[talkjim]

"Sports, meanwhile, outsells its ratings by many times. The sports station could actually have lower ratings than the liberal talk stations, but advertisers climb aboard for sports...it's the quickest way to assure you're reaching a certain male demographic.

Stations like KPOJ in Portland are successful, in part, because KPOJ's political lean matches the dominant lean in the market. That isn't always needed, but helps a lot.

WINZ was going up against a different problem...the English-language share of the Miami market is presumably shrinking. It was apparently "doing well", but go reread the above about ratings not necessarily translating into cash."

As usual, you impart a great deal of wisdom, OMW. I am the first to realize and respect the fact that there are numerous sports stations that "outsell" their ratings--precisely for the reasons that you mention.

And while I am not one of those inclined to draw a straight line between a region's political leanings and the potential success or failure of a progressive station, I certainly agree that the "dominant lean" of the market is a critical factor.

Which leads me once again to bring up the Baltimore situation. If there is any region that is leaning blue these days, and more so every day, it is Baltimore and Maryland, yet there is no progressive talk in Baltimore, which by the way is a market with a number of struggling AM stations. And while I would again agree with you OMW that sports stations find it easier than others to outsell their ratings, it would seem to me, especially in the current economic climate, that a station needs to have some ratings to sell, and one of those stations at present is drawing no rating...and none of the four is a major market player.

Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if a market survey would find that many in Baltimore would identify WBAL as THE SPORTS STATION in town, simply because of its full-service heritage and its many years of carrying the Orioles, even though that team is now with the CBS cluster there.

 

[smedge2006]

Why should we buy the "dominant lean" theory since it only works one way? Applying it across the board, there should be no conservative talker in Boston, San Francisco or Madison WI.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Why should we buy the "dominant lean" theory since it only works one way? Applying it across the board, there should be no conservative talker in Boston, San Francisco or Madison WI.

Well, not quite.

In Portland, KPOJ tapped a pretty decent underserved market - a market that is predominantly liberal, the largest such market in America, where there was room for a commercial liberal-leaning news/talker in addition to public and non-commercial radio stations.

In San Francisco, conservative KSFO tapped a pretty large underserved market - conservatives in a predominantly liberal town. But it's broader than that. Anyone who knows the SF market will tell you that there are a lot of conservatives there once you get outside of San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.

I suspect Madison is much the same way...with those outside the U of W core or in the suburbs or out away from town. And since the liberal ideology is so strong in Madison, what conservatives there are there are likely seeking out the conservative talk with more vigor.

As far as the liberal talk market in these cities to begin with:

In San Francisco, the "liberal talk" market is not at all primarily served by Clear Channel's KKGN. It is primarily served by anything from KGO to NPR outlet KQED to even Pacifica's powerful FM, KPFA. KKGN picks up the scraps left behind by those stations, and is not as good a signal as any of 'em.

Portland has some of the same (NPR/OPB, local unconventional non-comm KBOO, etc.). But I think the commercial hole was larger there for KPOJ.

I can't speak to Boston. I think a liberal talker on a better signal than 1200/1430 would have done better there. Would it have seriously challenged WRKO or WTKK? I don't know.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Which leads me once again to bring up the Baltimore situation. If there is any region that is leaning blue these days, and more so every day, it is Baltimore and Maryland, yet there is no progressive talk in Baltimore, which by the way is a market with a number of struggling AM stations. And while I would again agree with you OMW that sports stations find it easier than others to outsell their ratings, it would seem to me, especially in the current economic climate, that a station needs to have some ratings to sell, and one of those stations at present is drawing no rating...and none of the four is a major market player.

Sports stations, from what I've seen, don't seem to need ANY ratings to make a little money, especially if they have play-by-play to sell. (I'm guessing that the HS and college sports on WVKO has no trouble with spots, and WVKO has made some money by selling time to the Columbus Clippers minor league baseball team to run its games.)

I'd agree that just throwing up network sports talk, or even a local show or two, is no guarantee of success.

But our former liberal talker here, WARF/1350 Akron "Radio Free Ohio", has - last I'd heard - lower ratings as a sports station, but I can assure you they're making much more money. WARF, now "SportsRadio 1350", runs University of Akron sports and is the radio home of the Akron Aeros minor league team.

Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if a market survey would find that many in Baltimore would identify WBAL as THE SPORTS STATION in town, simply because of its full-service heritage and its many years of carrying the Orioles, even though that team is now with the CBS cluster there.

We have the same "problem" here, where Clear Channel talk WTAM/1100 is universally considered the top sports outlet in town...and it doesn't even have a regular evening sports show anymore. (The afternoon drive host has a sports radio background and occasionally still dips into that realm when called for, and the evening/former midday host also has a sports radio background.)

It's a problem Good Karma sports WKNR/850 "ESPN 850" faces, since that station has no major league play-by-play at all. It has the Cleveland rights to Ohio State University sports, and carries the local Arena League football and minor league hockey franchises, but all the big boys are over on "The Big One".

Baltimore's an odd market for spoken word radio. Didn't the current FSR affiliate try a female-skewing talk format?

In effect, it seems that sports is basically a "default" format for AM stations that can't get anywhere with anything else, and they try it because it outsells a lack of ratings.

 

[talkjim]

"I can't speak to Boston. I think a liberal talker on a better signal than 1200/1430 would have done better there. Would it have seriously challenged WRKO or WTKK? I don't know."

OMW, you've isolated an important question here. I freely admit to some bias in favor of progressive talk, but I've also spent some time in Boston, and I think I can objectively say that the answer to your question is YES. But that answer is dependent on certain conditions. The primary condition is a good signal--and it's really too bad and very unfair that there are serious people around who still think that the simulcast of 1200/1430 was a fair test of the format--anyone who knows the technical aspects and limitations of those frequencies would have to conclude that it wasn't.

And another condition--which we frequently overlook in these discussions--any progressive station should have something of a full-service feel to it--it should play to a base that is as broad as possible. How about, at minimum, a decent local morning show, well-presented local news, and decent weather and traffic? And I would argue that in many situations, play-by-play sports--especially if it's a high-profile team--could be a plus, and would enhance the full-service image of such a station.

One other thing--I would NOT identify the station as progressive talk. Why make such a move and actively limit your base? WABC and WRKO don't identify as "conservative talk". The talk audience, whether left or right, is very savvy about this stuff--they know in five minutes where a host or even an entire station is coming from--it's not necessary and even quite limiting to beat them over the head with it. I like how Ken Charles positions WINZ in Miami--he has some offbeat recorded liners that simply say "940 WINZ...think for yourself."

"But our former liberal talker here, WARF/1350 Akron "Radio Free Ohio", has - last I'd heard - lower ratings as a sports station, but I can assure you they're making much more money."

You've indirectly raised another interesting factoid, OMW. The last I checked, none of the former progressive talkers (and there have been a number of stations that experimented with the format and ditched it) have improved their ratings since switching to something else. I admit that I am working in many cases off 12 plus numbers in making this statement. But if there were significant demo improvements, I have a feeling we would know about it. If anyone can come up with evidence to contradict what I am saying here, I would love to hear about it.

"Baltimore's an odd market for spoken word radio. Didn't the current FSR affiliate try a female-skewing talk format?"

As the truckers would say "that would be a big 10-4, good buddy".

 

[smedge2006]

In effect, it seems that sports is basically a "default" format for AM stations that can't get anywhere with anything else, and they try it because it outsells a lack of ratings.

A lot of people who buy time on sports-talkers are not buying rationally. They're simply identifying with sports and don't care whether ANYBODY listens or responds.

 

[DaleGriffin]

In effect, it seems that sports is basically a "default" format for AM stations that can't get anywhere with anything else, and they try it because it outsells a lack of ratings.

A lot of people who buy time on sports-talkers are not buying rationally. They're simply identifying with sports and don't care whether ANYBODY listens or responds.

Wrong. The listeners are ultra loyal and DO respond.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

From the very first week WVKO became a progressive talker, local and regional sports was part of the equation for future success. Generally, the listeners have been supportive.

When the Columbus Clippers play, the talk programming continues on the web stream. The previous progressive talker didn't have a web stream.

WVKO is the only station in the Columbus market carrying any high school sports. GM Gary Richards handles the play-by-play and sells the ad time.

It was always Gary's intent that the format be news/talk/sports. And in the course of a year, the station has made inroads on all three fronts.

Of the six talk stations in the market, WVKO is only second to 610 WTVN in the number of local newscasts per day.

WVKO is second to Sports Radio 1460 The Fan (WBNS-AM) in the number of broadcast games featuring Columbus-area teams--a very close second when one compares the number of Clippers and high school games the station covers as opposed to the Ohio State and Blue Jackets games covered on 1460.

And as far as locally based talk, WVKO is in the middle of the pack. WVKO is way ahead of the former progressive talker, WYTS, whose local programming is limited to a taped public-affairs show, a church show and a dentist infomercial on Sunday morning. There are still no local talk shows on 1230.

WVKO also carries more local talk than the FM talker, WTDA.

At the moment, religious talk station WRFD carries more local talk than WVKO. Whether that changes with Salem's sale of WRFD remains to be seen.

As for the syndicated talk, the station has never promoted itself as the local affiliate of Air America. Dial Global's Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz are the headliners. Dial Global's Bill Press and our local lineup of talkers are the only other talkers promoted on the station.

And with the exception of Michael Alwood, who not only is News Director but is the man who handles most of the broadcast operations, the rest of us on-air regulars (yours truly, Dr. Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Michael Daniels, Chris Hayes, etc.) give new meaning to the term "brokered programming." We all have established careers, but we do what we do because we believe in the station and can promote our respective business interests in the process.

And how's business? WVKO is still gaining new advertisers and is well ahead of where the former progressive station was in advertisers at the end of its first year. Above all, the station has retained its local identity--one which focused on Columbus' African-American community for decades and now includes progressives are all races.

Granted, WVKO labels itself as "Ohio's Progressive Talk," but Gary and everyone else involved with the station knew the station could not just rely on progressive talk to be viable.

 

[KFodor]

I agree with some of you it would be nice...and possibly essential, if prog-talkers had full-service news operations connected with them. It would certainly help.

I think it would be essential.

Problem is: it's expensive. Very expensive. To do full service news requires a full-time news staff of 8-10 people. (Perhaps a bit less, but it's a market-by-market situation.)

Ask WVKO in Columbus if they can afford hiring 8-10 fulltime people to do news. Answer: They can't. Not with ratings of less than a 1 share 12 plus. Not when you are a company that is LMA'd, and operating on an extreme shoestring. This is why they are chronically behind the 8-ball.

Still & yet, the station is growing...slowly. Good for them.

Prog-talk is no different than conserative talk. All of the elements must be in place for success. That's the problem.

It would be nice to see a company put on a prog-talker who would put the money into the local news department and see what would happen...give an equal playing field...and let's see what could happen.

BTW: I am a conservative, but a radio programmer who sees an inequity between the more well-financed conservative stations and prog-talkers, who seem to be, understandably, relegated to poorer frequencies with less wherewithall than their conservative counterparts. The market is there. It just needs investment to make it work.

Still, I don't believe a "fairness doctrine" is necessary...just investors willing to invest in progressive broadcasting.

I do not fear the exchange of ideas. I welcome them.

 

[talkjim]

"BTW: I am a conservative, but a radio programmer who sees an inequity between the more well-financed conservative stations and prog-talkers, who seem to be, understandably, relegated to poorer frequencies with less wherewithall than their conservative counterparts. The market is there. It just needs investment to make it work."

It was a pleasure to read your thoughtful post, Jason. You indirectly hit on a point here that I have been meaning to make. Much has been made of the failure of the format to seriously challenge the numbers achieved by conservative talk in many markets, but when one considers the disadvantages that you point out (poorer frequencies, lower budgets, lesser staffing), one could make the argument that the mere fact that progressive talk is even on the air to the extent that it is, is nothing short of a monumental achievement.