• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

TALK PROGRAMMNG PHILOSPHY

S

Slant

It seems talk is in an interesting place programming wise right now. FM Hot Personailty Lifestyle driven talk and traditional conservative political talk. Do you see the two formats fusing together to some degree? I'm wondering if a creative PD could effectively brand and image a radio station that is equally at home talking T&A and Scooter Libby while serving men 25-44/54?

Also, Walter Sabo is fond of saying that "formatics" are the true stars of his consulted stations. Teach the formatics, and the station will always be a bigger star than the individual talents (ala NJ 101.5) and thus be successful. Brand the station right and have your talent dialed in formatically, then the station will shine.

But, in certain markets the dominating talk station doesn't trend share wise with the dominating talk station in a similar size market. For example, in Philly the dominating talk station is WPHT, yet, that particular station doesn't trend with the top performing talk station in other major markets (say WABC in NYC). Is it due to the fact the station is poorly branded, or poorly programmed? And does the Sabo philosophy "dumb down" talk radio too much?

I'm curious where the format will be going in the next ten years.
 
Brand the station right and have your talent dialed in formatically, then the station will shine.

That only works if there are no other stations in town that offer something better. Those kind of stations only "shine" by comparison if the other stations in town are even worse.

That's the kind of thinking that is killing music format radio. Over consulted, over formatted, over researched ultra-tight playlists have been the greatest gift the broadcasting industry could have give to satellite radio companies, the makers of iPods and other personal recorded music systems, car tape decks and CD players, and all the other alternatives to bland, boring, vanilla music format radio stations.

And now, the consultants are going to kill talk radio the same way they're killing music radio -- by making it just as bland, boring, and vanilla as music radio.

And does the Sabo philosophy "dumb down" talk radio too much?

Not if you like really bland, boring, predictable, vanilla talk radio. Not if you're an entrepreneur in any new enterprise competing with talk radio. It only dumbs down talk radio too much if you happen to enjoy interesting, stimulating, and exciting talk radio.

I'm curious where the format will be going in the next ten years.

If the consultants have their way, it'll be as popular as "Boss Jock" Top 40.
 
Not that radio programming is simple, but we sure can make it harder than it needs to be.

Rather than trying to image a station and mold every personality into that image, why not find the most entertaining hosts possible and let them be themselves?

I don't buy into the philosophy that a station has to be "conservative" or "liberal" or "lifestyle", etc. Plenty of talk stations run a sports talk show at night. Sports is not liberal or conservative, and yet the shows can co-exist on the same station. Why, therefore, can't a liberal (but entertaining) host pull down a 9-Noon show and a conservative (yet entertaining) host do the 3-6 PM shift?

The hard fast rule of talk radio: DON"T BE BORING! Not enough people get that concept.
 
are there any 'fariness doctrine' stations out there? By that~ I mean are there more then a handful of N/T stations that have a mixed host format, Rush followed by Miller, then sports at night, etc?
 
SABO is a perfect example of someone who will give you the reasons a station is successful AFTER the fact, yet, if he has anything to do WITH the station failing, he'll give 101 reasons why he had nothing to do with the BAD decisions that killed the station. In this business, that's called a survival instinct.

ANYONE who programs in such a general way without regard to the personality of the host, should consult cattle herders, not talk radio stations.
 
Developing a successful talk station means doing a lot of the same things one does to develop a successful music station:

+ Know the market
+ What is missing in the market
+ Understand what the disenfranchised listener wants
+ Serve that need in spades!

See, it is not necessarily conservative talk (although today's most successful stations are). It is also not necessarily liberal, or anything in between!

I do think local trumps syndicated provided the station has the resources to do it right locally. Biggest problem local hosts face is a lack of resources - particularly a good producer and research assistant. Hell, Rush has a staff of 40 or 50 - no wonder he can be on top of everything! Same is true with most syndicated shows. Just give the local guy a small team to work with AND let him stir the pot.
 
Developing a successful talk station means doing a lot of the same things one does to develop a successful music station:

But, as much as those similarities you mention are quite valid, you omitted the most important difference between talk formats and music formats.

1. Listeners often have music format radio on as nothing more than pleasant background noise. They expect to hear the same style and variety of music on your station whenever they tune in. Therefore, your programming is a commodity that varies only slightly based on daypart.

2. Listeners almost always listen to talk radio formats. Talk radio isn't very good background noise. Content is far more important. This means that talk radio listeners will tune in a specific radio program that they want to hear, which means you do not have to offer the same style and variety of talk 24/7. You can be very successful in filling your airtime with specific programs, instead of simply offering wall-to-wall programming.
 
Now, wouldn't it be intersting to follow the ratings of a station that played Rush 24/7?
 
Now, wouldn't it be intersting to follow the ratings of a station that played Rush 24/7?

That would depend on whether they simply re-ran his three hour program over and over, or he was convinced to present new material 24/7. No host, no matter how popular, would go over well running re-runs over and over. Music fans enjoy hearing the same songs over and over. Talk radio fans do not enjoy listening to that which they've already heard a second time the way music fans enjoy repetition.
 
Music fans enjoy hearing the same songs over and over. Talk radio fans do not enjoy listening to that which they've already heard a second time the way music fans enjoy repetition.

Really? I thought music lovers liked different music.
 
No one wants to hear the exact same shows over and over. However, there is such a thing as "playing the hits" in talk radio, and that is hitting on the most popular topics. That's why some talk shows seem to be "all illegal immigration, all the time".
 
I thought music lovers liked different music.

I guess you've never listened to music format radio then. You've never encountered radio stations that rotate the same list of between 40 and 300 songs over and over and over. Can you honestly say you've never listened to a classic rock station that plays "Layla", "Stairway to Heaven" or "Freebird" at least five or six times a week?

Incidentally, those stations decide which songs to put into heavy rotation based on research to determine what songs the majority of people in their target audiences like hearing.
 
My comment about Rush 24/7 would be a just a recycle of the three hours of each day - sort of a Rush on Demand on the radio! Maybe intersperced with reruns of classic shows or bits from time to time.

I guess my point in the context of this conversation was that it is like a lot of music radio stations that turn the bulk of their playlist over in a matter of a few hoursm and drop in a few recurrents from time to time.

I actually might work - say for a smaller AM signal in a cluster when the primary station carries Rush live, then offers "Rush Replay" in the secondary signal (or an HD channel). Maybe it is not just Rush. Maybe three hours of Rush, with three hours of Boortz then repleat. They could even do "classic weekends" and play really old shows. ;)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom